"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:54:58 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:17:26 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:19:30 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:48:10 -0400, Wes wrote:

I keep meaning to buy a decent compact 9mm,

Star BM if you can find one. $150 or so

Mini 1911 in effect


Gunner with x of them....G

A good choice if one is comfy with carrying cocked and locked 1911
style.

If you don't set the safety you're about certain to shoot yourself
sooner or later.

So you are claiming that Wes doesnt keep his finger off the trigger
until he is ready to shoot?

If you do set the safety, you're ****ed if you forget to release it
under stress.

No prob for combat troops, SWAT, etc who drill every day, getcha dead
for those who drill monthly or perhaps quarterly.

Odd....I dont know of anyone who has shot themselves with a self loader
who thought the safety was still on. Do you?

No. Not a single one. Which merely suggests that those who carry
1911's cocked remember to set the safety.

I only know a few hundred shooters..shrug. None who shot themselves with
a gun that discharged because the safety was off.

Do you know any who had a tense moment when they forgot to release the
safety? I know *of* one, a Navy Seal. Didn't know him personally but
I believe the source. He had a hairy moment there.

Perhaps we know different kinds of people?

Ya think? G

The trouble is that people get mixed up trying to remember which is
Condition 0, Condition 1, etc., until the damned thing goes off. d8-)
Carrying 1911s, especially Series 70s, is for people who like to live on the
edge.

I think Gunner is promoting Condition Plaxico:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpgL5kuBpMA

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:43:55 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Gunner

Some assault rifles are, in fact. .22 caliber: .223 to be precise,
5.56 mm. That would include the popular AR-15.

".22" out of context generally infers the .22 rimfire that is the
first rifle for many boys, fun for shooting targets and squirrel
hunting.

Assault rifles are semi-auto or full-auto but full-auto isn't nearly
as easy to purchase legally because it costs a lot to do it legally.

Assault rifles are not all .22 caliber. They are all at least
semiauto and usually capable of full auto. They are designed to be
used in armed combat as opposed to civilian hunting or target
shooting.


So then an M1 Garand, or a M14 isnt an assault weapon?

Or is a 7059 is?

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/97059

Hm! Good points. Here is one definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle


* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the
shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a
pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.


Selective fire...then the California Assault Weapon Ban is null and
void?

G

Cool!!

I can start buying the parts for the STG58 Ive always wanted?

Gunner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:49:06 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:51:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:01:30 -0500, Don Foreman


Geeze yerself. What part of "brass" do you not understand? I need
brass to reload. .380 brass is hard to find because .380 ammo is hard
to find so few folks are shooting enough brass for me to buy or
otherwise acquire. I have lotsa plenty brass in 9mmp, .40 S&W and
.45ACP but not in .380.


How much do you need? I can send you a care package in a week or two if
I scrounge around in my cabinets and whatnot.

And brass is still readily available on the 'net, albit its once fired.

Gunner

I'd like 1000 or so, should hold me for a while. .380 is easy to lose
in even recently-mown grass outdoors. Once-fired brass is fine.
"Range sweepings" (not cleaned or deprimed, mixed mfr) is OK.

None of the net sources I've used in the past have any .380 except
perhaps a couple that want insane prices like $100/1000.


Ill see what I have. .380 rounds are not high on my list of collectable
Stuff... I do have a few arms that shoot it..but I seldom shoot them.

"minimal for self defense" really doesnt appeal very much to me.

Ill dig you out what I have.

Gunner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:15:30 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:54:58 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:17:26 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:19:30 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:48:10 -0400, Wes wrote:

I keep meaning to buy a decent compact 9mm,

Star BM if you can find one. $150 or so

Mini 1911 in effect


Gunner with x of them....G

A good choice if one is comfy with carrying cocked and locked 1911
style.

If you don't set the safety you're about certain to shoot yourself
sooner or later.

So you are claiming that Wes doesnt keep his finger off the trigger
until he is ready to shoot?

If you do set the safety, you're ****ed if you forget to release it
under stress.

No prob for combat troops, SWAT, etc who drill every day, getcha dead
for those who drill monthly or perhaps quarterly.

Odd....I dont know of anyone who has shot themselves with a self loader
who thought the safety was still on. Do you?

No. Not a single one. Which merely suggests that those who carry
1911's cocked remember to set the safety.

So the 1911 will discharge all by itself if the safety isnt on?

I only know a few hundred shooters..shrug. None who shot themselves with
a gun that discharged because the safety was off.

Do you know any who had a tense moment when they forgot to release the
safety? I know *of* one, a Navy Seal. Didn't know him personally but
I believe the source. He had a hairy moment there.

hummm.....Actually..I fumbled around for a second or two with a safety
on an AK-47 that the owner no longer had any need of..and I needed it
quite badly..a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Fortunately I
found it in time. Shrug

Perhaps we know different kinds of people?

Ya think? G

Someday Ill love to meet you and introduce you to some of my other
friends. G Might be an eye opener for you. VBG

Respects

Gunner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:41:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:23:49 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

One factoid that has stuck with me for
all these years is that 5% of felony accusations are knowingly false. A
major part of the job of prosecutor is to not be misled, to avoid being
used.

Joe Gwinn


Indeed. Throughout the US..it's been estimated that at minimum...12%-25%
of those in prison are there for crimes they actually didn't commit.

Estimated by who, using what method?

My instinct is that this is high by a factor of five or ten.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us...mw&oref=slogin

Google "how many innocent people are in jail"


Now granted..the vast majority of them are there for their second or 3rd
or more visits..but then there are those there for the first
time..hammered into jail for crimes they didn't commit.

It certainly happens that the law catches up with people on the second
or third try, at which point there is little doubt that the defendent in
question should not be loose on the streets, whatever the details of the
case at hand.

No...I was refering to them being in Jail for their second or 3rd time.
Most of them commit between 10-45 crimes before being caught.

Ill dig up that cite..but its from one of the government sources.

I don't know how one really can determine the true miscarriage- of-
justice rate, and prove that the resulting number is correct beyond
reasonable doubt, despite all the breathless media pieces.

Without compelling proof, there is no way to tell whose number is
correct. And, more to the point, no way to settle the debate.

Joe Gwinn

Mel Evans/Associated Press

Justice Antonin Scalia.


By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 25, 2008

A couple of years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring in a Supreme
Court death penalty decision, took stock of the American criminal
justice system and pronounced himself satisfied. The rate at which
innocent people are convicted of felonies is, he said, less than
three-hundredths of 1 percent — .027 percent, to be exact.

That rate, he said, is acceptable. “One cannot have a system of criminal
punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be
punished mistakenly,” he wrote. “That is a truism, not a revelation.”

But there is reason to question Justice Scalia’s math. He had, citing
the methodology of an Oregon prosecutor, divided an estimate of the
number of exonerated prisoners, almost all of them in murder and rape
cases, by the total of all felony convictions.

“By this logic,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of
Michigan, wrote in a response to be published in this year’s Annual
Review of Law and Social Science, “we could estimate the proportion of
baseball players who’ve used steroids by dividing the number of major
league players who’ve been caught by the total of all baseball players
at all levels: major league, minor league, semipro, college and Little
League — and maybe throwing in football and basketball players as well.”

Joshua Marquis, the Oregon prosecutor cited by Justice Scalia, granted
the logic of Professor Gross’s critique but not his conclusion.

“He correctly points out,” Mr. Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop
County, Ore., said of Professor Gross, “that rape and murders are only a
small percentage of all crimes, but then has absolutely no real data to
suggest there are epidemic false convictions in, say, burglary cases.”

What the debate demonstrates is that we know almost nothing about the
number of innocent people in prison. That is because any effort to
estimate it involves extrapolation from just two numbers, neither one
satisfactory.

There have been 214 exonerations based on DNA evidence, almost all of
them in rape cases, according to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo
School of Law. But there is no obvious control group to measure these
exonerations against.

Virginia, though, has discovered thousands of closed rape files from
1973 through 1988, many with untested biological evidence. DNA testing
of a preliminary sample of 31 of them yielded two wrongful convictions.
Those numbers are too small to be reliable, of course,

Emphasis added:

but they would suggest a false conviction rate of 6 percent.

