Why GA is Dying

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:29:48 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
If you have to shoot someone with justification, call the
police as soon as you can, request an ambulance, tell the
911 operator the basic facts. Don't alter any part of the
crime scene or nothing you say will be believed. Don't move
the body, except as needed to provide first aid. Don't
decide that you need more "justification" and drop a knife
or gun if you don't see one after the shooting. Try to keep
his buddies away, they will take his gun or knife and hide
it. If you have a camera phone, take pictures while you're
calling. Don't say too much... have your lawyers 24/7
contact number.

She lives in Texas... All she needs is a pickup and a chain...
Personally, I believe that one should be ecological... If you kill it,
you should try to dispose of it if at all possible... Personally, I
have a fondness for larger reptiles... Gators gotta eat too, ya'
know...

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:35:16 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
I guess I'd be OK with this as long as only those who vote had to pay
taxes. After all, if I have no say in the country's governance, then I
shouldn't have to pay for it either.

Best I remember, we didn't have an income tax back then... Probably
just a property tax...

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:47:20 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the native Americans.

Perhaps... Perhaps they stole it from the Neanderthals or whomever was
around before them... Or perhaps they just stole it from other native
Americans... Don't try judging our ancestors by the standards of
today...

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:14:22 -0500, Emily
wrote:
And although I think I'm too old for the draft now, if they started
drafting women, I'd be in OCS so fast my current employer wouldn't know
what hit them. THAT'S how I really feel about mandatory military service.

You would probably not have a problem being an office... Hell, you
already got the first prerequisite -- you have to squat to ****...

Jose wrote:
.30/06 is the rifle caliber.

Nope.
.30-'06

Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.


Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers to
the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?

Short-hand for 1906, the year it was adopted.

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/3006stext.htm

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:14:22 -0500, Emily
wrote:
And although I think I'm too old for the draft now, if they started
drafting women, I'd be in OCS so fast my current employer wouldn't know
what hit them. THAT'S how I really feel about mandatory military service.

You would probably not have a problem being an office... Hell, you
already got the first prerequisite -- you have to squat to ****...

No, I wouldn't have a problem being an officer....if it came down to
being an officer or enlisting. But, since I was accepted to OCS a few
years ago and decided not to go, I think my decision on that is made.

And cool it with the officer jokes!

Jim Macklin wrote:

A 32 Seacamp with the recommended ammo is more effective
than the standard 38 Special 158 grain RN. It is reliable,
lethal on a headshot, lethal on a heart shot, and it is
available when nothing else might be.

I think it is Seecamp, but comparing one inadequate cartridge to another
doesn't really make a meaningful point. A .22 is lethal with perfect
bullet placement, no heavy clothing, etc., but it certainly wouldn't be
on my list for self-defense against anything larger than a cat.


My choice is a Colt Officer's ACP .45 ACP with 200 grain +P
HP, carried behind the hip in a holster of my own design.
But since most people do not have unlimited funds, people
carry what they have. Any gun, in any caliber is better
than a big gun locked away at home.

Yes, that is my preferred sidearm also, although mine isn't the
officer's model.


There are several small .45s on the market,
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ultracarry/ are not
much bigger than the Seacamp. Dirty Harry not withstanding,
really big handguns are not first choice for self-defense,
except where there are large bears, lions or other 1,000
pound monsters. Ruger makes the 480 and 454 Alaskan and S&W
has the snubby versions of the .500, but these are just too
big and powerful for anti-personnel use. Too much power
delays repeat shots and if there are two or more attackers
you need repeat shots.

Yes, don't need something quite that big, but I like at least a .45 ACP
as that is well proven. Personally, I like a .41 or .44 magnum, but it
is hard to find them in autoloaders and the 10mm isn't that popular
either. I can get repeat shots with my .45 nearly as fast as with my
Ruger .22/44. I've never had a problem with recoil as my dad had me
shooting .357 single actions at age 8 and .44 mags by age 10. However,
I wouldn't recommend them to everyone. A 9mm is controllable by almost
anyone and has a lot more stopping power than a .32 or .38. I consider
a 9mm to be marginal and I laugh at this whole "fire power" argument.
Personally, I'd rather have 6 or 8 rounds that count, than 15 peas to lob.


