gun discharge in cockpit.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 1:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> The Columbine kids go through all that?

One more consideration -- if ONE person in the Columbine and the Va
tech incidents had a firearm and knew how to use it, the death tally
may have been far, far less.

That goes for the SWAT team that spent far too long figuring out when
and how to enter at Columbine.

Something to keep in mind about Law Enforcement -- and this has been a
subtle shift over the last 30 years -- LE has shifted it's focus from
"protection" to apprehending the perpetrator.

Don't believe it? Call up the local police next time someone threatens
you. The stock answer will be, "Until we have some evidence there' not
much we can do.."

By "evidence" they mean "a crime scene."


Dan Mc

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-31, Dan > wrote:
> One more consideration -- if ONE person in the Columbine and the Va
> tech incidents had a firearm and knew how to use it, the death tally
> may have been far, far less.

And if you don't believe this, just remember that the last attack on the
school in Israel was stopped by a student with a concealed carry firearm.

> Something to keep in mind about Law Enforcement -- and this has been a
> subtle shift over the last 30 years -- LE has shifted it's focus from
> "protection" to apprehending the perpetrator.

Not only that, but courts have repeatedly said they have no duty to protect
an individual. The police do not have to protect you, and you cannot hold
them accountable for failing to do so. They only have to try to find the
perpetrator.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:347d888f-544f-4194-8293-
:

> On Mar 31, 1:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > How is that "easy"?
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>> The Columbine kids go through all that? Or the guy that shot my
friends
>> daughter dead?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I'm not an investigator into either case, so how can I say for sure?
>
> But (complicated issues always have "buts" and "on the other hands" --
> demagogues only want a slogan)...
>
> A big problem is illegal trade in firearms -- no doubt.
>
> But how will adding layers of laws and bureaucratic hoops deter the
> behavior of people who -- by definition -- ignore the existing laws?

I don't give a **** how it's done, the nuber of guns on the street has
to shrink, period.
>
> We don't even enforce the laws already on the books. The various gun
> control wet dreams such as "gun a month," waiting periods, handgun
> registration, etc are all aimed at the law abiding and will have NO
> impact on criminals (For an example of demand driving supply, see
> entry under "illegal drug trade.")
>
> Have people purchase firearms legally and used them for illegal
> activities?
>
> Certainly.
>
> Have people acquired firearms illegally and used them for illegal
> activities?
>
> Usually.
>
> Replace "firearms" with "car", "airplane", "baseball bat",
> "Fertilizer", "Drano," "sleeping pills" ad infinitum and the answers
> are exactly the same.
>
> The dirty little secret of the gun control agenda is that their logic
> is only reasonable if we eliminate firearms from a society. That is
> simply not going to happen, because the vast majority of firearms are
> used for benign purposes.
>
> For historical context consider this -- in 1920s there were NO federal
> and few state controls on firearms, and yet the murder and suicide
> rates were a small fraction of what they are today -- and that's
> rates, not raw numbers.
>
> The old saw about the "Wild West" is bull**** too -- there were far
> fewer murders, suicides, rapes, and forcible entry in western
> communities in the 19th century then we've expereinced in the late
> 20th through current century. The whole image is a fabrication of dime
> store novelists.

I didn't raise any of those. You must be mistaking me for an idiot.


Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:9aad04f0-8606-4920-b804-
:

> On Mar 31, 1:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> The Columbine kids go through all that?
>
> One more consideration -- if ONE person in the Columbine and the Va
> tech incidents had a firearm and knew how to use it, the death tally
> may have been far, far less.

May have been far far more.

Remember, you're talking to someone who's farily handy with guns
himself. I had a Mauser wen I was 12 as well as a Colt 357 magnum and a
little 9 shot 22 rimshot revolver of unknown manufacture. I still have a
gun..
>
> That goes for the SWAT team that spent far too long figuring out when
> and how to enter at Columbine.
>
> Something to keep in mind about Law Enforcement -- and this has been a
> subtle shift over the last 30 years -- LE has shifted it's focus from
> "protection" to apprehending the perpetrator.
>
> Don't believe it? Call up the local police next time someone threatens
> you. The stock answer will be, "Until we have some evidence there' not
> much we can do.."
>
> By "evidence" they mean "a crime scene."


I happen to know that is not the case where I live.

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 2:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > But how will adding layers of laws and bureaucratic hoops deter the
> > behavior of people who -- by definition -- ignore the existing laws?
>
> I don't give a **** how it's done, the nuber of guns on the street has
> to shrink, period.

And I respectfully disagree, as there is no proven correlation between
"number of firearms" and "rates of crime."

None.

Dan Mc

[Flydive]

Dan wrote:
>
> There are many countries with gun ownership rates similar to or higher
> than the US, yet those have very low murder rates. The reverse is also
> true.
>
> Finland, Switzerland, and New Zealand have virtually identical gun
> ownership rates to the US, and yet their murder rates are
> significantly lower than those of surrounding countries.
>
> There's no evidence that murder rates are higher in those countries
> with higher levels of gun ownership. The only way to show such
> relationships is cherry picking a few countries to make the
> comparison.
>
> Israel, with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, has a murder
> rate 40% below Canada's.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>


So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban guns
over there........

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 2:10 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Remember, you're talking to someone who's farily handy with guns
> himself. I had a Mauser wen I was 12 as well as a Colt 357 magnum and a
> little 9 shot 22 rimshot revolver of unknown manufacture. I still have a
> gun..


That's good. So what has prevented you from running amok and
slaughtering innocents?

I'm guessing "access to firearms" isn't the issue - morality,
training, and humanity is the controlling factor.


> > Don't believe it? Call up the local police next time someone threatens
> > you. The stock answer will be, "Until we have some evidence there' not
> > much we can do.."

> I happen to know that is not the case where I live.
>
> Bertie

Really? Then that LE bureau is an anachronism.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:954a61a8-a81d-4695-8d7a-
:

> On Mar 31, 2:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > But how will adding layers of laws and bureaucratic hoops deter the
>> > behavior of people who -- by definition -- ignore the existing
laws?
>>
>> I don't give a **** how it's done, the nuber of guns on the street
has
>> to shrink, period.
>
> And I respectfully disagree, as there is no proven correlation between
> "number of firearms" and "rates of crime."
>
> None.


Except the bodies, of course. Each one of those is a crime.
There is, of course, the added ingredient that the US has gone
completely insane, but what you gonna do about that?

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 2:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> There is, of course, the added ingredient that the US has gone
> completely insane, but what you gonna do about that?
>
> Bertie

Protect myself, my family, and property should the need arise, that's
what.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:df53105e-721d-45c3-a6e0-
:

> On Mar 31, 2:10 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Remember, you're talking to someone who's farily handy with guns
>> himself. I had a Mauser wen I was 12 as well as a Colt 357 magnum and
a
>> little 9 shot 22 rimshot revolver of unknown manufacture. I still
have a
>> gun..
>
>
> That's good. So what has prevented you from running amok and
> slaughtering innocents?

I haven't had the time.

>
> I'm guessing "access to firearms" isn't the issue - morality,
> training, and humanity is the controlling factor.



>
>
>> > Don't believe it? Call up the local police next time someone
threatens
>> > you. The stock answer will be, "Until we have some evidence there'
not
>> > much we can do.."
>
>> I happen to know that is not the case where I live.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Really? Then that LE bureau is an anachronism.
>

Nope,
it's unarmed.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 2:26 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > That's good. So what has prevented you from running amok and
> > slaughtering innocents?
>
> I haven't had the time.

