H the K wrote:


The worst mistake of his presidency.

Don't ya love it? When it's a democrat, it's a "mistake".

Johnson

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:00:15 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Just another case of Harry's superior abilities.

The man is truly amazing.

And if he had been in a combat role in SEA instead of a non combatant role,
he would have ended the war single handedly. There would not be a VC alive
today.

Killing all the VC wasn't enough to win the war. We did that, nearly,
during Tet of 68 and still lost. There were these Northerners with
guns, you see. VC, NVA, it made no difference, they all were non
Christian Gomers that didn't speak English, with Communist guns.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:00:15 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Just another case of Harry's superior abilities.

The man is truly amazing.
And if he had been in a combat role in SEA instead of a non combatant role,
he would have ended the war single handedly. There would not be a VC alive
today.

Killing all the VC wasn't enough to win the war. We did that, nearly,
during Tet of 68 and still lost. There were these Northerners with
guns, you see. VC, NVA, it made no difference, they all were non
Christian Gomers that didn't speak English, with Communist guns.

Casady


Too bad we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam before Bush invaded Iraq.
It doesn't matter how many "insurgents" we kill, and it doesn't matter
when we leave. As soon as we do, Iraq will be blown up by its various
factions.


--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

I have been certified now for thirteen years to carry a concealed firearm.
Used to be concealed weapon, but now concealed firearm.

Now, I take the choices in this order for a fight when you can touch the
opponent:

1. Knife
2. Pepper spray
3. Gun

YMMV. For me, I rate my own competency with each of these in the regard
listed. I'm 60, and have been shooting since the age of 8.

Up close and personal, give me a knife. Mostly invisible, which gives you
the element of surprise, and IMHO, more intimidating than a gun.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
I have been certified now for thirteen years to carry a concealed firearm.
Used to be concealed weapon, but now concealed firearm.

Now, I take the choices in this order for a fight when you can touch the
opponent:

1. Knife
2. Pepper spray
3. Gun

YMMV. For me, I rate my own competency with each of these in the regard
listed. I'm 60, and have been shooting since the age of 8.

Up close and personal, give me a knife. Mostly invisible, which gives you
the element of surprise, and IMHO, more intimidating than a gun.

Steve



Not to worry, as usual, Harry is making statements about something he
knows nothing about. In this case, it's in close combat.

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:00:15 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Just another case of Harry's superior abilities.

The man is truly amazing.

And if he had been in a combat role in SEA instead of a non combatant
role,
he would have ended the war single handedly. There would not be a VC
alive
today.

Killing all the VC wasn't enough to win the war. We did that, nearly,
during Tet of 68 and still lost. There were these Northerners with
guns, you see. VC, NVA, it made no difference, they all were non
Christian Gomers that didn't speak English, with Communist guns.

Casady

Tet, pretty much ended the VC and NVA. But by then we were quitting due to
politics. If there had only been one NVA after Tet, he would still have
gotten Saigon.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:16:23 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:07:21 -0700, jps penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:54:42 -0400, wrote:
|
|On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:25:11 -0400, H the K
|wrote:
|
|On 7/22/09 9:11 PM, Gene wrote:
| On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:08:54 -0700, wrote:
|p
|
| Oh for ****'s sake Gene, you're assuming whomever is weidling the
| knife is an expert.
|
| Flawed logic.
|
| The guy in this case obviously meant to kill both women but left one
| alive. Sound like a knife expert to you? Neither of the women were
| armed from what I understand.
|
| Any dweeb with two hands and an arse can put a bullet through
| someone's skull at close range. What's the chance of survival?
|
| And I suppose merely being in possession of a gun somehow imbues the
| wielder with magical powers of perfect aim......
|
|At 10 feet with a target the size of an adult human and some
|considerable experience handling and shooting firearms?
|
|You don't need perfect aim, just "decent" aim.
|
|I suppose you haven't seen those police dash camera pictures where
|trained police officers fire lots of ammo without hitting anyone.
|What you can do on the range may not translate to what you can do in
|bad light, when you are not really prepared and under more than a
|little stress.
|
|We're talking about knives vs. guns. In the same circumstances, the
|knife is going to be just as difficult to handle as a deadly weapon as
|a gun.

