From: rsiatl!jgd@stiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Pistol home defense tactics
Keywords: defense, handgun
Date: 17 Jun 89 17:07:46 GMT

In article <28503@ism780c.isc.com> kris@pnet02.cts.com (Kris Means) writes:
>In article <28316@ism780c.isc.com> gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Gregory A.
>Hooten) writes:
>>I  would like to start a discussion of tactics for  home  defense
>
>When I first read Greg's article, it made me recoil in horror.
>
[ stuff deleted]
>
>Counting your shots:
>
>Don't even try.  In a stressful firefight situation, twenty-year
>police veterans can't even keep track of how many rounds they've
>fired out of 5 shot revolvers.  Do you think I'll be able to know
>what I've got left in my P226?  Instead, you should be concentrating
>on things like cover.
                ^^^^^

AMEN brother!!  Kinda hard to return all 50 rounds of your high-zoot
Mega-Leadthrower when you yourself  have taken 2 or 3 in the chest while
hiding behind the sheetrock wall.

>Reloading:
>
>NEVER try to partially reload.  You cannot gingerly pick out the
>two fired cases and replace them with fresh rounds in a firefight.
>Advising someone to try this stupid maneuver is irresponsible.
>Taking your revolver with 4 rounds left out of battery during a
>firefight is even more stupid and will get you killed.  I can't
>believe someone even posted this.  I won't even comment on the
>magazine in the pinkie statement.

I second and third that motion!!  Actually I'm having a hard time
imagining a scenario, other than after the revolution starts and we
fight the cops, where more than a couple of shots would be fired by
a citizen.  Sure you could imagine a situation where you were attacked
by a drug-crazed biker gang but more likely is the case where you
confront a robber in your home or a mugger on the street.  2 well placed
shots will finish the job in most cases.

If you do get in a fire fight, you are at a distinct disadvantage in any
case.   Your opponent (assuming YOU did not precipitate the confrontation)
will likely be controlling the situation or at least  the pace.  He (they)
will will probably be much more used to confrontation than you the law
abiding citizen.  Best recourse is to avoid getting in situations that
might lead to the confrontation in the first place.  (Flipping off the
leader of said bike gang is definitely out!)

>Ok, so you want to learn about defensive shooting techniques.
>
>         1. Get the book "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob.

[ books and magazines deleted.]

>As you can probably tell by now, I think that Massad Ayoob is the
>foremost authority on the techniques of the use, and legal defenses
>of using a firearm for self-protection.

Well Massad writes well but sometimes I think he spends too much time
behind the typewriter.  He does have good advice on occasion.  A bit
too much slanted toward law enforcement sometimes.  A cop has such
things as IA, the chief and the politicians to worry about when he
shoots.  A private citizen MAY have to defend himself in court but
the odds are generally in his favor assuming the shoot was a good one.

In my past existance (2  years ago), I was a reserver cop and a training
officer for a county police department - a win-win situation where
I got to play cop while retaining the earnings of a computer engineer
consultant :-)  I gained the benefit of the training and experience but
I'll always remember the advice given me by a chief one time.  He said
"Always shoot first and make SURE the perp was armed" (throwdown gun in
other words).  Which should let you know where a cop's mind is if you
ever have an encounter with one.

One of the best things anyone can do toward effective self-defence after
taking a police or NRA-sponsored course is to shoot in a PPC or IPSC match.
No, not one of those where you have to have a $5000 gun to qualify.
I mean one of the local gun club matches held outdoors on a simulated
street course.   The experience of sweeping a house is sobering.
Even more so when  you fire.

Even with ear plugs and muffs, the blast from even a 45 ACP inside a
small room is stunning and the flash is blinding.  You will do good to
be able to fire the 2nd shot effectively much less the 19th!  I have
a friend who chased a black bear into a cave and shot it 3 times with
a .357 mag.  He is permanently hearing impared as a result.

The last thing I can say is PRACTICE.  The IPSC matches are good.  Even
better is to practice in your own home.  Use pop-guns or revolvers with
the cylinders removed.  You and your spouse can very effectivly practice
defensive positions.  One plays the bad guy and one plays the good.  Practice
controling the door while answering a ring.  Practice silently reaching for
your gun and preparing it for fire while  your adversary is entering your
house.  You will quickly appreciate a cocked and locked .45 beside the
bed.  Amazing how loud cocking a gun is in the dead of the nite.
Practice intentifying (very important) and then firing on a silhoutte in the
dark.  Practice finding and using effective cover in the dark.  Go to a
junk yard and shoot various household objects like a refrigerator or a TV
to see how little protection is offered.  Practice setting up angles so that
misses will not harm innocents.  BTW, can the stuff about low penetration
loads.  You want to KILL the perp not wound him.  The term "safety slug"
takes on a new meaning when it blows up on that hollow core door the
perp was  hiding behind and  he continues to fire.  Worry about stray
bullets after the fact.  Like the bumper sticker says "better to be
tried by 12 than to be carried by 6".

One last thing.  Train your family and friends to never, never, NEVER
play "sneak" or try to slip in and surprise you.  These tricks get
friends and relatives shot.  You need to have some confidence that
a person moving silently around in your house is a bad guy.  My wife
and I ALWAYS announce ourselves when we come home.  Much better to deal
with a grumpy, freshly awakened wife than to eat lead after she thinks
you are a burgler.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Lethal Force After Affects
Keywords: defense
Date: 20 Jun 89 00:35:20 GMT

In article <28674@ism780c.isc.com> marko@apple.i.intel.com (Mark O'Shea)
writes:

>There has been a lot of discussion on the net about the use of lethal force.
>I thought the following might be of interest.
>
>A local high school student recently shot and killed an intruder at his home.
>[ deleted ]
>
>All of the news stories have reported that while the young man is regarded as
>a hero-his high school had a special ceremony to honor him-he personally
>is having a tough time dealing with the fact that he killed another human
>being.  He wishes that it never happened.
>
>One final note.  I am not anti-gun, I'm the NRA.  Nor was there any noticible
>anti-gun sentiment in the news stories.  I'm not postimg this as anti-gun.  I
>just wonder if you have thought about the aftermath.  I believe I would have
>killed the intruder myself and I know rationally I would be better off legally
>if I did.  But how do I deal with it later.

I think your response to killing someone else will depend a lot on the
circumstances and on your political perspective.  If you are of the
neo-pacifist persuasion, you will probably have a rough time.  Of course,
you might also be dead because you thought about it too much BEFORE
shooting.

About 15 years ago, I was involved in a head-on collision with a
drunk driver.  All passengers (2) in his car were killed.  Most people
would generally consider the drunk driver to have gotten what he
deserved but the question of the passenger is more complex.  Even though
I was also a victim, many people thought I would go through
a guilt phase.  That was not a problem.  To be quite frank, I mourned the
loss of my brand new car more.  The fact that both occupants had a
criminal record probably contributed to this feeling.  It is also
inescapable that the passenger was volunteerly riding with the drunk.
Whatever the reason, my involvement in the "justified " death
of 2 people has never been an issue of concern.  (I used the word
"justified" in the sense that I had no blame in the matter).

I suspect the reaction to shooting a bad guy would be similiar.  If the
shoot was a good one and the target was obviously bad and intent on
causing you harm, I suspect your major concern will be dealing with
the new bad guys - the cops and the DA.  They both really hate to let
one get away.  On the other hand, if the shoot was just good enough for
you to get away with it but not really justified, I suspect you will have
problems if you are like most people.

Another factor is how you view life.  If you accept things as done rather
than dwell on them, you will do much better.  I tend to look at a broken
plate on the floor as a done deed needing to be cleaned up rather than
dwelling on the tragedy of breaking a plate.  As soon as you pull the
trigger the deed is done and there is no turning back, good or
bad.

As usual, people vary widely in this regard.  I have discussed the
concept of killing people with my father on several occasions.  He is
a decorated WWII war hero with many kills under his belt.  His outlook
is similiar to mine.  he says that you can either accept what you did in
war as morally justified or spend the rest of your life going batty over
it.

All else equal, I'd sure rather fire and live to worry about the consequences
than to suffer the alternative!

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Another idea about home-defense strategies
Keywords: defense
Date: 30 Jun 89 19:27:35 GMT

In article <28950@ism780c.isc.com> sirius@recondo.UUCP (Mike Stilson) writes:
>While talking with a friend the other night, we came up with an idea that
>seemed to make a bit of sense.  Basically, the idea was targeted for semi-autos
>as opposed to revolvers.  It involves chambering a blank while keeping the
>magazine full of live ammo.  The reasoning behind it is as follows:

Please, Please drop these just plain dumb ideas that are almost guaranteed to
get some inocent person hurt.  You are grouping for easy solutions to a
problem that does not have any.  Please read on.

>  1: Cut down on number of accidental deaths when the kid finds the gun, or
>     someone accidentally drops it.  It would still make a loud noise (which
>     could damage hearing) and perhaps cause a powder burn, but neither is as
>     bad as a bullet bouncing about your insides.

REPEAT AFTER ME - Blanks are deadly.  THEY WILL KILL AT SIGNIFICANT
DISTANCES.  I recently loaded some blank .308 rounds that consisted of
about 40 grains of Unique and a piece of paper towel stuffed in the end.
No glue, no crimp, just stuffed in.  I demonstrated to incredulous observers
that this load when fired from my 14" silhouette gun BLEW THAT PAPER TOWEL
THROUGH 1/2" OF PLYWOOD at a range of about 6 feet.  This is more penetration
than a .22 short.  It would obviously be capable of penetrating a skull or a
chest cavity.

The solution to kids and guns is training.  Period.  You will not keep a gun
from a kid by locking it up in any manner that would give you reasonable
access.  Kids have all the time in the world and incredible curiosity.
You must train the kid to NEVER touch a gun not handed to him/her by an
adult.  You must train the kid to ALWAYS check the gun for rounds even if
the adult that handed it to him sets a bad example by not bothering.  And
you must be willing at any time to allow a curious kid to examine a gun
regardless of what you are doing.  This totally removes the motivation to
sneak.

These techniques worked for my parents - and I was about the most stubborn
kid imaginable.  It has worked for their friends and my friends.  I knew
from a very early age that there was literally nothing in the world I could
do that would get more severe punishment than touching one of dad's guns.
This training is not easy.  It takes a lot of time but then no one said
that raising a kid was.

I would consider the blank-loaded gun WORSE than one loaded with bullets.
The kid could well get the idea that the load was "just like TV" and
feel free to experiment.

>  2: Give the 'defender' an intermediate step between displaying the gun and
>     blowing a hole in the 'attacker'.  (Read: Scare the hell out of him.)

And while you were "scaring" him, he'd be killing you.  You never SCARE an
adversary.  When you pull the gun, you pull it to use it.  You may not have
to shoot but you must assume that you will.

>     Scenario:
>       D: "I have a gun"
>       A: "Bull"
>         (Defendant displays gun)

Well, try this one on for size.

     Scenario:
       D: "I have a gun"
       A: *BLAM*  So do I!

>  3:  Could possibly help in court.. "The 'defender' even fired a blank first
>      in order that he would not harm the 'attacker' unless absolutely needed"
>      (or some such legal talk).

How about "I was just talking to him.  The crazy fool fired a shot at me.
I didn't know he had a blank - I thought he was gonna kill me - so I fired
back, you know, in self-defense."  Whether or not he's lying is kinda moot to
you at that point since you would have become rather inert.

>I know there are problems with this method.. it was just something we thought
>up over a pizza.

If you are going to have a gun for self-defense (an idea I wholly support -
I have several in the house), you MUST acknowledge that even the smallest
weapon will kill a target.  You must realize that you are handling a deadly
weapon, just as deadly as a cannon.  You must realize that in the process
of defending yourself, you will quite likely kill someone.  And you
must realize that if you don't know how to use the gun, you could kill
an innocent or have the gun taken away from you and used for YOUR
murder.  If any of this bothers you, then forget the gun and get a
baseball bat or a lead pipe or something.  Too many people think that the
act of bringing a pistol home and putting it in the drawer confers some
kind of protection.  It obviously does not.  You must learn how to use
the gun AND teach others in your house how not to get hurt.

Sorry for the strong reply but these ideas crop up from time to time and
tend to take on a life of their own.  First thing you know, some scumbag
politician is proposing the "Omnibus blank ammunition usage bill"
Worse, if people believe these ideas, someone is very likely to get hurt.

John

Newsgroups: rec.guns
From: rsiatl!jgd@mathcs.emory.edu (John G. De Armond)
Subject: Re: LaserAim
Keywords: defense, laser sight
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 18:08:58 GMT

In article <1990Feb13.011215.25931@ism.isc.com> moore@tc.fluke.com (Matt
Moore) writes:

> I just saw a product called "LaserAim", by a company called Emerging
>Technologies, in a local gun store. This is a red visible light laser small
>enough to mount underneath the barrel of a handgun. The utility for self-
>defense is obvious; you can shoot from the hip, in the dark, and the bullet
>goes right to the red dot. Since most civilian gunfights take place in poor
>light, and since most people have trouble hitting a man-sized target beyond
>arm's reach in the dark, this device could substantially improve the odds
>for its owner.

I've used laser sights on both pistols and full auto machineguns.  They
work as advertised - when they work.

(The following is an editorial opinion.)

I don't like laser sights for self-defense for reasons having nothing to
do with functionality.  Simply put, I don't want my life to be reliant
on the functionality of an electronic device.  When I'm confronting a
bad guy, an automatic pistol is about all the complexity I want between
my finger and the bullet.  I'd hate to find as I prepare to squeeze off
a shot, that the $%^$& batteries are loose, corroded, or discharged or
that the laser tube is near enough to the end of its life that it won't
quite fire in the cold temperature.

A separate issue is the matter of the beam providing a path for someone
to return fire.  While you will probably dispatch the perp with the
laser-directed shots, his partner might just find that red beam an
ideal aiming aid.

My recommendation is, as with most other self-defense matters, to get a
good reliable gun and then PRACTICE under realistic conditions until
you can hit your target in poor light.


John

Newsgroups: rec.guns
From: rsiatl!jgd@mathcs.emory.edu (John G. De Armond)
Subject: Re: LaserAim
Keywords: defense, laser sight
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:52:07 GMT

In article <1990Feb21.203330.372@ism.isc.com> bamford@cbnewsd.att.com
(Harold E. Bamford) writes:

>In article <1990Feb13.180858.3564@ism.isc.com> :
>rsiatl!jgd@mathcs.emory.edu (John G. De Armond) writes:
>
>>A separate issue is the matter of the beam providing a path for someone
>>to return fire.  While you will probably dispatch the perp with the
>>laser-directed shots, his partner might just find that red beam an
>>ideal aiming aid.
>
>I claim no particular expertise with laser sights, but I have
>observed that the BEAM from a red laser is virtually invisible
>unless there is a fair amount of dust in the air.  Which is why
>they are all so visible in the movies; they put artificial smoke in
>the air during filming. Of course, the optics of the laser may be
>quite visible, but even that might be minimized with a decent
>design.

Seeing the beam itself is not so much the issue as seeing its source.
With my lasers at least, there is a rather strong glow emitting from the
exit port.  This is due to a) bleedthrough of the glow discharge and b)
dust bits on the exit lens that get illuminated.  Problem a) can be
mitigated somewhat with lightproof housings such as most aiming lasers
have but problem b) is only remedied by using the weapon in a dust-free
environment - not really a practicality.

In the daytime, the laser sight would be nice.  A bright spot on the
perp's chest while the ambient light masks the source.  Dim light or
darkness is another situation alltogether.  Even if the shooter
only turns the laser on for a couple of seconds, the glow from the end of
the unit will mark his position very well.  Of course, firing marks
one's position well too, but I'm assuming that the objective is to avoid
a shoot if possible.  After all, one of the great selling points of the
laser sight is the intimidation effect one feels when a red dot appears
on one's chest :-)  If, while you're intimidating one perp, his
friend fires at the red glow, you still loose.

Another problem that does not become apparent until one plays around
with a laser sight a bit is the matter of fast aiming.  Because a
mental feedback loop is set up between the eyes which follow the beam
and the hands which direct it, it takes a bit of concentration and
a LOT of practice to rapidly bring the gun into firing position
and put a well aimed spot on the perp.  Remember, the laser does not
lessen the need for steady aim.

On the other hand, a person practiced in point-shooting will instinctivly
bring the gun into aim without concentrating his vision on the sights.
Since he can do this from practice, low light has little effect.

My personal opinion is that laser sights are much better at
impressing one's friends than aiding in defensive situations because:

a)	It takes more concentration to aim the beam than to point.
b) 	Gadgets fail, invariably at the worst moment, ie, when you're
	being shot at!
c)	A laser sight may tend to make people have false confidence in
	the gadget and as a result, not practice the art of shooting.
	They are therefore are at a tremendous disadvantage when the
	chips are down.
d)  Iron sights and/or the art of point-shooting do not have batteries
	to run down.

>I now prepare for foaming-at-the-mouth replies indicating that I
>don't know what I am talking about.   :-)

Are we foaming yet?  :-)


John

From: John De Armond
Subject: MACE:  Here's how it fails

For all the advocates of non-lethal defensive weapons, here is the definitive
example of how naively deadly these advocates are.  

Tonight a woman was killed in the parking lot of a grocery store here in
Atlanta.  She had been bumped by the man's car bumper.  She stepped back 
and hosed the guy with MACE.  The man in the car replied by firing 2 shots
into her and then calmly driving away.  She was dead on the scene.  

The 2 friends of the woman who witnessed the incident said the man 
displayed no indication of being under the influence.  The witnesses
stated that the altercation started when the driver said something smart
to the woman after he thought she took too long walking across the lot in
front of him.  The woman's response was apparently a gesture and stopping
in front of the guy.  That was apparently when the guy bumped her and
the active fight started.

The guy in the car is obviously a murderer, though I'd be tempted to vote
for something less than 1st degree.  The guy probably should have gotten out 
and beaten the sh*t out of the woman.  Since he chose to shoot her, he'll 
end up in jail.  There are some important lessons to be learned from this 
tragedy.

1.	When in public, KEEP YOUR DAMN MOUTH SHUT!  It's fashionable these
	days to be agressive and rude to strangers.  These strangers are 
	sometimes deadly.

2.	If someone is rude to you in public, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

3.	If you carry a weapon, carry the most deadly weapon you can handle,
	be trained in its use, and be prepared to use it, and be DAMN sure
	you know WHEN to use it.

I should note that at the same time this case was being reported in the 
news, they were also covering another case where a couple of brothers
are on trial for killing a delivery man in a shootout on I-285.  The driver
had apparently finger-saluted the  brohters who replied with gunfire.  The
delivery driver fired back and was killed in the exchange.

Nasty world out there.  Be careful.  Be armed.

john

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Mace vs Easy Off
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

Gad!  Don't they teach ANY chemistry or physics at Caltech anymore?
Hint: Flames don't happen where there is no oxidizer.  Such as the
inside of an aerosol can.

Back to the topic of chemicals and self-protection.  I think we should
look again at the purpose of self-defence weapons.  That is to stop
the immediate attack.  Leaving the perp blinded, disabled or dead
is icing on the top but the stop is what protects.  None of these
concoctions stand a chance.

I've splashed conc sulfuric acid in my eyes before.  I spent a week
with bandages over my face as a result.  Far from being stopped, I was
more than capable of dashing for the eyewash and activating it.  If
this won't cause an incapacitating injury, what do you think a
little Easy-off or hair spray is going to do?  That's right, NOTHING
except make the guy REAL MAD.

The worst and most painful thing I've ever had on my face is MACE.  I
once MACE'd myself in order to determine if it was a credible defence
for my wife to use before she got ethusiastic about shooting.  The
pain was almost unbearable but I WAS able to squeeze off a few
simulated shots at my imaginary target.  Now if you're dead and the
perp is unarmed and MACE'd when the police arrive, he can claim that
he merely spoke to you and you overreacted and maced him.  Fearing for
his life from such an unstable person, he killed you in self-defence.
Unless there are witnesses or other evidence, he might just get away
with it.

Pretty much the same situation with so-called stun guns.  A stun gun
might incapacitate a small person but all it did to me was hurt and
make me mad.  I've put one of these things in my wife's hands
and challenged her to put me down.  She never has.  If your never
allowed to put the thing against the perp, you don't have even a slight
chance.  That convinced her to take the NRA training and get a gun.

Now I'm bigger than most at 6'7"/300 lbs but against that fact consider
an agressive perp, perhaps stoned or more likely drunk.  The impaired
senses can easily make up for what I have in bulk.  I'm not addressing
the casual perp right now.  These types are by definition scared away
by any counter agression.  The ones we carry self-defence weapons
for are the ones who are NOT deterred by counter agression.

When it comes down to this situation, there is only one sure way to
stop the perp and that is to physically disassemble his central
nervous system.  That simply requires a gun.  Nothing else will
reliably do the job.  Torso shots are good and are the shots of first
choice but forward motion stops when the head explodes.

A rather morbid ryme used to make its rounds around the department when
I was a volunteer cop:

	Two shots to the body and one to the head..
	Before he hits the ground, you know  he'd dead.

You ain't gonna do that with a can of oven cleaner!

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Gun blast noise in a car?
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

KEVIN@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU (Kevin Whyte) writes:

#I've thought about this a lot recently especially with the upswing in
#car-jackings.  I don't know that having a firearm in the car is going to do you
#a damn bit of good anyway.  Where would you keep it?

My gun either lays on the seat (bench) or in a pocket on the hump (bucket),
depending on which car I drive.  Whenever I'm in a condition where I
feel exposed, my hand is on the gun.  Since it is cocked and locked,
all that is needed to respond is to pull it, flip the safety and fire.

#How could you get to it before the perp shoots?  I think prevention is the
#only way to combat
#car-jacking because once the attacker is in your car it's too late.
#Anyone have any ideas/suggestions on how to deal with the situation?

The number one rule to staying out of problems is to be aware.  Don't
just sit at the traffic light staring ahead or daydreaming.  Swivel
that head.  Know what is around.  Don't be ashamed/fearful of looking
directly at someone near your vehicle.  I know it is uncomfortable but
it is part of being aware.

Can you always react in time?  Probably not.  But I'd rather give it a
shot than to simply meekly sit there and take it.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Saved by the gun
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

I happened to have "Hardcopy" playing on the TV tonite (12/29/92) and
saw some incredible video.  They are doing a series called "Caught on
Tape".  They showed two amazing sequences taken from surveillance cameras.
The first was an attempted holdup of an armored car at a mall.  The
surveillance camera caught this guy with money bags in his hands turning
a corner and just as he did, he dropped with two bullets in the back.
A moment later, the armored car guard, himself shot in the gut by the
punk, came around the corner.  The guard went to the hospital; the
punk went to the morgue.

Even more amazing was the next segment taken from a convenience store
camera.  Four mexican armed robbers stormed in and hopped the counter.
They robbed the cash register.  In the instant the punks turned their
backs on the owner, he pulled what looked like a 9 mm automatic and
killed all 4.  He appeared to know what he was doing, discharging 6
shots in a little over 3 seconds.  None had a chance to react.  All
dropped like rags.  This addresses the concept that a gunshot victim
is "blown down" by the shot.  Of course, it was only a 9mm :-)

Another video, unrelated to guns showed a fellow arrested on drunk driving
punching himself in the face after telling the cops he was going to
get them for brutality.  The funny part was he bragged about how much
embarrasment there was going to be.

In other news tonite, the local news reported a woman kidnapped and raped
after the rapist took her to his house and chained her to the bed.
He fell asleep after raping the woman.  She got loose from her chains,
got his gun and killed him.  Police say there will be no charges filed.

BTW, if anyone got a tape of "Hardcopy", I'd LOVE to have a copy.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Saved by the gun
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:

## backs on the owner, he pulled what looked like a 9 mm automatic and
#  ^^^^^
## killed all 4.  He appeared to know what he was doing, discharging 6
## shots in a little over 3 seconds.

#I have a problem with this, at least as presented here.  If they were leaving,
#I do not personally feel deadly force was needed at the point they turned
#thier  backs.  Unless the fact that they were mexican made them fair game.

That fact that they were robbers made them fair game, of course.  They were
not turning to leave, not that it matters.  The store owner saved
society the expense of trying and incarcerating the punks and probably
put an early end to a crime spree.  Good shootin' in my book.

## He fell asleep after raping the woman.  She got loose from her chains,
## got his gun and killed him.  Police say there will be no charges filed.
##

#I guess stress and shock were in play, here, but again, on the surface, she
#should not have shot and killed him if she apparently had the chance to leave.

Of course she should have killed him.  If it takes claiming stress and
shock to slip past the system (not necessary here but in some places,
apparently), so be it.  The fact remains that she killed a rapist in the
act and again saved us the expence of jailing him and then letting
him out to do it again.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Saved by the gun, part II
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

"Saved by the Gun Part II" or "Mama, they ain't no one shot stops"

"Hardcopy" continued its "caught on video" series tonight.  The scene
this time was a bank.  Unfortunately the tape was time lapse so the
motion was jerky.  Perp starts to rob the bank with a revolver.
Off-duty copy grabs his backup auto (looked like a small 9mm,
may have been a .380) and dove to the floor while firing one shot
into the perp's chest.  He later explained that he perceived the perp
making a move to shoot at a teller.  His gun jammed after the first
shot.  Perp starts firing at near point-blank range while the cop
rolls around on the floor.  He is not hit.  For maybe 15 or 20 seconds
the cop and the perp wrestle for the gun.  The cop gets it away and
the perp runs.  Halfway across the parking lot, the perp drops dead
from the bullet in his heart - the one the cop fired a minute or so
ago.

This sequence was about as graphic a demonstration as possible that
there really ain't no reliable one stop shot.  Of course, if the
cop's holeshooter had been equipped to make those half inch holes,
the outcome might have been a bit quicker. :-)

john

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Running away after a shooting.
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

#Some
#folks might think me crazy for trusting the police (I'm not quite so
#paranoid) but I figure my best chances are to be totally honest with
#them since they're _gonna_ want to know who shot the person anyway,
#and odds are they'd figure it out on their own eventually.

I suggest that your technique is the best way I know to have to suffer
through an arrest and trial.  Your first move after calling the police
should be to call a lawyer and then don't say ANYTHING until he
tells you to.  You'll probably make the investigating officer a bit
mad but that is a whole hell of a lot better than having your
words turned against you by a prosecutor.

#Here's another good question: What if the attacker has a gun, but is
#obviously unconscious and bleeding?  Do you take the gun away just in
#case they wake up?  How will the police view your "tampering with the
#evidence"?

Your first obligation is to make sure the perp cannot fire on you.
Worrying about the police comes AFTER you've survived the incident.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: *** Carry Weapons and Traffic Stops-Opinions Wanted ***
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

laird@pasture.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:

#I read a statement from a police officer (in Combat Handguns?) that was
#something like "If I see an NRA sticker [on a car that I've pulled over],
#I'll usually tell them that I'm in the NRA, too, and ask them if they
#have any guns in the car."
#
#So let's complicate the question a bit more.  Say you decide to answer
#the "Do you have any weapons on board?" question honestly.  How honest
#should you be?  Should you say "yes", and leave it at that?  Show them
#the closest weapon?  List off all of your weapons?  Get out and start
#lining guns up along the side of the road? ...

I preface this comment with the advice to check your state's CCW law.
Some states' laws may require an answer to the question.  Georgia's
does not.

My answer to the cop in your situation would be the same as the answer I give
to anyone who asks me if I am armed.  That is "It is my policy to neither
confirm nor deny my armed status."

It is important to purge from your mind any concept that the traffic cop
is there to protect you, be your friend, stop criminals or any other
activities traditionally attributed to police.  The traffic cop's primary
purpose is to collect (steal, for the impolite) what amounts to a
tax from motorists.  They have their quotas to fill so that takes their
first priority.  You are the target and the enemy.  The target because you
have what he must get in order to keep his job - your money.  the enemy
because you are not a cop.  Add to that the fact that in many areas
such as my own Cobb County Georgia, the cops have been instructed to illegally
take all weapons found regardless of the possession of a CCW permit.
They apparently are operating under the same thinking pathology that
lets the cops steal property via civil forfeiture without due process.

Bottom line is the cop is your enemy, will likely do do what he has been
instructed regardless of the legality and constitutionallity and may
very well be a disturbed individual.

Keeping all this in mind, my behavior around a traffic cop is as non-
threatening as possible.  I answer questions with a "yes" or "no".
Two purposes.  First, if I decide to challenge him in court, I don't
want him to remember details about the stop.  No better way to cause
a memory imprint than to be a smartass.  Secondly, he may be one of those
pathologies just waiting for an excuse to hurt someone.  Don't give it
to him.  I have no compunction against and am willing to take the legal
risk of feeding the cop what he wants to hear regardless of the truth.
To that end, my weapon, when it is in the car, is hidden and the answer
to the cop's question is "No, there are no guns in the car."

It is one of the most troubling things about this country today that it has
come to this, that normal (I no longer use "law abiding" because none
of us are anymore) people have to lie to the police in order to protect
their property and in some cases, their freedom and lives.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Scared the Hell out of me!
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) writes:

#lklawson@acs.harding.edu writes:

##   I've considered several options so far:
##
##  1) Put my bedside gun farther away from my bed so I have more time to
##     wake up and conciously make the descision to shoot instead of doing it
##     knee-jerk.

#When I took my basic firearms safety course, that is what the
#instructor recommended. He said keep the gun a few steps from the bed
#so you have a little chance to wake up before making a shoot/don,t
#shoot decision. If you are coming out of a deep sleep, you may be
#reacting to a dream instead of an actual event. In any case you'll
#often be groggy and need a few seconds to evaluate the situation.

I'm an NRA firearms instructor.  I would not recommend removing the firearm
from the immediate area.  Doing so precludes using it if you wake up
with an intruder in the near vicinity.  Moving the weapon is simply a
crutch for what was lacking in the above incident - training and practice.

Unfortunately too many people simply buy a gun, watch a couple of Rambo
movies for training, lay it on a table or in a drawer and forget about
it.  Or worse, go to the range a few times, blast away at some milpark
targets and thus THINK they're ready for an armed encounter.  Then when
something happens they either panic as this fellow did or worse, they
grab their little hunk of steel security blanket and go exploring.

There are two vital ingredients to home defense.  Training AND practice.
You must be trained to react PROPERLY on autopilot.  What should your
autopilot tell you to do?  Ready the weapon, seek cover and for God sakes,
identify the target before pointing the weapon.  Unless the Bloods are
caving in your door with a battering ram, you WILL have time from your place
of cover/concealment to make the friend/foe determination.  Right next
to your gun should be a flashlight or a room light remote control.  If you
use a flashlight, you MUST practice using it so that it is away from you
AND so no spillover light illuminates your body.  The obvious reason is so
the perp can't get you by shooting at the light.  And you don't just
turn the light on and leave it.  You briefly flash it in the perp's face.
This will partially blind him while giving you a snap-shot image of
his face.  You do NOT leave your cover to use the light.

The only way to program your autopilot is to PRACTICE.  That's right,
actually simulate a defensive situation.  You could have your roommate
simulate a breakin with you armed with a disabled (NOT just unloaded,
disabled - slide removed or cylinder out) gun.  If your roomie doesn't
want to participate, at least use a kitchen timer set to some
random time.  When the bell goes off, the breakin has started.  Practice
until your REFLEXIVE reaction to a door or window opening or glass breaking
is to seek cover with your weapon ready but safe.

It is funny how people resist training.  I had to bitch and cajole my
wife for quite some time to permit me to train her.  After the first
session, when she came exploring with her little gun to find the
cause of the noise and I strong-armed the gun away from her, she learned.
Now she asks ME for periodic drills.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: LASERS.. Asset or liability ?
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

alex@adoc.xerox.com (Alex Bronstein) writes:

#I am also considering putting a laser sight on a home defense shotgun.
#(I'm sure it looks wimpy to experienced shotgun shooters, but heck, I'll
#trade a wimpy look for a 1 second earlier shot at an attacker any day.)

#My main worry is that the attacker could use the red spot to figure out
#where I'm standing, and shoot at me very very quickly.  (A little bit in the
#spirit of the Desert Storm missiles which tracked incoming missile radio
#beams to destroy the launchers.)

I don't like laser sights.  I consider them to be a liability.
Your concern is a major one, particularly if there is more than one
round of shooting and therefore smoke in the air.  My other concerns
are:

*	a dead or corroded battery disables your aiming system.  Murphy and all.
*	The laser does NOT illuminate your target so target identification is
	impossible without other available light.
*	It is very hard to NOT concentrate on the dot instead of the perp.
	While you're following the dot to the target, the target could
	be shooting at you.
*	If you train yourself to use the dot, you tend not to train to
	point at what you're looking at, the proper defence technique.

I view a laser as a crutch against proper training.  If you train to
shoot where you look, sights aren't really necessary.  If you do
want sights, tritium sights don't have a battery to run down and there
is nothing to wear out in the first decade.  You still have the problem
of identifying your target.  That almost demands a light.  I don't
particularly like the lights attached to a weapon for the simple
reason that it gives the perp a perfect target to fire at.
If you train to hold your light away from your body and still point
at and hit your target, you can remain behind your cover and
expose little more than your hands and arms to enemy fire.

If you want to try a laser, beg or borrow or even buy a laser lecture
pointer.  I've seen them for as little as $49.  Attach it to your
gun with rubber bands and practice dryfiring or with wax squib
loads.  I suspect you won't like it and if you don't, not much
money is wasted.  Besides, the laser pointer is fun to play with.

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: LASERS.. Asset or liability ?
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

gibson@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu (T. Mark Gibson) writes:

##If you want to try a laser, beg or borrow or even buy a laser lecture
##pointer.  I've seen them for as little as $49.  Attach it to your
##gun with rubber bands and practice dryfiring or with wax squib
##loads.  I suspect you won't like it and if you don't, not much
##money is wasted.  Besides, the laser pointer is fun to play with.

#Lasers make nice cat toys!  Where did you find a laser pointer for less than
#$50?  I'd like to buy one.

Actually I paid BIG BUX for mine when I bought 'em about 4 years ago.
But I see them advertised these days for $50 or so from places like
Service Merchandise.

Re: cats.  They see red light only very poorly.  Mine react much better
to white light from a flashlight than they do the laser beam.
Now my blue argon laser, that's a totally different story.  They
go totally, absolutely batsh*t when that little blue dot appears :-)

John

From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Carry a shotgun into Canada???
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 17:17:37 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel

"B.A. D'Angelo" wrote:
> 
> roadtramp` wrote:

> > In article <5379-37F6135E-5@newsd-221.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > highwireact@webtv.net says...
> > > can you blame them???  LOOK what happens
> > > in the US, when so called responseable US  CITIZENS owns guns, they go
> > > postal,shoot up schools,and even Mc donalds. HEY dont get me wrong Im
> > > all for the right to bare arms,but
> > > we need to weed out these bad apples NOW !!!!!. GUNS IN THE US NEEDS TO
> > > BE REGULATED,AND IF A US CITIZEN WANTS TO OWN A GUN THERE SHOULD BE A
> > > MENTAL HEALTH CHECK ON THAT US CITIZEN ALONG WITH THE BACK ROUND CHECK
> > > THERE SHOULD BE A BACK ROUND CHECK FOR AMMO TOO.
> > > I could go on and on , but thats my oppinion.
> > >
> > >
> 
> Unless you load them into a bow and put feathers on them, chances are
> they're fairly ineffective when "discharged" from a distance of more
> than a few feet.  When those are used as weapons, you usually get a
> chance to run.

Wasn't going to wade into this but...  According to government
statistics, the average gun fight occurs at a distance of 7 feet or
less.  Also according to government statistics, fatality rate for
knife attacks is much higher than from gun attacks.  That is, a
person stuck with  knife is more likely to die from it than one who
is shot.

If you doubt the deadliness of knife, attend a self-defense course
sometime where street survival is taught.  I'm an NRA certified
firearms instructor and as part of my training, I took just such a
course.  It slammed my eyes open!  A person with basic street knife
fighting skills can stick you from 6-8 feet away before you react. 
The attacker has the initiative and the surprise.  Nothing quite so
shocking than to have that done to you with a dummy knife in a
training drill.  Whether I had a gun or not was irrelevant.  I
probably would have shot the attacker but I'd still be stuck.

I do a drill in my class that demonstrates this.  I have a student
stand a few feet away from me.  The student has a dummy gun, as do
I.  I hold my gun down at my side with my finger off the trigger.  I
have the student aim the gun at me as if he was "covering" me
waiting for the police to arrive.  I tell the student to shoot me
the instant he feels legally justified - that is, when i.e.
perceives sufficient threat to believe that his safety is in danger
(the standard in Tennessee).  My standing there holding the gun with
my finger off the trigger does not meet that standard for a
civilian.  We stand there for a minute and then I shoot the
student.  I ALWAYS get the shot off first because I have the
initiative, I control the timing and I have the surprise factor on
my side.  Those students who even get off a shot invariably do it
after I've shot them.

This drill does a couple of things.  First it shows them how
dangerous imitating TV is.  You don't hold a gun on someone who is
armed.  You run or you shoot.  Second, in the event the student has
to shoot sometime in the future, his knowledge of when he becomes at
risk justifies his shooting earlier in the event.

John