Good reason.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:e2f12d62-5927-46d8-a034-
:

> On Mar 31, 2:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> There is, of course, the added ingredient that the US has gone
>> completely insane, but what you gonna do about that?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Protect myself, my family, and property should the need arise, that's
> what.
>
>

Good luck

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Protect myself, my family, and property should the need arise, that's
> > what.
>
> Good luck
>
> Bertie

Luck favors the prepared.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:07:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 28, 6:50 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> A simple question, is this house on this fictional firing range, is it 1
>> foot wide..or less? Do you have any FACTS other than your lips flapping
>> of this house or people missing the side of a house, 25 - 50 feet across
>> from 20 yards consistently?
>
> I'll reduce that sample down to one for the sake of argument.

One what? house side? The one that you are certain most ppl can't hit at
20 yards?

> I'm certain that youou, LRRPBoy, cannot print a 1' group at 20 yards.

There you go again, certain, certain.

> Didn't you say you were a LRRP? Unit? years? Rank? CO? Which Ranger
> School Class? White Thread or no?

Prior service not were, yes, 1, yes, couple, yes, yes for tabs.

>> Of course you don't, My Little Trick Pony. And yes, once again, that IS
>> your ass I handed you and that is your HAT too.
>
> Dude, you REALLY need to get out more.
>
> Dan Mc

Thanks, pick up a copy of any of my books for more info, My Little Trick
Pony

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 3:13 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

Well look who dropped in after adding to his "200 hours in the left
seat."

> > Didn't you say you were a LRRP? Unit? years? Rank? CO? Which Ranger
> > School Class? White Thread or no?
>
> Prior service not were, yes, 1, yes, couple, yes, yes for tabs.

Oh really? Which years did you serve?



Dan Mc

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 1, 7:02*am, Clark > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:fd7b9770-fb91-45ae-849d-
> :
>

> > But it hasn't increased overall (by the US definition of violent
> > crime) has it? Why bull**** when you can admit you don't know any
> > statistics? Post your source that says I'm wrong.
>
> Exactly, why do you bull**** when you can simply admit your position is
> untenable? Good Luck!

There's no intelligent discourse to be had with you is there?

Cheers

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 2:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> There is, of course, the added ingredient that the US has gone
> completely insane, but what you gonna do about that?
>
> Bertie

Sorry I let this one slip....

Every generation since Aristotle's believed the world is going to hell
in a handbasket. No news there. Part of it is maturity and the
realization that life ain't pretty and you have to pursue and create
happiness and beauty -- it's not granted, unless you seek it.

I was pretty close to cynical after 21 years in the military, and then
Sept 11th happened.

Though it was the worst single day in our generation, the following
days literally renewed my faith in America.

There were moments of humanity that meant some much more by the
contrast they presented to the devastation -- in a shattered Burger
King food from NY City's finest restaurants was served free for any
rescue worker. I ate the best Shrimp Scampi ever while standing on
Vesey Street, surrounded by firemen and soldiers also dining on five-
star cuisine, all of us covered in the ubiquitous gray dust.

All along the streets surrounding the site were pallets filled with
dog food, work gloves and socks, respirators, handy wipes and towels.
I learned later that I'd missed the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches
donated by a Kindergarten class in South Carolina. Each one had a note
that said, "We made peanut butter and jelly because just like you,
they stick together."

My brother and I met and worked besides rescue workers from at least
twenty states, search dog handlers from California, firemen form Long
Island, and Steel workers form Jersey.

It's as if America waits for the worst to bring forth its best.

I'll never forget that and I remind myself, when I start to get
cynical and pessimistic, that this country is absolutely filled with
people like that, and they are the bedrock of what makes us great.


Dan Mc

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:55 am, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:
>
>> Give it up Matt. If this egghead is downsizing to a 9 from a 40 for self
>> defense, he is not even trainable.
>
> You're such a genius -- Please do tell the significant differences
> between the two calibers.
>

I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
the force projected on target.

9mm = 135 gr @ 1100 fps = 135,300
..40 S&W = 165 gr @ 980 fps = 161,700
..45acp = 230 gr @ 900 fps = 207,000

Note: the .45 acp round above is the Hydro Shock which can be found in
my carry gun.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
>
>
> You are confusing "power" with "ability to stop an assailant."
>
> If all we wanted was "power," a 20 lb sledgehammer swung rapidly would
> do quite nicely.
>
> But sledgehammers are hard to conceal, don't provide very quick follow
> ups, and have a very limited range.
>
> The IPSC is biased towards the .45, thus the "power factor"
> requirement. That's fine -- they can set any parameters they want --
> IPSC is a game -- but don't take that requirement as an absolute
> definition of effectiveness.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Read the FBI report which argues this point quite well:
> http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
>
> Sadly, the 9mm has proven its effectiveness on many, many occasions.
> The V Tech shooter killed 32 people with a .22-caliber Walther P22 and
> a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19.
>
> What drove the FBI, DEA, ICE, SF, and other LE and Military
> communities to bigger, faster cartridges was the requirement to shoot
> through glass, car doors, etc and to take down perps high on PCP,
> Meth, etc.
>
> If those situations are in your mission profile, get something big and
> fast.
>
> But MOST civilians don't have this threat as part of their normal
> lives.
>
> Thus what really matters is your mission profile -- your own
> capabilities, your exposure, your risks, your local jursidiction
> requirements, etc.
>
> Define that, THEN make your choice of weapon.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
>

Google Miami FBI Shootout

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 4:51 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> Google Miami FBI Shootout

Don't need to.

Are you involved in containing/stopping heavily armed bank robbers? If
so, you need to be equally armed.

But if you are a private citizen, you will probably end up in jail if
you try to STOP fleeing robbers.


Dan Mc

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 31, 6:37 am, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 1:34 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You have been a lucky man, but if you gamble you will lose
>>> eventually.
>> Is that some sort of inane threat?
>>
>> "Luck" has nothing to do with it, moron.
>>
>
> Only if the threat is perceived as coming from truth. Yes, your family
> has been lucky that there has not been a firearms accident. If there
> were no guns at all in your household the probability of an accident
> would be even lower.
>
> Cheers


I only have one child who also grew up with firearms in the house and
has lived to 17 next month to tell about it. Luck had noting to do with
him not getting hurt training did. In fact one time when he was 4 or 5
my wife had him with her when she went into a sporting goods store to
buy me a xmas present. When he saw the gun rack he made it very clear to
everyone there that he wasn't supposed to be around guns if I wasn't there.

There are lots of things in the average home that can hurt or kill a
child. Part of the parental responsibility is to teach them not to use
such items in a way that could do harm.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 4:48 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:


> I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
> real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
> the force projected on target.
>
> Note: the .45 acp round above is the Hydro Shock which can be found in
> my carry gun.

Hang on -- IPSC is a great exercise in competitive shooting -- but it
is just that -- a competition -- a game!

No one is shooting back, no one is failing to stop, the only stress is
the timer.

When Col Jeff Cooper started IPSC, he developed the power factor
rating to ensure everyone was using real combat pistols, and not
downloaded BB rounds that didn't sound and recoil like the real thing.

But -- and this is an important qualifier -- there is *no evidence*
that the slight variations in power available in the different rounds
insures a first shot knockdown. There are simply too many variables.

Thus the debate rages between the .45 and 9mm adherents.

My reasons -- however flawed -- follow (in no particular order):

1) I can buy twice the 9 mm ammo for the same number of .45 rounds
(The price of ammo will continue to rise) and thereby practice far
more often.

2) There is no proven appreciable difference in the effects on the
human body between 9mm and 40 or 45 rounds,

3) the 9mm capacity is near twice that per magazine of a 45,

4) I can put two rounds downrange with a 9mm before the muzzle flip
cycle is complete with a .45. or 40

5) If I'm using a handgun it's to fight my way to a shotgun or a rifle
or to cover (or both)



Dan Mc

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-31, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Something to keep in mind about Law Enforcement -- and this has been a
>> subtle shift over the last 30 years -- LE has shifted it's focus from
>> "protection" to apprehending the perpetrator.