The 40 S&W and 45 ACP are about ideal, the 9 mm [9x19
Luger/Parabellum/NATO] is a good minimum unless some other
factor, such as physical weakness in the hands, or just no
way to carry or control something bigger. But remember the
point is to protect yourself, a gun may scare the attacker
into flight without a shot being fired. A shot fired that
hits the right place is better than a miss with a 44 Magnum.
The .22 LT HP is pretty effective at killing but it is not a
stopper. The bigger bullet has a better chance of stopping
the attacker and may not be as lethal as some smaller
calibers. But ideally, an attacker will never attack
because they will be worried that you may be armed. If they
do attack, the sight of your gun may scare them away [this
is very common]. If you have to shoot, you want to make
them stop their attack, you want to stun them into complete
inaction instantaneously. Bottom-line, you want to go home.

I generally agree with you here.


Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

Mas A yob, nice guy as long as he's on your side.

I've never met him. I've read a few articles he's written in the gun
mags, but he doesn't write for the two (American Rifleman and Shooting
Times) which I get by subscription. I occasionally pick up one of those
he writes for on the newstand when traveling.


Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

The King of Spain gave a few people most of southern Texas.


"Bob Noel" wrote in
message
...
| In article , Matt
Whiting
| wrote:
|
| Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the
native Americans.
|
| who stole it from other native americans, who stole it
from ....
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|



It wasn't his to give.

Matt

Speed without accuracy, power without accuracy, too much
power may kill your neighbor... If you want to see speed,
have you seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6rEnEQkYaQ&search=bond


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| A 32 Seacamp with the recommended ammo is more effective
| than the standard 38 Special 158 grain RN. It is
reliable,
| lethal on a headshot, lethal on a heart shot, and it is
| available when nothing else might be.
|
| I think it is Seecamp, but comparing one inadequate
cartridge to another
| doesn't really make a meaningful point. A .22 is lethal
with perfect
| bullet placement, no heavy clothing, etc., but it
certainly wouldn't be
| on my list for self-defense against anything larger than a
cat.
|
|
| My choice is a Colt Officer's ACP .45 ACP with 200 grain
+P
| HP, carried behind the hip in a holster of my own
design.
| But since most people do not have unlimited funds,
people
| carry what they have. Any gun, in any caliber is better
| than a big gun locked away at home.
|
| Yes, that is my preferred sidearm also, although mine
isn't the
| officer's model.
|
|
| There are several small .45s on the market,
| http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ultracarry/ are not
| much bigger than the Seacamp. Dirty Harry not
withstanding,
| really big handguns are not first choice for
self-defense,
| except where there are large bears, lions or other 1,000
| pound monsters. Ruger makes the 480 and 454 Alaskan and
S&W
| has the snubby versions of the .500, but these are just
too
| big and powerful for anti-personnel use. Too much power
| delays repeat shots and if there are two or more
attackers
| you need repeat shots.
|
| Yes, don't need something quite that big, but I like at
least a .45 ACP
| as that is well proven. Personally, I like a .41 or .44
magnum, but it
| is hard to find them in autoloaders and the 10mm isn't
that popular
| either. I can get repeat shots with my .45 nearly as fast
as with my
| Ruger .22/44. I've never had a problem with recoil as my
dad had me
| shooting .357 single actions at age 8 and .44 mags by age
10. However,
| I wouldn't recommend them to everyone. A 9mm is
controllable by almost
| anyone and has a lot more stopping power than a .32 or
..38. I consider
| a 9mm to be marginal and I laugh at this whole "fire
power" argument.
| Personally, I'd rather have 6 or 8 rounds that count, than
15 peas to lob.
|
|
| The 40 S&W and 45 ACP are about ideal, the 9 mm [9x19
| Luger/Parabellum/NATO] is a good minimum unless some
other
| factor, such as physical weakness in the hands, or just
no
| way to carry or control something bigger. But remember
the
| point is to protect yourself, a gun may scare the
attacker
| into flight without a shot being fired. A shot fired
that
| hits the right place is better than a miss with a 44
Magnum.
| The .22 LT HP is pretty effective at killing but it is
not a
| stopper. The bigger bullet has a better chance of
stopping
| the attacker and may not be as lethal as some smaller
| calibers. But ideally, an attacker will never attack
| because they will be worried that you may be armed. If
they
| do attack, the sight of your gun may scare them away
[this
| is very common]. If you have to shoot, you want to make
| them stop their attack, you want to stun them into
complete
| inaction instantaneously. Bottom-line, you want to go
home.
|
| I generally agree with you here.
|
|
| Matt