Posts by Andy Cummings 9 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Sep 2007
Bravo, sir - well said ;)
Another couple of examples in a .45ACP rifle would be the Marlin Camp Carbines as well as the AR15 - well, actually the AR is available in 9mmP and just about bloody everything else these days (I'll be buying a 6.8mm SPC upper soon for my regular old .223 M4gery).
I too feel safer here in the US than anywhere in the UK.
If it helps, I do speak from some small amount of professional experience here (military for a time, then executive-protection and eventually serving as a PSD contractor in Iraq 2004-2005 - protecting (mostly) EOD personnel tasked with destroying Saddam's huge stash *tip of the hat to Lewis Page*).
I personally prefer the 1911 in .45ACP, but I have carried and used both the CZ75 and Browning Hi-Power (both in 9mmP) on and off the job - fine, reliable handguns. All in all, handgun cartridges are weak and notoriously unreliable man-stoppers, so as much as I would like to admit otherwise, the whole 9mm vs .40 vs .45 debate gets rather stale because there's really not that big a difference in the end-results. It's about bullet-placement, bullet-construction, sufficient penetration - and yes, a bit of luck.
Luck you can't control, but skills you can work on - as we say, it's the software, not the hardware - something the gear-queers and fanbois will vociferously deny.
As for the "OMGzorz, it's a GUN!" types out there... seriously, get a grip, you whiny pansies. It's a tool, nothing more - and the results, good or ill, depend on who's wielding it.
>>>By Stratman Posted Tuesday 7th April 2009 15:37 GMT
" in America they can still sue you for all you've got, because of course criminals shouldn't be injured by the victims defending themselves... and I'm not talking about just this situation, there have been similar incidents before when a criminal sued the victim for being injured in self-defense. "
Well, it depends on the specific state; a large number of states have the so-called "Castle Doctrine" law in place, where a defender first and foremost is not obliged to flee their own home (a man's home is his castle, etc) - and second, the criminal may not sue the defender in civil court should that shooting be judged as justifiable self-defense by a criminal court.
>>>In Britain the criminal doesn't need to go to the expense of prosecuting an individual who defends himself. The majesty of the law does it for him. Injure a burglar or mugger and it's far more likely that you, rather than the robber, will end up in the dock. Unless of course you have carried out a full Health and Safety assessment of your proposed method of defence whilst being beaten to a pulp by a drug addict intent on selling your Breitling for the price of a wrap.
Yep, the law is an ass that way sometimes.
Who said "Jesus Andy...Leave the fantasies of heroic gun use to the dubious talents of Hollywood.......Stop trying to elevate yourself above us sheep, the only person who thinks you are qualified for the job is you."
I'll happily match qualifications with you any time, mate ;)
I'm ex-military, served as an armed-response officer for a number of years then moved on to executive protection. More recently, I spent a year in Iraq doing PSD work - I have used weapons in the defence of myself and others. My opinions are born of experience, a lot of it bitter - where do you get yours? Television?
>>> "Even where concealed weapon carrying *is* allowed, a great many people who could carry a weapon don't carry one, and that isn't because they don't love their other halves any less than you might do."
And that's absolutely fine - I support their freedom of choice to do so. However, where I live I happen to enjoy the freedom to choose as well; our respective choices do not infringe on others' choices - which is the way it should be, IMO.
I also acknowledge the fact that the police in this country are under no legal obligation to come to the aid of any specific individual (google "Castle Rock vs Gonzalez" or "DeShaney v. Winnebago County" or, most famously, "Warren v. District of Columbia"). So, if the cops are under no legal obligation to help my family in a time of crisis, the responsibility then falls upon me - and it's one which I have no intention of shirking.
>>>"The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that they're often trivially easy to invent, but they don't actually shed much light on an issue, unless they help us think about things that aren't obvious. Anecdotes are tricky enough, but hypotheticals can end up being like exaggerated anecdotes about things that didn't actually happen."