That's all they ever COULD do. Patrolling is mere "window dressing", and in
certain areas does have some effect, but all in all, it's for show.
>
> Not only that, but courts have repeatedly said they have no duty to
> protect
> an individual. The police do not have to protect you, and you cannot hold
> them accountable for failing to do so. They only have to try to find the
> perpetrator.

Even an individual with a court restraining order.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 31, 4:48 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>
>> I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
>> real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
>> the force projected on target.
>>
>> Note: the .45 acp round above is the Hydro Shock which can be found in
>> my carry gun.
>
> Hang on -- IPSC is a great exercise in competitive shooting -- but it
> is just that -- a competition -- a game!

For a practical exercise, try IDPA. No tricked out guns, just pretty much
factory stock (with a few common tweaks).

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there is no
> question about it, the availability of guns in the US is unquestionably
> responsible for the staggering murder rate which is unequalled amongst
> "first world" nations. If you guys and the NRA are so interesed in
> responsible gun wonership, then you should be supporting restrictions on
> ownership, not opposing them.
>
> Bertie
>

Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws also
have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 31, 5:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
>>> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there is
>>> no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is -->>
>>> unquestionably <<-- responsible for the staggering murder rate which
>>> is unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys and the NRA
>>> are so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you should be
>>> supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing them.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> That statement is absolutely, positively, and profoundly false.
>>
>> There are many countries with gun ownership rates similar to or higher
>> than the US, yet those have very low murder rates. The reverse is also
>> true.
>>
>> Finland, Switzerland, and New Zealand have virtually identical gun
>> ownership rates to the US, and yet their murder rates are
>> significantly lower than those of surrounding countries.
>
>
> That's because everyone in Switzerland and Finland are military reserve.
> They don't own the guns, the state does.
>> There's no evidence that murder rates are higher in those countries
>> with higher levels of gun ownership. The only way to show such
>> relationships is cherry picking a few countries to make the
>> comparison.
>>
>> Israel, with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, has a murder
>> rate 40% below Canada's.
>
> Again, the military.....


So if the gun in my house were owned by the government instead of me it
would some how know that and not allow itself to shoot someone it wasn't
supposed to?

Really, how's that work?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Flydive wrote:

>
> So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
> American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban guns
> over there........

Unfortunately yes it is the American population that is the problem. And
we've tried gun localized gun bans and they don't work. These people
that break the law have a bad habit of ignoring gun laws as well.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 31, 4:48 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
>>> real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
>>> the force projected on target.
>>>
>>> Note: the .45 acp round above is the Hydro Shock which can be found in
>>> my carry gun.
>> Hang on -- IPSC is a great exercise in competitive shooting -- but it
>> is just that -- a competition -- a game!
>
> For a practical exercise, try IDPA. No tricked out guns, just pretty much
> factory stock (with a few common tweaks).
>
>
>

Which is pretty much what Cooper and the boys had when they created
IPSC. The gaming game later. And as I mentioned last week a lot of those
gaming additions have become combat modifications.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:51 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> Google Miami FBI Shootout
>
> Don't need to.
>
> Are you involved in containing/stopping heavily armed bank robbers? If
> so, you need to be equally armed.
>
> But if you are a private citizen, you will probably end up in jail if
> you try to STOP fleeing robbers.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>

The point was that after the FBI put a god awful number of wounds into
those suspects (who for the most part were armed with Mini-14s) was that
the 9mm didn't have the stopping power to deal with a suspect even if
all they were hyped up on was adrenaline.

There is a reason that the US Army SF, FBI Hostage Rescue and pretty
much all major SWAT teams have switched to either the .45 or .40.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:48 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>
>> I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
>> real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
>> the force projected on target.
>>
>> Note: the .45 acp round above is the Hydro Shock which can be found in
>> my carry gun.
>
> Hang on -- IPSC is a great exercise in competitive shooting -- but it
> is just that -- a competition -- a game!
>
> No one is shooting back, no one is failing to stop, the only stress is
> the timer.
>

Nope and no one is shooting back a new US ARMY recruit during basic
training. But some how the military has learned how to simulate stress
in order for them to be able to do it when it's the real thing.

I say IPSC and IDPA (those may be the wrong initials for the later) are
the pest way out there to create that stress in a training environment.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 5:25 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
>
> Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws also
> have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?

Washington DC, for example...

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 5:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 4:51 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Google Miami FBI Shootout
>
> > Don't need to.
>
> > Are you involved in containing/stopping heavily armed bank robbers? If
> > so, you need to be equally armed.
>
> > But if you are a private citizen, you will probably end up in jail if
> > you try to STOP fleeing robbers.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> The point was that after the FBI put a god awful number of wounds into
> those suspects (who for the most part were armed with Mini-14s) was that
> the 9mm didn't have the stopping power to deal with a suspect even if
> all they were hyped up on was adrenaline.
>
> There is a reason that the US Army SF, FBI Hostage Rescue and pretty
> much all major SWAT teams have switched to either the .45 or .40.

Right -- and they (all of the above) are looking for people.

YOU as a citizen are not out hunting them -- you're doing your best to
avoid a confrontation but if forced, use deadly force.

Not the same situation.

Dan Mc

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mar 31, 4:48 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hang on -- IPSC is a great exercise in competitive shooting -- but it
>>> is just that -- a competition -- a game!
>>
>> For a practical exercise, try IDPA. No tricked out guns, just pretty much
>> factory stock (with a few common tweaks).
>
> Which is pretty much what Cooper and the boys had when they created IPSC.
> The gaming game later. And as I mentioned last week a lot of those gaming
> additions have become combat modifications.

Which is why IDPA is a great exercise (here and now) for those who want to
become more adept at "real world" situations.

http://www.idpa.com

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...

>
> 1) I can buy twice the 9 mm ammo for the same number of .45 rounds
> (The price of ammo will continue to rise) and thereby practice far
> more often.

Lamers like you require twice the ammo.

>
> 2) There is no proven appreciable difference in the effects on the
> human body between 9mm and 40 or 45 rounds,

You're not really serious about this one, are you??


>
> 3) the 9mm capacity is near twice that per magazine of a 45,

Again, required only by beginners. Keep working on it.

>
> 4) I can put two rounds downrange with a 9mm before the muzzle flip
> cycle is complete with a .45. or 40

or uprange, crossrange, diaginalrange,,, we can see this one coming.

>
> 5) If I'm using a handgun it's to fight my way to a shotgun or a rifle
> or to cover (or both)
>

If you are in town at the grocery store, it's a long way back to the farm,
hayseed.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 31, 3:13 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> Well look who dropped in after adding to his "200 hours in the left
> seat."
>
>>> Didn't you say you were a LRRP? Unit? years? Rank? CO? Which Ranger
>>> School Class? White Thread or no?
>>
>> Prior service not were, yes, 1, yes, couple, yes, yes for tabs.
>
> Oh really? Which years did you serve?
>
> Dan Mc

The years I was there.

http://tinyurl.com/2fxzee

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:4fdc9358-a1e0-4adc-9676-
:

> On Mar 31, 2:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> There is, of course, the added ingredient that the US has gone
>> completely insane, but what you gonna do about that?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sorry I let this one slip....
>
> Every generation since Aristotle's believed the world is going to hell
> in a handbasket. No news there. Part of it is maturity and the
> realization that life ain't pretty and you have to pursue and create
> happiness and beauty -- it's not granted, unless you seek it.

Where exactly, did you read that I thought the wrld was fgoing to hell
in ahand basket.