Even that rate may be low, said Shawn Armbrust, the executive director
of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project. Ms. Armbrust said investigators
in Virginia were able to get results in only 22 of the 31 tests,
suggesting a false conviction rate of 9 percent.

The other important number comes from death row. According to the Death
Penalty Information Center, 127 death row inmates have been exonerated.

Here we do have a control group. There have been more than 7,000 death
sentences since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

But exoneration in the capital context is a funny concept. It suggests
complete vindication, but its real meaning is generally narrower.

DNA evidence in a rape case can provide something like categorical proof
of innocence. Death row exonerations, on the other hand, can be based on
all sorts of things, like, say, prosecutorial misconduct. In other
words, it is possible to wrongfully convict a guilty defendant.

Mr. Marquis, the Oregon prosecutor cited by Justice Scalia, says the
number of authentic death row exonerations is more like 30. Many people
exonerated in the legal sense, he said, in fact committed the crime but
could not be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Professor Gross thinks the number of guilty people released from death
row is very small.

Professor Gross concluded that the false conviction rate for death row
inmates has ranged from 2.3 percent to 5 percent. Were even the lower
end of that range applied to people who received prison sentences of a
year or more in the last three decades, he wrote, it would suggest that
about 185,000 innocent people have served hard time.

But extrapolating from capital crimes to felonies generally is
problematic whatever the number of exonerations.

On the one hand, there is some reason to think that homicide cases yield
what Justice David H. Souter, dissenting in that same death penalty
decision two years ago, called “an unusually high incidence of false
conviction, probably owing to the combined difficulty of investigating
without help from the victim, intense pressure to get convictions in
homicide cases and the corresponding incentive for the guilty to frame
the innocent.”

On the other, as Justice Scalia responded, capital cases “are given
especially close scrutiny at every level.”

We are left with an uneasy agreement between Professor Gross and Mr.
Marquis on at least one point. “Once we move beyond murder and rape
cases,” Professor Gross wrote, “we know very little about any aspect of
false conviction.”

But a few general lessons can be drawn nonetheless. Black men are more
likely to be falsely convicted of rape than are white men, particularly
if the victim is white. Juveniles are more likely to confess falsely to
murder. Exonerated defendants are less likely to have serious criminal
records. People who maintain their innocence are more likely to be
innocent. The longer it takes to solve a crime, the more likely the
defendant is not guilty.

Justice Scalia, for his part, focused on what he saw as good news.
“Reversal of an erroneous conviction,” he wrote, “demonstrates not the
failure of the system but its success.”

Online: Documents and an archive of Adam Liptak’s articles:
nytimes.com/adamliptak.


Google is your friend if you are interested.

Gunner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:29:00 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

So it appears that few shots are fired, yet the bad guys run away.
Would they still run away if the victim pulled out a slice of toast and
gave them a warning to leave?

Ooh, Ninja Waiters! "Look out, he's got zweibach!"
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:39:21 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

However Condition Yellow can be lived in for life.

Gunner

A sticking point is that many or most are unwilling to live in
condition yellow even temporarily and see no need to ever do so. You
will never convince them otherwise with rhetoric, statistics or horror
stories. They may well be right in their particular location,
circumstances and situation at this point in time.

I respect their choice for themselves. All I ask is that they respect
my right to choose differently and not presume to make my choices for
me since I demonstrably present no peril or threat to any peaceful
person.

I ask that politely as a fellow man, not as a supplicant.



Those that refuse, often wind up as hideous examples of why living in
Yellow is a good thing.

Shrug

Or not. Le Shrug.

Gunner

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:42:36 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

In most states...one can simply sell from one person to another, without
any checks. Most of those states have low crime rates btw.

Most states have low crime rates? Sounds like Lake Wobegone where all
children are above average.

One can sell to another without checks about anywhere, including MN.
There are legal implications to that but scofflaws don't worry about
such truck.


I live in California..where firearms transfers between private parties
require that the arm be taken to a dealer..both parties fill out
seperate forms, the dealer holds the gun for 15 days and charges you
$35 to hold it. State law.

Ahum...most..er..ah..EVERYbody follows this law of course!!!

At the gun shows I frequent, the rule is "No Firearm Sales in the
parking lot, no sales to non-club members." We live in the Soviet of
Washington, so we're not being paranoid, just cautious.

Do you advocate more stringent controls?

Stringent controls? Larger safety buttons and slide releases? In some
circumstances, yes.

Sounds like a good idea.

**** on the State.

...but not on the electric fence. (I don't care what mythbusters
determines.)
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Ed Huntress wrote:


The trouble is that people get mixed up trying to remember which is
Condition 0, Condition 1, etc., until the damned thing goes off. d8-)
Carrying 1911s, especially Series 70s, is for people who like to live on the
edge.

I think Gunner is promoting Condition Plaxico:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpgL5kuBpMA

I look to the DEA for guidance in these matters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

Or Barney...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMbscKyVcSw

David

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:47:29 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

and start looking at real statistics, Gunner. You can't even tell
the difference between truth and lies anymore.
I'm having the same trouble, it often seems no one is willing to get
out from behind their agenda and tell you everything, including what
doesn't support their agenda. Lies, damn lies and statistics can show
what you want them to.

David


Real stats?

Read this slowly and as often as necessary for you to understand it:

"Lies, damn lies and statistics can show what you want them to."

David

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:31:43 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:50:05 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Wrong. One can constantly be doing threat assessment and barely be
aware of it. We needn't worry about those who aren't out to kill us
but it's useful to become aware sooner than later of those who might.
Watch wildlife, found even in the parks of big cities. Try to catch a
robin or a rabbit in your hands.

I really encourage you to do some reading. You're right in that we
can't maintain maximum "condition red" vigilance at all times. The
key is knowing what and who to pay attention to and scale one's state
of vigilence accordingly.

However Condition Yellow can be lived in for life.
It's called "being awake and aware". I wish more people tried it at
least once in their lives. Lemmings and drones, all, wot?

As Don says, condition yellow is the natural state for rodents and brightly
colored little birds. If you're human and you're going to do it, make sure
you have a good supply of Tums and that you lay off the chili peppers. d8-)

Is there a condition beyond white for people walking around wearing
sunglasses and listening to their Ipods to the exclusion of all going
on around them? You can also sub in cell phones for Ipods, I've had to
brake hard 3 times in the last year to keep from getting a new
oblivious hood ornament when someone in Condition Transparent walked
out from between cars right in front of me. I don't think the first
one was ever aware that she'd almost been hit. The last one saluted me
with middle digit uplifted. I feel so bad about disturbing him.

David

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:26:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:29:00 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

So it appears that few shots are fired, yet the bad guys run away.
Would they still run away if the victim pulled out a slice of toast and
gave them a warning to leave?

Ooh, Ninja Waiters! "Look out, he's got zweibach!"
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Damn..and I left my Pita at home! Run!!!


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


The trouble is that people get mixed up trying to remember which is
Condition 0, Condition 1, etc., until the damned thing goes off. d8-)
Carrying 1911s, especially Series 70s, is for people who like to live on
the edge.

I think Gunner is promoting Condition Plaxico:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpgL5kuBpMA

I look to the DEA for guidance in these matters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

Or Barney...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMbscKyVcSw

David

Some people just shouldn't handle guns. That's tough if you work for the
DEA. Maybe he can get a dog.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:52:53 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


The trouble is that people get mixed up trying to remember which is
Condition 0, Condition 1, etc., until the damned thing goes off. d8-)
Carrying 1911s, especially Series 70s, is for people who like to live on the
edge.

I think Gunner is promoting Condition Plaxico:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpgL5kuBpMA

ROFLMAO!!!!! Marvelous!! Im sitting here with BBQ all over my legs
from watching that piece!!!



I look to the DEA for guidance in these matters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

Or Barney...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMbscKyVcSw

David

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:31:43 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:50:05 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Wrong. One can constantly be doing threat assessment and barely be
aware of it. We needn't worry about those who aren't out to kill us
but it's useful to become aware sooner than later of those who might.
Watch wildlife, found even in the parks of big cities. Try to catch a
robin or a rabbit in your hands.

