In the interest of full disclosure, this is an NRA release. The original Plain Dealer article is linked below, as is a link to the predictable responses from people who oppose the right to carry:

"A May 15 story in The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio) serves as a good reminder of how a person’s support for gun control often changes after a personal experience with crime.

"State Representative Michael DeBose (D-12) of Cleveland was an opponent of Right-to-Carry, having voted against the measure twice. All that changed on the night of May 1, when he was confronted by two men, one of whom was wielding a gun. On that night, Rep. DeBose’s sense of security in his neighborhood changed, as did his view on lawful citizens being able to defend themselves.

"Rep. DeBose was lucky—this time—that his running, screaming, and summons for help prevented him from being harmed. When asked how this recent experience may change the prism through which he views Right-to-Carry, Rep. DeBose was crystal clear: 'I was wrong. I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife. I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family. I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one. There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent.'

"We welcome Rep. DeBose to the growing list of Right-to-Carry converts. While it is too bad it took a life-threatening situation to convert him, we hope he will share his experience, and his newfound respect for the right to self-defense, with his other colleagues who still don’t get it. It is our hope they won’t have to endure a similar experience to do so."


Run-in changes lawmaker's stance

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2

Lawmaker who's packin' doesn't solve a thing

http://www.cleveland.com/letters/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179649933169080.xml&coll=2

To me, it's common sense. The only ones who obey gun-control laws are those who respect the law in the first place. Gun control ensures that the only ones with guns are the criminals. Law-abiding citizens have a constitutional and practical right to defend themselves against those who don't abide by the law, and our elected officials should defend that right. That's my belief.

Regards,

Ron

To me, it's common sense. The only ones who obey gun-control laws are those who respect the law in the first place. Gun control ensures that the only ones with guns are the criminals. Law-abiding citizens have a constitutional and practical right to defend themselves against those who don't abide by the law, and our elected officials should defend that right. That's my belief.

Regards,

Ron


...any more complex or difficult to explain than that. Never has been. Never will be.


Good post.

Good post. Maybe we need to put all of our Congressional Representatives into parts of the city where they will run into similar situations. We'll have a whole bunch of converts. :clap:

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.

Good post. Maybe we need to put all of our Congressional Representatives into parts of the city where they will run into similar situations. We'll have a whole bunch of converts. :clap:

...you mean the congressional representatives with their own police force, those ones?

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.

...you ever been robbed? Ever been car jacked? Ever do anyone of those things to someone else?

I'm just curious.

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.

That may or may not be the case depending on where you look... but there's one thing that's damn certain - taking guns off the streets in Washington D.C. and New York City hasn't made the streets any safer either. So I guess what it all comes down to is if you, personally, want to be safe.

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will. Plain fact is, taking guns away from the law abiding citizen hasn't made it any more safe either. How about we try it the other way. Give guns to the law abiding citizens, shoot more criminals, and maybe we'll be a little safer. Do you think maybe more dead criminals might equal more live citizens? :whistle:

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.
Could you provide a source for this information? It goes against common sense, so I'm sure you're relating to a study performed or something.....

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.Actually it has... spent some time in Florida in the 80's post-carry enactment. Made areas you'd never think of walking in after dark nice and safe throughout the night.

I appreciate your concerns. Here is the opinion of a nationally syndicated columnist who once shared your point of view. Also in the opinion piece is the perspective of another right-to-carry opponent who admitted she was wrong in her view:

================================================================

April 30, 2007, 0:00 a.m.

Feeling Safe Isn’t Safe
Virginia Tech’s “gun-free zone” was not gun-free

By Michael Barone


The murders two weeks ago at Virginia Tech naturally set off a cry in the usual quarters — the New York Times, the London-based Economist — for stricter gun-control laws. Democratic officeholders didn’t chime in, primarily because they believe they were hurt by the issue in 2000 and 2004, but most privately agree.

What most discussions of this issue tend to ignore is that we have two tracks of political debate and two sets of laws on gun control. At the federal level, there has been a push for more gun-control laws since John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and some modest restrictions have been passed. At the state level, something entirely different has taken place.

In 1987, Florida passed a law allowing citizens who could demonstrate that they were law-abiding and had sufficient training to obtain permits on demand to own and carry concealed weapons. In the succeeding 20 years, many other states have passed such laws, so that today you can, if you meet the qualifications, carry concealed weapons in 40 states with 67 percent of the nation’s population (including Vermont, with no gun restrictions at all).