The US is not the whole world.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
>> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there is
>> no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is
>> unquestionably responsible for the staggering murder rate which is
>> unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys and the NRA are
>> so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you should be
>> supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing them.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws
> also have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?
>

Spurious and you know it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:3f8d3625-e58a-4349-b98f-0352035de277@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 31, 5:25 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>>
>> Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws also
>> have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?
>
> Washington DC, for example...
>

Good grief.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Mar 31, 5:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
>>>> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there
>>>> is no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is -->>
>>>> unquestionably <<-- responsible for the staggering murder rate
>>>> which is unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys and
>>>> the NRA are so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you
>>>> should be supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing them.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> That statement is absolutely, positively, and profoundly false.
>>>
>>> There are many countries with gun ownership rates similar to or
>>> higher than the US, yet those have very low murder rates. The
>>> reverse is also true.
>>>
>>> Finland, Switzerland, and New Zealand have virtually identical gun
>>> ownership rates to the US, and yet their murder rates are
>>> significantly lower than those of surrounding countries.
>>
>>
>> That's because everyone in Switzerland and Finland are military
>> reserve. They don't own the guns, the state does.
>>> There's no evidence that murder rates are higher in those countries
>>> with higher levels of gun ownership. The only way to show such
>>> relationships is cherry picking a few countries to make the
>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> Israel, with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, has a
>>> murder rate 40% below Canada's.
>>
>> Again, the military.....
>
>
> So if the gun in my house were owned by the government instead of me
> it would some how know that and not allow itself to shoot someone it
> wasn't supposed to?
>
> Really, how's that work?
>

Well, in Switzerland and Finland, the two examples you gave, military
service is mandatory. A year, or two, can't remember which. ( I know
several Swiss well and get to Helsinki fairly often so I can ask when
I;m there) When you get out, you are on reserve for life. The gun laws
in both places are much stricter than anything proposed in the US,
BTW...

They don't buy guns as toys, they have them as part of a national
defense plan.

And your argument is bull**** and you know it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Flydive wrote:
>
>>
>> So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
>> American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban
>> guns over there........
>
> Unfortunately yes it is the American population that is the problem.
> And we've tried gun localized gun bans and they don't work. These
> people that break the law have a bad habit of ignoring gun laws as
> well.
>
>

As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors and
manufacturers.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Flydive wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
>>> American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban
>>> guns over there........
>>
>> Unfortunately yes it is the American population that is the problem.
>> And we've tried gun localized gun bans and they don't work. These
>> people that break the law have a bad habit of ignoring gun laws as
>> well.
>>
>>
>
> As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors and
> manufacturers.
>


Prove it.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 6:44 pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:

>
> If you are in town at the grocery store, it's a long way back to the farm,
> hayseed.

hayseed?

Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?


Dan Mc

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 31, 6:44 pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are in town at the grocery store, it's a long way back to the
>> farm,
>> hayseed.
>
> hayseed?
>
> Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?
>
>

4

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 6:44 pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:

> > 1) I can buy twice the 9 mm ammo for the same number of .45 rounds
> > (The price of ammo will continue to rise) and thereby practice far
> > more often.
>
> Lamers like you require twice the ammo.

And your profession has been?

You served in which SpecOps units?

let me know...



Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 8:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:3f8d3625-e58a-4349-b98f-0352035de277@
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 31, 5:25 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws also
> >> have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?
>
> > Washington DC, for example...
>
> Good grief.
>
> Bertie

You're right, "good grief." That place is a three ring circus without
the elephants.

The chief of Police said "Washington DC will be a safer place when
there are no guns!" WHILE he had a pistol hanging on his hip.

It's truly the land of delusion.


Dan Mc

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 31, 6:44 pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:
>
>> > 1) I can buy twice the 9 mm ammo for the same number of .45 rounds
>> > (The price of ammo will continue to rise) and thereby practice far
>> > more often.
>>
>> Lamers like you require twice the ammo.
>
> And your profession has been?
>
> You served in which SpecOps units?
>
> let me know...
>

What does my qualifications have to do with your requirements for excessive
amounts of ammo?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 9:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors and
> manufacturers.
>
> Bertie

I'll quote you on this...

Prove it.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 31, 8:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:3f8d3625-e58a-4349-b98f-0352035de277@
>> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Mar 31, 5:25 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun
>> >> laws also have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?
>>
>> > Washington DC, for example...
>>
>> Good grief.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're right, "good grief." That place is a three ring circus without
> the elephants.

I wasn't talking about Washington
>
> The chief of Police said "Washington DC will be a safer place when
> there are no guns!" WHILE he had a pistol hanging on his hip.

He's a cop, what do you think he would have?
>
> It's truly the land of delusion.


I know.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:OfgIj.44107$QC.14887
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Flydive wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
>>>> American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban
>>>> guns over there........
>>>
>>> Unfortunately yes it is the American population that is the problem.
>>> And we've tried gun localized gun bans and they don't work. These
>>> people that break the law have a bad habit of ignoring gun laws as
>>> well.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors
and
>> manufacturers.
>>
>
>
> Prove it.
>
>
>

No.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:a3ead626-81a5-418b-941c-
:

> On Mar 31, 9:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors
and
>> manufacturers.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I'll quote you on this...
>
> Prove it.

Quote away.

And the only way to prove it is to actually stop the flow of guns.



Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 10:09 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:

> >> Lamers like you require twice the ammo.
>
> > And your profession has been?
>
> > You served in which SpecOps units?
>
> > let me know...
>
> What does my qualifications have to do with your requirements for excessive
> amounts of ammo?

Hey stupid -- I'll repeat the question: your profession has been? You
served in which SpecOps units?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 31, 6:44 pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are in town at the grocery store, it's a long way back to the
>> farm, hayseed.
>
> hayseed?
>
> Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?
>

You oughta be nier to him. He's on your side with the whole gun/global
warming thing.

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 31, 10:09 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
>> >> Lamers like you require twice the ammo.
>>
>> > And your profession has been?
>>
>> > You served in which SpecOps units?
>>
>> > let me know...
>>
>> What does my qualifications have to do with your requirements for
>> excessive
>> amounts of ammo?
>
> Hey stupid -- I'll repeat the question: your profession has been? You
> served in which SpecOps units?

Gee wannabe, why would you want to know.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:joiIj.64071$y05.39492
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:f2757ede-cc7f-4c21-a6a3-ad75de7d22f8
@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 31, 10:09 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Lamers like you require twice the ammo.
>>>
>>> > And your profession has been?
>>>
>>> > You served in which SpecOps units?
>>>
>>> > let me know...
>>>
>>> What does my qualifications have to do with your requirements for
>>> excessive
>>> amounts of ammo?
>>
>> Hey stupid -- I'll repeat the question: your profession has been? You
>> served in which SpecOps units?
>
> Gee wannabe, why would you want to know.
>
>
>

Yeah, in your head, anything is possible.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:joiIj.64071$y05.39492
> @newsfe22.lga:
>
>>
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> news:f2757ede-cc7f-4c21-a6a3-ad75de7d22f8
> @c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 31, 10:09 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Lamers like you require twice the ammo.
>>>>
>>>> > And your profession has been?
>>>>
>>>> > You served in which SpecOps units?
>>>>
>>>> > let me know...
>>>>
>>>> What does my qualifications have to do with your requirements for
>>>> excessive
>>>> amounts of ammo?
>>>
>>> Hey stupid -- I'll repeat the question: your profession has been? You
>>> served in which SpecOps units?
>>
>> Gee wannabe, why would you want to know.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, in your head, anything is possible.
>

20

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:wIiIj.45514$f8.15648
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:joiIj.64071$y05.39492
>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>>> news:f2757ede-cc7f-4c21-a6a3-ad75de7d22f8
>> @c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Mar 31, 10:09 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> Lamers like you require twice the ammo.
>>>>>
>>>>> > And your profession has been?
>>>>>
>>>>> > You served in which SpecOps units?
>>>>>
>>>>> > let me know...
>>>>>
>>>>> What does my qualifications have to do with your requirements for
>>>>> excessive
>>>>> amounts of ammo?
>>>>
>>>> Hey stupid -- I'll repeat the question: your profession has been?
You
>>>> served in which SpecOps units?
>>>
>>> Gee wannabe, why would you want to know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, in your head, anything is possible.
>>
>
> 20


Fly k00k, fly.


