|
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very
similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. Those first three, first ever thru that pistol, were fired very deliberately with no regard for speed. That would be unrealistic in an actual self-defense situation but I wanted to see what the best I might expect might be. That'll do! When I speeded up my rate of fire to a more realistic pace, accuracy degraded markedly but was still quite acceptable with all shots hitting well within center of mass on a standard silhouette target. My performance will improve with practice with the slightly-better-than-awful trigger. I was amazed and delighted to discover that this little popper is not at all unpleasant to shoot. Au contraire, it's fun! For perspective, I do not like harsh recoil, not at all. I know women who like the Kahr PM9 just fine but 20 rounds thru one of those was plenty for me. I thought it was a nasty little bitch and wanted no more of that. I have no problem with larger caliber handguns of appropriate mass but I don't want to carry one. I'm retired. I could easily shoot 100 rounds thru the little Ruger LCP in a hour without discomfort. I was using WWB (Winchester white box) factory ammo today. I was wearing a shooting glove but I don't think it would have been necessary. I ordered this little pistol more because I thought I should than because I wanted it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to when it might arrive and I really didn't expect to like it much. I diddled around for at least a year not ordering one because I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it. Well, I like it! I will enjoy practicing with it and I will drop it in my pocket when I probably should because it is so easy to do. Mary 'n I burned a buncha .380 ammo today. Outdoors, rural range we had it all to ourselves. Lovely summer day. Life could be worse. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Don Foreman wrote:
I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. snippage Well, I like it! I will enjoy practicing with it and I will drop it in my pocket when I probably should because it is so easy to do. Mary 'n I burned a buncha .380 ammo today. Outdoors, rural range we had it all to ourselves. Lovely summer day. Life could be worse. :) I know just how you feel, Don. Play with it for a while, then practice making smiley faces! It's a shame .380 ammo is getting so precious. Richard |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.
|
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Don Foreman wrote: I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. Those first three, first ever thru that pistol, were fired very deliberately with no regard for speed. That would be unrealistic in an actual self-defense situation but I wanted to see what the best I might expect might be. That'll do! When I speeded up my rate of fire to a more realistic pace, accuracy degraded markedly but was still quite acceptable with all shots hitting well within center of mass on a standard silhouette target. My performance will improve with practice with the slightly-better-than-awful trigger. I was amazed and delighted to discover that this little popper is not at all unpleasant to shoot. Au contraire, it's fun! For perspective, I do not like harsh recoil, not at all. I know women who like the Kahr PM9 just fine but 20 rounds thru one of those was plenty for me. I thought it was a nasty little bitch and wanted no more of that. I have no problem with larger caliber handguns of appropriate mass but I don't want to carry one. I'm retired. I could easily shoot 100 rounds thru the little Ruger LCP in a hour without discomfort. I was using WWB (Winchester white box) factory ammo today. I was wearing a shooting glove but I don't think it would have been necessary. I ordered this little pistol more because I thought I should than because I wanted it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to when it might arrive and I really didn't expect to like it much. I diddled around for at least a year not ordering one because I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it. Well, I like it! I will enjoy practicing with it and I will drop it in my pocket when I probably should because it is so easy to do. Mary 'n I burned a buncha .380 ammo today. Outdoors, rural range we had it all to ourselves. Lovely summer day. Life could be worse. I have a Colt Mustang Pocketlite and it's pretty similar I think, about 12.5oz loaded and a whole lot more comfortable to carry than the 43oz S&W 5906. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Don Foreman wrote:
I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. Those first three, first ever thru that pistol, were fired very deliberately with no regard for speed. That would be unrealistic in an actual self-defense situation but I wanted to see what the best I might expect might be. That'll do! When I speeded up my rate of fire to a more realistic pace, accuracy degraded markedly but was still quite acceptable with all shots hitting well within center of mass on a standard silhouette target. My performance will improve with practice with the slightly-better-than-awful trigger. I was amazed and delighted to discover that this little popper is not at all unpleasant to shoot. Au contraire, it's fun! For perspective, I do not like harsh recoil, not at all. I know women who like the Kahr PM9 just fine but 20 rounds thru one of those was plenty for me. I thought it was a nasty little bitch and wanted no more of that. I have no problem with larger caliber handguns of appropriate mass but I don't want to carry one. I'm retired. I could easily shoot 100 rounds thru the little Ruger LCP in a hour without discomfort. I was using WWB (Winchester white box) factory ammo today. I was wearing a shooting glove but I don't think it would have been necessary. I ordered this little pistol more because I thought I should than because I wanted it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to when it might arrive and I really didn't expect to like it much. I diddled around for at least a year not ordering one because I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it. Well, I like it! I will enjoy practicing with it and I will drop it in my pocket when I probably should because it is so easy to do. Mary 'n I burned a buncha .380 ammo today. Outdoors, rural range we had it all to ourselves. Lovely summer day. Life could be worse. I carried a P3AT for years. I shot it about once every 2 months, never could figure out what people were talking about when they complained about the recoil. I could put 50 rounds through it with no problem. This year I'm carrying an LCP, mostly because it's just a nicer gun. But shooting it hurts my hand. I don't know if it's the minor difference in the guns, or if it's just age or something. It's still manageable, but the difference was noticeable. I'll have to try them back to back next time. I like .380. I think I have 15 or so pocket .380s. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Pete C. wrote:
Don Foreman wrote: I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. Those first three, first ever thru that pistol, were fired very deliberately with no regard for speed. That would be unrealistic in an actual self-defense situation but I wanted to see what the best I might expect might be. That'll do! When I speeded up my rate of fire to a more realistic pace, accuracy degraded markedly but was still quite acceptable with all shots hitting well within center of mass on a standard silhouette target. My performance will improve with practice with the slightly-better-than-awful trigger. I was amazed and delighted to discover that this little popper is not at all unpleasant to shoot. Au contraire, it's fun! For perspective, I do not like harsh recoil, not at all. I know women who like the Kahr PM9 just fine but 20 rounds thru one of those was plenty for me. I thought it was a nasty little bitch and wanted no more of that. I have no problem with larger caliber handguns of appropriate mass but I don't want to carry one. I'm retired. I could easily shoot 100 rounds thru the little Ruger LCP in a hour without discomfort. I was using WWB (Winchester white box) factory ammo today. I was wearing a shooting glove but I don't think it would have been necessary. I ordered this little pistol more because I thought I should than because I wanted it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to when it might arrive and I really didn't expect to like it much. I diddled around for at least a year not ordering one because I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it. Well, I like it! I will enjoy practicing with it and I will drop it in my pocket when I probably should because it is so easy to do. Mary 'n I burned a buncha .380 ammo today. Outdoors, rural range we had it all to ourselves. Lovely summer day. Life could be worse. I have a Colt Mustang Pocketlite and it's pretty similar I think, about 12.5oz loaded and a whole lot more comfortable to carry than the 43oz S&W 5906. I have a couple of those Colts, and I like them a lot. But I end up carrying the Ruger just because it's so much thinner and lighter. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Yeah. I'm not sure a gun has ever been made that was too inaccurate for self-defense, but a little accuracy sure does make practice more interesting... |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket. Me too. I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely. What's changed is that a mugging/assault that would be recoverable for most could now be fatal for me. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:10:11 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote: I ordered this little pistol more because I thought I should than because I wanted it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to when it might arrive and I really didn't expect to like it much. I diddled around for at least a year not ordering one because I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it. Well, I like it! I will enjoy practicing with it and I will drop it in my pocket when I probably should because it is so easy to do. Pretty much sums up my take on the Kel-Tec 3AT. Those Ruger LCP's were going for $400+ out here as fast as they'd come in. I bought the Kel-Tec from a customer inside the gun shop for $150 and he bought their last Ruger LCP g. He hadn't even shot a box (50) of rounds through it and it came with the box, paperwork, belt clip 1/2 box of ammo and a poly holster. I pack it everywhere. And that right there can be problematic since there's a few places I've been that I shouldn't have been packing. I'm pretty sure you'll have an oops moment or two. They're so light that you literally forget it's there. It lives in my watch pocket, that holster fits in there perfectly and the belt clip keeps it there. And like you, the accuracy surprised the hell out of me. I hope I never need it, but it does provide a certain level of comfort knowing it's always there. The only mod I did was to get the mag extension (one more round) which makes it easier to hold. Snarl |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
"Don Foreman" wrote in message ... I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. Those first three, first ever thru that pistol, were fired very deliberately with no regard for speed. That would be unrealistic in an actual self-defense situation but I wanted to see what the best I might expect might be. That'll do! When I speeded up my rate of fire to a more realistic pace, accuracy degraded markedly but was still quite acceptable with all shots hitting well within center of mass on a standard silhouette target. My performance will improve with practice with the slightly-better-than-awful trigger. I was amazed and delighted to discover that this little popper is not at all unpleasant to shoot. Au contraire, it's fun! For perspective, I do not like harsh recoil, not at all. I know women who like the Kahr PM9 just fine but 20 rounds thru one of those was plenty for me. I thought it was a nasty little bitch and wanted no more of that. I have no problem with larger caliber handguns of appropriate mass but I don't want to carry one. I'm retired. I could easily shoot 100 rounds thru the little Ruger LCP in a hour without discomfort. I was using WWB (Winchester white box) factory ammo today. I was wearing a shooting glove but I don't think it would have been necessary. I ordered this little pistol more because I thought I should than because I wanted it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to when it might arrive and I really didn't expect to like it much. I diddled around for at least a year not ordering one because I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it. Well, I like it! I will enjoy practicing with it and I will drop it in my pocket when I probably should because it is so easy to do. Mary 'n I burned a buncha .380 ammo today. Outdoors, rural range we had it all to ourselves. Lovely summer day. Life could be worse. Save your brass! |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 23, 11:51*am, Don Foreman
wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket. Me too. *I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely. What's changed is that a mugging/assault *that would be *recoverable for most could *now *be fatal for me. * But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and methodology in which you would use it? It seems to me, that if you were stopped by an armed assailant, you'd be dead before you got the gun out of your pocket. If the assailant was unarmed, you'd have a tough time justifying shooting him. If there were multiple assailants, then what? I really am interested in this phenomenon, as it truly is foreign to me. I'd rather hear this from you, Don, as you appear to be a reasonable person who will think before giving an answer. I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html It's not about permits. According to the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. "Oh, but that's only the militia!" I hear you cry. Do you even know what "militia" means? It's every able-bodied adult citizen. The militia are YOU! So, tell me how gun control would have saved them? Remember, the crooks don't obey laws - that's why they're called crooks. Oh, wait - you already have gun control, and they got shot anyway! At least someone armed could have stopped the perps, but now they're running around loose because of gun control. Thanks, Rich |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 23, 5:40*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html It's not about permits. According to the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. "Oh, but that's only the militia!" I hear you cry. Do you even know what "militia" means? It's every able-bodied adult citizen. The militia are YOU! So, tell me how gun control would have saved them? Remember, the crooks don't obey laws - that's why they're called crooks. Oh, wait - you already have gun control, and they got shot anyway! At least someone armed could have stopped the perps, but now they're running around loose because of gun control. Thanks, Rich So, your answer is that CCW could not have prevented the deaths of these kids, |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Don Foreman wrote:
I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. A .380 ACP will get to just the other side of a current dimension 2x4 (1.5x3.5). Not the greatest round to rely on if you have that day you really need a gun. Of course, it tends to be packaged in a size and weight that makes it fairly likely you may have it with you and most any gun beats no gun. Ah, I just took a peek, the LCP is not a blow back type like most .380's. I wonder how warm you can load one of those safely. I love shooting my Bersa 95, light enough it feels like a real gun going off and with the barrel being fixed to the frame (blow back) it is very accurate. Now that I've dissed the .380, I'll admit that I probably have it with me more often than more capable calibers unless I'm heading someplace that I know isn't the best place to be and I sure try to avoid that. I keep meaning to buy a decent compact 9mm, I toyed with the idea of a Glock 36 in .45acp but I'm not a fan of the safe action (no manual safety) system, especially using improvised carry. Enjoy your new gun. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 23, 7:28*pm, rangerssuck wrote:
But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and methodology in which you would use it? It seems to me, that if you were stopped by an armed assailant, you'd be dead before you got the gun out of your pocket. If the assailant was unarmed, you'd have a tough time justifying shooting him. If there were multiple assailants, then what? Before answering you questions, I need more data. If stopped by an armed assailant, when did the armed assailant draw his weapon? Was it 150 feet away? Was it twenty feet away? Was it less than five feet away? Was the assailant acting suspiciously? Was the assailant armed with a gun? Was the assailant armed with a knife? A sword? If the assailant was unarmed, did he flee when you drew your weapon? Or was he crazed on drugs, and ignored your warnings? If there were multiple assailants, were there two, twenty, two hundred? What avenues of escape did you have? Would shots have drawn help? And what makes you think I would carry a concealed weapon in my pocket? Having a concealed weapon definitely gives you more option, but one always has to consider the circumstances. Dan |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
RBnDFW wrote:
I carried a P3AT for years. I shot it about once every 2 months, never could figure out what people were talking about when they complained about the recoil. I could put 50 rounds through it with no problem. This year I'm carrying an LCP, mostly because it's just a nicer gun. But shooting it hurts my hand. I don't know if it's the minor difference in the guns, or if it's just age or something. It's still manageable, but the difference was noticeable. I'll have to try them back to back next time. I like .380. I think I have 15 or so pocket .380s. I agree about the .380 pocket pistols, I collect them, too. I haven't counted recently, but 15 sounds about right. I'm not sure if my Husqvarna 1903 counts, it's far too big for most pockets and it started out chambered for 9mm Browning Long. David |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 23, 7:00*pm, " wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:28*pm, rangerssuck wrote: But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and methodology in which you would use it? It seems to me, that if you were stopped by an armed assailant, you'd be dead before you got the gun out of your pocket. If the assailant was unarmed, you'd have a tough time justifying shooting him. If there were multiple assailants, then what? Before answering you questions, I need more data. *If stopped by an armed assailant, when did the armed assailant draw his weapon? *Was it 150 feet away? *Was it twenty feet away? *Was it less than five feet away? *Was the assailant acting suspiciously? *Was the assailant armed with a gun? *Was the assailant armed with a knife? *A sword? *If the assailant was unarmed, did he flee when you drew your weapon? *Or was he crazed on drugs, and ignored your warnings? If there were multiple assailants, were there two, twenty, two hundred? *What avenues of escape did you have? *Would shots have drawn help? And what makes you think I would carry a concealed weapon in my pocket? Having a concealed weapon definitely gives you more option, but one always has to consider the circumstances. Dan The question was for Don Foreman, who just bought a new gun to carry in his pocket, while hiking. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
wrote in message ... On Jul 23, 7:28 pm, rangerssuck wrote: But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and methodology in which you would use it? It seems to me, that if you were stopped by an armed assailant, you'd be dead before you got the gun out of your pocket. If the assailant was unarmed, you'd have a tough time justifying shooting him. If there were multiple assailants, then what? Before answering you questions, I need more data. If stopped by an armed assailant, when did the armed assailant draw his weapon? Was it 150 feet away? Was it twenty feet away? Was it less than five feet away? Was the assailant acting suspiciously? Was the assailant armed with a gun? Was the assailant armed with a knife? A sword? If the assailant was unarmed, did he flee when you drew your weapon? Or was he crazed on drugs, and ignored your warnings? If there were multiple assailants, were there two, twenty, two hundred? What avenues of escape did you have? Would shots have drawn help? And what makes you think I would carry a concealed weapon in my pocket? Having a concealed weapon definitely gives you more option, but one always has to consider the circumstances. Dan that's what i thought of the link don posted about the lady who got beat up. seemed to me the guy sucker punched her, even if she was carrying a puny popper he still woulda taken her by surprise, it would've stayed in her pocket, or holster, or whatever and she woulda still got beat up. has seemed to me in the past the odds are so incredibly low guys who carry guns will ever use them to defend themselves against an surprise assailant the only real reason to constantly carry a gun is so they can feel confident to loudly voice their opinions in social situations because if/when it came down to it they'd always be the one who ends up winning the argument. b.w. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: On Jul 23, 11:51*am, Don Foreman wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket. Me too. *I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely. What's changed is that a mugging/assault *that would be *recoverable for most could *now *be fatal for me. * But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and methodology in which you would use it? It seems to me, that if you were stopped by an armed assailant, you'd be dead before you got the gun out of your pocket. If the assailant was unarmed, you'd have a tough time justifying shooting him. If there were multiple assailants, then what? Very brief answers are yes, yes and oboy. In the last case where "oboy" is a bit flippant, multiple assailant punks often act as one. If the multiple assailants comprise a skilled and disciplined assault team intent on your demise, you're toast regardless of what weapons you might be carrying. In the general civilian case (unless you've really ****ed off someone dangerous) , whether singletons or groups look for easy prey. While they may not be able to read or do their sums, their street instincts are acute. An alert citizen who is armed and skilled is not easy prey. This isn't just my opinion, see reference cited below. The issue you broach is one of tactics, which is methodology, and it is a key issue. It's far more important than what kind of gun or other weapon one might have at his or her disposal. There are good answers to your questions and I don't fancy myself as an expert so I won't even try to address them in a newsgroup reply. Entire books have been written by well-known credible authors with considerable experience in such matters. A leading authority is Massad Ayoob. Probably the first book you read should be "In The Gravest Extreme". Then note the bibliography for more. Tactical training by skilled and experienced instructors is available in many areas, and in my area it's quite reasonably priced, less than a good dinner for an evening session. This training probably wouldn't appeal to folks who don't enjoy shooting but it sounds like a lot of fun to me. I like the part that says, "bring 300 rounds of ammunition..." I really am interested in this phenomenon, as it truly is foreign to me. I'd rather hear this from you, Don, as you appear to be a reasonable person who will think before giving an answer. I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html Moot question because only those with very strong political connections can get CCW permits in NYC. What would have prevented his death? not being there in the first place. The only sure way to win a fight involving lethal weapons is to avoid it. Thanks for illustrating the point that there is considerably more to armed self defense than securing a permit and purchasing a handgun. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:15:19 -0500, "William Wixon"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 23, 7:28 pm, rangerssuck wrote: But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and methodology in which you would use it? It seems to me, that if you were stopped by an armed assailant, you'd be dead before you got the gun out of your pocket. If the assailant was unarmed, you'd have a tough time justifying shooting him. If there were multiple assailants, then what? Before answering you questions, I need more data. If stopped by an armed assailant, when did the armed assailant draw his weapon? Was it 150 feet away? Was it twenty feet away? Was it less than five feet away? Was the assailant acting suspiciously? Was the assailant armed with a gun? Was the assailant armed with a knife? A sword? If the assailant was unarmed, did he flee when you drew your weapon? Or was he crazed on drugs, and ignored your warnings? If there were multiple assailants, were there two, twenty, two hundred? What avenues of escape did you have? Would shots have drawn help? And what makes you think I would carry a concealed weapon in my pocket? Having a concealed weapon definitely gives you more option, but one always has to consider the circumstances. Dan that's what i thought of the link don posted about the lady who got beat up. seemed to me the guy sucker punched her, even if she was carrying a puny popper he still woulda taken her by surprise, it would've stayed in her pocket, or holster, or whatever and she woulda still got beat up. has seemed to me in the past the odds are so incredibly low guys who carry guns will ever use them to defend themselves against an surprise assailant the only real reason to constantly carry a gun is so they can feel confident to loudly voice their opinions in social situations because if/when it came down to it they'd always be the one who ends up winning the argument. b.w. There certainly are plenty of examples of exactly what you assert. In the case of the assaulted lady in St Paul, recall that the assailant demanded money, was told she didn't have any, started to leave and then returned to beat the crap out of her with his cane. She had ample opportunity to access a weapon and ample provocation to do so as well. I certainly don't assert or imply that things would have turned out better if she'd had a gun in her purse. (I'll leave that to the NRA.) She may have a strong abhorrance of firearms or she may not be cabable or motivated to gain any proficiency with one. It was an isolated incident, as was the little girl that got struck and killed by lightning the same day. A pocket pistol is indeed about useless against a surprise assailant or ambush. I've stated that before. I recommend books and writings by Masaad Ayoob for your further edification. If you would rather write uninformed opinion, I respect your right to do so. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:48:10 -0400, Wes wrote:
Don Foreman wrote: I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. A .380 ACP will get to just the other side of a current dimension 2x4 (1.5x3.5). Not the greatest round to rely on if you have that day you really need a gun. Of course, it tends to be packaged in a size and weight that makes it fairly likely you may have it with you and most any gun beats no gun. Ah, I just took a peek, the LCP is not a blow back type like most .380's. I wonder how warm you can load one of those safely. I love shooting my Bersa 95, light enough it feels like a real gun going off and with the barrel being fixed to the frame (blow back) it is very accurate. Now that I've dissed the .380, I'll admit that I probably have it with me more often than more capable calibers unless I'm heading someplace that I know isn't the best place to be and I sure try to avoid that. I keep meaning to buy a decent compact 9mm, I toyed with the idea of a Glock 36 in .45acp but I'm not a fan of the safe action (no manual safety) system, especially using improvised carry. Enjoy your new gun. Thanks, I am enjoying it far more than I expected to. ..380 is light for SD but nearly all experts agree that shot placement is more important than caliber, and that the gun you have on you is far more useful than the heavier gun you don't have available. For when you wanna be more serious about carry, have a look at the Para Ordnance PDA and Carry 9. I stumbled upon a very slightly used Carry 9 a few months go, grabbed it, and I love it. It's amazingly accurate in my hands. I grabbed it specifically to have something I'd regard as about as carryable as a .380 during winter months that had more authority than a .380 when my attacker might be wearing a lot of clothes in MN. I tried to like the Kahr PM9 and just couldn't get there. I found it too harsh. I like the Carry 9 a lot, or perhaps a bit more than that. It is fun to shoot, very easy to burn thru 100 rounds in a session. I have a Colt Officer's M1911 in .45ACP that I enjoy shooting and shoot well but I'm not comfy carrying it cocked and locked. The Para LDA's are double action, do have a 1911-style safety if one is really confident about remembering the safety but the safety could safely be left off during carry because it is a DA like LCP, Kahr, Glock and XD which have no safeties requiring operator action. The DA trigger on the Para Carry9, essentially the same as their PDA and quite capable of using 9mmp +P ammo, is way far superior to the slightly-less-than-awful trigger on the Ruger LCP or Kel-Tec 3AT. But Sweet Carrynine is almost twice the weight of ma petit cherie Elsie Pea. Summer and winter. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
rangerssuck wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:
I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: Which one was the cousin - the 23-year-old driver or the 19-year-old? If it was the 23-year-old, he'd have been able to shoot first, thus killing the assailant instead of being offed instead. -- I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:48:10 -0400, Wes wrote: Don Foreman wrote: I took my new little Ruger LCP .380 to the range today. It's very similar to the Kel-Tec 3AT. This thing is so tiny and light (12 oz) I expected it to be quite unpleasant to shoot and probably not very accurate in my hands. It's sole virtue, I thought, was that it's so small and light I would actually carry it when perhaps I should be carrying something more than hope for my safety and welfare on my daily 3-mile walks. Boy was I surprised. My first three shots from 21 feet comprised a group of about 1.5" spread with two holes nearly touching, said group about 1/2" left of my aim point. "Sacred feces", I exclaimed, or words to that effect. A .380 ACP will get to just the other side of a current dimension 2x4 (1.5x3.5). Not the greatest round to rely on if you have that day you really need a gun. Of course, it tends to be packaged in a size and weight that makes it fairly likely you may have it with you and most any gun beats no gun. Ah, I just took a peek, the LCP is not a blow back type like most .380's. I wonder how warm you can load one of those safely. I love shooting my Bersa 95, light enough it feels like a real gun going off and with the barrel being fixed to the frame (blow back) it is very accurate. Now that I've dissed the .380, I'll admit that I probably have it with me more often than more capable calibers unless I'm heading someplace that I know isn't the best place to be and I sure try to avoid that. I keep meaning to buy a decent compact 9mm, I toyed with the idea of a Glock 36 in .45acp but I'm not a fan of the safe action (no manual safety) system, especially using improvised carry. Enjoy your new gun. Thanks, I am enjoying it far more than I expected to. .380 is light for SD but nearly all experts agree that shot placement is more important than caliber, and that the gun you have on you is far more useful than the heavier gun you don't have available. For when you wanna be more serious about carry, have a look at the Para Ordnance PDA and Carry 9. I stumbled upon a very slightly used Carry 9 a few months go, grabbed it, and I love it. It's amazingly accurate in my hands. I grabbed it specifically to have something I'd regard as about as carryable as a .380 during winter months that had more authority than a .380 when my attacker might be wearing a lot of clothes in MN. I tried to like the Kahr PM9 and just couldn't get there. I found it too harsh. I like the Carry 9 a lot, or perhaps a bit more than that. It is fun to shoot, very easy to burn thru 100 rounds in a session. I have a Colt Officer's M1911 in .45ACP that I enjoy shooting and shoot well but I'm not comfy carrying it cocked and locked. The Para LDA's are double action, do have a 1911-style safety if one is really confident about remembering the safety but the safety could safely be left off during carry because it is a DA like LCP, Kahr, Glock and XD which have no safeties requiring operator action. The DA trigger on the Para Carry9, essentially the same as their PDA and quite capable of using 9mmp +P ammo, is way far superior to the slightly-less-than-awful trigger on the Ruger LCP or Kel-Tec 3AT. But Sweet Carrynine is almost twice the weight of ma petit cherie Elsie Pea. Summer and winter. I keep a compact 9mm in each car, in a lockbox, just in case I feel the need for a short-term upgrade. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:46:27 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:40*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html It's not about permits. According to the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. "Oh, but that's only the militia!" I hear you cry. Do you even know what "militia" means? It's every able-bodied adult citizen. The militia are YOU! So, tell me how gun control would have saved them? Remember, the crooks don't obey laws - that's why they're called crooks. Oh, wait - you already have gun control, and they got shot anyway! At least someone armed could have stopped the perps, but now they're running around loose because of gun control. So, your answer is that CCW could not have prevented the deaths of these kids, No, my point is that gun control not only didn't prevent the deaths of these kids, but also let the perps get away with it. Thanks, Rich |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html Thinking more about your questions, I recalled some material I recently read about tactics (methodology) when in a stationary car and attack seems imminent. Obviously, if it's possible to drive away, do so. If it is not possible to move the car (and you are armed), get out of the car and keep the car between you and the threat. If/when they see that you are armed, there's a good chance that they will reconsider. If they don't, at least you now have the ability to move and/or the tactical advantage of cover. Elsewhere in the book he addresses the matter of maintaining a state of alert awareness appropriate to one's situation and surroundings. Other books also address this issue, some more thoroughly. The author noted that being in an immobile car places one at a huge disadvantage because there is so little freedom of motion. GET OUT OF THE CAR. If you're interested in learning more, the book is: "Armed Response: A Comprehensive Guide to Using Firearms for Self-Defense" by David Kenik. Available from Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/lspszd |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 24, 3:29*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html Thinking *more about your questions, I recalled some material I recently read *about tactics (methodology) when in a stationary *car and attack seems imminent. * Obviously, if it's possible to drive away, do so. *If it is not possible to move the car (and you are armed), *get out of the car and keep the car between you and the threat. *If/when they see that you are armed, there's a good chance that they will reconsider. *If they don't, at least you now have the ability to move *and/or *the tactical advantage of cover. * Elsewhere in the book he addresses the matter of maintaining a state of alert awareness appropriate to one's situation and surroundings. Other books also address this issue, some more thoroughly. The author noted that being in an immobile *car places one at a huge disadvantage because there is so little freedom of motion. *GET OUT OF THE CAR. * If you're interested in learning more, the book is: "Armed Response: A Comprehensive Guide to Using Firearms for Self-Defense" *by David Kenik. Available from Amazon.http://tinyurl.com/lspszd And if there are two bad guys (they do often travel in pairs), one on each side of the car? Sometimes, it seems, when you're screwed, you're screwed. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 24, 1:59*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:46:27 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 23, 5:40*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html It's not about permits. According to the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. "Oh, but that's only the militia!" I hear you cry. Do you even know what "militia" means? It's every able-bodied adult citizen. The militia are YOU! So, tell me how gun control would have saved them? Remember, the crooks don't obey laws - that's why they're called crooks. Oh, wait - you already have gun control, and they got shot anyway! At least someone armed could have stopped the perps, but now they're running around loose because of gun control. So, your answer is that CCW could not have prevented the deaths of these kids, No, my point is that gun control not only didn't prevent the deaths of these kids, but also let the perps get away with it. Thanks, Rich I guess I missed the part about how gun control let them get away with it. As far as I know, nobody even knows who they are or where they are. There were no witnesses, much less witnesses with guns. And the logic that "gun control didn't prevent the deaths" is just ridiculous. Campaign finance reform didn't prevent it either, nor did global warming, swine flu, astroturf or the designated hitter. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 24, 12:45*am, rangerssuck wrote:
The question was for Don Foreman, who just bought a new gun to carry in his pocket, while hiking. If it was just for Don Foreman, why did you post it in a usegroup? Dan |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: snip I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html snip Primary error in this line of reasoning is examining everything on a case by case basis. Under certain circumstances, even trained police officers are killed. This is generally not taken as an excuse or rationale to disarm the police [except in England]. In the specific case of your cousin [you have my condolences] a weapon may not have affected the outcome AT THAT TIME, but it may well be that a shot or two from a privately owned gun by an armed citizen in an earlier confrontation would have eliminated the possibility of subsequent confrontations. It is also worthwhile to note that if either or both of the victims had been armed, they would not be any worse off. What is becoming clear is that crimes of this type, frequently resulting in murder or serious injury, are not "spur of the moment -- one time" things, but are serial events, with a tendency to become more brazen over time. When the general situation is examined in the aggregate, it becomes clear that activities such as muggings and robberies as a career choice become much riskier when a significant numbers of the general population are armed and prepared to fight back. While a perp may successfully mug or rob for a time, in these sense THEY are not injured or killed, sooner or later an armed victim or bystander will manage to get a shot or two off, killing or wounding the perp. [For our overseas readers, under U.S. law ALL gunshot wounds must be reported to the police by doctors or hospitals, which frequently leads to arrests.] Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end? Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625). |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
Don Foreman wrote:
For when you wanna be more serious about carry, have a look at the Para Ordnance PDA and Carry 9. I stumbled upon a very slightly used Carry 9 a few months go, grabbed it, and I love it. It's amazingly accurate in my hands. I grabbed it specifically to have something I'd regard as about as carryable as a .380 during winter months that had more authority than a .380 when my attacker might be wearing a lot of clothes in MN. How thick is the Carry 9? That spec isn't on the para web site. Looks like it might just be the future PDW for me. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:09:32 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: On Jul 24, 3:29*pm, Don Foreman wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html Thinking *more about your questions, I recalled some material I recently read *about tactics (methodology) when in a stationary *car and attack seems imminent. * Obviously, if it's possible to drive away, do so. *If it is not possible to move the car (and you are armed), *get out of the car and keep the car between you and the threat. *If/when they see that you are armed, there's a good chance that they will reconsider. *If they don't, at least you now have the ability to move *and/or *the tactical advantage of cover. * Elsewhere in the book he addresses the matter of maintaining a state of alert awareness appropriate to one's situation and surroundings. Other books also address this issue, some more thoroughly. The author noted that being in an immobile *car places one at a huge disadvantage because there is so little freedom of motion. *GET OUT OF THE CAR. * If you're interested in learning more, the book is: "Armed Response: A Comprehensive Guide to Using Firearms for Self-Defense" *by David Kenik. Available from Amazon.http://tinyurl.com/lspszd And if there are two bad guys (they do often travel in pairs), one on each side of the car? Sometimes, it seems, when you're screwed, you're screwed. So try to enjoy it? If there are bad guys on each side of the car the occupant of the car very probably hasn't been paying attention. Self defense in a metropolitan setting does not start with firepower, martial arts or 911. It starts with taking some responsibility for one's own safety, learning some basics from readily-available sources and paying attention Many want to believe that their safety is the responsibility of the government. It is not. The police have no obligation to "protect and serve". Such an obligation would be impossible to meet because they can't be everywhere at once. Police enforce the law by collecting evidence and apprehending suspects after crimes have been committed. That may protect to the extent of its deterrent effect. If early awareness of a threat and attempts at evasion fail, the remaining options are flight or fight. Flight requires superior speed, works well if one has it. (I don't.) If it comes down to fight or be maimed or killed, being armed and skilled may help. I don't try to persuade others that being armed is a good idea for them. For many it is not. I respect their choice either way. I tried to offer thoughtful responses to your questions but I don't care to pursue a polemic debate. Pick yer pony, take yer ride. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:14:49 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: On Jul 24, 1:59*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:46:27 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 23, 5:40*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html It's not about permits. According to the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. "Oh, but that's only the militia!" I hear you cry. Do you even know what "militia" means? It's every able-bodied adult citizen. The militia are YOU! So, tell me how gun control would have saved them? Remember, the crooks don't obey laws - that's why they're called crooks. Oh, wait - you already have gun control, and they got shot anyway! At least someone armed could have stopped the perps, but now they're running around loose because of gun control. So, your answer is that CCW could not have prevented the deaths of these kids, No, my point is that gun control not only didn't prevent the deaths of these kids, but also let the perps get away with it. Thanks, Rich I guess I missed the part about how gun control let them get away with it. As far as I know, nobody even knows who they are or where they are. There were no witnesses, much less witnesses with guns. And the logic that "gun control didn't prevent the deaths" is just ridiculous. Campaign finance reform didn't prevent it either, nor did global warming, swine flu, astroturf or the designated hitter. True colors showing here, rangerssuck? "Gun control didn't prevent deaths" may not be clearly stated in context but the clear intent is not at all ridiculous. Criminals with guns caused the deaths. Even draconian gun control laws can never deprive criminals of guns because criminals operate ex law by definition. It is already illegal to use a gun in perpetration of a crime and/or for felons to have guns. Ergo, additional gun control legislation would be redundant and could have no beneficial effect. QED and duh. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 25, 2:11*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:14:49 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 24, 1:59*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:46:27 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 23, 5:40*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html It's not about permits. According to the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. "Oh, but that's only the militia!" I hear you cry. Do you even know what "militia" means? It's every able-bodied adult citizen. The militia are YOU! So, tell me how gun control would have saved them? Remember, the crooks don't obey laws - that's why they're called crooks. Oh, wait - you already have gun control, and they got shot anyway! At least someone armed could have stopped the perps, but now they're running around loose because of gun control. So, your answer is that CCW could not have prevented the deaths of these kids, No, my point is that gun control not only didn't prevent the deaths of these kids, but also let the perps get away with it. Thanks, Rich I guess I missed the part about how gun control let them get away with it. As far as I know, nobody even knows who they are or where they are. There were no witnesses, much less witnesses with guns. And the logic that "gun control didn't prevent the deaths" is just ridiculous. Campaign finance reform didn't prevent it either, nor did global warming, swine flu, astroturf or the designated hitter. True colors showing here, *rangerssuck? "Gun control didn't prevent deaths" may not be clearly stated in context but the clear intent is not at all ridiculous. *Criminals with guns caused the deaths. *Even *draconian gun control laws *can never deprive *criminals of guns because *criminals operate ex *law by definition. * It is already illegal to use a gun in perpetration of a crime and/or *for felons to have guns. *Ergo, *additional gun control legislation would be redundant and could have *no beneficial effect. QED and duh. I wasn't aware that my true colors were ever hidden. I am, though a former NRA member and former avid target shooter (targets with round bullseyes, not human silhouettes), most certainly of the opinion that people carrying guns in urban or suburban areas is a recipe for disaster. I, personally, have seen plenty of situations where, had a gun been present, the argument could easily have escalated to a death. Of course even the most draconian gun control laws willl not deprive ALL criminals of ALL guns, but they will make the guns harder to acquire, and (possibly) prevent the casual, or would-be felon from picking one up on a whim. You'll have to go a very long way to convince me a that a five-day waiting period is a bad idea. You'll have to go even further to convince me that New Jersey's new one-gun- purchase-per-month law somehow destroys the second amendment. These two laws will (I hope) go a long way towards reducing gun violence. Further, bearing in mind that there were no witnesses to this particular shooting, how can you even suggest that a passer-by could have taken out the criminals, had they been armed? If grandma had wheels, she'd be a trolley car. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Jul 25, 1:33*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:09:32 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 24, 3:29*pm, Don Foreman wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html Thinking *more about your questions, I recalled some material I recently read *about tactics (methodology) when in a stationary *car and attack seems imminent. * Obviously, if it's possible to drive away, do so. *If it is not possible to move the car (and you are armed), *get out of the car and keep the car between you and the threat. *If/when they see that you are armed, there's a good chance that they will reconsider. *If they don't, at least you now have the ability to move *and/or *the tactical advantage of cover. * Elsewhere in the book he addresses the matter of maintaining a state of alert awareness appropriate to one's situation and surroundings. Other books also address this issue, some more thoroughly. The author noted that being in an immobile *car places one at a huge disadvantage because there is so little freedom of motion. *GET OUT OF THE CAR. * If you're interested in learning more, the book is: "Armed Response: A Comprehensive Guide to Using Firearms for Self-Defense" *by David Kenik. Available from Amazon.http://tinyurl.com/lspszd And if there are two bad guys (they do often travel in pairs), one on each side of the car? Sometimes, it seems, when you're screwed, you're screwed. So try to enjoy it? * That I do. If there are bad guys on each side of the car the occupant of the car very probably *hasn't been paying attention. * I'm guessing you haven't spent a lot of time in big cities. Self defense in a metropolitan setting *does not start with firepower, martial arts or *911. *It starts with taking some responsibility for one's own safety, * learning some basics from readily-available sources and paying attention Again, if, while in an urban area, you were constantly doing threat assessment, you'd never have time to do anything else. You HAVE to have a certain level of trust that the (unseen, unnoticed) other guy is not out to kill you. Otherwise, well, it just would be better to hide under your bed. Many want to believe that their safety is the responsibility of the government. *It is not. *The police have no obligation to "protect and serve". *Such an obligation *would be impossible to meet because *they can't be everywhere at once. *Police enforce the law by collecting evidence and apprehending suspects after crimes have been committed. That may protect *to the extent of its deterrent effect. However, it was stated earlier (not by you), that perhaps the perps in this particular case could (should) have been killed in a prior attempt. It seems, by your logic, that if there HAD been a prior attempt, the police would or should have apprehended the perps. Of course the police can't be everywhere, and who would want them to be? On the other hand, it's pretty cynical to think that makes us a lawless society where "every man for himself" is the rule of the day. Most of the time, we obey the laws not for fear of getting caught, but simply because it's the right thing to do. We have to have a certain level of trust that the "other guy" does the same. If early awareness of a threat *and attempts at evasion *fail, the remaining options are flight or fight. *Flight requires superior speed, works well if one has it. *(I don't.) * * If it comes down to fight or be maimed or killed, being armed and skilled may help. * Sure, it may help. It also may make a bad situation worse. I don't try to persuade others that being armed is a good idea for them. For many it is not. *I respect their choice either way. * And that MAY work in the midwest or in rural areas. As I said, I'm not totally against the concept, but around here, I can't imagine it doing anything good. I tried to offer thoughtful responses *to your questions but I don't care to pursue a polemic debate. *Pick yer pony, take yer ride. * Fair enough, but I'm not doing this to be difficult. I really was trying to (and have) gained some insight from the other side of this discussion. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
rangerssuck wrote:
... I, personally, have seen plenty of situations where, had a gun been present, the argument could easily have escalated to a death. ... Good point! Many years ago I was in a situation where I was so enraged that I didn't much *care* about the consequences. Violence ensued, but only to the black eye state. It's very easy for me to see how things can get very bad very quickly. Bob |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
"Don Foreman" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:14:49 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 24, 1:59 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:46:27 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 23, 5:40 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700, rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html It's not about permits. According to the Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. "Oh, but that's only the militia!" I hear you cry. Do you even know what "militia" means? It's every able-bodied adult citizen. The militia are YOU! So, tell me how gun control would have saved them? Remember, the crooks don't obey laws - that's why they're called crooks. Oh, wait - you already have gun control, and they got shot anyway! At least someone armed could have stopped the perps, but now they're running around loose because of gun control. So, your answer is that CCW could not have prevented the deaths of these kids, No, my point is that gun control not only didn't prevent the deaths of these kids, but also let the perps get away with it. Thanks, Rich I guess I missed the part about how gun control let them get away with it. As far as I know, nobody even knows who they are or where they are. There were no witnesses, much less witnesses with guns. And the logic that "gun control didn't prevent the deaths" is just ridiculous. Campaign finance reform didn't prevent it either, nor did global warming, swine flu, astroturf or the designated hitter. True colors showing here, rangerssuck? "Gun control didn't prevent deaths" may not be clearly stated in context but the clear intent is not at all ridiculous. Criminals with guns caused the deaths. Even draconian gun control laws can never deprive criminals of guns because criminals operate ex law by definition. It is already illegal to use a gun in perpetration of a crime and/or for felons to have guns. Ergo, additional gun control legislation would be redundant and could have no beneficial effect. QED and duh. I will NOT get into this discussion. No, I won't...oh, crap...g That isn't deductive reasoning, Don. There's no "QED." It's abductive reasoning: You don't have a complete set of premises and you're drawing conclusions about what they are, based on a pairing of correlative facts -- about which you have no knowledge concerning which ones may or may not be operative. For example, your hypothetical *assumes* that the motivation for criminals to obtain guns is the same, whether the laws against *general* gun ownership are strict or lax. But there is no substantial evidence for that. In fact, almost all of the evidence, from everywhere in the world, contradicts it. Where gun control is strict and strictly enforced, rates of criminal use of firearms tends to be low. whew Having gotten that off my chest g, the fact is that really strict gun control DOES correspond to very low rates of deaths by firearms. For example, most of Europe. And before you bring up Switzerland, remember that I once lived there, and can tell you that their gun control is very strict indeed. This gets back to the cultural issue that intrigues me so much, because it's clear that criminals in developed countries, who have some means and who want guns, can get them almost anywhere, but most easily in the United States. So it becomes a question of whether our criminals' culture makes them more prone to gun use, or whether it's just a matter of relative convenience: it's lot easier here to get your hands on a gun here, legally or illegally. They're all over the place and it's easy to keep re-stocking the criminal gun supply. Obviously the latter is true, but my impression (from inductive reasoning rather than deductive, so I won't claim any QEDs g) is that the cultural issue is interactive with the availability issue -- each one feeding off the other -- and that the presence of one gives rise to the other. Which implies that we're either going to vastly suppress gun ownership, or we're going to have to live with high rates of gun crime, at least until the cows come home -- and maybe until we're drinking synthetic milk and eating soyburgers, and there are no more cows. Sooner or later the comforting myths, such as the idea that carrying guns suppresses crime, will run out of steam, and we'll have to face the bald fact that we can have guns or substantially lower violent crime rates, but not both. It's something like the security-versus-liberty issue. I happen to lean strongly toward the liberty side. But then, I've never been shot at, either. -- Ed Huntress |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:42:09 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: I wasn't aware that my true colors were ever hidden. "I really am interested in this phenomenon, as it truly is foreign to me. I'd rather hear this from you, Don, as you appear to be a reasonable person who will think before giving an answer." I am, though a former NRA member and former avid target shooter (targets with round bullseyes, not human silhouettes), most certainly of the opinion that people carrying guns in urban or suburban areas is a recipe for disaster. I, personally, have seen plenty of situations where, had a gun been present, the argument could easily have escalated to a death. Could have in your opinion. Did it? Many men routinely carry a pocket knife, perhaps you do too. These men occasionally have disagreements and conflicts, perhaps you do too. Ever stabbed anyone? Most adults drive automobiles. Some experience roadrage on occasion. Perhaps you do too. Ever ram anyone or run them off the road at speed? If you'd had a gun, would you have shot at the object of your ire? Of course even the most draconian gun control laws willl not deprive ALL criminals of ALL guns, but they will make the guns harder to acquire, and (possibly) prevent the casual, or would-be felon from picking one up on a whim. You'll have to go a very long way to convince me a that a five-day waiting period is a bad idea. You'll have to go even further to convince me that New Jersey's new one-gun- purchase-per-month law somehow destroys the second amendment. These two laws will (I hope) go a long way towards reducing gun violence. While I don't have any particular objection to either of these measures, I see no rational basis for them. Criminals don't usually get their guns by legal purchase. Further, bearing in mind that there were no witnesses to this particular shooting, how can you even suggest that a passer-by could have taken out the criminals, had they been armed? If grandma had wheels, she'd be a trolley car. I suggested no such thing. It's becoming evident that this topic is foreign to you, but your interest seems to be polemic rather than inquiring. It is made quite clear in MN CCW training courses that posession of a carry permit and pistol does NOT make one a defender of others. Having wheels wouldn't make grandma a trolley car. Many elders have wheels. Some might even have a .38 under the blanket covering their knees, so mugging gramma may be a bad idea. I personally know two grandmas who have carry permits and are pretty damned good shots. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:05:38 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote: So try to enjoy it? * That I do. If there are bad guys on each side of the car the occupant of the car very probably *hasn't been paying attention. * I'm guessing you haven't spent a lot of time in big cities. I lived in Detroit for part of my childhood. I now live in a second tier suburb of Minneapolis. Self defense in a metropolitan setting *does not start with firepower, martial arts or *911. *It starts with taking some responsibility for one's own safety, * learning some basics from readily-available sources and paying attention Again, if, while in an urban area, you were constantly doing threat assessment, you'd never have time to do anything else. You HAVE to have a certain level of trust that the (unseen, unnoticed) other guy is not out to kill you. Otherwise, well, it just would be better to hide under your bed. 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. Many want to believe that their safety is the responsibility of the government. *It is not. *The police have no obligation to "protect and serve". *Such an obligation *would be impossible to meet because *they can't be everywhere at once. *Police enforce the law by collecting evidence and apprehending suspects after crimes have been committed. That may protect *to the extent of its deterrent effect. However, it was stated earlier (not by you), that perhaps the perps in this particular case could (should) have been killed in a prior attempt. It seems, by your logic, that if there HAD been a prior attempt, the police would or should have apprehended the perps. I didn't and wouldn't make that argument. Of course the police can't be everywhere, and who would want them to be? On the other hand, it's pretty cynical to think that makes us a lawless society where "every man for himself" is the rule of the day. Most of the time, we obey the laws not for fear of getting caught, but simply because it's the right thing to do. We have to have a certain level of trust that the "other guy" does the same. I do live my life with a fairly high level of such trust. However, it's not absolute. I know for a certainty that there are a few predators intent on doing the wrong thing. If early awareness of a threat *and attempts at evasion *fail, the remaining options are flight or fight. *Flight requires superior speed, works well if one has it. *(I don't.) * * If it comes down to fight or be maimed or killed, being armed and skilled may help. * Sure, it may help. It also may make a bad situation worse. What's worse than being killed or maimed? Existing law is very clear about when one may employ deadly force in self defense. It varies from state to state but the general theme is that one must reasonably believe himself to be in imminent peril of death or grave bodily injury -- and the cognizent prosecutor (and perhaps a jury) will determine after the fact if such belief was indeed reasonable. I don't try to persuade others that being armed is a good idea for them. For many it is not. *I respect their choice either way. * And that MAY work in the midwest or in rural areas. As I said, I'm not totally against the concept, but around here, I can't imagine it doing anything good. Could be, don't know. I don't know where your "here" is or what it's like. I tried to offer thoughtful responses *to your questions but I don't care to pursue a polemic debate. *Pick yer pony, take yer ride. * Fair enough, but I'm not doing this to be difficult. I really was trying to (and have) gained some insight from the other side of this discussion. |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
"rangerssuck" wrote in message ... On Jul 25, 1:33 am, Don Foreman wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:09:32 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: On Jul 24, 3:29 pm, Don Foreman wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck wrote: I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my friend's cousin: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html Thinking more about your questions, I recalled some material I recently read about tactics (methodology) when in a stationary car and attack seems imminent. Obviously, if it's possible to drive away, do so. If it is not possible to move the car (and you are armed), get out of the car and keep the car between you and the threat. If/when they see that you are armed, there's a good chance that they will reconsider. If they don't, at least you now have the ability to move and/or the tactical advantage of cover. Elsewhere in the book he addresses the matter of maintaining a state of alert awareness appropriate to one's situation and surroundings. Other books also address this issue, some more thoroughly. The author noted that being in an immobile car places one at a huge disadvantage because there is so little freedom of motion. GET OUT OF THE CAR. If you're interested in learning more, the book is: "Armed Response: A Comprehensive Guide to Using Firearms for Self-Defense" by David Kenik. Available from Amazon.http://tinyurl.com/lspszd And if there are two bad guys (they do often travel in pairs), one on each side of the car? Sometimes, it seems, when you're screwed, you're screwed. So try to enjoy it? That I do. If there are bad guys on each side of the car the occupant of the car very probably hasn't been paying attention. I'm guessing you haven't spent a lot of time in big cities. Self defense in a metropolitan setting does not start with firepower, martial arts or 911. It starts with taking some responsibility for one's own safety, learning some basics from readily-available sources and paying attention Again, if, while in an urban area, you were constantly doing threat assessment, you'd never have time to do anything else. You HAVE to have a certain level of trust that the (unseen, unnoticed) other guy is not out to kill you. Otherwise, well, it just would be better to hide under your bed. Many want to believe that their safety is the responsibility of the government. It is not. The police have no obligation to "protect and serve". Such an obligation would be impossible to meet because they can't be everywhere at once. Police enforce the law by collecting evidence and apprehending suspects after crimes have been committed. That may protect to the extent of its deterrent effect. However, it was stated earlier (not by you), that perhaps the perps in this particular case could (should) have been killed in a prior attempt. It seems, by your logic, that if there HAD been a prior attempt, the police would or should have apprehended the perps. Of course the police can't be everywhere, and who would want them to be? On the other hand, it's pretty cynical to think that makes us a lawless society where "every man for himself" is the rule of the day. Most of the time, we obey the laws not for fear of getting caught, but simply because it's the right thing to do. We have to have a certain level of trust that the "other guy" does the same. If early awareness of a threat and attempts at evasion fail, the remaining options are flight or fight. Flight requires superior speed, works well if one has it. (I don't.) If it comes down to fight or be maimed or killed, being armed and skilled may help. Sure, it may help. It also may make a bad situation worse. I don't try to persuade others that being armed is a good idea for them. For many it is not. I respect their choice either way. And that MAY work in the midwest or in rural areas. As I said, I'm not totally against the concept, but around here, I can't imagine it doing anything good. I tried to offer thoughtful responses to your questions but I don't care to pursue a polemic debate. Pick yer pony, take yer ride. Fair enough, but I'm not doing this to be difficult. I really was trying to (and have) gained some insight from the other side of this discussion. ================================================== ======= As you consider the net effects of CCW laws in the shall-issue states, keep in mind that the percentage of residents of those states who have permits, let alone those who actually carry at any given time, is rarely over 2% of the adult population. In Minnesota, for example, it's 1.48% of adults. In Don's county it's slightly higher, but it's still much lower than these discussions would lead one to believe. So there are two issues: One is that the net effects of CCW are likely to be very low, and I think it can be demonstrated that they're negligible in virtually every state that has a shall-issue CCW law; and the other is that the people on this NG are not very representative of typical adults in the places where they live, regarding the initiative they take to arm themselves. Draw what conclusions you will from the latter point. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
NJ Police state: update on pocket popper
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:03:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gun control didn't prevent deaths" may not be clearly stated in context but the clear intent is not at all ridiculous. Criminals with guns caused the deaths. Even draconian gun control laws can never deprive criminals of guns because criminals operate ex law by definition. It is already illegal to use a gun in perpetration of a crime and/or for felons to have guns. Ergo, additional gun control legislation would be redundant and could have no beneficial effect. QED and duh. I will NOT get into this discussion. No, I won't...oh, crap...g That isn't deductive reasoning, Don. There's no "QED." It's abductive reasoning: You don't have a complete set of premises and you're drawing conclusions about what they are, based on a pairing of correlative facts -- about which you have no knowledge concerning which ones may or may not be operative. For example, your hypothetical *assumes* that the motivation for criminals to obtain guns is the same, whether the laws against *general* gun ownership are strict or lax. But there is no substantial evidence for that. In fact, almost all of the evidence, from everywhere in the world, contradicts it. Where gun control is strict and strictly enforced, rates of criminal use of firearms tends to be low. I didn't assert that "gun controls didn't prevent deaths." I merely noted that the assertion isn't ridiculous. It's certainly debatable. My assertion was that, since it is already illegal to use a gun in perpetration of a crime and illegal for felons to have guns, additional gun control legislation would be redundant. I made no assumption about what might motivated criminals to obtain guns. Perhaps your point is that gun control legislation against general ownership would reduce availability of guns to criminals. By that logic, illegal drugs should not be readily available because possession of them is illegal for all. That clearly is not so. whew Having gotten that off my chest g, the fact is that really strict gun control DOES correspond to very low rates of deaths by firearms. For example, most of Europe. And before you bring up Switzerland, remember that I once lived there, and can tell you that their gun control is very strict indeed. You note that rates of criminal use of firearms tends to be low where gun control is strict and strictly enforced. Perhaps criminal use of guns is low where all criminal laws are strictly enforced. This gets back to the cultural issue that intrigues me so much, because it's clear that criminals in developed countries, who have some means and who want guns, can get them almost anywhere, but most easily in the United States. So it becomes a question of whether our criminals' culture makes them more prone to gun use, or whether it's just a matter of relative convenience: it's lot easier here to get your hands on a gun here, legally or illegally. They're all over the place and it's easy to keep re-stocking the criminal gun supply. Obviously the latter is true, but my impression (from inductive reasoning rather than deductive, so I won't claim any QEDs g) is that the cultural issue is interactive with the availability issue -- each one feeding off the other -- and that the presence of one gives rise to the other. That's abductive rather than inductive, but certainly plausible. Which implies that we're either going to vastly suppress gun ownership, or we're going to have to live with high rates of gun crime, at least until the cows come home -- and maybe until we're drinking synthetic milk and eating soyburgers, and there are no more cows. Sooner or later the comforting myths, such as the idea that carrying guns suppresses crime, will run out of steam, and we'll have to face the bald fact that we can have guns or substantially lower violent crime rates, but not both. Your implication assumes that the only way to reduce gun crime rates is to vastly suppress gun ownership. That is not at all clear, and it isn't even clear that it would work. It hasn't worked with drugs. If we have a "gun culture", and I won't argue that we don't, then laws intended to vastly suppress gun ownership will make criminals out of some citizens who are now law-abiding. What might work in Europe may not work similarly here because of the cultural differences you cite. A more direct approach would be to vastly suppress criminal use of guns in the commission of other crimes. Some research might be necessary to determine the best way to do that in the U.S. It's something like the security-versus-liberty issue. I happen to lean strongly toward the liberty side. But then, I've never been shot at, either. It is. How much of my liberty should we trade for how much more of your security -- and how can we be sure that the proposed enhancement of security will actually happen or if it's more illusory than real? As an analogy, how do I know that I am increasing my security by packing a popper at times? Frankly, I don't. It could be purely illusory. It sure as hell has no deterrent effect on crime in general. "Gee, we'd better not hold up the 7-11 because Foreman's out for a walk with his .380." Uh...right! Might be like having fire extinguishers in a slate mine. (Don't laugh, they're required in Wales) If it makes me feel safer and doesn't endanger or harm anyone else, then my liberty does not compromise your security. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter