I find it intresting the lack of discussion on the role firearms in preparing for the y2k situation. Those who live in urban or semi-urban areas will really be on the prowl for anything they can get their hands on. Rural dwellers will have more advantages as they will be separated by geography from hungry, vicious hoards who will rob, rape, pillage, murder for survival. Firearms will be essential for self preservation and I am not talking one gun and a 50rd box of ammo!

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindspring.com), October 19, 1998

Answers

I think your assumption that people in urban areas are going to become viscious robbers, rapists, and murderers is absurd and quite frankly, irresponsible. Could you please give decent people everywhere a little credit? I, for one, am more afraid of people like you who want to go out and "get me some guns". Firearms will not be essential for self-preservation and I think if most believed that your statement was true, we'd all be buying guns--to kill ourselves! Who wants to "survive" in a world, which by your description, has fallen into total distrust, chaos, and misery? Not me. If this is the best we can hope for,(people, it's not)hand me the little red pills now. Are you sure you don't sell guns for a living?

-- Pam Armstrong (armstc@frontiernet.net), October 19, 1998.

Pam,

You took the words right out of my mouth. Some of the people have gone so overboard in their fear that their love the firearms scares me. And I agree with you that some folks are giving the general populace to little credit as just being a band of uncivialized savages. (even odds someone brings up the Rodeny King Riots in LA, but I do allow for isolated incidents)

I was raised in a rural community and have been around firearms all my life. Even with all my training and experiance with them I still have a very decent respect for them. They are NOT for everyone and do not let anyone try to tell you otherwise. They are a deadly weapon and when you have the business end of it pointed towards someone it is NOT the time to ask "Am I willing to take this persons life?". That was a question that should have been asked before you even walked in the gun shop.

Kudos to you Pam.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 19, 1998.

Pam, In light of your response I will add you to my prayer list and pray for your enlightenment and your safety. If you and other readers will think back to a chaotic situation which happened a few years ago on a relatively small scale where there was rioting, looting and burning and the LEOs were totally outnumbered you will see what I am referring to in my position on the y2k. The only people who could defend life and property were those who had firearms and were willing to use them. These were brave merchants who had worked very hard to have what they had and they were not willing to give ground to the hoards. The place was South Central LA and it was the second time riots had all but levelled Watts.

The y2k will be much more grand. In answering your opinions which were directly aimed at me let me tell you something you should know. The vast majority of gunowners are very peaceful, lawabiding, tax paying, church going individuals who just want to be left alone to live their lives, raise their families, help their neighbor, vote and prepare for the future. Gunowners are sportsmen and hunters, teachers and instructors, men and women who treasure the Constitution and the United States.

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindspring.com), October 19, 1998.

Pam, ANY suggestion of suicide always has to be taken seriously. It is NEVER a joke. Do you need help?

I live in the Philadelphia area and work at a ghetto hospital. I see more inhumanity in a week than most of you have encountered in an entire lifetime. There ARE a lot of vicious, brutal people who would kill you for pocket change. There are also a lot of good people. The BAD people brutalize the GOOD people regularly. To imagine this behavior would improve under conditions of deprivation is utter nonsense. I don't LOVE guns. I know exactly the horrible damage they can cause. But threaten me or my family and I WILL, without hesitation, respond with lethal force.

-- R. D..Herring (drherr@erols.com), October 19, 1998.

I think you are trying to have it both ways. First you start off by claiming that people are going to become by your own words "viscious, rapists, murderers, etc." and then you say that most gun owners are decent law abiding citizens who just want to help their neighbors. Which is it?

I wonder how the young couple who reads your post, gets scared and goes out to get a gun will feel when their 5 yr. old son accidentally kills himself with it. Mr. Williams, if I were you I would not advise that people go out and buy guns unless you want to be sued yourself. You have no business using words like "essential".

Finally, don't pray for me. I never asked you to and your assumption that I need your prayers and what you deem as enlightenment is insulting to me. If you want to help me then do something to prepare for this problem that doesn't involve telling people to buy deadly weapons.

-- Pam Armstrong (armstc@frontiernet.net), October 19, 1998.

Give me a break! I am not going to kill myself for God's sake! Apparently there will be a high demand for sane and rational thinking people on the planet come 2000. There are plenty of people on this list who have made this quite evident.

-- Pam Armstrong (armstc@frontiernet.net), October 19, 1998.

Sometimes reality does tend to suck. The reality of life is that there are people out there that feel they have a god given right to your posessions.And the fact is,january of 2000 might well be a prime month for criminal mischief. For example

I live in a rural area of West Virginia. I live 8 miles on a well kept road from the county sherrifs dept and a state police detachment. The average timed response for a 911 call in this county outside of the county seat is 18 minutes. Now, combine that with the possibility of computer software problems in 911 systems makes me feel none too safe.

Combine that with this. Around 45 percent of all inhabitants of this county survive on some form of government assistance,such as ssi, welfare and unemployment. Consider what would occur if there was a month where all or some of those checks disappeared in some electronic haze of government computer confusion.I've seen the rage of people at the post office when theres a holiday and the checks are a day late. This is a recipe for a bad mess. Now, don't get your liberal underwear in a bunch,I'm not saying all people on assistance are criminally inclined.But people have to eat,and if they are desparate enough, the likelyhood is there that they will try and take it away from you. Now, if you choose to allow that to happen and further, to risk the lives of your family in that eventuality, fine. I choose to keep safe. I don't owe anyone the goods I worked and saved for, nor do I propose to allow anyone to kill me for my food or tv set.Do I think this y2k thing will happen? Probably,do I wish for anarchy? Most definately not. But I'm not going to bury my head in the sand either. I'll be keeping my shotgun and colt 45 automatic close at hand that month.They give me more comfort than good intentions do.

-- L.E. Keeney (Keeney@newwave.net), October 19, 1998.

Furthermore Pam I feel like with your attitude you want to paint gun owners with a broad brush. I have a sense that you see us all as white redneck racist crackers. Nothing could be farther from the truth actually.

We are a varied bunch. White ,black,asian .Just because we want to keep safe, do not assume we are hiding behind barricades,dressed in cammo fatigues and toting AK 47s looking for minorities to blame.It's intellectually dishonest of you and bigoted as well.

-- L.E. Keeney (Keeney@newwave.net), October 19, 1998.

Just to get this forum back on track I would like to remind you that I had asked the question about the lack of consideration of firearms in preparing for the y2k problem. I nowhere said anything about buying guns. If a young couple does want to have a firearm for family protection that is their choice and children do not shoot themselves unless there is an irresponsible adult who leaves things where children can get to them. To that end children should be taught from the youngest of ages what a firearm is and what firearm safety is also. My children were raised around guns and they were taught as babies and through their formative years everything they needed to know in order to be safe. Neither one ever did any harm to anyone. One exception might be to the last sentence is that my son served in Desert Storm. My daughter was the recipiant of an armed robbery. The next day she asked us for her pistol. We gladly gave it to her and a 12g shotgun! What a concept, children raised without fear of asking for personal protection devices. I am my kids MOM and a gunowner who is very concerned about safety and the y2k. Guns Saves Lives

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindspring.com), October 19, 1998.

Actually the only preperation I'm making for y2k is 2 12 ga. shotguns and 20,000 rounds of amo.

Ms. Braun and I plan on just taking whaever we want!!!

A. Shicklegruber

-- (shhh@quiet.com), October 19, 1998.

I was fortunate to be taught early on in my life to respect the power of a gun. I gun is a killing machine. This is it's ONLY mission. I was taught that you should never even point a gun at something or someone unless you plan on pulling the trigger and taking a life in the process. There is the crux. I made my own decision based upon the teachings of my father who had spent the majority of his life wearing a U.S. military uniform. He HAD taken human lives as a boy during WWII on an island in the Pacific, but that's another story.

Rick, you rasied the point of the L.A. riots. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that people were killed in the riots with guns for absolutely no reason other than the color of their skin. It was a horrific time for me and my family and most families in the area. But, it was an isolated event. A moment in history where frustration led to violence on a grand scale and where television captured all the action. A surreal event to the extreme.

The truth is, in L.A. and all across the US, children and adults are killed EVERYDAY for absolutely insane reasons. Maybe someone wants their Lexus, maybe someone wants their wallet, maybe someone cuts someone off in traffic, and maybe someone just looks at someone else the wrong way.

I don't advocate anyone going out and getting a gun for protection because of y2k. If you have never shot before, please reconsider. If you do not fear guns, I fear you. Guns should be scary and treated with absolute respect. If you decide to get a gun, make sure that get the proper training AND that you pull the trigger when you point it, do not hesitate. The fact is that most guns are used either to kill the owner who yielded their weapon to the criminal or in anger to kill loved ones.

Like I said, every day, children are dying on the streets of America's cities and towns and they're usually shot by other children. And, a lot of these children have no real concept of what kind of life change occurs until after they've taken the tragic step and pulled the trigger. There are a lot of disinfranchised people out here in the cities. There is a lot of frustration. And, if measures are not taken to address the possibility of fear, panic and violence then that is exactly what will occur.

Gene, I'm not sure if your post is made to intimidate or place fear into those who would perhaps build community awareness and speak with their neighbors about contengencies rather than form a hoard of vicious criminals. No one robs, rapes, pillages or murders for survival. Self-defense, on the other hand would be done for survival. There is a difference.

Perhaps you didn't know that to murder someone would imply that you are the person on the prowl, and, if I shoot you and take your life (and I would), I have acted in self defense. If, on the other hand, you are on the prowl and you murder me to rob, rape and pillage my wife, my home and my family... that isn't survival, it's a criminal act.

Maybe you should reconsider your arguments.

Mike _____________________________

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 19, 1998.

My concern is for community awareness and self defense aganist those who would prey on innocents. I am not advocating anything that would contribute to civil unrest. With all the things that could happen and preparedness of the utmost importance I am worried at the lack of discussion concerning the right to defend one's home and/or community by whatever means possible. If that means firearms, rock throwing or whatever it is defense plain and simple. Guns Saves Lives!

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindspring.com), October 19, 1998.

Ms. Williams (pardon me) to correct you--You did not ask a question in your original post. You made several rather disturbing statements. Where is the question exactly? Usually questions end in a "?"

-- Pam Armstrong (armstc@frontiernet.net), October 19, 1998.

Discussion questions are very often not asked in question form but since you seem to need a bonefide question followed by a question mark I shall do one for you.

Question. What role do you think firearms will play in the y2k stiuation if innocent people are forced to defend and protect home, family and community?

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindspring.com), October 19, 1998.

"Question. What role do you think firearms will play in the y2k stiuation if innocent people are forced to defend and protect home, family and community? "

A lot of senseless deaths as untrained people end up shooting their own family members, innocent people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, friends who maybe didn't indentify themselves quickly enough. My feelings is that guns & Y2K are going to cause far more tragedies than they prevent.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 19, 1998.

The question is morbid and somewhat obvious. The role that firearms will play is that people will use them to shoot other people with the intention to kill. People will be shot and people will die as a result of being shot. Some justifiably, some not. I am not sure what other role firearms could possibly play. They are made for one thing and one thing only. What other role besides killing people (hunting?) do you see firearms playing?

-- Pam Armstrong (armstc@frontiernet.net), October 19, 1998.