Bertie
>
>
>

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 10:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?
>
> You oughta be nier to him. He's on your side with the whole gun/global
> warming thing.
>
> Bertie

An ignoramus can state that 2+2=4.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 31, 11:56 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
> > Hey stupid -- I'll repeat the question: your profession has been? You
> > served in which SpecOps units?
>
> Gee wannabe, why would you want to know.

Because...

It will prove...

you don't know what you're talking about,

Moron.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 31, 5:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 4:51 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Google Miami FBI Shootout
>>> Don't need to.
>>> Are you involved in containing/stopping heavily armed bank robbers? If
>>> so, you need to be equally armed.
>>> But if you are a private citizen, you will probably end up in jail if
>>> you try to STOP fleeing robbers.
>>> Dan Mc
>> The point was that after the FBI put a god awful number of wounds into
>> those suspects (who for the most part were armed with Mini-14s) was that
>> the 9mm didn't have the stopping power to deal with a suspect even if
>> all they were hyped up on was adrenaline.
>>
>> There is a reason that the US Army SF, FBI Hostage Rescue and pretty
>> much all major SWAT teams have switched to either the .45 or .40.
>
> Right -- and they (all of the above) are looking for people.
>
> YOU as a citizen are not out hunting them -- you're doing your best to
> avoid a confrontation but if forced, use deadly force.
>
> Not the same situation.
>
> Dan Mc
>

Actually the fact that they are looking for targets is an argument for
the use of a firearm with the most rounds. Yet they choose the full size
firearm with the less.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
>>> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there is
>>> no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is
>>> unquestionably responsible for the staggering murder rate which is
>>> unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys and the NRA are
>>> so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you should be
>>> supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing them.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws
>> also have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?
>>
>
> Spurious and you know it.
>
>
> Bertie
>

In no way is it spurious and YOU know it.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Mar 31, 5:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
>>>>> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there
>>>>> is no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is -->>
>>>>> unquestionably <<-- responsible for the staggering murder rate
>>>>> which is unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys and
>>>>> the NRA are so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you
>>>>> should be supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> That statement is absolutely, positively, and profoundly false.
>>>>
>>>> There are many countries with gun ownership rates similar to or
>>>> higher than the US, yet those have very low murder rates. The
>>>> reverse is also true.
>>>>
>>>> Finland, Switzerland, and New Zealand have virtually identical gun
>>>> ownership rates to the US, and yet their murder rates are
>>>> significantly lower than those of surrounding countries.
>>>
>>> That's because everyone in Switzerland and Finland are military
>>> reserve. They don't own the guns, the state does.
>>>> There's no evidence that murder rates are higher in those countries
>>>> with higher levels of gun ownership. The only way to show such
>>>> relationships is cherry picking a few countries to make the
>>>> comparison.
>>>>
>>>> Israel, with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, has a
>>>> murder rate 40% below Canada's.
>>> Again, the military.....
>>
>> So if the gun in my house were owned by the government instead of me
>> it would some how know that and not allow itself to shoot someone it
>> wasn't supposed to?
>>
>> Really, how's that work?
>>
>
> Well, in Switzerland and Finland, the two examples you gave, military
> service is mandatory. A year, or two, can't remember which. ( I know
> several Swiss well and get to Helsinki fairly often so I can ask when
> I;m there) When you get out, you are on reserve for life. The gun laws
> in both places are much stricter than anything proposed in the US,
> BTW...
>
> They don't buy guns as toys, they have them as part of a national
> defense plan.
>
> And your argument is bull**** and you know it.
>
>
> Bertie
>

USAian firearms are part of our national defense plan as well. (See 2nd
Amendment to the Constitution)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Flydive wrote:
>>
>>> So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
>>> American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban
>>> guns over there........
>> Unfortunately yes it is the American population that is the problem.
>> And we've tried gun localized gun bans and they don't work. These
>> people that break the law have a bad habit of ignoring gun laws as
>> well.
>>
>>
>
> As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors and
> manufacturers.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Bertie, I know you like to take a knee jerk position on just about any
issue that comes up but please don't just repeat back the the
anti-firearms propaganda that was only thought up as a way of using the
tort laws as a way of attacking the US firearms industry. It is beneath you.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 9:04 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 5:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 31, 4:51 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Google Miami FBI Shootout
> >>> Don't need to.
> >>> Are you involved in containing/stopping heavily armed bank robbers? If
> >>> so, you need to be equally armed.
> >>> But if you are a private citizen, you will probably end up in jail if
> >>> you try to STOP fleeing robbers.
> >>> Dan Mc
> >> The point was that after the FBI put a god awful number of wounds into
> >> those suspects (who for the most part were armed with Mini-14s) was that
> >> the 9mm didn't have the stopping power to deal with a suspect even if
> >> all they were hyped up on was adrenaline.
>
> >> There is a reason that the US Army SF, FBI Hostage Rescue and pretty
> >> much all major SWAT teams have switched to either the .45 or .40.
>
> > Right -- and they (all of the above) are looking for people.
>
> > YOU as a citizen are not out hunting them -- you're doing your best to
> > avoid a confrontation but if forced, use deadly force.
>
> > Not the same situation.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Actually the fact that they are looking for targets is an argument for
> the use of a firearm with the most rounds. Yet they choose the full size
> firearm with the less.

Not really. SpecOps, SF etc use handguns as backup.

They also enter & clear in teams.

And they practice a whole lot more than the rest of us with free ammo.

Dan Mc

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-31, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
> real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
> the force projected on target.
>
> 9mm = 135 gr @ 1100 fps = 135,300
> .40 S&W = 165 gr @ 980 fps = 161,700
> .45acp = 230 gr @ 900 fps = 207,000

Hmm, that is just 'gr' x 'fps' (except for the 9mm which seems wrong).

This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
K = 0.5 mv ^ 2

(where K is the kinetic energy, m is mass in kilograms, and v is velocity in
m/s).

So converting to SI so we can calculate the kinetic energy:
9mm = 8.75 grams at 335 m/s
..40 = 10.7 grams at 299 m/s
..45 = 15 grams at 274 m/s

Which results in:
9mm = 491 joules
..40 = 478 joules
..45 = 563 joules

So while the .45 has the most kinetic energy, the 9mm actually beats the
..40 when the calculations are done according to the laws of physics.

So I'd argue its power factor isn't any good at all since it's based on
a fundamentally flawed calculation. I won't disagree that there may be
other factors when considering the effectiveness of a round, but just
multiplying mass by velocity is so wrong it's not even wrong.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 9:34 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-03-31, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
> > I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
> > real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
> > the force projected on target.
>
> > 9mm = 135 gr @ 1100 fps = 135,300
> > .40 S&W = 165 gr @ 980 fps = 161,700
> > .45acp = 230 gr @ 900 fps = 207,000
>
> Hmm, that is just 'gr' x 'fps' (except for the 9mm which seems wrong).
>
> This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
> K = 0.5 mv ^ 2
>
> (where K is the kinetic energy, m is mass in kilograms, and v is velocity in
> m/s).
>
> So converting to SI so we can calculate the kinetic energy:
> 9mm = 8.75 grams at 335 m/s
> .40 = 10.7 grams at 299 m/s
> .45 = 15 grams at 274 m/s
>
> Which results in:
> 9mm = 491 joules
> .40 = 478 joules
> .45 = 563 joules
>
> So while the .45 has the most kinetic energy, the 9mm actually beats the
> .40 when the calculations are done according to the laws of physics.
>
> So I'd argue its power factor isn't any good at all since it's based on
> a fundamentally flawed calculation. I won't disagree that there may be
> other factors when considering the effectiveness of a round, but just
> multiplying mass by velocity is so wrong it's not even wrong.

Typo in there?

> This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
> K = 0.5 mv ^ 2

I thought Kinetic energy = 1/2 x (mass x velocity squared)...?

Dan Mc

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-29, Dan > wrote:
> The fact is that the impact of a 9mm bullet --at muzzle velocity -- is
> equal to a *one pound* weight dropped from a height of 5.96 feet
> (achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps) or a ten pound weight dropped from
> a height of 0.72 inches (yes, that's 3/4 of an inch!)

What size of 1lb weight?

It depends on the density of that 1 lb weight. If that weight was
one micron cubed, it would probably go all the way to the centre of
the earth. But 1lb of duck feathers wouldn't even hurt you at that
velocity.

A 1lb weight travelling at 19.6 fps, or in proper units, a 0.455
kilogram weight travelling at 6 metres per second has twenty times the
kinetic energy of a .45 round (around 8 kilojoules, versus the .45's
kinetic energy of about 0.5 kilojoules).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 9:34 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-03-31, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
> > I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
> > real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
> > the force projected on target.
>
> > 9mm = 135 gr @ 1100 fps = 135,300
> > .40 S&W = 165 gr @ 980 fps = 161,700
> > .45acp = 230 gr @ 900 fps = 207,000
>
> Hmm, that is just 'gr' x 'fps' (except for the 9mm which seems wrong).
>
> This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
> K = 0.5 mv ^ 2
>
> (where K is the kinetic energy, m is mass in kilograms, and v is velocity in
> m/s).
>
> So converting to SI so we can calculate the kinetic energy:
> 9mm = 8.75 grams at 335 m/s
> .40 = 10.7 grams at 299 m/s
> .45 = 15 grams at 274 m/s
>
> Which results in:
> 9mm = 491 joules
> .40 = 478 joules
> .45 = 563 joules
>
> So while the .45 has the most kinetic energy, the 9mm actually beats the
> .40 when the calculations are done according to the laws of physics.

KE is not universally accepted as the measure of bullet effectiveness,
but it is an interesting data point.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-01, Dan > wrote:
>> This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
>> K = 0.5 mv ^ 2
>
> I thought Kinetic energy = 1/2 x (mass x velocity squared)...?

0.5 is the same as 1/2.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-01, Dan > wrote:
> KE is not universally accepted as the measure of bullet effectiveness,
> but it is an interesting data point.

Yes, I understand that - what I was alluding to was the original
calculation which was just mass * velocity was pretty much totally
useless in indicating anything in particular, other than mass * velocity
equals some number. To come up with a good definition of 'stopping
power', kinetic energy would make a far better starting point than a
naive calculation of simple mass times velocity.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-03-31, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> I know you think IPSC shooting is a game and has little to do with the
>> real world but it's power factor system is as good as any of calculating
>> the force projected on target.
>>
>> 9mm = 135 gr @ 1100 fps = 135,300
>> .40 S&W = 165 gr @ 980 fps = 161,700
>> .45acp = 230 gr @ 900 fps = 207,000
>
> Hmm, that is just 'gr' x 'fps' (except for the 9mm which seems wrong).
>
> This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
> K = 0.5 mv ^ 2
>
> (where K is the kinetic energy, m is mass in kilograms, and v is velocity in
> m/s).
>
> So converting to SI so we can calculate the kinetic energy:
> 9mm = 8.75 grams at 335 m/s
> .40 = 10.7 grams at 299 m/s
> .45 = 15 grams at 274 m/s
>
> Which results in:
> 9mm = 491 joules
> .40 = 478 joules
> .45 = 563 joules
>
> So while the .45 has the most kinetic energy, the 9mm actually beats the
> .40 when the calculations are done according to the laws of physics.
>
> So I'd argue its power factor isn't any good at all since it's based on
> a fundamentally flawed calculation. I won't disagree that there may be
> other factors when considering the effectiveness of a round, but just
> multiplying mass by velocity is so wrong it's not even wrong.
>

You're right I typed 1100 when I should have typed 1000 for the 9mm. The
power factor simplifies the equation by removing the 0.5 and ^2.

You are also right that there is another factor in stopping power and it
is the energy that is actually left in the target. A round that
penetrates and keeps on going has obviously NOT imparted all of it's
energy into the target. One that stops in the target obviously has done so.

This is why hollow points beat FMJ and .45 beats 9mm. It's all about
energy transfer.

Here's a little ammo trivia. The .40 S&W was a compromise round. Smith
and Wesson wanted a 10mm round but still wanted to be able to use their
9mm frame tooling.

Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
unless they made a radical change to the case. Then of course there is
the marketing side that clearly states that a 4 is bigger and better
than a 3 and a 10 is bigger and better than a 10. And further that an
increase from 9 to 10 is only an increase of 1 and change from .38 to
..40 is an increase of 2.

Also note that a lot of the really Elite units are moving away from 9mm
in their SMGs and going to .40 S&W.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

>
> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and


Sig 229s are P rated.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 10:15 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-04-01, Dan > wrote:
>
> > KE is not universally accepted as the measure of bullet effectiveness,
> > but it is an interesting data point.
>
> Yes, I understand that - what I was alluding to was the original
> calculation which was just mass * velocity was pretty much totally
> useless in indicating anything in particular, other than mass * velocity
> equals some number. To come up with a good definition of 'stopping
> power', kinetic energy would make a far better starting point than a
> naive calculation of simple mass times velocity.
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Agreed

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 10:13 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-04-01, Dan > wrote:
>
> >> This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
> >> K = 0.5 mv ^ 2
>
> > I thought Kinetic energy = 1/2 x (mass x velocity squared)...?
>
> 0.5 is the same as 1/2.
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Sorry - mis-read the formula.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
>> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
>> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
>
>
> Sig 229s are P rated.

To get to the power level of .45 a 9mm would have had to go up to +++P
or +PPP (however they did that).

There were some people that tried it for a while about 16 or 17years ago
in IPSC and they ended up banning the practice because of some pretty
catastrophic weapons failures.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 11:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
> >> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
> >> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
>
> > Sig 229s are P rated.
>
> To get to the power level of .45 a 9mm would have had to go up to +++P
> or +PPP (however they did that).
>
> There were some people that tried it for a while about 16 or 17years ago
> in IPSC and they ended up banning the practice because of some pretty
> catastrophic weapons failures.

Again, the "power level" is not an adequate measure of effectiveness.

Sig P229s are rated for +P 9mm ammo.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
>>>> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
>>>> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
>>> Sig 229s are P rated.
>> To get to the power level of .45 a 9mm would have had to go up to +++P
>> or +PPP (however they did that).
>>
>> There were some people that tried it for a while about 16 or 17years ago
>> in IPSC and they ended up banning the practice because of some pretty
>> catastrophic weapons failures.
>
> Again, the "power level" is not an adequate measure of effectiveness.
>
> Sig P229s are rated for +P 9mm ammo.

Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
going to help?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> >>> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
> >>>> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
> >>>> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and


> Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
> going to help?

Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.

Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
something the shooter thinks is important.

I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather - only
ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.

Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 12:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:

> For those fractions of a second, you can't beat a big, slow, heavy lump of
> lead to screw up someone's plans.

The weight differences between the combat rounds (9mm, .40, and .45)
is about 50 grains.

There's NO handgun that shoots a "heavy lump of lead."


> As a friend once told me about an experience in Vietnam, he "shot daylight"
> through a NVA soldier with his M-16 and didn't stop him. His CO put the guy
> down with one shot from a .45.

These stories have been in circulation since Sam Colt. I suppose the
daylight through the NVA didn't have any effect?

The 9mm v .40 v .45 wars won't be solved here.

Reasonable people should determine the mission profile, asses his/her
own capabilities, level of proficiency, and then choose any one of the
combat calibers and not be "wrong."

Those that claim one is "obviously superior" over the other are
typically Gun Store Commandos, who spend more time drooling over ads
than firing at the range.


Dan Mc

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
>>>>>> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
>>>>>> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
>
>
>> Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
>> going to help?
>
> Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.

No, what I said was that the 9mm legacy handguns couldn't handle the
pressure needed to be equal to a .45acp. I used the .38 Super +P as a
gun that could use the same size bullet and equal the .45.


>
> Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
> something the shooter thinks is important.
>
> I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather - only
> ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.
>

And IPSC shooting takes that into account because a shot in the "A"
zones count the same for major and minor ammo.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
>> For those fractions of a second, you can't beat a big, slow, heavy lump of
>> lead to screw up someone's plans.
>
> The weight differences between the combat rounds (9mm, .40, and .45)
> is about 50 grains.
>
> There's NO handgun that shoots a "heavy lump of lead."
>

Well 124 grains of the 9mm compared to the 230 of the .45 is a pretty
significant difference.


>
>> As a friend once told me about an experience in Vietnam, he "shot daylight"
>> through a NVA soldier with his M-16 and didn't stop him. His CO put the guy
>> down with one shot from a .45.
>
> These stories have been in circulation since Sam Colt. I suppose the
> daylight through the NVA didn't have any effect?
>

And the light weight (62 grains FMJ) of the 5.56 punches right through
and unless it hits something either directly or via the shock
cavity(which is pretty large due to the bullet's speed) it isn't going
to do much immediate damage.

But here is where the power factor comes in again the 5.56 NATO has a
Power factor of around 192,000.


> The 9mm v .40 v .45 wars won't be solved here.
>
> Reasonable people should determine the mission profile, asses his/her
> own capabilities, level of proficiency, and then choose any one of the
> combat calibers and not be "wrong."
>
> Those that claim one is "obviously superior" over the other are
> typically Gun Store Commandos, who spend more time drooling over ads
> than firing at the range.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:1da6277d-a237-4865-8e00-
:

> On Mar 31, 10:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> > Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?
>>
>> You oughta be nier to him. He's on your side with the whole
gun/global
>> warming thing.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> An ignoramus can state that 2+2=4.


But he won't know what it means.


And 2+2 doesn't always equal 4
>
>
>
>
>

I think he's still just poasting individual numbers at this stage. maybe
he'll eventually reach to sums. Doing the musical scale was impressive,
though. I guess he used his Fisher Price Xylaphone.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
>>>> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there
is
>>>> no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is
>>>> unquestionably responsible for the staggering murder rate which is
>>>> unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys and the NRA
are
>>>> so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you should be
>>>> supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing them.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws
>>> also have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?
>>>
>>
>> Spurious and you know it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> In no way is it spurious and YOU know it.
>

OK, I'll concede that it is spurious and you apparently don't know it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in
>>>> news:9ddb6320-8ec5-4080-9eee-3948538a9e98@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 31, 5:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
>>>>>> everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there
>>>>>> is no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is
-->>
>>>>>> unquestionably <<-- responsible for the staggering murder rate
>>>>>> which is unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys
and
>>>>>> the NRA are so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you
>>>>>> should be supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing
them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> That statement is absolutely, positively, and profoundly false.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many countries with gun ownership rates similar to or
>>>>> higher than the US, yet those have very low murder rates. The
>>>>> reverse is also true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finland, Switzerland, and New Zealand have virtually identical gun
>>>>> ownership rates to the US, and yet their murder rates are
>>>>> significantly lower than those of surrounding countries.
>>>>
>>>> That's because everyone in Switzerland and Finland are military
>>>> reserve. They don't own the guns, the state does.
>>>>> There's no evidence that murder rates are higher in those
countries
>>>>> with higher levels of gun ownership. The only way to show such
>>>>> relationships is cherry picking a few countries to make the
>>>>> comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>> Israel, with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, has a
>>>>> murder rate 40% below Canada's.
>>>> Again, the military.....
>>>
>>> So if the gun in my house were owned by the government instead of me
>>> it would some how know that and not allow itself to shoot someone it
>>> wasn't supposed to?
>>>
>>> Really, how's that work?
>>>
>>
>> Well, in Switzerland and Finland, the two examples you gave, military
>> service is mandatory. A year, or two, can't remember which. ( I know
>> several Swiss well and get to Helsinki fairly often so I can ask when
>> I;m there) When you get out, you are on reserve for life. The gun
laws
>> in both places are much stricter than anything proposed in the US,
>> BTW...
>>
>> They don't buy guns as toys, they have them as part of a national
>> defense plan.
>>
>> And your argument is bull**** and you know it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> USAian firearms are part of our national defense plan as well. (See
2nd
> Amendment to the Constitution)
>

No, they aren't. That's not a plan. Apples and oranges.
Everyone, and that is Everyone, who has a gun in those countries has had
military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant in the
US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything else, it
would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Flydive wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
>>>> American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban
>>>> guns over there........
>>> Unfortunately yes it is the American population that is the problem.
>>> And we've tried gun localized gun bans and they don't work. These
>>> people that break the law have a bad habit of ignoring gun laws as
>>> well.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors
>> and manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bertie, I know you like to take a knee jerk position on just about any
> issue that comes up but please don't just repeat back the the
> anti-firearms propaganda that was only thought up as a way of using
> the tort laws as a way of attacking the US firearms industry. It is
> beneath you.


I'm not. I'm saying what I think. I'm saying what I see as a fact. The
fact is, armorours are the same as any other industry, They dont give a
****. Aside,perhaps, from some li'l old gun maker who does it as a
family tradition and/or for the sake of the art, the rest are looking
after their bottom line. If they regret a death due to a gun, it's only
because there's one less sucker to sell one too.



Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
>> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
>> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
>
>
> Sig 229s are P rated.

Dan, do you comprehend "legacy" guns?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> >>> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed
>> >>>> up
>> >>>> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure
>> >>>> and
>
>
>> Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
>> going to help?
>
> Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.
>
> Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
> something the shooter thinks is important.
>
> I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather - only
> ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.
>

Dan! He said LEGACY handguns.

Do you know what a LEGACY handgun is? It's not just the Sig 229.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:1da6277d-a237-4865-8e00-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 10:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?
>
> >> You oughta be nier to him. He's on your side with the whole
> gun/global
> >> warming thing.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > An ignoramus can state that 2+2=4.
>
> But he won't know what it means.
>
> And 2+2 doesn't always equal 4
>
>
>
> I think he's still just poasting individual numbers at this stage. maybe
> he'll eventually reach to sums. Doing the musical scale was impressive,
> though. I guess he used his Fisher Price Xylaphone.

Most likely.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 4:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant in the
> US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything else, it
> would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
> eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.
>
> Bertie

I would be in favor of mandatory training, but the rub on that one is
the enrollment lists.

But I agree some type compulsory training prior to ownership would be
a Very good thing.

Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 5:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:

>
> > Sig 229s are P rated.
>
> Dan, do you comprehend "legacy" guns?


Such as?

It's apples and oranges. The "legacy" .45s couldn't handle +P ammo,
either.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I've stated my reasoning and
opinions on the matter quite clearly.

Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:b6b08de4-b5ad-412f-b8f7-
:

> On Apr 1, 4:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant in
the
>> US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything else,
it
>> would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
>> eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I would be in favor of mandatory training, but the rub on that one is
> the enrollment lists.
>
> But I agree some type compulsory training prior to ownership would be
> a Very good thing.
>

Couldn't hurt. At the very least accidental killings of third parites in
drive-bys might drop a bit if a bit of craft were involved. #hell they
make you take a test to drive.... except maybe in Boston.


Bertie
>

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 1, 5:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:b6b08de4-b5ad-412f-b8f7-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 4:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant in
> the
> >> US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything else,
> it
> >> would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
> >> eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I would be in favor of mandatory training, but the rub on that one is
> > the enrollment lists.
>
> > But I agree some type compulsory training prior to ownership would be
> > a Very good thing.
>
> Couldn't hurt. At the very least accidental killings of third parites in
> drive-bys might drop a bit if a bit of craft were involved. #hell they
> make you take a test to drive.... except maybe in Boston.
>
> Bertie

Drive-by craft consists of firing the auto-pistol on its side so as to
ensure a jam.

I'd rather they remain ignorant -- chlorine in the gene pool and all.

Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:afa0d483-c313-4d31-9262-
:

> On Apr 1, 5:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:b6b08de4-b5ad-412f-b8f7-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 1, 4:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant
in
>> the
>> >> US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything
else,
>> it
>> >> would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
>> >> eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > I would be in favor of mandatory training, but the rub on that one
is
>> > the enrollment lists.
>>
>> > But I agree some type compulsory training prior to ownership would
be
>> > a Very good thing.
>>
>> Couldn't hurt. At the very least accidental killings of third parites
in
>> drive-bys might drop a bit if a bit of craft were involved. #hell
they
>> make you take a test to drive.... except maybe in Boston.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Drive-by craft consists of firing the auto-pistol on its side so as to
> ensure a jam.
>
> I'd rather they remain ignorant -- chlorine in the gene pool and all.


I'm going to have to dial back my subtelty settings.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> In about 40 yrs of hunting, I've dropped over 200 deer (120 - 200 lbs).
> A 12 ga slug has dropped them, on the spot, every time.
> A .357 mag has dropped every one within 20 ft.
> A 30 cal rifle usually has them run for 100 yards before going down.
> And, oddly enough, they're usually down within 100 yards with a bow & arrow,
> also.
>
> You can make you own conclusions.

I conclude you are a lousy rifle shot! I've shot many deer with my 7mm
Rem Mag since I bought it in 1974 and I've never had a deer go even 10
yards afterward. I once shot two doe, a 4" birch tree and a rock all
with the same shot!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
>>>>>> to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
>>>>>> legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
>
>
>> Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
>> going to help?
>
> Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.
>
> Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
> something the shooter thinks is important.
>
> I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather - only
> ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.

Not true. If the perp is hiding behind a windshield or car door, my .44
will GREATLY increase the odds of stopping the perp as compared to a 9mm
no matter where the shot is placed.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Dan wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been
>>>>>>> beefed up to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it.
>>>>>>> The problem was the legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal
>>>>>>> with the added pressure and
>>
>>
>>> Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it
>>> isn't going to help?
>>
>> Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.
>>
>> Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
>> something the shooter thinks is important.
>>
>> I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather -
>> only ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.
>
> Not true. If the perp is hiding behind a windshield or car door, my
> .44 will GREATLY increase the odds of stopping the perp as compared to
> a 9mm no matter where the shot is placed.

Good grief. I think anytime I get involved in an argument about guns in
future, i'll just repost this.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> In about 40 yrs of hunting, I've dropped over 200 deer (120 - 200 lbs).
>> A 12 ga slug has dropped them, on the spot, every time.
>> A .357 mag has dropped every one within 20 ft.
>> A 30 cal rifle usually has them run for 100 yards before going down.
>> And, oddly enough, they're usually down within 100 yards with a bow &
>> arrow,
>> also.
>>
>> You can make you own conclusions.
>
> I conclude you are a lousy rifle shot! I've shot many deer with my 7mm
> Rem Mag since I bought it in 1974 and I've never had a deer go even 10
> yards afterward. I once shot two doe, a 4" birch tree and a rock all with
> the same shot!
>

Which ammo are you using in your 7mm?

Medium rare, well done or roasted?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote
>
> Actually the fact that they are looking for targets is an argument for the
> use of a firearm with the most rounds. Yet they choose the full size
> firearm with the less.

Although, many of the targets are now wearing body armor, nowdays.

A 9mm pistol is not going to even scratch it.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan[_10_]]

On Apr 2, 3:06 am, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> Although, many of the targets are now wearing body armor, nowdays.
>
> A 9mm pistol is not going to even scratch it.
> --
> Jim in NC

If you -- as a civilian -- are engaging threats wearing body armor,
you don't need a handgun.

You need to run faster.



Dan Mc

[Matt Whiting]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Matt Whiting >
>
>> I conclude you are a lousy rifle shot! I've shot many deer with my 7mm
>> Rem Mag since I bought it in 1974 and I've never had a deer go even 10
>> yards afterward. I once shot two doe, a 4" birch tree and a rock all
>> with the same shot!
>>
>> Matt
>
> A 7mm Rem Mag for deer?!?
> Now that's funny. :)
> What would you use for bear...........a Howitzer?

I hand load. I can assemble ammunition for a wide range of purposes
with the 7mm Mag. It is an extremely versatile round in that regard. I
used it for years for everything from chucks to deer. I bought a nice
220 Swift a few years ago and that is now my varmint rifle.

Things are more constrained with factory ammunition, but any real
firearms enthusiastic rolls his or her own! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> In about 40 yrs of hunting, I've dropped over 200 deer (120 - 200 lbs).
>>> A 12 ga slug has dropped them, on the spot, every time.
>>> A .357 mag has dropped every one within 20 ft.
>>> A 30 cal rifle usually has them run for 100 yards before going down.
>>> And, oddly enough, they're usually down within 100 yards with a bow &
>>> arrow,
>>> also.
>>>
>>> You can make you own conclusions.
>> I conclude you are a lousy rifle shot! I've shot many deer with my 7mm
>> Rem Mag since I bought it in 1974 and I've never had a deer go even 10
>> yards afterward. I once shot two doe, a 4" birch tree and a rock all with
>> the same shot!
>>
>
> Which ammo are you using in your 7mm?
>
> Medium rare, well done or roasted?

All of the above.

I use everything from 110 grain bullets with light powder weights up to
175 grain with max powder charges. This gives me a fairly large
"dynamic range."

http://www.speer-bullets.com/default.asp?menu=1&s1=7&s2=7&pg=14

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Matt Whiting >
>
>>I hand load. I can assemble ammunition for a wide range of purposes
>>with the 7mm Mag. It is an extremely versatile round in that regard. I
>>used it for years for everything from chucks to deer. I bought a nice
>>220 Swift a few years ago and that is now my varmint rifle.
>>
>>Things are more constrained with factory ammunition, but any real
>>firearms enthusiastic rolls his or her own! :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
> Marlin 336 30-30
> 30 gr 748 pushing a 150 gr Sierra flat nose at about 1900 ft/sec
>
> It's still a little overpowered for deer, but it shoots nice.

What deer (White tail, I assume, not muley), and at what range?

Last mule deer I took was at about 220 yards with a 7mm-08.

Matt (The other)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Matt W. Barrow" >
>
>>What deer (White tail, I assume, not muley), and at what range?
>>
>>Last mule deer I took was at about 220 yards with a 7mm-08.
>>
>>Matt (The other)
>
> Yea, white tail.
> Normal range is between 25 ft and 75 yards. I've taken deer
> out to about 150 yards with the 30-30.
> I'd tend to trust the same round out to 75 yards with a mule deer,
> although I have no experience with muleys.
> Not a lot of long range shots here in New England. But I have taken
> a few white tails out to 600+ yards in a large field with no/steady wind.
> But for those, I'm ranging with a laser, using ballistic tables, and
> shooting this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2qd3kb

Those Savage 10FPs are sumthin', ain't they? :~)

Yours is .308, I take it.