I think you have finally argued full circle. In order for a knife to
be an effective weapon, the wielder must be expert and, by your own
admission, a gun is just as difficult to handle as a knife.

Therefore, for a gun to be an effective weapon, the wielder must be an
expert.

Now, maybe you are ready to understand the next logical step, "Weapons
don't kill people, people kill people." Once there, perhaps you'll be
ready to develop effective strategies to stop violence. Historically,
something no amount of "take the weapons away" legislation has
done....

You don't have to be an expert with a gun to kill someone from 10 or
15 feet. You'd certainly have to be an expert with a knife or any
other sharp instrument from 10 or 15 feet.

I'm sure that doesn't make any sense to an NRA supporter.

wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:06:07 -0700, jps wrote:

I think you have finally argued full circle. In order for a knife to
be an effective weapon, the wielder must be expert and, by your own
admission, a gun is just as difficult to handle as a knife.

Therefore, for a gun to be an effective weapon, the wielder must be an
expert.

Now, maybe you are ready to understand the next logical step, "Weapons
don't kill people, people kill people." Once there, perhaps you'll be
ready to develop effective strategies to stop violence. Historically,
something no amount of "take the weapons away" legislation has
done....
You don't have to be an expert with a gun to kill someone from 10 or
15 feet. You'd certainly have to be an expert with a knife or any
other sharp instrument from 10 or 15 feet.

I'm sure that doesn't make any sense to an NRA supporter.


The issue is not 10 or 15 feet away, it is how fast you can close that
distance and once you are face to face, anyone swinging and stabbing
with a knife is deadly. It takes an expert to keep from being killed.
Any reasonably healthy person is quicker in 10 feet (the original
challenge) than the fastest drag racer. That is an old beer bet you
can't lose.
I suppose the real challenge for the gunslinger is can you actually
have the presence of mind to place a "kill shot", in a fraction of a
second, on an attacker who is lunging at you with a knife, that drops
them before they stab you. Without extensive training, I bet most
people freeze.
Shooting them in the belly or the leg won't do it. You will both die
in the same big pool of blood.



I dunno. If a really ****ed zombie came after me with a knife in hand
from 165 feet away, and I had my SIG in hand ready to shoot, I have a
feeling I could pretty much empty a mag in him as I stepped backwards.

How many shots in the kill zone do you think it take to drop a zombie?




--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:06:07 -0700, jps wrote:

I think you have finally argued full circle. In order for a knife to
be an effective weapon, the wielder must be expert and, by your own
admission, a gun is just as difficult to handle as a knife.

Therefore, for a gun to be an effective weapon, the wielder must be an
expert.

Now, maybe you are ready to understand the next logical step, "Weapons
don't kill people, people kill people." Once there, perhaps you'll be
ready to develop effective strategies to stop violence. Historically,
something no amount of "take the weapons away" legislation has
done....
You don't have to be an expert with a gun to kill someone from 10 or
15 feet. You'd certainly have to be an expert with a knife or any
other sharp instrument from 10 or 15 feet.

I'm sure that doesn't make any sense to an NRA supporter.


The issue is not 10 or 15 feet away, it is how fast you can close that
distance and once you are face to face, anyone swinging and stabbing
with a knife is deadly. It takes an expert to keep from being killed. Any
reasonably healthy person is quicker in 10 feet (the original
challenge) than the fastest drag racer. That is an old beer bet you
can't lose.
I suppose the real challenge for the gunslinger is can you actually
have the presence of mind to place a "kill shot", in a fraction of a
second, on an attacker who is lunging at you with a knife, that drops
them before they stab you. Without extensive training, I bet most
people freeze. Shooting them in the belly or the leg won't do it. You
will both die
in the same big pool of blood.


I dunno. If a really ****ed zombie came after me with a knife in hand from
165 feet away, and I had my SIG in hand ready to shoot, I have a feeling I
could pretty much empty a mag in him as I stepped backwards.