Wow Gene - I find your position very inspiring indeed. I fear the same and know it is possible. I not only am searching for my own protection - but I also have family I have to consider (namely my Father) as well and must now try to prepare for them too.

Thank you for bringing some reality to this matter!

-- Erin Darling (erin_darling@geocities.com), October 19, 1998.

Hunting for food comes to mind. Small game, rabbits , squerlls, large to medium game, deer, turkeys, elk, moose, pigs, and winged food, ducks , geese. You guys are so concerned about survival that you have forgotton about food hunting. In all the things flamed toward me you are sheeple and to be pitied. Self defense and self preservation, food and sustaining life is what it is all about.

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindspring.com), October 19, 1998.

In less than 6 months, we may be having a major "dress rehearsal" and observe then, how much of a part firearms will play. On April 1, New York State's government computers will advance to fiscal yer 2000. Will the checks be processed and arrive, as usual, in the mail or to the banks, that the State's welfare population, as well as retired government personnel expect??? If there is a retired government worker reading this, perhaps you could do some investigating and let us know whether your State's payment department will be computer/fiscal year compliant.

-- Holly Allen (Holly3325@juno.com), October 19, 1998.

Pam, You might try reading what you write. I don't mind if you disagree, but at least read it for internal consistency.

Pam says: " I think you are trying to have it both ways. First you start off by claiming that people are going to become by your own words "viscious, rapists, murderers, etc." and then you say that most gun owners are decent law abiding citizens who just want to help their neighbors. Which is it?"

Huh? YOU made the connection between rapists/murders and gun owners. The post just said most gun owners are peaceful, law abiding types. Now lets try this real nice and slow. The rapists/murders (R/M) are the bad guys. They do exist now BEFORE Y2K anarchy. If you don't believe that I invite you to take a walk at 2 AM in North Philadelphia They will torture/rape/rob/murder YOU if you encounter them under the wrong conditions. Your choices are a:)be tortured/raped/robbed/murdered, b:) escape if you can, c:)shoot them. Thats reality. You have my blessing to throw away option c. Its a free country. ===

Pam says: " I wonder how the young couple who reads your post, gets scared and goes out to get a gun will feel when their 5 yr. old son accidentally kills himself with it. Mr. Williams, if I were you I would not advise that people go out and buy guns unless you want to be sued yourself. You have no business using words like "essential"."

1:) I'm sure they would have lifelong grief BECAUSE they acted stupidly in putting a gun where a 5 yr old could get it. Just like they would if they let the kid ride in the front seat and is killed in a minor fender bender by the airbag. Both a car and a gun are dangerous devices that have to be used with care.

2:) Mr. Williams is entitled by the Constitution to say whatever he damn well pleases. And so do you even if its monumentally illogical and hysterical.

Pam says: " Finally, don't pray for me. I never asked you to and your assumption that I need your prayers and what you deem as enlightenment is insulting to me. If you want to help me then do something to prepare for this problem that doesn't involve telling people to buy deadly weapons."

Hmmm, anti-religious or just in a huff? Can't tell. But prayer never requires a request. The facts on the ground are this. People are getting scared. A lot of newbies WILL buy guns whether you like it or not. It is far better that they hear some well reasoned thoughts about weapons, including specific recommendations on safety in handling and training, than it is to hear you shrieking nonsense.

Did you or did you not say the following:

"Who wants to "survive" in a world, which by your description, has fallen into total distrust, chaos, and misery? Not me. If this is the best we can hope for,(people, it's not)hand me the little red pills now."

Sure sounds like a suicide statement to me! Lets hope not because there are some Federal agencies who might take you up on your offer.

-- R. D..Herring (drherr@erols.com), October 19, 1998.

The question of survival guns is quite different from the question of guns for self defense. I have a good deal of doubt that city dwellers will become raving maniacs due to a disaster - they don't do it after hurricanes or earthquakes - why after Y2K. As for riots - most riots and spontaneous demonstrations are about as spontaneous as a Fourth of July celebration. Or do you really think professionally lettered signs and so on appear by magic? Moreover I don't think anyone has much chance of standing off a determined mob bent on getting into a home. If old Louis could not keep the peasants out of the Bastille - what chance do you have? Better to cut and run with what you can carry on your back - unless you have a couple of daughters and want to take Lots' way out. (graveyard humor there - check your bible)

Now as to survival guns - I don't like anyone knowing what I have. And I'm not about to tell you. But you might consider modern black powder guns. They are good reliable tools - they are not tracked by anyone - and black powder can be made from common ingredients quite easily - all of which are advantages if you are talking tools for survival. As for self defense - a 45 caliber black powder revolver takes longer to load and cap than a quick loader or a magazine fed automatic - that is perfectly true and self evident. But if the first six shots don't stop someone (or a mob) you don't have much hope to reload anyhow.

Another thing - white powder goes bad over time. Black powder does not (or very slowly).

Oh well, just a few thoughts. BTW if you don't intend to use guns - don't buy and store them. Nothing scares me more than being around someone with a gun in their hand for the first time and no clue of how to use it. I would rather pick up a copperhead snake. Really.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 19, 1998.

Dearest Pam and Rick,

What is the color of the sky on your world?

Last night I watched 60 minutes and Christiana Amanpour did a piece on the Hutus and the Tootsies. Replete with stacks of little dried up bodies of over a million massacred. Looked like clotheslines with old worn out shirts on them, but no, they were bodies.

Do you know why they were all killed?

Because they could not defend themselves from aggressors with guns. Yesss, my preciousssss, nasssty gunsess.

Do you know why the killing stopped? Because other people with guns made the bad people stop killing by shooting them.

Righteous force.