I really encourage you to do some reading. You're right in that we
can't maintain maximum "condition red" vigilance at all times. The
key is knowing what and who to pay attention to and scale one's state
of vigilence accordingly.

However Condition Yellow can be lived in for life.
It's called "being awake and aware". I wish more people tried it at
least once in their lives. Lemmings and drones, all, wot?

As Don says, condition yellow is the natural state for rodents and
brightly colored little birds. If you're human and you're going to do it,
make sure you have a good supply of Tums and that you lay off the chili
peppers. d8-)

Is there a condition beyond white for people walking around wearing
sunglasses and listening to their Ipods to the exclusion of all going on
around them? You can also sub in cell phones for Ipods, I've had to brake
hard 3 times in the last year to keep from getting a new oblivious hood
ornament when someone in Condition Transparent walked out from between
cars right in front of me. I don't think the first one was ever aware that
she'd almost been hit. The last one saluted me with middle digit uplifted.
I feel so bad about disturbing him.

David

You gotta approach this from the view of evidence-based science. Are they
still alive? Are people around them dead?

If the answer to either question is "yes," then I'd have to say they have
something to recommend their approach.

However, it would be good for the rest of us if we were allowed to shoot
them on sight. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:17:47 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:35:08 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:05:27 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:



I'll bet Mark is shaking his head over this conversation. Ranger's views are
closer to those of most Europeans -- maybe halfway between them and
traditional American views -- who have been highly successful in reducing
gun violence to a cipher,

One should note..that Europe has ALWAYS had much less violence, of any
sort or with any weapon than most places on the planet.

You'd probably have a point, except for the fact that all the larger
wars, crusades, and inquisitions have been started and fought there.
Oops! There went the less violent concept! bseg

War and casual violence are two differnt concepts. Eurotrash seem to
save up their murderous natures for mass killings, rather than
individual ones.

Different concept, exact same results, oui? (The only difference was
that they sucked us into it, too, huh?)


So one or the other is lying?

That unfortunately..IS typically British.

Btw..as a side note..its going up..vertically. And getting worse. Then
there are the knifings...as I recall..several Thousand each month.

A firearm is merely a tool. A crescent wrench can drive a nail as deeply
as a hammer.

Yabbut, try to tell that to a Liberal. (rhetorical)

--
A great preservative against angry and mutinous thoughts, and all
impatience and quarreling, is to have some great business and
interest in your mind, which, like a sponge shall suck up your
attention and keep you from brooding over what displeases you.
-- Joseph Rickaby

Combat Mindset - The Cooper Color Code

The most important means of surviving a lethal confrontation is,
according to Cooper, neither the weapon nor the martial skills. The
primary tool is the combat mindset, set forth in his book, Principles of
Personal Defense.[3] In the chapter on awareness, Cooper presents an
adaptation of the Marine Corps system to differentiate states of
readiness:

The color code as originally introduced by Jeff Cooper, had nothing to
do with tactical situations or alertness levels, but rather with one's
state of mind. As taught by Jeff, it relates to the degree of peril you
are willing to do something about and which allows you to move from one
level of mindset to another to enable you to properly handle a given
situation. Jeff didn't claim to have invented anything in particular
with the color code, but he was apparently the first to use it as an
indication of mental state. [4]

* White - Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White,
the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy or ineptitude of your
attacker. When confronted by something nasty, your reaction will
probably be "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."

* Yellow - Relaxed alert. No specific threat situation. Your mindset
is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself." You are
simply aware that the world is a potentially unfriendly place and that
you are prepared to defend yourself, if necessary. You use your eyes and
ears, and realize that "I may have to SHOOT today." You don't have to be
armed in this state, but if you are armed you should be in Condition
Yellow. You should always be in Yellow whenever you are in unfamiliar
surroundings or among people you don't know. You can remain in Yellow
for long periods, as long as you are able to "Watch your six." (In
aviation 12 o'clock refers to the direction in front of the aircraft's
nose. Six o'clock is the blind spot behind the pilot.) In Yellow, you
are "taking in" surrounding information in a relaxed but alert manner,
like a continuous 360 degree radar sweep. As Cooper put it, "I might
have to shoot."

* Orange - Specific alert. Something is not quite right and has
gotten your attention. Your radar has picked up a specific alert. You
shift your primary focus to determine if there is a threat (but you do
not drop your six). Your mindset shifts to "I may have to shoot HIM
today." In Condition Orange, you set a mental trigger: "If that goblin
does 'x', I will need to stop him." Your pistol usually remains
holstered in this state. Staying in Orange can be a bit of a mental
strain, but you can stay in it for as long as you need to. If the threat
proves to be nothing, you shift back to Condition Yellow. Cooper
described this as "I might have to shoot HIM," referring to the specific
target which has caused the escalation in alert status.

* Red - Condition Red is fight. Your mental trigger (established
back in Condition Orange) has been tripped. If "X" happens I will shoot
that person.

The USMC also uses "Condition Black" as actively engaged in combat, as
do some of Cooper's successors, but Cooper always felt this was an
unnecessary step and not in keeping with the mindset definition of the
color code since it is a state of action.

In short, the Color Code helps you "think" in a fight. As the level of
danger increases, your willingness to take certain actions increases. If
you ever do go to Condition Red, the decision to use lethal force has
already been made (your "mental trigger" has been tripped).

The following are some of Jeff's additional comments on the subject.

"Considering the principles of personal defense, we have long since come
up with the Color Code. This has met with surprising success in
debriefings throughout the world. The Color Code, as we preach it, runs
white, yellow, orange, and red, and is a means of setting one’s mind
into the proper condition when exercising lethal violence, and is not as
easy as I had thought at first.

There is a problem in that some students insist upon confusing the
appropriate color with the amount of danger evident in the situation. As
I have long taught, you are not in any color state because of the
specific amount of danger you may be in, but rather in a mental state
which enables you to take a difficult psychological step."Now, however,
the government has gone into this and is handing out color codes
nationwide based upon the apparent nature of a peril. It has always been
difficult to teach the Gunsite Color Code, and now it is more so.

We cannot say that the government’s ideas about colors are wrong, but
that they are different from what we have long taught here."The problem
is this: your combat mind-set is not dictated by the amount of danger to
which you are exposed at the time. Your combat mind-set is properly
dictated by the state of mind you think appropriate to the situation.
You may be in deadly danger at all times, regardless of what the Defense
Department tells you. The color code which influences you does depend
upon the willingness you have to jump a psychological barrier against
taking irrevocable action. That decision is less hard to make since the
jihadis have already made it."

He further simplified things in Vol 13 #7 of his Commentaries.

"In White you are unprepared and unready to take lethal action. If you
are attacked in White you will probably die unless your adversary is
totally inept.

In Yellow you bring yourself to the understanding that your life may be
in danger and that you may have to do something about it.

In Orange you have determined upon a specific adversary and are prepared
to take action which may result in his death, but you are not in a
lethal mode.

In Red you are in a lethal mode and will shoot if circumstances
warrant."[5]
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:51:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



As Don says, condition yellow is the natural state for rodents and
brightly
colored little birds. If you're human and you're going to do it, make
sure
you have a good supply of Tums and that you lay off the chili peppers.
d8-)

Varying state of alertness appropriately according to environment and
situation really isn't unnatural or unduly stressful. Reasonably good
drivers do it routinely, being more alert in heavy traffic than when
cruisin' down the freeway with the nearest next car 500 yards distant.
I exclude those ultra-urban types who are oblivious even in
fast-moving traffic, expecting all others to look out for them as
they yak on their cellphones.

If "reasonably good" drivers do it, it's a natural response to
conditions --
the kind of awareness that comes naturally from experience.

Yes. And that's my point: they naturally respond to conditions.

Nearly anyone who has been driving for more than 5 years has had
either an accident or a close call and probably has known someone who
was hurt or killed in an accident. We both know damn fools who drive
obliviously while yakking (or texting) on their goddamned cellphones
and get away with it because other motorists are paying attention, but
most drivers who survive adolescence learn to adjust their level of
attentiveness and alertness appropriately to the situation. They don't
think about it, they just do it. They don't cruise down the boondocks
interstate with puckered sphincter and white knuckles but they do
adjust their attention level if/when traffic gets hairy or contentious
near metro areas.