How many shots in the kill zone do you think it take to drop a zombie?




--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

Don't bet on it. Before I was a police chief, I spent several years teaching
firearms and combat shooting to recruits, as well as veteran officers. I've
been in a couple of shooting scrapes myself, and have investigated
officer-involved shootings. I have seen situations where highly trained
officers while under extreme stress failed to hit a man-sized target five
yards away. I was present at a armed gunman situation and saw an officer
empty his 12 gauge pump shotgun at the suspect - emptied it by pumping all
five live rounds on the ground. He later complained the shotgun jammed. The
video tape proved him wrong.

I have also seen cases of extaordinary shooting skill by officers who barely
qualified on the combat range during periodic re-qualification.

If you haven't been in a live shooting situation, with its tremendous
stress, you are a fool to claim you will do anything with accuracy. Such
bravado will get you killed. If you don't want to give me any credibility on
the subject, ask any military veteran about their performance the first time
they were in a hot zone.

BTW, I hit my real moving target one time out of three at a distance of 20
yards, and I consistently fired expert on the pistol range.

Lu Powell wrote:

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:06:07 -0700, jps wrote:

I think you have finally argued full circle. In order for a knife to
be an effective weapon, the wielder must be expert and, by your own
admission, a gun is just as difficult to handle as a knife.

Therefore, for a gun to be an effective weapon, the wielder must be an
expert.

Now, maybe you are ready to understand the next logical step, "Weapons
don't kill people, people kill people." Once there, perhaps you'll be
ready to develop effective strategies to stop violence. Historically,
something no amount of "take the weapons away" legislation has
done....
You don't have to be an expert with a gun to kill someone from 10 or
15 feet. You'd certainly have to be an expert with a knife or any
other sharp instrument from 10 or 15 feet.

I'm sure that doesn't make any sense to an NRA supporter.


The issue is not 10 or 15 feet away, it is how fast you can close that
distance and once you are face to face, anyone swinging and stabbing
with a knife is deadly. It takes an expert to keep from being killed.
Any reasonably healthy person is quicker in 10 feet (the original
challenge) than the fastest drag racer. That is an old beer bet you
can't lose.
I suppose the real challenge for the gunslinger is can you actually
have the presence of mind to place a "kill shot", in a fraction of a
second, on an attacker who is lunging at you with a knife, that drops
them before they stab you. Without extensive training, I bet most
people freeze. Shooting them in the belly or the leg won't do it. You
will both die
in the same big pool of blood.


I dunno. If a really ****ed zombie came after me with a knife in hand
from 165 feet away, and I had my SIG in hand ready to shoot, I have a
feeling I could pretty much empty a mag in him as I stepped backwards.

How many shots in the kill zone do you think it take to drop a zombie?




--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were
laws, and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of
them, *unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or
minister. If that is your position in life, then anything goes.

Don't bet on it. Before I was a police chief, I spent several years
teaching firearms and combat shooting to recruits, as well as veteran
officers. I've been in a couple of shooting scrapes myself, and have
investigated officer-involved shootings. I have seen situations where
highly trained officers while under extreme stress failed to hit a
man-sized target five yards away. I was present at a armed gunman
situation and saw an officer empty his 12 gauge pump shotgun at the
suspect - emptied it by pumping all five live rounds on the ground. He
later complained the shotgun jammed. The video tape proved him wrong.

I have also seen cases of extaordinary shooting skill by officers who
barely qualified on the combat range during periodic re-qualification.

If you haven't been in a live shooting situation, with its tremendous
stress, you are a fool to claim you will do anything with accuracy. Such
bravado will get you killed. If you don't want to give me any
credibility on the subject, ask any military veteran about their
performance the first time they were in a hot zone.

BTW, I hit my real moving target one time out of three at a distance of
20 yards, and I consistently fired expert on the pistol range.

You are underestimating the stupidity of Harry Krause, Lou. Anyone with
a lick of sense would first attempt to extract himself from the
situation. I don't know where Krause is getting his cowboy training, but
he should seek out more responsible trainers, for his own good.