Over a million dead, the little baby mummies were the cutest, hmmm?

Firearms are for defense, children. All your flower child rhetoric notwithstanding this is a world where that is too often necessary. Y2K will up the pressure in the pot substantially. Your assertions that firearms will never be necessary for self-preservation and that a bunch of numb-nutted suburbanites are going to start shooting their grandmothers are ludicrous and reflect your vapid state of awareness.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 19, 1998.

>>I think your assumption that people in urban areas are going to become viscious robbers, rapists, and murderers is absurd and quite frankly, irresponsible. Could you please give decent people everywhere a little credit? I, for one, am more afraid of people like you who want to go out and "get me some guns". Firearms will not be essential for self-preservation and I think if most believed that your statement was true, we'd all be buying guns--to kill ourselves! Who wants to "survive" in a world, which by your description, has fallen into total distrust, chaos, and misery? Not me. If this is the best we can hope for,(people, it's not)hand me the little red pills now. Are you sure you don't sell guns for a living? <<

Boys and Girls: Can you spell "Liberal Kneejerk"?

Are there no robbers, rapists, or murderers in urban areas now? One does not need to imagine future Y2K disturbances. It's reality now. People own firearms for self-preservation now.

By definition, decent people are decent! The implication that gun owners are not "decent" speaks to your prejudice, rather than their decency. Ms. Williams' original post made no mention of "get me some guns." nor did she suggest anyone else do so. Don't put words in other's mouths.

Why would you fear "someone like you" [Gene Williams]? Again, you imply that her viewpoint is not "decent".

Perhaps you plan invading houses if things get bad? Then, be very afraid!

BTW, are you sure you don't sell pills for a living? ;-)

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), October 19, 1998.

R.D. - You stated it so nicely - I am thankful for people who can separate fact from fiction!

-- Erin Darling (erin_darling@geocities.com), October 19, 1998.

Gene,

You started your post with the following "I find it intresting the lack of discussion on the role firearms in preparing for the y2k situation." Well, maybe that's because there are many things to consider about y2k and guns aren't really the priority.

There is one area where I see firearms very useful if Y2k does result in a sufficient disruption in the miltary's ability to respond to direct action taken by either terrorists (foreign or domestic) or a direct assault from another country. I think if this were the case you would see exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote about having a populous that could bare arms. In this kind of case, I think you would see everyone coming together to deal with the attack.

But, I think that buying a gun to combat a band of criminals who are after your food might be an act that would get yourself and your family dead. Accidents such as friendly fire happen in war and are accepted risks. I'm not prepared to risk my family over food if I am outnumbered.

Y2k, in and of itself, isn't a war and I don't really see myself handing out weapons to my neighbors in an attempt to make a glorious last stand of my own little Alamo. My family means too much to me. If it becomes apparent that the disruptions will cause this kind of action, I'm outta here and headed elsewhere. I want to be around for the rebuilding.

In short, my home and my material stuff aint worth the lives of my family. I've got friends and family who are ready to accept us.

If guns are the answer and you are motivated to the point of using the disruptions of y2k to have a chance to actually use your gun and show off your skills, wouldn't it be more prudent to contact your city hall and voluteer to police your neighborhood with their approval?

Of course, then you become a target, just like the regular police who put their lives on the line every day and night. Have you ever thought about what a cop and their family go through every time they leave the house? There is no guarantee that their loved one will ever come home.

I'm more motivated to make sure my wife has an extended supply of insulin than contemplate how I might use my 9mm to bust a cap in a down and out neighbor.

But, that's just my opinion.

I just don't know what your after. What do you want to hear? Do you have a specific thing you are looking for? ________________________________________

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 19, 1998.

I know what they say about ASSumptions, but what the hell. I assume that most on this board are inclined to rate the Y2K senario at least a 5, with more than not, a 7-10. If we have a complete system breakdown and you think that that once certain elements of our society realize that fact, that they won't take advantage of it.....You are dreaming......Civil unrest will make the Rodney King riots look like a flea show.

CP

-- CP (Spoonman@prodigy.net), October 19, 1998.

Some of you are, thankfully, are beginning to get it. We are talking survival here. Who knows what will happen? My original post was a thought thing. I am accustomed to forums where free thought is posted as not necessarily questions just thoughts. Scenarios are good things and provoke thought not flameing accusations brought on by liberal doublespeak. I have certain credentials which I have worked for and which are none of your business. My post was to provoke thought.....intelligent thought at that. The idea that I have to put my request in question form is not acceptable. Small minds need guidance....Intelligent minds need no explanation.

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindspring.com), October 19, 1998.

'The fact is that most guns are used either to kill the owner who yielded their weapon to the criminal or in anger to kill loved ones.'

the above statement is complete nonsense. where are the facts to back this up?

most guns are not used at all on a daily basis. ever hear of policemen who have never had to shoot anyone in their entire career? there are millions of guns used responsibly for hunting and target shooting and self defense. how many stories do you hear about where a gun is used in self defense? not as many as there should be. i have never heard a story where a gun owner gave the weapon to a bad guy and then was killed by it.

-- areseejay (areseejay@aol.com), October 19, 1998.

areseejay,

Point taken. I mistated the facts. Actually, I'm getting closer to Genes way of thinking though.

However, if you would like to question local authorities about the facts, the sentence should have read, "The fact is that most gun deaths are caused by someone using the gun in anger to kill loved ones, either intentionally or by accident.' Oh, by the way, I have my share of weapons and the ability to acheive an excellent grouping with an high degree of accuracy. That isn't the point.

The point is that thinking a gun is the answer to every situation is a dangerous one. Having the ability to utilize deadly force and the knowledge to decern when and how to use it is the point.