I agree totally :)
First, I don't let the folks on El Reg's Comments page do my thinking for me ;)
Second, I agree that nobody should be killed for what amounts to a bag-snatching; where I come from, it's always been "as a last resort in the gravest extreme".
Third, while it's just wonderful that you're prepared to forgo a sport "for the greater good", I believe that it's naive in the extreme to think that criminals will follow suit - I'm more worried about their deliberate misuse of a firearm than your sporting use thereof.
Fourth - ahhh, crime and punishment. If someone's busy beating my wife to a pulp, I am absolutely not going to let her die first and then patiently wait for a court to render their verdict 3 or 4 years later - nope, I'm going to do whatever is necessary right there and then to save her life, up to and including the shooting of her attacker should he not submit toot-sweet. Every human being has the right to protect themselves - and it's an innate right ie. *not* one "granted" to us by a government, but an innate right.
Don't confuse the sheepdogs with the wolves simply because we share canine teeth ;)
@AC " Owning an Uzi, Advocating on the spot death penalty for bag snatchers (elbow hight is a kill shot) and firing a projectile weapon at elbow hight in a NYC street aren't exactly indicators of a well balanced personality."
Nothing wrong with owning an inanimate object, Uzi or not, but I tentatively agree that elbow-height might not have been the wisest shot (bystanders, etc) - and only tentatively because we don't *know* what her backstop was.
"If all it takes to be a responsible gun owner is.... "A responsible gun owner is one who doesn't shoot random people in the street" ... Then perhaps my standards of responsibility are a little higher then yours."
Hear, hear.
"Thank God I live in a country where guns are illegal, rather then a country where "The whole POINT of owning a gun is to point at someone and shoot them! "
And making guns illegal magically made them *poof* disappear from the UK, right? Right? Your naivete is touching - well-intentioned, no doubt, but still touching. Firearms are still legal in the UK - only certain types have been banned. Oh, you didn't know that?
And yeah, I agree once again - Jamaica sure sucks in that regard because, hey, only the criminals have guns for criminal purposes - the law-abiding may not own one, so.... I wonder why the murder-rate is sky-high? Guns are banned, so it's impossible...
@Wayland Sothcott - "When you pull a gun on someone then you must be prepared to kill to kill them. When you fire it at some one then you must intend to kill them."
Not so fast there, son - you're way off-track there. When you draw, you should be *prepared* to shoot if necessary ie. don't draw it in order to wave it around as a threat. Second, it's not legal in any state in the US to "shoot to kill" - you shoot to stop the attack; in other words, while you *may* shoot the guy to stop him (if there's no alternative), you *may not* execute him.
@Mike - It's all about bullet diameter - it has to be of *some* size or other, so why not .357?
.38 Special bullet = .357" in diameter
.357 Mag bullet = .357"
9mm Parabellum (aka 9mm NATO) bullet = .355"
.44 Mag = .429"
.45ACP = .451"
@Anonymous Coward - "You are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY not a responsible Gun owner if you are prepared to point a gun at a human being let alone shot at them."
Bollocks.
A mercenary is someone who fights for money alone - and they go on offensive operations.
A security contractor only fights in self-defence - in other words, *only* if and when attacked and they certainly don't go on offensive ops. I imagine that little difference makes a lovely whooshing sound as it goes over your heads, though...
Contractors are 99% ex-military and, surprise, surprise, are already on your hometown streets. Seen any terrorism lately? I thought not...
I was on a PSD team in Iraq for a year and the ignorance in the Comments-section is staggering. You'd think people who'd never been there would wind their necks in before pontificating over matters of which they have no knowledge.
Civilians shot - well, I haven't yet seen an insurgent wearing a uniform... it's real simple: don't shoot at a PSD-team and we won't shoot either. On the other side of the coin, don't ambush us then cry when we turn it back on you.
Lack of accountability worries me, though - my opinion is that all contractors should be held responsible for any illegal actions they commit.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