I expect that one's level of awareness is hard-wired and a product of
human
evolution. That defines the range of "normal" response; it can be shaped
by
experience or training.

I don't refer to any techniques that require extensive training and
practice. It's just a matter of paying attention at a level
appropriate to one's situation.

I've never read Cooper's book(s) so I shouldn't comment about the state of
mind he describes. When I see it described as something one has to develop,
as it's often described in gun conversations, I'm skeptical that it means
much except as a philosophical point. People don't change behavioral
patterns easily; it's not like learning how to solve a math problem,
something you just learn and automatically retain. Changing behavior takes a
lot of time and effort, especially for adults.

But I'm with you about the blitheness common among drivers and so on. The
attention level many people display is alarmingly oblivious, from my
perspective. However, I'm looking at it from my own level of awareness --
the product of my own experience and behavioral tendencies -- and I'm not
likely to alter mine any more than they're likely to alter theirs.

Blithely mosying along listening to
one's muse (or Ipod)in Central Park (or North Minneapolis) at night
would not be paying attention at an appropriate level. OTOH, I did my
walk today unarmed and almost in condition white. Safe course, full
daylight, kids and dads on bikes and white-haired ladies and gents
having a Sunday stroll. Wondered if we could get away with nicking an
orange wild tiger lilly I spotted. Decided that wouldn't be nice.
Awright, I decided it would be embarrassing as hell to get caught with
bucket, shovel and wildflower in hand.

I may underestimate the degree of difficulty here because I have both
military and urban experience, but I don't think I'm overestimating it
because I've read several authors who pretty much all paraphrase Col.
Jeff Cooper who desribed and taught this stuff.

Take a child camping, bet you have. You think that kid isn't paying
attention when going down the path to the outhouse at night with a
flashlight, spooky noises in the darkness? Our aural and olefactory
senses have been dulled by evolution but our survival instincts
haven't. That loss, when it occurs, is inculturated by life
experience: lived this long without ever having being attacked so
bustle on worrying about what the boss thinks, schedule, get the kids
to soccer practice, pending bidness deal, etc. Fortunately, that
usually works out OK. Crime figures and being awash in guns
notwithstanding, most places in the USA are very safe places to live
in condition white.

I agree. Some gun owners here make it sound like they live in a shooting
gallery. Maybe they do...


Do you look both ways before crossing busy streets or railroad tracks
(not at grade crossing) on foot? If so, you've raised your awareness
level appropriately. How hard is that?

But that's not "condition yellow," is it? That's my normal, everyday
awareness in reaction to circumstances. There's nothing "heightened" there.
It's just the ordinary reaction of a human mammal.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I thought that "condition yellow"
was a definite, trained state of heightened alertness that (Cooper implies,
anyway) lies beyond the ordinary alertness that we human mammals normally
observe.

Or did he just give a new name to something we all do anyway?


The "condition yellow" awareness sounds more like a
trained response -- something one can achieve through considerable
training
and only by a sustained effort.

It's just Col. Cooper's convenient and simple way to describe levels
of awareness. I prefer to think of it as a continuum but breaking it
down into colors makes it easier to describe and teach to even
not-particularly-bright people including incredibly brave and
effective if not always terribly bright spec ops warriors God bless
'em each and all. Col. Cooper taught other stuff that I think is
totally inapplicable to civilians but anyone can pay attention.

OK, I should read the book before commenting further about it (but I'm not
likely to read the book g). So I'll just leave it as one of those
mysteries of the universe that I'll never understand. d8-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper_(Marine)

If it differs in any way from one's "normal"
state, it's unnatural by definition and must be trained into one's
behavior
through behavioral-conditioning methods (or maybe there's a drug that will
do it. g)

That depends a lot on what one's "normal" state might be, wouldn't you
agree?

Consider a set of priorities different from personal safety for a
moment: escort a lovely woman to a social event in her LBD (little
black dress). If you're married, it might be prudent to have said
lovely woman be your wife unless she is extremely open-minded or you
have one hell of a good excuse. If you later ask her what the three
(*other*) most gorgeous women in the room were wearing, she'll be able
to recount every detail, accessory and flaw, and she'll know who they
came with. You will undoubtedly remember the best set of tits. It's
all about payin' attention.

Being skeptical about such things, I'll hypothesize that it's mostly an
illusion to those who claim to practice it; very few people have either
the
time or the means to do the required conditioning.

Almost anyone and everone can learn to pay attention.

But do they? (that's a rhetorical question that doesn't require an answer)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:16:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:09:17 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


None of the net sources I've used in the past have any .380 except
perhaps a couple that want insane prices like $100/1000.

Ill see what I have. .380 rounds are not high on my list of collectable
Stuff... I do have a few arms that shoot it..but I seldom shoot them.

"minimal for self defense" really doesnt appeal very much to me.

Roger that. You go places I don't need to go. For my purposes, it's
very easy to drop the LCP (in Fist #5 holster) in my pocket when I
wouldn't carry heavier. I know that simply because I haven't done so,
not for lack of heavier armament but simply because I don't care to
bother with it. In the very unlikely event that I need to defend
myself, the 12-oz popper I might carry at times will be far more
useful than outraged protests or the .45s I'm not carrying because one
really must want to carry to pack a 1911.

I want to stay alive. So I carry a firearm bigger than a .380. A .22
will kill a bad guy dead as a brick. However he may have time to take
your gun away from you, beat you to death with it, stuff it up your ass
and then wander off to die. Id rather than didnt happen to me, so I
choose to put him down NOW.

Shrug...each to his own.

Ill dig you out what I have.

Way cool, thanks.

My pleasure.

Gunner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:34:36 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:13:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


No. Not a single one. Which merely suggests that those who carry
1911's cocked remember to set the safety.

So the 1911 will discharge all by itself if the safety isnt on?

Don't patronize me, Gunner. You should know better by now.

We both know about the passive backstrap safety on the 1911. We also
know that no safety is absolute.

So with at minimum of two safeties..why are you so concerned that the
1911 is apparently "unsafe"? Its not patronizing..its a very valid
question.

I only know a few hundred shooters..shrug. None who shot themselves with
a gun that discharged because the safety was off.

Do you know any who had a tense moment when they forgot to release the
safety? I know *of* one, a Navy Seal. Didn't know him personally but
I believe the source. He had a hairy moment there.

hummm.....Actually..I fumbled around for a second or two with a safety
on an AK-47 that the owner no longer had any need of..and I needed it
quite badly..a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Fortunately I
found it in time. Shrug

Perhaps we know different kinds of people?

Ya think? G

Someday Ill love to meet you and introduce you to some of my other
friends. G Might be an eye opener for you. VBG

Might be indeed. I'd bet on it. If it weren't so freakin' far I'd
consider that an adventure I might enjoy and perhaps learn a thing or
three.

Yall get out this way..and we can dig into the vaults, then go play.
Who knows..maybe you will teach me something too.

I, on the other hand, would be singularly devoid of surprises...

Shrug...but you are still a nice reliable, sameol sameol sorta guy.

G

Gunner


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

Ed Huntress wrote:

Is there a condition beyond white for people walking around wearing
sunglasses and listening to their Ipods to the exclusion of all going on
around them? You can also sub in cell phones for Ipods, I've had to brake
hard 3 times in the last year to keep from getting a new oblivious hood
ornament when someone in Condition Transparent walked out from between
cars right in front of me. I don't think the first one was ever aware that
she'd almost been hit. The last one saluted me with middle digit uplifted.
I feel so bad about disturbing him.

David

You gotta approach this from the view of evidence-based science. Are they
still alive?

So far, and at least three only because there was just barely room to
stop. Another 3-4 feet, maybe not.

Are people around them dead?

They wouldn't have noticed.


If the answer to either question is "yes," then I'd have to say they have
something to recommend their approach.

Only until someone doesn't have room to stop. There have already been
fatalities.

However, it would be good for the rest of us if we were allowed to shoot
them on sight. d8-)

I could run through a lot of ammo on Milwaukee's East Side, especially
around UWM. How about a bounty?

David

Gunner Asch wrote:

So with at minimum of two safeties..why are you so concerned that the
1911 is apparently "unsafe"? Its not patronizing..its a very valid
question.