When Florida passed its concealed-weapons law, I thought it was a terrible idea. People would start shooting each other over traffic altercations; parking lots would turn into shooting galleries. Not so, it turned out. Only a very, very few concealed-weapons permits have been revoked. There are only rare incidents in which people with concealed-weapons permits have used them unlawfully. Ordinary law-abiding people, it turns out, are pretty trustworthy.

I’m not the only one to draw such a conclusion. When she was Michigan’s attorney general, Democrat Jennifer Granholm opposed the state’s concealed-weapons law, which took effect in 2001. But now, as governor, she’s not seeking its repeal. She says that her fears — like those I had about Florida’s law 20 years ago — proved to be unfounded.

So far as I know, there are no politically serious moves to repeal any state’s concealed-weapons laws. In most of the United States, as you go to work, shop at the mall, go to restaurants, and walk around your neighborhood, you do so knowing that some of the people you pass by may be carrying a gun. You may not even think about it. But that’s all right. Experience has shown that these people aren’t threats.

Virginia has a concealed-weapons law. But Virginia Tech was, by the decree of its administrators, a “gun-free zone.” Those with concealed-weapons permits were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they did. A bill was introduced in the state House of Delegates to allow permit-holders to carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator hailed the action and said that students, professors and visitors would now “feel safe” on campus.

Tragically, they weren’t safe. Virginia Tech’s “gun-free zone” was not gun-free. In contrast, killers on other campuses were stopped by faculty or bystanders who had concealed-weapons permits and brandished their guns to stop the killing.

We may hear more about gun control at the national level. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

Judge Laurence Silberman’s strong opinion argues that this is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a 1939 case upholding a federal law banning sawed-off shotguns. Limited regulation is allowed, Silberman wrote, but not a total ban. Somewhere on the road between a law banning possession of nuclear weapons and banning all guns, the Second Amendment stands in the way. This is the view as well of the liberal constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe. The Supreme Court may take the case, which is in conflict with other circuits’ rulings.

If it upholds the D.C. decision, there is still room for reasonable gun regulation. The mental-health ruling on the Virginia Tech killer surely should have been entered into the instant-check database to prevent him from buying guns. The National Rifle Association is working with gun-control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.), to improve that database.

But even as we fine-tune laws to make sure guns don’t get into the wrong hands, maybe the opinion elites will realize that in places where gun ownership is widespread, we’re safer than in a “gun-free zone.”

© 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.
You're going to have to post a fact or two to make me believe you, preferably with some numbers attached by a reliable source to make me believe that. If you can't show facts, it's an opinion, and we all know what good those are.

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.

Just another drive by that he won't provide any proof of, like always.

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.

I am curious on why you think this.

Do you think the average man is not capable of controlling himself once he has a gun?

Do you think criminals will care about breaking a gun law if they don't care about shooting someone in the first place?


My thought is it only takes one gun (in the wrong hands) to make things bad. Nobody will be his equal, as shown in VA Tech, if nobody else has a gun. This criminal has all the power. Now if trustworthy people have equal power we have a system of checks and balances. If I was in Blacksburg that day I sure would have wanted to have a gun on me.

That may or may not be the case depending on where you look... but there's one thing that's damn certain - taking guns off the streets in Washington D.C. and New York City hasn't made the streets any safer either. So I guess what it all comes down to is if you, personally, want to be safe.


...point. You still owe me a dollar for Hillary.

I am curious on why you think this.

Do you think the average man is not capable of controlling himself once he has a gun?

Do you think criminals will care about breaking a gun law if they don't care about shooting someone in the first place?


My thought is it only takes one gun (in the wrong hands) to make things bad. Nobody will be his equal, as shown in VA Tech, if nobody else has a gun. This criminal has all the power. Now if trustworthy people have equal power we have a system of checks and balances. If I was in Blacksburg that day I sure would have wanted to have a gun on me.

...it's another perfectly rational response to the totalitarian need for control over what people might do in the face of what they do...do.

:jameo:

On the discussion of more guns making society safer, what I have seen in Florida is that a well-armed populace is much safer. This is not because criminals are afraid to attacks us and have changed their ways, but because they are afraid to attack us and move their operations to an area that's less well armed.

My opinion is, as it has been, that we need less criminals and not more guns to be safe. Unfortunately, as a people we lack the guts to do what needs to be done, i.e., kill the violent predators amongst us... those 5% or so of us, who commit 95% of the violent crimes. Granted you won't stop all violent crimes, but sure will take a huge bite out of the numbers.