As for this sentence you wrote, "i have never heard a story where a gun owner gave the weapon to a bad guy and then was killed by it." Give me a break. That is a common occurance because most people who are morally centered have difficulty with the thought of taking a human life and they hesitate. All it takes is a moment of weakness. I never said the gun owner willingly handed over the gun. The criminal takes the gun away and uses it on the gun owner.

I have more than my share of close relatives who currently work within the LAPD in both command and in detective homocide. I have a very close relative who is retired LA County Sheriff. I have a neighbor who currently IS an LA County Sheriff. I have a pretty clear understanding of how deaths by firearm occur. One of the most dangerous calls a radio car makes is a domestic abuse call. Chances are there is a weapon involved AND an irrational person or two as well. That is also a fact.

Anyway, back to the real subject.

IF there are bands of individuals who have decided to roam Mainstreet, USA with the intent to do harm to the citizens then it would be prudent to form a unit to deal with the problem. One gun or a group of guns in a home where there are children and others isn't wise, what ever the case. Chances are you're all going to die.

You should make your stand against the mob at a neutral, fortifide location. That is where pesonal contengency planning comes in. If you want a high security compound then create one and be ready. Don't use the place where your unarmed family members are hiding to do this.

Why? Chances are you're in a defensive posture without means to escape. You are isolated and you have now provoked the mob outside. Maybe you got a shot off that killed Billy Bobs little brother and now he and all his mob friends wont stop till your house is burned to the ground and everyone inside is dead.

What do you do when they open fire? Do you have claymores in the treeline? Who is watching your flank? Is there a way to fall back? Is it just you with a gun or does everyone of your family members have one too? Is this the city or the country? What kind of ammo are you using? Are you prepared to take the innocent life of a child asleep across the street when your bullet doesn't find it's target and goes through the wall? Are the people across the street firing too? Well, now you've got cross fire which is good and bad. It depends. You don't want your neighbor shooting into your house while he's trying to protect you.

Are you prepared for snipers that shoot at and kill at random and dwindle your numbers down without a chance for you to fight back? If someone is after your stuff and they have a plan that is organized, you better have one too. Can they pick you off one at a time?

Do you have medical training to assist the wounded? Do you have medical supplies to save their lives?

If we're talking about a meltdown level event that requires this degree of firepower and this kind of strategy then a single household of doesn't stand a chance. You're better off forming a clan or a group of neighbors and preparing. Block off the entrance to your streets with cars. Have posts set up at every point to keep track of who is coming and going. Your first objective is to let the roaming band of criminals know that YOU are prepared to fight. You have a deterrent in place and the deterrent is more likely to keep them out so you wont have to worry about fighting them.

I just think you should make sure you have objectives in mind and a clear understanding of what's at stake and that you are willing to pay the price for it. If you are then great.

In any city or town the citizens outnumber the police. The police are effective because the majority are lawabiding citizens. The police also serve as a deterrent to those who contemplate the commssion of a crime. Don't believe me? How often do you drive differently when you see a radio car? If you don't, you're asking for a ticket, so you slow down and obey the law.

If you want to really survive, make that roaming band of criminals that used to be your neighbors slow down and obey the law. If they are suicidal, then you're doing them a favor.

But, chances are that anyone who is out looking to get into your home is a neighbor who thought your weren't home because your lights were out and they wanted to check and see if maybe you had some batteries they can pop in their radio to see what the heck is going on or maybe they're looking for a box of oatmeal they can feed their hungry children with. Are you prepared to snuff out this life for a box of oatmeal?

Getting back to the beginning of my post... having the ability to utilize deadly force and the knowledge to decern when and how to use it is the point. The police and the military go through extensive training on how to do this. Those are the facts.

Mike

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 19, 1998.

interesting...just my 2 cents worth, but:

deadly force is a last ditch resort, when all else has failed. Personally my preference for dealing with most of the potential y2k issues is the same as the old army solution for dealing with air raids - be somewhere else when they happen. In other words, I don't plan to be anywhere near an urban area when this stuff starts going down. I plan on being surrounded by good friends, neighbors I can trust, and, oh yeah, we probably will be armed.

More importantly, we will also insure that our folks are trained in safe and proper firearms handling. As a life-long shooter and firearms owner I want to emphasize this point - NOBODY IS A NATURAL, sorry, but that's the way it is. don't just buy that gun and stick it and a box of ammunition in the closet "against the day". Rather, be certain that you have gotten appropriate training (I recommend NRA certified firearms instructors) and then get out there to the range and practice on a regular basis. Don't worry if you don't have the biggest, fanciest, or whatever...this isn't a beauty contest. Find something that you can handle, and learn to use it well.

Oh, and before you even start this little foray into firearms ownership, you'd best better come to some sort of decision concerning exactly what you're going to be using this thing for..if it's for survival as in hunting, that's one thing..if it's for survival as in selfdefense, that's quite another and you need to sit down and think through all of the implications of what you are about in this...before the day comes when you may find yourself in a must-use situation.

just my 2 cents' worth

-- Arlin Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), October 19, 1998.

Arlin,

Thank you! I agree with you completely.

Mike ____________________________________________________________________

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 19, 1998.

I am certified person in handguns, personal protection. I am also a competition shooter in IPSC and IDPA. I have had lots of students who wanted to know how to get ready for the inevitable. My advice has always been to do what is necessary. If the situation does call for confrontation to preserve life then you have to do what is necessary . That is all. Do not sweat the small stuff ......It is all small stuff! Guns Saves Lives.

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams@mindsprimg.com), October 19, 1998.

Two points

1) In 1976, an acquaintance of mine was involved in a "little friendly gambling" and was, shall we say ina bit of debt? when the collectors came around and found him in the bar and asked for the money, and got the expected answer, and said it wasn't acceptable, myy idiot acquaintance pulled out a gun, pointed it at them and said for them to leave. The muscle looked at each other, then at my acquaintance, and said "Well, shoot or not, it's your call" whereupon, they walked up to him, removed the gun from his hand, proceded to break both his arms with it, and stomp his legs to splinters. As theyu left, they returned his "Self defence weapon".

2) Before we all ascribe to the "roving gangs of defectives" mentality, please all review "Tom's take" referenced in an archived thread here, for the fairly rational discussion (buried in the end of teh gloom and doom stuff) about how this is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

CR

ps There is so a natural, and I'm married to her. But she got her training in a houshold where there were a pair of the award type Camp Perry Pistols on the shelf. Mom won hers, dad got his for loading all the match grade ammo that year. She helped load.

Her last "friendly little competition" cost a family friend a good pistol. Seems she out shot him, He hammered the sights, handed it back to her and she switched hands and out shot him again. He returned the gun to its place of purchase for a refund the next day. (She doesn't usually use sights! Just points and groups too small to score accurately!)

c

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 20, 1998.

CP said, "If we have a complete system breakdown and you think that that once certain elements of our society realize that fact, that they won't take advantage of it.....You are dreaming......"

You are right on, CP, but it won't even have to be a complete system breakdown! In Texas this week we have been nailed with flooding again. (First drought, then floods....sigh) I was sickened once again to see people coming home to find out what was left of their homes. Just like last time, there were people that the floods didn't get, but the looters did. And these are not just in the cities. One family came home to find all of their DISHES had been taken. Doesn't sound like a survival item to me. There are plenty of people everywhere who want what you have, but are not willing to work for it. It's easier to just take it.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), October 20, 1998.

Gene Firearms are a hot topic here. I agree with you, but most of the anti-gun group don't even want to discuss guns. They will be humming the old Lynard Skynard song "Give Me Three Steps" when they are starring straight down a 44.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), October 20, 1998.

I have just done a Permaculture (permanent (sustainable) agriculture) Course here in Australia, and they included a half-day's training and discussion on "Planning for Catastrophe". I raised the spectre of Y2K with one of the instructors, who has gone as a NGO (non-government organisation) aid worker to Papue New Guinea, South America etc. He said the U.N. has documented a simple formula for when a society breaks down: In 3 days the stores run out of food. In 7 days any remaining food is owned by the rich people. In 14 days the cannibalism begins... Yes. Guns are good for self-defence. Than k God for your Second Amendment. Learn how to be a responsible, trained user. And don't let the bastards disarm you in the US the way we meekly complied in Australia and the UK.

-- Aussie Dave (sorry@paranoid.net), October 20, 1998.

"Firearms are for defense, children. All your flower child rhetoric notwithstanding this is a world where that is too often necessary. Y2K will up the pressure in the pot substantially. Your assertions that firearms will never be necessary for self-preservation and that a bunch of numb-nutted suburbanites are going to start shooting their grandmothers are ludicrous and reflect your vapid state of awareness. "

For your information I own several firearms, but if you would like to go back and read my post "I was raised in a rural community and have been around firearms all my life. Even with all my training and experiance with them I still have a very decent respect for them." Oh yeah...I'm a flower child. I own these weapons, I am trained ont hese weapons and what I fear is the UNTRAINED people with firearms. Course you were to busy asking me what color my sky was, calling me a child and flower child to notice any of that.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 20, 1998.

Please go to gunforums.com There are lots of forums for you to ask questions or join in on the fun. There is a ladies forum as well as a y2k discussion group. Stay safe and be aware of your six!

-- Gene Williams (g.g.williams @mindsprimg.com), October 20, 1998.

Rick, "Course you were to busy asking me what color my sky was, calling me a child and flower child to notice any of that. "

I noticed. I noticed how you fell all over yourself kudoing Pam's initial post. Never forget, grasshopper, you are judged by the company you keep.

Oh, and I also noticed how you concluded that "untrained" gun owners are going to kill more people vis a vis y2k than are people with the intent to do harm. ROFLMAO!

Also, you let your elitism undies show when you said guns are NOT for EVERYONE. Yes, they are. Second Ammendment. I know that pesky Constitution is a nuisance, but what can you do?

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 20, 1998.

OK, look. I am not a flower child - I am a mom and a nurse who has a real aversion to having to end someone's life BUT I have no doubt that, were any of my children seriously threatened, I could shoot. In all the crazinedd here - the name calling, the sarcasm, the vitrol - I want to address a remark that "people don not murder....for survival". People with no food or water or heat - people who feel, at the time that the only hope of getting that stuff, especially for their families - do indeed, and have done so in recent history, do things they normally wouldn't do, out of irrational fear - yes, including killing someone else. I'm not saying that will happen - who knows for sure? But with the excpetion of one joker in this thread who states he and the Mrs. will just take what they need (I pray he is joking), all we have seen here is people stating that they are willing to defend what is theirs, confronting deadly force with deadly force - not shoot down little old ladies coming to the door to beg. All the rhetoric in the world does no good - if you don't agree, don't buy or use a gun, for heaven's sake, and please help the rest of us by letting us know what the alternatives for personal protection are. I, for one, have asked for that information before.

-- Melissa (financed@forbin.com), October 20, 1998.

"I noticed. I noticed how you fell all over yourself kudoing Pam's initial post. Never forget, grasshopper, you are judged by the company you keep. "

Your point? I agreed with her intial post. Big deal. I thought waht she had to say sounded good.

"Oh, and I also noticed how you concluded that "untrained" gun owners are going to kill more people vis a vis y2k than are people with the intent to do harm. ROFLMAO! "

Well when someone you know accidentallys hoots a family member or friend you let me know how funny you think it is then.

"Also, you let your elitism undies show when you said guns are NOT for EVERYONE. Yes, they are. Second Ammendment. I know that pesky Constitution is a nuisance, but what can you do? "

Excuse me, did I ever say they didn't have a right to own it? Did I say someone should be stopped from buying a gun? Did I say take that right away from them? No. I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth, or implications for that matter. I do not believe guns are for everyone, just as I don't think driving is for everyone, I don't think drinking is for everyone and so on. We all have the rights to do these things, but does it mean we should? No. I would hope though that a person would realize they are not a "gun person" just as I would hope an alcoholic would realize they aren't a drinking person. I think it would be rather obvious I believe in the ownership of guns, but I truly think it is frightening the number of people I know who have no business owning them. Do I say anything to them about that fact? Nope, because it is their right to own it. But, don't mind me, you just got me elitist undies in a bunch.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 20, 1998.

>> I think it would be rather obvious I believe in the ownership of guns, but I truly think it is frightening the number of people I know who have no business owning them. Do I say anything to them about that fact? Nope, because it is their right to own it. But, don't mind me, you just got me elitist undies in a bunch. <<

Rick

Your first sentence sounds self-contradictory to me, and unfortunately is indeed typical of elitist thinking. I am reminded of a Washington DC reporter (name forgotten) who consistently editorialized against gun ownership in the city. ( It IS illegal to own weapons in Washington) yet when police were called to his townhouse because of a breakin, it was discovered that the reporter had frightened off the intruder with an [illegal] .25 caliber pistol.

Could you explain how you determine who should and should not own a weapon?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), October 20, 1998.

Somewhere above in this thread, there was a implication of "trust". "Confidence in man has forever been the parent of despotizm..." Thomas Jeferson.

Don't forget your penny.. Charon

-- Charon (Waltndot@aol.com), October 20, 1998.

Alright, I will try this one more time. It is NOT a matter of law who should own guns, it is a matter of common sense. Let me try this:

#1 Gun Owner has training, locks up his weapons safely, is responsible in his shooting

#2 Gun Owner has no training, has a loaded weapon under his pillow, thinks drinking beer and shooting cans off the porch railing is a good Sunday afternoon.

Now personally I would rather not see #2 with a gun. Am I saying the law should stop him? No. I would hope his own commen sense would tell him not to own, but I know it won't. This is what I mean when I say that should people should not own guns. I am not saying pass laws, I am not saying take them away from them, I am just saying some people should NOT have them in their possesion by common sense.

Why do I have to take a test to drive a car? Because it, like a gun, is a deadly weapon and I could kill someone with it. If I want a gun, I go apply for a license, no test, no questions about gun safety, just a background check.

I am sorry if you feel I am an elitist, but I just feel there are some people in this world with no common sense and they have no business owning a gun. Until the laws change, which I doubt they will and I am not doing anything about it except expressing my opinion here, it just makes me nervous that anyone with out a criminal record can own a gun. Think back to some time when youa re driving, I can just about gaurentee you that everyone at some point has had a run in with another driver and thought to themselves "My god! How did that person ever get a license?" Now apply it to guns. Again, my apologies if I sound elitist.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 20, 1998.

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

NOT!

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 21, 1998.

All you anti-gun people are simply a bunch of p-u-s-s-i-e-s. Self-defense, remember, is a PERSONAL responsibility. Our wonderful governments have arrogated that power to themselves.

IF government protection fails, you will be on your own. If you are not armed, your chances of being dead are greatly increased. Granted, being armed is no guarantee of survival; it merely increases your odds. Those of you who are p-u-s-s-i-e-s are going to be a perfect example of "evolution in action."

Similary, the p-u-s-s-i-e-s who worry about people having guns accidentally or in the heat of the moment, or kids accidentally killing family members, tough s-h-i-t. Again, "evolution in action."

Bobber

-- bobber (bob@lucifershammer.com), October 21, 1998.

Bobber

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Out, out, damned spot, and all that.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 21, 1998.

>>Think back to some time when youa re driving, I can just about gaurentee you that everyone at some point has had a run in with another driver and thought to themselves "My god! How did that person ever get a license?" Now apply it to guns. Again, my apologies if I sound elitist. <<

Rick,

You've destroyed your own argument. Driver requires a license, and does not drive properly. Apply to guns: Gun Owner requires a license and does not handle weapon properly.

Re-examine your common sense.

Let me reverse the [il]logic: 50,000+ deaths a year from car accidents. This statistic dwarfs even the most liberal estimate for gun-related deaths by accident and incident. "Obviously", the requirement of a license increases the number of accidents!

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), October 21, 1998.

LIGHT NOT!!

HEAT LOTS!!

I BELIEVE the original concept of this general thread (a couple threads ago! God knows!) was to examine the place in a well thought out plan, that firearms might have. Now, I'll be the first to admit to contributing my own small lump of coal for the heat side of this, but it might be nice to see some thinking being done on the topic as opposed to on the posters' a-gender, b-'70's philosophy, c-stance ref 2nd Ammendment, d-stance ref the usefulness of a specific tool because it happens to be a deadly force tool.

I might ask about the place in a well thought out plan a knife might have, or a katana. Both represent deadly force (albeit at a slightly different range +/- a meter or so).

In the spirit of thoughtfullness, there are a couple points to consider in the event you are considering ANY type of deadly force tool- - -

1) the decision to use it (whatever it might be) in an absolutely unhesitating manner - - no "Leave or be shot" no "leave or I'll carve you like Christmas turkey" none of that, simply the willingness to USE the TOOL!

2) Full and apropriate training and practice in the application of the tool. This includes the training of your WHOLE family. It would be rather embarassing to have invested the large number of dollars to have acquired the skill in, and purchased a TRUE katana, only to have your 12 year old daughter accidently remove a finger because she either did not understand the meaning of "NO!" or because she did not understand the menaing of "Sharp" and that, this tool has as much realtionship to the sharpness of a kitchen knife as a nail has to a small sharps needle (nail = kitchen knife, needle = katana)

Parenthetically the great scene from My Bodyguard in which Kevin cuts the silk scarf is as accurate as you an get in terms of the katana, as the scarf cuts itself in half on the edge of the blade.

3) What the form of deadly force tool should be, based on your current situation. Which form makes sense in terms of the possible threats to you, and or your family. If you are in aphysical situation in which you can expect that you may be attacked in a single file fashion or if your vulnerability is very narrow, let's say, you might consider either a katana, a Bowie, or a classic Arkansas Toothpick, or a classic Sykes/Fairbairn, or a throwing tomahawk (though I never like to throw a weapon, it sometimes comes back with greater accuracy than it went with. Terribly embarassing! witness the number of people who actually can throw shuriken accurately!).

4) An evaluation of the realistic threats you and your family might face later in your planned scenario(s) as you either make it here or bug out. At some point you may identify a threat level that you might like to deal with at a distance of greater than, say, 2 meters, which is the max working distance of most edged tools, excluding the Claymore (Appologies to the purists as I cant seem to remember where the "h's" and "e's" go theis AM) whish is in itself slightly less than two meters long. Also, you may identify a credible threat from more than 1 or 3 assailants/adversaries, at which point we might look at a repeating firearm of some type, whether it be a long or short firearm and whether it be loaded with solid or frangible projectiles is to be determined by the situation. If you are inside an urban dwelling and there are other non-combatant people on teh other side of the usual urban appartment or duplex wall, you would be responsible in choosing the frangible loads of either a shotgun, loaded with shot shells or fletchette shells (hand-loaded shells filled with 7/16" lengths of welding rod come to mind as an option), or a large bore handgun loaded with shot-shells (sometimes called snake loads, but they never seem to distinguish between 2, 4, or 0 legged snakes, vertical or horizontally propelled). None of these should penetrate the walls, though the shot shells, have the potential to if discharged at a short enough range.

If you are in a rural setting and want to engage the adversaries at a range geater than about 15 meters (assuming normal skills and practice levels) you will not want a handgun, but will want a long gun of some type. The type selected would depend on the desired range for engagement, and the number of attackers and defenders, and can range from a pump operated shotgun throwing rifled slugs, or #0 or#00 buck shot (a historically accurate name if ever there was one as the pieces of lead (multiple) are the size of some of the bullets thrown by some of the smaller caliber rifles and handguns), to a short barreled, repeating rifle, to a full automatic, Class III weapon.

FWHEW!!!!Didn't know I had it in me but the heat:light ratio on the subject just had me a tad PISSED OFF!!!! F'n A People!!! Let's try to be a little (just a LITTLE) more objective in our responses to requests for discussion of tools!!! I do NOT remember anywhere NEAR the level of vitriol (thanks Gayla, I think. I'd forgotten the word and it's accurate application!) applied to the question of, for instance, a grain mill.

Next guest lecturer::: Uncle D or Sweet ol Bob??

Chuck

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 21, 1998.

The columnist that you were thinking of was Carl Rowan and he ended up shooting the kid that was swimming in his pool. It is everyones RIGHT to own a gun or not to, me, I'll keep mine handy.

-- Larry Carroll (lynandlar@erols.com), October 21, 1998.

Gene,

I'm with you Ma'am! Keep them firearms around the house. My RIGHT, dammit. Target practice outside, inside, in the kitchen, shoot, wherever I wanna shoot. BAAM!

OOPS! Targunnit, seems that bullet there richoted off the 'frigerator and into the udder room----lessee, oh jesus, oh daddie, oh jesus, it's Little Jimmy, Little Jimmy has gawt it! MAW!! MAW COM'ERE!

Now don't you wurry, Maw, we had the RIGHT to go and shoot our gun anywhere we wanted, and Little Jimmy, wail, he jus happened to be in the way, and he'll be awright, just hospitalized fur a while. No big deal, just calm down Maw. He was kinda a problem kid anyway.

Gene, I shure do like yer idea of comin' round yer house and eatin' some "squerlls and turkeys." Squerlls and turkeys! Cain't think of nothin' better. Hee hee, and maybe while we're at it, we can round us up some Sheeple and wipe 'em out with our Firearms and roast 'em! Hee hee!

Oh, and Gene, just a little "thought thing" before I go "join in on the fun" in the Gunformums section you kindly mentioned. You said, "small minds need guidance....intelligent minds need no explanation." Oh, yeah, and GUNS SAVES LIVES! You said that a lot! Hey, I agree, and just a thought thing here, but I also think that grammar lessons can shure helps adults too. Spellun' lessuns, too, that can helps adults.

Guns Saves Lives! Lissen up, Sheeple!

PS: Dr. Herring. You've let us know frequently your credentials as a doctor, a medical doctor and all, and do you think, then, that you could remove that extra period in your handle. R. D..Herring. Just the second period after the D, doctor. Gee, so you're really a doctor and all? Wow. I mean, shucks. I guess that means what you say about guns is kinda, you know, godlike and all.

-- William (Baaa@sheeple.com), October 21, 1998.

I just want to add a thought: don't EVER assume how people will act in a situation...you JUST don't know. I am not willing to take a chance with my daughter's life. I am off Saturday to take a 12 hour long course in safety and practice shooting...

K.

-- K. (bill_n_kellie91@hotmail.com), October 22, 1998.