Like the Russian soldier said when asked about the lack of a safety on
th Tokarev pistol,

"Is not safe! Is gun!"

No gun is safe enough to be foolproof, there's always a better fool
out there. And even competent people make mistakes.

Which is one reason I don't recommend Glocks as a first gun.

David

Gunner Asch wrote:

I want to stay alive. So I carry a firearm bigger than a .380. A .22
will kill a bad guy dead as a brick. However he may have time to take
your gun away from you, beat you to death with it, stuff it up your ass
and then wander off to die. Id rather than didnt happen to me, so I
choose to put him down NOW.

The point of the new mini .380 pistols is that they're a take anywhere
gun. There are lots of places where anything bigger won't work with
available concealment. If you can, take something bigger.

AND the .380.

It's the gun to have with you when you don't expect to need a gun. If
you expect to need one, take a bigger one, too. Bring all your friends
with bigger guns. Better yet, if possible, don't go there.

David

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 03:30:58 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:51:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



As Don says, condition yellow is the natural state for rodents and
brightly
colored little birds. If you're human and you're going to do it, make
sure
you have a good supply of Tums and that you lay off the chili peppers.
d8-)

Varying state of alertness appropriately according to environment and
situation really isn't unnatural or unduly stressful. Reasonably good
drivers do it routinely, being more alert in heavy traffic than when
cruisin' down the freeway with the nearest next car 500 yards distant.
I exclude those ultra-urban types who are oblivious even in
fast-moving traffic, expecting all others to look out for them as
they yak on their cellphones.

If "reasonably good" drivers do it, it's a natural response to
conditions --
the kind of awareness that comes naturally from experience.

Yes. And that's my point: they naturally respond to conditions.

Nearly anyone who has been driving for more than 5 years has had
either an accident or a close call and probably has known someone who
was hurt or killed in an accident. We both know damn fools who drive
obliviously while yakking (or texting) on their goddamned cellphones
and get away with it because other motorists are paying attention, but
most drivers who survive adolescence learn to adjust their level of
attentiveness and alertness appropriately to the situation. They don't
think about it, they just do it. They don't cruise down the boondocks
interstate with puckered sphincter and white knuckles but they do
adjust their attention level if/when traffic gets hairy or contentious
near metro areas.

I expect that one's level of awareness is hard-wired and a product of
human
evolution. That defines the range of "normal" response; it can be shaped
by
experience or training.

I don't refer to any techniques that require extensive training and
practice. It's just a matter of paying attention at a level
appropriate to one's situation.

I've never read Cooper's book(s) so I shouldn't comment about the state of
mind he describes. When I see it described as something one has to develop,
as it's often described in gun conversations, I'm skeptical that it means
much except as a philosophical point. People don't change behavioral
patterns easily; it's not like learning how to solve a math problem,
something you just learn and automatically retain. Changing behavior takes a
lot of time and effort, especially for adults.

A sense of survival provides good incentives. I'll bet that if you
(generic) told your friends that you were trying to become more aware,
they'd sneak up on you and try to scare you at every chance. Simple,
wot?


But I'm with you about the blitheness common among drivers and so on. The
attention level many people display is alarmingly oblivious, from my
perspective. However, I'm looking at it from my own level of awareness --
the product of my own experience and behavioral tendencies -- and I'm not
likely to alter mine any more than they're likely to alter theirs.

Blithely mosying along listening to
one's muse (or Ipod)in Central Park (or North Minneapolis) at night
would not be paying attention at an appropriate level. OTOH, I did my
walk today unarmed and almost in condition white. Safe course, full
daylight, kids and dads on bikes and white-haired ladies and gents
having a Sunday stroll. Wondered if we could get away with nicking an
orange wild tiger lilly I spotted. Decided that wouldn't be nice.
Awright, I decided it would be embarrassing as hell to get caught with
bucket, shovel and wildflower in hand.

I may underestimate the degree of difficulty here because I have both
military and urban experience, but I don't think I'm overestimating it
because I've read several authors who pretty much all paraphrase Col.
Jeff Cooper who desribed and taught this stuff.

Take a child camping, bet you have. You think that kid isn't paying
attention when going down the path to the outhouse at night with a
flashlight, spooky noises in the darkness? Our aural and olefactory
senses have been dulled by evolution but our survival instincts
haven't. That loss, when it occurs, is inculturated by life
experience: lived this long without ever having being attacked so
bustle on worrying about what the boss thinks, schedule, get the kids
to soccer practice, pending bidness deal, etc. Fortunately, that
usually works out OK. Crime figures and being awash in guns
notwithstanding, most places in the USA are very safe places to live
in condition white.

I agree. Some gun owners here make it sound like they live in a shooting
gallery. Maybe they do...

There are degrees of both danger and sensitivity to it. Comparatively,
Gunner's HelL.A. is a veritable shooting gallery vs. most of our home
cities.


Do you look both ways before crossing busy streets or railroad tracks
(not at grade crossing) on foot? If so, you've raised your awareness
level appropriately. How hard is that?

But that's not "condition yellow," is it? That's my normal, everyday
awareness in reaction to circumstances. There's nothing "heightened" there.
It's just the ordinary reaction of a human mammal.

I believe that Jeff already took that into account when he wrote it.
(I've read his _Art of the Rifle_.) Those of us who are curious about
life are already living in heightened awareness. We like to see what
goes on around us, and that keeps us safer than the average bear, as
Yogi might opine.


Are we talking about the same thing here? I thought that "condition yellow"
was a definite, trained state of heightened alertness that (Cooper implies,
anyway) lies beyond the ordinary alertness that we human mammals normally
observe.

Or did he just give a new name to something we all do anyway?

Bingo. Well, some of us, anyway. As a species, we've lost
considerable depth of that awareness since the stone age. It has been
less necessary for the group, while individual needs vary widely.


The "condition yellow" awareness sounds more like a
trained response -- something one can achieve through considerable
training
and only by a sustained effort.

It's just Col. Cooper's convenient and simple way to describe levels
of awareness. I prefer to think of it as a continuum but breaking it
down into colors makes it easier to describe and teach to even
not-particularly-bright people including incredibly brave and
effective if not always terribly bright spec ops warriors God bless
'em each and all. Col. Cooper taught other stuff that I think is
totally inapplicable to civilians but anyone can pay attention.

OK, I should read the book before commenting further about it (but I'm not
likely to read the book g). So I'll just leave it as one of those
mysteries of the universe that I'll never understand. d8-)

Like me and high finance. =:0


Almost anyone and everone can learn to pay attention.

But do they? (that's a rhetorical question that doesn't require an answer)

Those who survive usually did, at least occasionally. The rest
remained Democrats. bseg

--
A great preservative against angry and mutinous thoughts, and all
impatience and quarreling, is to have some great business and
interest in your mind, which, like a sponge shall suck up your
attention and keep you from brooding over what displeases you.
-- Joseph Rickaby

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:41:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:23:49 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

One factoid that has stuck with me for
all these years is that 5% of felony accusations are knowingly false. A
major part of the job of prosecutor is to not be misled, to avoid being
used.

Joe Gwinn


Indeed. Throughout the US..it's been estimated that at minimum...12%-25%
of those in prison are there for crimes they actually didn't commit.

Estimated by who, using what method?

My instinct is that this is high by a factor of five or ten.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us...e&st=nyt&adxnn
l=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1206471730-Lo7j+JWGnJ31N0KY9U2Nmw&oref=slogin

Google "how many innocent people are in jail"

This will produce a flood of opinions, some very well written. It will
also produce warring statistics, none of which any of us have any
practical way to sort through. The problem is to sort fact from
opinion, from mistaken statistics. More later.


Now granted..the vast majority of them are there for their second or 3rd
or more visits..but then there are those there for the first
time..hammered into jail for crimes they didn't commit.

It certainly happens that the law catches up with people on the second
or third try, at which point there is little doubt that the defendent in
question should not be loose on the streets, whatever the details of the
case at hand.

No...I was refering to them being in Jail for their second or 3rd time.
Most of them commit between 10-45 crimes before being caught.

Ill dig up that cite..but its from one of the government sources.

I don't know how one really can determine the true miscarriage- of-
justice rate, and prove that the resulting number is correct beyond
reasonable doubt, despite all the breathless media pieces.

Without compelling proof, there is no way to tell whose number is
correct. And, more to the point, no way to settle the debate.

Joe Gwinn

Mel Evans/Associated Press

Justice Antonin Scalia.


By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 25, 2008

A couple of years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring in a Supreme
Court death penalty decision, took stock of the American criminal
justice system and pronounced himself satisfied. The rate at which
innocent people are convicted of felonies is, he said, less than
three-hundredths of 1 percent — .027 percent, to be exact.

That rate, he said, is acceptable. “One cannot have a system of criminal
punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be
punished mistakenly,” he wrote. “That is a truism, not a revelation.”

But there is reason to question Justice Scalia’s math. He had, citing
the methodology of an Oregon prosecutor, divided an estimate of the
number of exonerated prisoners, almost all of them in murder and rape
cases, by the total of all felony convictions.

“By this logic,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of
Michigan, wrote in a response to be published in this year’s Annual
Review of Law and Social Science, “we could estimate the proportion of
baseball players who’ve used steroids by dividing the number of major
league players who’ve been caught by the total of all baseball players
at all levels: major league, minor league, semipro, college and Little
League — and maybe throwing in football and basketball players as well.”

Joshua Marquis, the Oregon prosecutor cited by Justice Scalia, granted
the logic of Professor Gross’s critique but not his conclusion.

“He correctly points out,” Mr. Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop
County, Ore., said of Professor Gross, “that rape and murders are only a
small percentage of all crimes, but then has absolutely no real data to
suggest there are epidemic false convictions in, say, burglary cases.”

What the debate demonstrates is that we know almost nothing about the
number of innocent people in prison. That is because any effort to
estimate it involves extrapolation from just two numbers, neither one
satisfactory.

There have been 214 exonerations based on DNA evidence, almost all of
them in rape cases, according to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo
School of Law. But there is no obvious control group to measure these
exonerations against.

Virginia, though, has discovered thousands of closed rape files from
1973 through 1988, many with untested biological evidence. DNA testing
of a preliminary sample of 31 of them yielded two wrongful convictions.
Those numbers are too small to be reliable, of course,

Emphasis added:

but they would suggest a false conviction rate of 6 percent.

Even that rate may be low, said Shawn Armbrust, the executive director
of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project. Ms. Armbrust said investigators
in Virginia were able to get results in only 22 of the 31 tests,
suggesting a false conviction rate of 9 percent.

The other important number comes from death row. According to the Death
Penalty Information Center, 127 death row inmates have been exonerated.

Here we do have a control group. There have been more than 7,000 death
sentences since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

But exoneration in the capital context is a funny concept. It suggests
complete vindication, but its real meaning is generally narrower.

DNA evidence in a rape case can provide something like categorical proof
of innocence. Death row exonerations, on the other hand, can be based on
all sorts of things, like, say, prosecutorial misconduct. In other
words, it is possible to wrongfully convict a guilty defendant.

Mr. Marquis, the Oregon prosecutor cited by Justice Scalia, says the
number of authentic death row exonerations is more like 30. Many people
exonerated in the legal sense, he said, in fact committed the crime but
could not be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Professor Gross thinks the number of guilty people released from death
row is very small.

Professor Gross concluded that the false conviction rate for death row
inmates has ranged from 2.3 percent to 5 percent. Were even the lower
end of that range applied to people who received prison sentences of a
year or more in the last three decades, he wrote, it would suggest that
about 185,000 innocent people have served hard time.

But extrapolating from capital crimes to felonies generally is
problematic whatever the number of exonerations.

On the one hand, there is some reason to think that homicide cases yield
what Justice David H. Souter, dissenting in that same death penalty
decision two years ago, called “an unusually high incidence of false
conviction, probably owing to the combined difficulty of investigating
without help from the victim, intense pressure to get convictions in
homicide cases and the corresponding incentive for the guilty to frame
the innocent.”

On the other, as Justice Scalia responded, capital cases “are given
especially close scrutiny at every level.”

We are left with an uneasy agreement between Professor Gross and Mr.
Marquis on at least one point. “Once we move beyond murder and rape
cases,” Professor Gross wrote, “we know very little about any aspect of
false conviction.”

But a few general lessons can be drawn nonetheless. Black men are more
likely to be falsely convicted of rape than are white men, particularly
if the victim is white. Juveniles are more likely to confess falsely to
murder. Exonerated defendants are less likely to have serious criminal
records. People who maintain their innocence are more likely to be
innocent. The longer it takes to solve a crime, the more likely the
defendant is not guilty.

Justice Scalia, for his part, focused on what he saw as good news.
“Reversal of an erroneous conviction,” he wrote, “demonstrates not the
failure of the system but its success.”

Online: Documents and an archive of Adam Liptak's articles:
nytimes.com/adamliptak.

All the above proves my basic point: "Without compelling proof, there is
no way to tell whose number is correct. And, more to the point, no way
to settle the debate."

If compelling proof were available, the above debate would not happen,
or at least would not long continue. But the debate has been with us
for years, and likely will continue for years.


There is a very annoying way to estimate the miscarriage rate: compare
the death rate of the general population from criminal action to that
from police mistakes. The more "active" the policing, the lower the
crime rate and the higher the accident rate, and vice versa.

Now in engineering, the optimum (lowest overall death rate due to
criminal and police action combined) is when the police and criminals
each kill the same number of innocent people. Now we the voters really
dislike this solution, and so constrain our police such that criminals
kill a factor more innocents than the police.

As a proxy, to avoid all arguments about actual guilt and actual
innocence, one may sort the total number of people killed by gunfire by
the "job description" of the shooter. Subtract the accidental shootings
and compare criminal versus police. I'd venture that criminals are way
ahead of police, by a substantial factor.

Which is why in the concealed-carry debates, the posited danger is
criminal activity (combined with police inactivity and/or remoteness),
not police activity.

Joe Gwinn

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 03:30:58 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:51:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



As Don says, condition yellow is the natural state for rodents and
brightly
colored little birds. If you're human and you're going to do it, make
sure
you have a good supply of Tums and that you lay off the chili peppers.
d8-)

Varying state of alertness appropriately according to environment and
situation really isn't unnatural or unduly stressful. Reasonably good
drivers do it routinely, being more alert in heavy traffic than when
cruisin' down the freeway with the nearest next car 500 yards distant.
I exclude those ultra-urban types who are oblivious even in
fast-moving traffic, expecting all others to look out for them as
they yak on their cellphones.

If "reasonably good" drivers do it, it's a natural response to
conditions --
the kind of awareness that comes naturally from experience.

Yes. And that's my point: they naturally respond to conditions.

Nearly anyone who has been driving for more than 5 years has had
either an accident or a close call and probably has known someone who
was hurt or killed in an accident. We both know damn fools who drive
obliviously while yakking (or texting) on their goddamned cellphones
and get away with it because other motorists are paying attention, but
most drivers who survive adolescence learn to adjust their level of
attentiveness and alertness appropriately to the situation. They don't
think about it, they just do it. They don't cruise down the boondocks
interstate with puckered sphincter and white knuckles but they do
adjust their attention level if/when traffic gets hairy or contentious
near metro areas.

I expect that one's level of awareness is hard-wired and a product of
human
evolution. That defines the range of "normal" response; it can be shaped
by
experience or training.

I don't refer to any techniques that require extensive training and
practice. It's just a matter of paying attention at a level
appropriate to one's situation.

I've never read Cooper's book(s) so I shouldn't comment about the state of
mind he describes. When I see it described as something one has to
develop,
as it's often described in gun conversations, I'm skeptical that it means
much except as a philosophical point. People don't change behavioral
patterns easily; it's not like learning how to solve a math problem,
something you just learn and automatically retain. Changing behavior takes
a
lot of time and effort, especially for adults.

A sense of survival provides good incentives. I'll bet that if you
(generic) told your friends that you were trying to become more aware,
they'd sneak up on you and try to scare you at every chance. Simple,
wot?

My friends these days are a bit more mature than that, but I get your point.
d8-)



But I'm with you about the blitheness common among drivers and so on. The
attention level many people display is alarmingly oblivious, from my
perspective. However, I'm looking at it from my own level of awareness --
the product of my own experience and behavioral tendencies -- and I'm not
likely to alter mine any more than they're likely to alter theirs.

Blithely mosying along listening to
one's muse (or Ipod)in Central Park (or North Minneapolis) at night
would not be paying attention at an appropriate level. OTOH, I did my
walk today unarmed and almost in condition white. Safe course, full
daylight, kids and dads on bikes and white-haired ladies and gents
having a Sunday stroll. Wondered if we could get away with nicking an
orange wild tiger lilly I spotted. Decided that wouldn't be nice.
Awright, I decided it would be embarrassing as hell to get caught with
bucket, shovel and wildflower in hand.

I may underestimate the degree of difficulty here because I have both
military and urban experience, but I don't think I'm overestimating it
because I've read several authors who pretty much all paraphrase Col.
Jeff Cooper who desribed and taught this stuff.

Take a child camping, bet you have. You think that kid isn't paying
attention when going down the path to the outhouse at night with a
flashlight, spooky noises in the darkness? Our aural and olefactory
senses have been dulled by evolution but our survival instincts
haven't. That loss, when it occurs, is inculturated by life
experience: lived this long without ever having being attacked so
bustle on worrying about what the boss thinks, schedule, get the kids
to soccer practice, pending bidness deal, etc. Fortunately, that
usually works out OK. Crime figures and being awash in guns
notwithstanding, most places in the USA are very safe places to live
in condition white.

I agree. Some gun owners here make it sound like they live in a shooting
gallery. Maybe they do...

There are degrees of both danger and sensitivity to it. Comparatively,
Gunner's HelL.A. is a veritable shooting gallery vs. most of our home
cities.


Do you look both ways before crossing busy streets or railroad tracks
(not at grade crossing) on foot? If so, you've raised your awareness
level appropriately. How hard is that?

But that's not "condition yellow," is it? That's my normal, everyday
awareness in reaction to circumstances. There's nothing "heightened"
there.
It's just the ordinary reaction of a human mammal.

I believe that Jeff already took that into account when he wrote it.
(I've read his _Art of the Rifle_.) Those of us who are curious about
life are already living in heightened awareness. We like to see what
goes on around us, and that keeps us safer than the average bear, as
Yogi might opine.

That's an interesting POV. Maybe true.

You're a photographer, so you probably know how they train you to "see" in
introductory photography classes (and which I had in intro film classes,
some decades ago). That definitely is an altered state of awareness, but it
takes an extraordinary desire, and lots of practice, to sustain it for more
than a few minutes.

Which is to say, I'm not doubting that such states are achievable. But I
think they're extremely difficult. It's like staying on a diet for two or
three years. If your incentive is that you'll die if you don't do it, it's
not hard. If it's some abstract idea, like the idea that you'll be less
disgusting to look at g, then it can be very hard.

My guess is that it depends on one's state of paranoia (which itself can be
the result of bad experiences) at least as much as on one's curiosity about
life.



Are we talking about the same thing here? I thought that "condition
yellow"
was a definite, trained state of heightened alertness that (Cooper
implies,
anyway) lies beyond the ordinary alertness that we human mammals normally
observe.

Or did he just give a new name to something we all do anyway?

Bingo. Well, some of us, anyway. As a species, we've lost
considerable depth of that awareness since the stone age. It has been
less necessary for the group, while individual needs vary widely.

'Can't argue with that.



The "condition yellow" awareness sounds more like a
trained response -- something one can achieve through considerable
training
and only by a sustained effort.

It's just Col. Cooper's convenient and simple way to describe levels
of awareness. I prefer to think of it as a continuum but breaking it
down into colors makes it easier to describe and teach to even
not-particularly-bright people including incredibly brave and
effective if not always terribly bright spec ops warriors God bless
'em each and all. Col. Cooper taught other stuff that I think is
totally inapplicable to civilians but anyone can pay attention.

OK, I should read the book before commenting further about it (but I'm not
likely to read the book g). So I'll just leave it as one of those
mysteries of the universe that I'll never understand. d8-)

Like me and high finance. =:0


Almost anyone and everone can learn to pay attention.

But do they? (that's a rhetorical question that doesn't require an answer)

Those who survive usually did, at least occasionally. The rest
remained Democrats. bseg

--
A great preservative against angry and mutinous thoughts, and all
impatience and quarreling, is to have some great business and
interest in your mind, which, like a sponge shall suck up your
attention and keep you from brooding over what displeases you.
-- Joseph Rickaby

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:18:12 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Combat Mindset - The Cooper Color Code

The most important means of surviving a lethal confrontation is,
according to Cooper, neither the weapon nor the martial skills. The
primary tool is the combat mindset, set forth in his book, Principles of
Personal Defense.[3] In the chapter on awareness, Cooper presents an
adaptation of the Marine Corps system to differentiate states of
readiness:

The color code as originally introduced by Jeff Cooper, had nothing to
do with tactical situations or alertness levels, but rather with one's
state of mind. As taught by Jeff, it relates to the degree of peril you
are willing to do something about and which allows you to move from one
level of mindset to another to enable you to properly handle a given
situation. Jeff didn't claim to have invented anything in particular
with the color code, but he was apparently the first to use it as an
indication of mental state. [4]

I was traveling with friends in Israel, people who lived there. In
the course of conversation, I asked about 'security', especially for
me, a tourist type, who didn't know what was normal. Their advice was
to watch off-duty soldiers. If the gun was slung, everything was okay
(same went for being carried like a briefcase, or loaf of bread). If
it was off their shoulder, carried in a ready condition, heads up.
Could be something, could force of habit. Carried in one hand with a
magazine in the other, maybe it's time to shop somewhere else. And of
course, "Magazine loaded" was definitely time to head over to the
Western Wall - which was in another town from us.

Ah, tourist tips from the old days ...


pyotr

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 03:30:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:




Do you look both ways before crossing busy streets or railroad tracks
(not at grade crossing) on foot? If so, you've raised your awareness
level appropriately. How hard is that?

But that's not "condition yellow," is it? That's my normal, everyday
awareness in reaction to circumstances. There's nothing "heightened" there.
It's just the ordinary reaction of a human mammal.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I thought that "condition yellow"
was a definite, trained state of heightened alertness that (Cooper implies,
anyway) lies beyond the ordinary alertness that we human mammals normally
observe.

Or did he just give a new name to something we all do anyway?

A good question. He describes it as "relaxed alert". He also
describes it as a state of readiness to defend oneself. I don't think
most of us constantly think about self defense, but at least some of
us tend to be more alert in some situations than in others. If there
are three scruffy young men loitering in a dark part of a parking lot
at night, I will very probably notice them while still at least 50
feet from them. I don't think I constantly scan like a radar or cast
darting glances like a twitchy bird, but I'm more alert than I would
be in a brightly-lit office or shopping center, and I'm still more
alert in those places than when at home reading a book or something.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:50:05 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

I want to stay alive. So I carry a firearm bigger than a .380. A .22
will kill a bad guy dead as a brick. However he may have time to take
your gun away from you, beat you to death with it, stuff it up your ass
and then wander off to die. Id rather than didnt happen to me, so I
choose to put him down NOW.

The point of the new mini .380 pistols is that they're a take anywhere
gun. There are lots of places where anything bigger won't work with
available concealment. If you can, take something bigger.

AND the .380.

It's the gun to have with you when you don't expect to need a gun. If
you expect to need one, take a bigger one, too. Bring all your friends
with bigger guns. Better yet, if possible, don't go there.

David

Indeed! I can easily skip going to places where I might expect to
need a gun.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:33:02 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:34:36 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:13:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


No. Not a single one. Which merely suggests that those who carry
1911's cocked remember to set the safety.

So the 1911 will discharge all by itself if the safety isnt on?

Don't patronize me, Gunner. You should know better by now.

We both know about the passive backstrap safety on the 1911. We also
know that no safety is absolute.

So with at minimum of two safeties..why are you so concerned that the
1911 is apparently "unsafe"? Its not patronizing..its a very valid
question.

It may be irrational on my part. I wouldn't think of carrying a 1911
without the safety engaged, but then I'd worry about whether I'd
remember to disengage it in a moment of stress.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:43:44 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So with at minimum of two safeties..why are you so concerned that the
1911 is apparently "unsafe"? Its not patronizing..its a very valid
question.

Like the Russian soldier said when asked about the lack of a safety on
th Tokarev pistol,

"Is not safe! Is gun!"

No gun is safe enough to be foolproof, there's always a better fool
out there. And even competent people make mistakes.

Which is one reason I don't recommend Glocks as a first gun.

David

What do you recommend as a first gun?

Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:43:44 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So with at minimum of two safeties..why are you so concerned that the
1911 is apparently "unsafe"? Its not patronizing..its a very valid
question.
Like the Russian soldier said when asked about the lack of a safety on
th Tokarev pistol,

"Is not safe! Is gun!"

No gun is safe enough to be foolproof, there's always a better fool
out there. And even competent people make mistakes.

Which is one reason I don't recommend Glocks as a first gun.

David

What do you recommend as a first gun?

Assuming someone with little or no gun experience:

For home defense, 20 or 12 gauge shotgun with buttstock and 18.5" barrel.

For pistols, a .357Mag w/ 4" barrel that they can use .38spc in for
practice.

Both are simple with little to go wrong. I also tell them to practice
until they're confident that they can hit within 10" at 15 yards. I
advise them to get training from an NRA certified instructor, which I
am not.

David

On Aug 3, 1:11*pm, Don Foreman wrote:

Indeed! *I can easily skip going to places where I might expect to
need a gun. * *

Yet, you bought a "pocket popper" to carry on your relaxing, healthy
walks. Somehow there's a disconnect in the logic here.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:50:05 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

I want to stay alive. So I carry a firearm bigger than a .380. A .22
will kill a bad guy dead as a brick. However he may have time to take
your gun away from you, beat you to death with it, stuff it up your ass
and then wander off to die. Id rather than didnt happen to me, so I
choose to put him down NOW.

The point of the new mini .380 pistols is that they're a take anywhere
gun. There are lots of places where anything bigger won't work with
available concealment. If you can, take something bigger.

AND the .380.

Odd..I have a .45 on my person most of the time and it never prints.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=135810300

Is its twin brother.

It's the gun to have with you when you don't expect to need a gun. If
you expect to need one, take a bigger one, too. Bring all your friends
with bigger guns. Better yet, if possible, don't go there.

But of course. I simply bring one that does the job.

G

David

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:41:37 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:43:44 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So with at minimum of two safeties..why are you so concerned that the
1911 is apparently "unsafe"? Its not patronizing..its a very valid
question.
Like the Russian soldier said when asked about the lack of a safety on
th Tokarev pistol,

"Is not safe! Is gun!"

No gun is safe enough to be foolproof, there's always a better fool
out there. And even competent people make mistakes.

Which is one reason I don't recommend Glocks as a first gun.

David

What do you recommend as a first gun?

Assuming someone with little or no gun experience:

For home defense, 20 or 12 gauge shotgun with buttstock and 18.5" barrel.

For pistols, a .357Mag w/ 4" barrel that they can use .38spc in for
practice.

Both are simple with little to go wrong. I also tell them to practice
until they're confident that they can hit within 10" at 15 yards. I
advise them to get training from an NRA certified instructor, which I
am not.

David


Excellent summation. And good advice.

Gunner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:21:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:33:02 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:34:36 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:13:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


No. Not a single one. Which merely suggests that those who carry
1911's cocked remember to set the safety.

So the 1911 will discharge all by itself if the safety isnt on?

Don't patronize me, Gunner. You should know better by now.

We both know about the passive backstrap safety on the 1911. We also
know that no safety is absolute.

So with at minimum of two safeties..why are you so concerned that the
1911 is apparently "unsafe"? Its not patronizing..its a very valid
question.

It may be irrational on my part. I wouldn't think of carrying a 1911
without the safety engaged, but then I'd worry about whether I'd
remember to disengage it in a moment of stress.


Muscle memory is a wonderful thing. In stressful situations..I dont
remember changing magazines etc etc. But they get get changed somehow
or another.

Its called Practice until its part of you.

Shrug

Gunner

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:56:22 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 03:30:58 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

A sense of survival provides good incentives. I'll bet that if you
(generic) told your friends that you were trying to become more aware,
they'd sneak up on you and try to scare you at every chance. Simple,
wot?

My friends these days are a bit more mature than that, but I get your point.
d8-)

Hah! They might surprise you.


But that's not "condition yellow," is it? That's my normal, everyday
awareness in reaction to circumstances. There's nothing "heightened"
there.
It's just the ordinary reaction of a human mammal.

I believe that Jeff already took that into account when he wrote it.
(I've read his _Art of the Rifle_.) Those of us who are curious about
life are already living in heightened awareness. We like to see what
goes on around us, and that keeps us safer than the average bear, as
Yogi might opine.

That's an interesting POV. Maybe true.

You're a photographer, so you probably know how they train you to "see" in
introductory photography classes (and which I had in intro film classes,
some decades ago). That definitely is an altered state of awareness, but it
takes an extraordinary desire, and lots of practice, to sustain it for more
than a few minutes.

Oh, hell no. After I sobered up, I got my awareness back and haven't
stopped yet, 24 years later. There's nothing to practice or sustain.
Yes, there are degrees of focus, but often a mere wakeful state is
enough until you sense something out of place. Too many people have
just tuned out, so it's up to them to wake up to where they were.


Which is to say, I'm not doubting that such states are achievable. But I
think they're extremely difficult. It's like staying on a diet for two or
three years. If your incentive is that you'll die if you don't do it, it's
not hard. If it's some abstract idea, like the idea that you'll be less
disgusting to look at g, then it can be very hard.

My guess is that it depends on one's state of paranoia (which itself can be
the result of bad experiences) at least as much as on one's curiosity about
life.

People who have been mugged (or know people who have been mugged)
might get a bit paranoid, but maintaining a state of readiness ain't
no big thang, son.

--
A great preservative against angry and mutinous thoughts, and all
impatience and quarreling, is to have some great business and
interest in your mind, which, like a sponge shall suck up your
attention and keep you from brooding over what displeases you.
-- Joseph Rickaby

Gunner Asch wrote:

The point of the new mini .380 pistols is that they're a take anywhere
gun. There are lots of places where anything bigger won't work with
available concealment. If you can, take something bigger.

AND the .380.

Odd..I have a .45 on my person most of the time and it never prints.

It would on most people, including me.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=135810300

Is its twin brother.
It's the gun to have with you when you don't expect to need a gun. If
you expect to need one, take a bigger one, too. Bring all your friends
with bigger guns. Better yet, if possible, don't go there.

But of course. I simply bring one that does the job.

And if the job includes concealment, many need something smaller. I've
got a .380 that's bigger than my smallest .45, if I can conceal it,
I'd take the .45, most of the year, I can't.

David

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:38:06 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

The point of the new mini .380 pistols is that they're a take anywhere
gun. There are lots of places where anything bigger won't work with
available concealment. If you can, take something bigger.

AND the .380.

Odd..I have a .45 on my person most of the time and it never prints.

It would on most people, including me.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=135810300

Is its twin brother.
It's the gun to have with you when you don't expect to need a gun. If
you expect to need one, take a bigger one, too. Bring all your friends
with bigger guns. Better yet, if possible, don't go there.

But of course. I simply bring one that does the job.

And if the job includes concealment, many need something smaller. I've
got a .380 that's bigger than my smallest .45, if I can conceal it,
I'd take the .45, most of the year, I can't.

David


Why not? You go about in a G String?


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:41:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:50:05 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

I want to stay alive. So I carry a firearm bigger than a .380. A .22
will kill a bad guy dead as a brick. However he may have time to take
your gun away from you, beat you to death with it, stuff it up your ass
and then wander off to die. Id rather than didnt happen to me, so I
choose to put him down NOW.

The point of the new mini .380 pistols is that they're a take anywhere
gun. There are lots of places where anything bigger won't work with
available concealment. If you can, take something bigger.

AND the .380.

Odd..I have a .45 on my person most of the time and it never prints.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=135810300

Is its twin brother.

Not to nitpick, but that .45 is rather different from a 1911. It's
double action only, no safety to forget.