SNIP


But even as we fine-tune laws to make sure guns don’t get into the wrong hands, maybe the opinion elites will realize that in places where gun ownership is widespread, we’re safer than in a “gun-free zone.”

© 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


:yeahthat: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay:

an experiment:
We allow ...
former military (retired/honorable discharge)
former Police (retired, medical disability, 10 year vets...)
former Park Rangers (retired, medical disability, 10 year vets)

to carry concealed by just stopping in to the local State Police station for a quick weapons inspection and a signed career check.-10 minutes: out the door with permission to carry anywhere in America.

Suddenly 10,000,000 more people who have protected our citizens before are ready to do it again. Can we try this for 1 year and see what happens?

The only problem with this is the Liberal judges who will throw the book at the first vet who nails a felon in action. I can hear him now..."We will not tolerate this Clint Eastwood vigilante justice in the streets of San Francisco."

an experiment:
We allow ...


...experiment;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...much easier to administer.

Think I'll head out to Sanner's Lake this Memorial Day and pratice some arms control.
Ed

an experiment:
We allow ...
former military (retired/honorable discharge)
former Police (retired, medical disability, 10 year vets...)
former Park Rangers (retired, medical disability, 10 year vets)

to carry concealed by just stopping in to the local State Police station for a quick weapons inspection and a signed career check.-10 minutes: out the door with permission to carry anywhere in America.

Speaking as a vet I would say that there are a LOT of vets who I wasn't comfortable being around when they were armed when they were on active duty, so I can just imagine how I would feel knowing they were armed and amongst the general public. Having worn a uniform doesn't make someone an expert on self defense anymore that it makes them an expert at anything else.

The thing to do is not to arm more people, but to execute the criminals.

The thing to do is not to arm more people, but to execute the criminals.

Yeah right, as long as there are people out there with weapons (including everything that can kill), I will want my loved ones and myself armed and able to defend themselves.

As for the Second Amendment, it IS more about keeping weaponry to defend against a government that turns tyranical (us defending our Constitution) than specifically for self-defence of person.

If a person is a danger to themselves or others, they should not be free to be amongst society, if they are free to walk the streets, then they should be able to arm themselves as they see fit as free men (and women). Restricting guns is restricting freedom!

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.

Oh, and Forestidiot, Shut UP! Your Stupid.

As for the Second Amendment, it IS more about keeping weaponry to defend against a government that turns tyranical (us defending our Constitution) than specifically for self-defence of person.



...because the founders knew that the people would want and need guidance as to our common principles; we, the people have the right to overthrow our government if we get sick of it and you need power to overthrow power, thus a legal, imbedded principle of the right to keep and bare arms.

What the founders did not anticipate is that common sense would come under fire. Obviously, if you can overthrow your federal government, by doctrine, by force, then that extends to the state government as well. How else can you even be part of a militia if you are unarmed? And why would they subsume the people to be forever under a lesser government, the states, when the intent was to be able to throw off the larger government?

The answer is they would not; it is WE, THE PEOPLE, whether it's the first amendment or the last and states are collections of people, not some self actualized non human entity.

The founders also did not deem it necesary to say that indivduals were free to breathe air anymore than they felt compelled to spell out a right to defend oneself.

More guns on the street has never made society a safer place. Never has and never will.
You are wrong, but there is nothing unusual about that.

Its 2am and your home asleep. Your suddenly awaken by glass breaking downstairs and instinctively reach for your .22 pistol stashed in the closet but realise its no longer there since the Gov had just recently took away your right to own it.

Criminal: 1
Citizen: 0


Its far better to own a gun and never have to use then to suddenly wish you had one. Not a surmone, just a thought.

Its 2am and your home asleep. Your suddenly awaken by glass breaking downstairs and instinctively reach for your .22 pistol stashed in the closet but realize its no longer there since the Gov had just recently took away your right to own it.

Criminal: 1
Citizen: 0


Its far better to own a gun and never have to use then to suddenly wish you had one. Not a sermon, just a thought.


come come now, your confusing Forestool's fantasy world with reality .......... :poke: of course the police would be right their in the front yrd watching the house ....... (after all you'd be on some subversive list for having ever owned a gun in the 1st place) if not in an Re Education Camp .........

oh silly me I am just paranoid ......... :lmao:

...because the founders knew that the people would want and need guidance as to our common principles; we, the people have the right to overthrow our government if we get sick of it and you need power to overthrow power, thus a legal, imbedded principle of the right to keep and bare arms.

What the founders did not anticipate is that common sense would come under fire. Obviously, if you can overthrow your federal government, by doctrine, by force, then that extends to the state government as well. How else can you even be part of a militia if you are unarmed? And why would they subsume the people to be forever under a lesser government, the states, when the intent was to be able to throw off the larger government?

The answer is they would not; it is WE, THE PEOPLE, whether it's the first amendment or the last and states are collections of people, not some self actualized non human entity.

The founders also did not deem it necesary to say that indivduals were free to breathe air anymore than they felt compelled to spell out a right to defend oneself.

Absolutely Larry, Good summation!

FANTASY & WEAPONRY
By Kurt Saxon
A pistol for the bedroom,
A shotgun over the door,
A 30-06 for reaching out;
You don't need any more.


If an intruder makes it to your bedroom, shoot him with the pistol. If he's trying to break in, use the shotgun. If he is fifty yards or more away and shooting at you, pick him off with the 30-06.

This is the real Survivalist's arsenal; basic, inexpensive, effective. So why all the promotion of rapid-fire weapons? If you aim at a man and don't hit him, he' going to move, and probably shoot you. Banging away in the same general direction is just a senseless waste of ammo. You need practice, not rapid-fire. You also need a realistic attitude, not a fantasy.

But fantasy sells. There is big money in Macho. The more awesome your weapon looks and sounds, the tougher and sexier you look. Girls get off on rapid-fire. It's the Freudian part of the package.

The Rambo Survivalist image being sold to neurotics is making weapons dealers rich. It is also showing the profound ignorance of weapons among the general public.

To know guns, you must understand the three basic methods of shooting; sweeping, pointing and aiming.

Sweeping is with rapid-fire. Its main purpose is to dispatch several enemies before one can shoot you. Such confrontations are unlikely in any actual civil conflict. Raiders don't bunch up. There would be no point to it. Of course, if you are the raider you would have a better chance wiping out a couple and two or three children if you have a rapid fire weapon.

Sweeping is also anticipated in cases of moving targets. Proficiency with the shotgun will do more damage to the moving target than expert use of rapid-fire.

There is a psychological disadvantage to dependency on a rapid-fire weapon. One tends to sweep or just bang away ineffectually. It is the nature of the weapon and a case of the weapon controlling the man.

An example is a commercial for a TV crime story. One of the heroes bursts into the room and says, "I just had an Uzi emptied on me outside". Obviously, the character with the Uzi swept, did not aim or even point. At least 20 shots and nothing. Of course, it was fiction. But that kind of shooting is becoming acceptable.

If an automatic weapon is shifted one and a half feet, in 20 or more yards, the bullets are spaced several feet apart. You could empty a clip on several people and not hit one. The nut who unloaded several clips of an AK-47 at a crowd of 35 children in Stockton only killed five. What if he had had a rifle and had to aim? What if he had had a shotgun and had to point? Couldn't he see his sweeps were ineffective?

He was crazy but he wasn't blind! He knew how to operate the weapon. But he was psyched up with the glamor image of that weapon. He was not controlling that weapon; it was controlling him.

Another TV segment was on the Gulf. Here were all these troops practicing, banging away at a dune, fully automatic, as usual. I only hope the Iraqis are on full-auto. I wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.

Yet another segment was at a California shooting range. It told how the state had 300,000 assault weapons owners but only 15,000 had registered as ordered.

There were about ten men banging away on semi-auto, as fast as they could shoot. They were all pointing, as they were shooting too fast to correct aim.

I suppose they were all wealthy, as ammo costs a lot. Whatever practicality there might be in such weapons, only the wealthy can afford them.

Watching those men, I could see that their practice was ineffective. The targets were only 10 to 15 yards away. No proficiency can be gained by simply banging away at a stationary target from a distance at which one only has to point.

Watching them reminded me of the reason for the arming of all the American forces with rapid-fire weapons. During the Korean War it was found that only one in nineteen soldiers would fire his rifle. They were mostly uniformed civilians in a no-win war and didn't want to get killed. So they would just hunker down and try to ignore the Chinese. Having Garands, which demanded aiming, put them at risk of getting a bullet in the face.

So by the time the Vietnam fiasco rolled around the boys all had the confidence-giving, noise-making M-16s. They were effective enough for jungle fighting where one could not aim anyway, even if he knew how to shoot. It didn't matter, however, since the other side had AK-47s; just as worthless. Of course, there were plenty enough bombs and napalm to keep the VC's numbers manageable and most U.S. losses were due to booby-traps. So a rifleman was about as useful as nipples on a boar.

I know it is hard to believe that glamor weapons with all their sound and fury, are more hype than effect. However, if one of their proud owners has it out with any practiced hunter with any rifle, the hunter will win.

Now we come to pointing. Apart from shooting at flying ducks, the shotgun is mainly for pointing. Man-killing shot is from #4 to 00 buckshot. (Single 0 buckshot has 12 .30 caliber pellets per round). The best killing range is up to 50 yards.

The 12 gauge shotgun is the most devastating hand-held weapon. Few people realize how really terrible the shotgun is. The Geneva Convention bans its use in war but police use it. It was also preferred in Vietnam over regulation arms, even though a soldier's family had to send it to him.

A buckshot pellet does not have the penetrative force of any bullet of equal diameter because it is round and not as heavy as the longer bullet. Buckshot is also fired at lower velocities than bullets.



:whistle:

But they still inflict wounds of maximum size, induce considerable shock and hemorrhage. Also, when two or more pellets hit, their total effect on the victim is as the square of the number of hits, not just an additive progression; that is, two hits equal four times the effect of one hit, three hits equal nine times that effect, and so on. If the victim is hit by three Single 0 buckshot pellets it is the same as if he had been hit by nine .30 caliber Carbine rounds.

For the combat shotgun, it is best to take a hacksaw and cut the barrel down to the legal 18 inches. This gives it a slightly wider shot pattern and makes it a little more maneuverable.

Rapid-fire, semi-auto from an assault weapon has no greater killing range than does the shotgun. And since the shotgun must be pointed, and the shot pattern is wider, multiple hits per target are surer than with any assault weapon.

Next in pointing, is the pistol. Beyond a few feet you want a shotgun or a rifle. Aiming a pistol is possible, but only with practice. Practice, however, has made some pistol shooters as deadly at long range as shot gunners or riflemen.

The American Rifleman article, "Debunking The Debunkers", reprinted in US MILITIA Issue 1, tells what can be done with a pistol. Read it. For the most part, the pistol is for close quarters.

You ought to own a pistol and it should be a .38 Police Special with a six inch barrel. I recommend a revolver over an automatic, since the revolver has fewer parts to malfunction. And if you don't think the .38 has stopping power, you just don't realize what you can do when you practice. You may have been fantasizing over glory guns, the most popular of which is the .45 automatic. Read the aforementioned article.

Several years ago I was in a Los Angeles gun shop. A plain-clothes officer was at the counter talking to the dealer. The dealer stepped back into an alcove and reached up to a shelf. A shot rang out. The gun the dealer had reached for had fallen butt-first and discharged. Before the sound registered with me the officer had his pistol drawn. Naturally, there was no threat. His action was pure reflex. That cop was fast!

In the same time period, there was a funeral for a police officer fallen in the line of duty. The media covered the funeral and some dummy exploded a bomb outside the funeral home as the attending officers were assembling. The newspaper featured the frame of the newsreel of the explosion. In it was an officer with his revolver half-way drawn out of his holster! Both the accidental discharge and the explosion caught on film showed the reflexes of these men to be a tiny fraction of a second each. So you can believe the examples of speed in the article.

Also, if you practice and so become as proficient as those two officers, both in speed and instinct aiming, you can be sure of a fatal hit before your opponent can even touch his own weapon.

For the .38 revolver, I recommend the six inch barrel over the two or four inch. This is because of the barrel's rifling. The rifling gives the bullet its spin, which keeps it on course. The longer the barrel, the more the rifling and hence the more spin. The more spin, the greater the accuracy. A six inch barrel gives enough spin to guarantee about as much accuracy as you will need when using your pistol.

The glamor weapon among pistols is the automatic, especially the .45. It is heavier, bulkier and more than twice as expensive as the .38. Its main claim to fame is its stopping power. But a well-placed bullet is a greater guarantee of stopping power than a bullet's size. And as the article shows, speed comes with practice. Reliance in mechanics over skill leads to overconfidence. Many glamor gun fantasizers are going to die when they confront a foe who has mastered his weapon.

You may know of whole police departments adopting .357 Magnums or automatics. Maybe their chief watched too much TV. Again, skill with a basic weapon is better than reliance on mechanics or power. The punk spraying lead is no match for a cop skilled with his .38.

Now for aiming. The reason for aiming is to hit the target at a greater distance than is practical for pointing. A rifleman hits everything he aims at. A macho fool just bangs away with a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing; except the deserved death of the ignorant.

Unfortunately, few people aim today. They have mistaken multiple loud reports for damage. One has but to watch newsreels of Arab-Christian conflicts in Lebanon, closeup coverage of the fire fights in Vietnam, the results of drive-by shootings in Los Angeles, etc., to see that moderns simply are not learning to shoot accurately. The discrepancy between shots fired and clean kills is appalling. Our honored WW II dead are spinning in their graves!

Aside from a shotgun or pistol, one should not own a gun not designed for aimed hits. Anyone who advertises such a gun should be boycotted as a traitor to his country. Those who decry the deaths of little children should shame the incompetents but not spare the sellers of weapons which flatter such ineptitude.

I got a laugh from a news report some time ago. A character named T. J. Johnston in California, an anti-gun-registration-protester, was burning his order to register his assault weapon. His cronies were banging away at some targets ten yards away with more assault weapons. No rifleman would waste ammo shooting at a target that close.

If he goes to jail he might have time to reflect that one rifleman with an M1 30-06 Garand could wipe out his whole flock. He might also reflect that a well-regulated militia made up of private citizens proficient in the use of real weapons would have no fear of gun confiscation.

Have you ever heard of Sergeant Alvin York? You have probably seen the movie, starring Gary Cooper. York was a conscientious objector. But when his friends were dropping like flies he reacted. A hillbilly, he was a trained hunter from childhood.

He first worked his way around the enemy's flank. He was armed with a 1903 30-06 bolt-action Springfield and a pistol. He killed 20 Germans and captured l32. Of course, few of those captured knew it was a one-man job. The point is, he could shoot! He killed 20 men with one well-placed bullet each. He had no need for rapid-fire. He knew that every time he aimed and fired a man was dead.

Most American and German soldiers at that time, with their bolt-action Springfields and Mausers could also shoot. They had to work those bolts and correct every time they fired. And there were men actually trying to kill them all the while! There was no getting around their having to know how to aim and shoot. No room for fantasy.

Among the best combat rifles ever made is the WW II U.S. M1 30-06 Garand. It is a semi-auto with a 1,000 yard effective killing range. It holds only eight rounds so there is no tendency to bang away at a single target.

However, don't discount the bolt-action rifle. After aiming and firing, the bolt is worked as the gun is reaimed, so no time is lost. Most good military and hunting rifles are bolt-action anyway.

You might be tempted to buy the most expensive rifle. But it is best to buy the most common, the tried and true, the least flashy.

Pause a minute to reflect; if you were driving cross-country on a very important trip, would you choose a common car or a sports model? Of course, you would look grand in the sportster. But if getting there were the only important consideration, you would want the reliability, and serviceability of your dependable standard model over the object of your fantasies.

The same goes for civilian combat. You may fantasize owning an expensive rapid-fire gun, mowing down raiders with ten slugs in each. It looks great in the movies, but why use 10 bullets where one would do? Besides, raiders won't bunch up and charge. They will fan out, using what cover is available, and you will have to pick them off one by one.

Now, if in your fantasies, you used a 30-06, preferably an M1 Garand, and could shoot, you could make your fantasies pay off. Then, with practice in making every bullet count, you could defend your territory against any number of predators.

So if you must fantasize about weapons, fantasize being a better shot than any thieving parasite. Fantasize putting one well-placed bullet into every looter with the stupidity to set foot in your community.

:whistle:

Its 2am and your home asleep. Your suddenly awaken by glass breaking downstairs and instinctively reach for your .22 pistol stashed in the closet...

Its far better to own a gun and never have to use then to suddenly wish you had one. Not a surmone, just a thought.

That's funny because I've used a similar scenario in my self-defense training since the late 1970s. It's amazing how many people actually share this fantasy of grabbing up a gun and sallying forth to confront the evil villian, and I have to chuckle every time I hear it.

Here's the reality of life. Scenario 1 (worst case): It's 2AM and you're asleep. Odds are you're sound asleep in the master bedroom with the door closed and you don't hear anything when the criminal enters the house. The criminal steals what he wants and leaves, or the rapist comes into the bedroom and the victim knows nothing until they are grabbed. In either case, even if the resident does awaken, it takes about a minute before their mind awakens enough to take any real action and by then it's too late. Most of the time you just wake up and find a lot of your stuff is gone.

Scenario 2 (most common): It's 2AM and you're asleep. The sound of your dog or burglar alarm going off wakes you up. It takes about a minute to realize that it's not your alarm clock you're hearing, or that Fido isn't ticked about a rabbit in the back yard, and you get out of bed and grab your weapon. By this time 99% of criminals have already taken off the second the mayhem first started, and you get to walk downstairs and see the broken window and call the cops. About 30-40 minutes later they show up, take your report, and you go to Ace Hardware the next day.

Scenario 3 (least desireable): It's 2AM and you're asleep. The sound of your dog or burglar alarm going off wakes you up. It takes about a minute to realize that it's not your alarm clock you're hearing, or that Fido isn't ticked about a rabbit in the back yard, and you get out of bed and grab your weapon. This time you're stuck with the 1% of criminals who are highly aggressive and want to confront you. You start working your way through the house, turning lights on as you go (or yikes!!! using a "tactical" flashlight) and informing the criminal of where you are so he can plan an ambush, take your weapon, and make you his playtoy until he pops you in the head (if you're lucky).

Scenario 4 (best case): It's 2AM and you're asleep. The sound of your dog or burglar alarm going off wakes you up. It takes about a minute to realize that it's not your alarm clock you're hearing, or that Fido isn't ticked about a rabbit in the back yard, and you get out of bed and call the police. You grab your weapon, gather your family into a room with minimal entry points, and defend your ground until you hear the sirens and the cops are knocking at your door. You put your weapon back in the rack and let the cops find the broken window or the aggressive criminal. Then you go back to sleep and go to Ace the next day.

Step one should always be Call The Police. You're going to have to call them anyway to file a report, so why not call the calvary in as soon as you know there's a problem? The worst thing someone can do is go wnadering around the homestead with a gun looking for bad guys. Let the cops handle that while you hole up and wait.

That's funny because I've used a similar scenario in my self-defense training since the late 1970s. It's amazing how many people actually share this fantasy of grabbing up a gun and sallying forth to confront the evil villian, and I have to chuckle every time I hear it.

Here's the reality of life. Scenario 1 (worst case): It's 2AM and you're asleep. Odds are you're sound asleep in the master bedroom with the door closed and you don't hear anything when the criminal enters the house. The criminal steals what he wants and leaves, or the rapist comes into the bedroom and the victim knows nothing until they are grabbed. In either case, even if the resident does awaken, it takes about a minute before their mind awakens enough to take any real action and by then it's too late. Most of the time you just wake up and find a lot of your stuff is gone.

Scenario 2 (most common): It's 2AM and you're asleep. The sound of your dog or burglar alarm going off wakes you up. It takes about a minute to realize that it's not your alarm clock you're hearing, or that Fido isn't ticked about a rabbit in the back yard, and you get out of bed and grab your weapon. By this time 99% of criminals have already taken off the second the mayhem first started, and you get to walk downstairs and see the broken window and call the cops. About 30-40 minutes later they show up, take your report, and you go to Ace Hardware the next day.

Scenario 3 (least desireable): It's 2AM and you're asleep. The sound of your dog or burglar alarm going off wakes you up. It takes about a minute to realize that it's not your alarm clock you're hearing, or that Fido isn't ticked about a rabbit in the back yard, and you get out of bed and grab your weapon. This time you're stuck with the 1% of criminals who are highly aggressive and want to confront you. You start working your way through the house, turning lights on as you go (or yikes!!! using a "tactical" flashlight) and informing the criminal of where you are so he can plan an ambush, take your weapon, and make you his playtoy until he pops you in the head (if you're lucky).

Scenario 4 (best case): It's 2AM and you're asleep. The sound of your dog or burglar alarm going off wakes you up. It takes about a minute to realize that it's not your alarm clock you're hearing, or that Fido isn't ticked about a rabbit in the back yard, and you get out of bed and call the police. You grab your weapon, gather your family into a room with minimal entry points, and defend your ground until you hear the sirens and the cops are knocking at your door. You put your weapon back in the rack and let the cops find the broken window or the aggressive criminal. Then you go back to sleep and go to Ace the next day.

Step one should always be Call The Police. You're going to have to call them anyway to file a report, so why not call the calvary in as soon as you know there's a problem? The worst thing someone can do is go wnadering around the homestead with a gun looking for bad guys. Let the cops handle that while you hole up and wait.

Pretty much right on other than a couple things that you didn't either think of or mention.

-I am personally not calling the cops right away, I'll have my SO do that while I grap my handgun and get my little boy, then bring him back with us and hole up with a long gun.

-There was a thread a while back were we talked about the advantages of having a tactical light to search your house with. I could go either way and it is really situation dependent but if I know someone for sure is in my house I am not going to go seeking them out so the light doesn't come into play here. The other case is if you hear a "bump in the night" and you go to check to see what it is, in this case I am probably taking my handgun that has a mounted light and only using the light if I feel it is really a must.

BTW- I read a story last week and it happen somewhere in New England but an off duty cop shot his own daughter in their house. She is a late teen and had snuck out the house to see her boyfriend. When she re-entered she set off the flood light motion sensor which woke her father up. He went down to check it out and notced the door was ajar, he saw a dark figure in the shadows, didn't indentify his target and shot his own daughter. Luckily for both of them it wasn't fatal. Weapon or hand held light may of been helpful in this situation.

...didn't indentify his target and shot his own daughter. Luckily for both of them it wasn't fatal. Weapon or hand held light may of been helpful in this situation.


...what the report says. :lmao:

...what the report says. :lmao:

Either way, bet she won't be sneaking out again.

There was a thread a while back were we talked about the advantages of having a tactical light to search your house with.

I missed that thread. Flashlights are the WORST THING YOU CAN HAVE! Flashlights are like radar... they tend to tell your enemy more than they tell you. You need to place the light beam on the bad guy to see him (or her), but the bad guy only needs to see your light strike anything to know you're coming, path of travel, etc., and to evade or plan an ambush.

Your idea of the SO calling is fine. Just let the cops do the room to room, not you.

Hey I don't care who you are if you put your gun back in the gun rack and wait for the cops, you might as well just go downstairs pull down your pants and grab your ankles.

Phone the cops, get your family together in one room, lock the door, and keep that shotgun at the ready till the cops arrive.


On the same note if we are going to keep dangerous things out of law abiding citizens hands, lets ban these superbikes!!!

I missed that thread. Flashlights are the WORST THING YOU CAN HAVE! Flashlights are like radar... they tend to tell your enemy more than they tell you. You need to place the light beam on the bad guy to see him (or her), but the bad guy only needs to see your light strike anything to know you're coming, path of travel, etc., and to evade or plan an ambush.

Your idea of the SO calling is fine. Just let the cops do the room to room, not you.

Bru,

With all due respect, did you read my post?

I don't plan on doing room clearing in my own home with my family there to protect. I was talking about normal bumbs in the night that happen time to time that you might go investigate knowing it was probably just a unlatched storm door.


I have trained on CQB some and there are times when a weapon mounted lights are priceless, knowing when and when not to use it is the key. As far as using it with a known intruder in my home that, like I said, would not be the time I would use one as I will be holed up trained on one door.

Either way, bet she won't be sneaking out again.


...more than I should. This story should give everyone pause and pause again as to what's on the line when you think something might be going wrong.

IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET BEFORE YOUR FINGER TOUCHES THAT TRIGGER.

I think I'd rather be a split second late and be right yet dead than a split second to soon and wrong and my child dead.

...more than I should. This story should give everyone pause and pause again as to what's on the line when you think something might be going wrong.

IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET BEFORE YOUR FINGER TOUCHES THAT TRIGGER.

I think I'd rather be a split second late and be right yet dead than a split second to soon and wrong and my child dead.
My kids were instructed to hit the floor if there was a commotion. Getting the family together in one room is not always practical. A common point of defense is good; hallway or other defensible position. In our case, there would be more than one firearm trained in the direction of possible attack.

And as is the case in most things, training makes for better results. We shoot more often than the Sheriff's Deputies.

My kids were instructed to hit the floor if there was a commotion. Getting the family together in one room is not always practical. A common point of defense is good; hallway or other defensible position. In our case, there would be more than one firearm trained in the direction of possible attack.

And as is the case in most things, training makes for better results. We shoot more often than the Sheriff's Deputies.

...I need to do that, walk through some 'what if's'. So far, if there's fire or home invasion the only things I'm sure that would be defended are hair dryers and I pods.

Of course, if anyone is that brave, let 'em come on. :lmao:

...I need to do that, walk through some 'what if's'. So far, if there's fire or home invasion the only things I'm sure that would be defended are hair dryers and I pods.

Of course, if anyone is that brave, let 'em come on. :lmao:
but don't touch my hair dryer. :lmao: