Conference turris::womannotes-v3

	Discussion moved here per co-mod request.
  	=================================================   
    
    
RE. Note 172.18                Home Safety Course Offering                  18 of 20
FAIRWY::KINGR "Hospital called, your brain is ready!" 6 lines   4-JUN-1990 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Dana, I don't beleive you or the NRA, somewthing about owning automatic
>    weapons for home use comes to mind.... Like that person who shot up the
>    Macdonalds in San Diego comes to mind in a hurry... Wans't he a member
>    of the NRA?
    
>    REK

    REK, is that your idea of a cohesive argument - two innuendos and
    an attempt to prove guilt by association ?
    
    a) the NRA advocates individual freedom of choice in the matter
    of self defense, and offers training for those who opt for owning
    a firearm. Our position on automatic weapons is that the present
    laws regulating them work well enough. Our position on *semi*-
    automatic weapons is that they are functionally identical to 
    target and hunting arms owned by millions of citizens. (And no
    NRA member I know seriously advocates full automatic weapons
    for home defense - a misrepresentation on your part.)

    b) the person who shot up the McDonalds was *unopposed*, because
    restrictive carry-and-protection laws effectively dis-armed his
    victims. Go talk to the woman in St. Louis who, during the Post
    Office massacre there, tried her darndest to get *her* gun and
    fight back. Ask her about how well gun control works.
    
    c) he may have been a member of the NRA. So what? It wouldn't
    surprise me if he worked for a big company, too. One member
    out of millions losing control proves nothing. I *know* for
    a fact that a certain large Mass. company has, among its employees,
    persons who have served hard time for murder and drug dealing. Does 
    that make every worker there a murderer, or an advocate of illegal
    drug use ? 
     
        

Note 172 contained a fair amount of anti-NRA rhetoric, and that's
understandable.  Most of us (including myself for 31 years) get our
information about the NRA from the papers, which only tend to cover
political events and disasters.  Even when something "positive" occurs
related to firearms, its unlikely that the NRA will be mentioned.  To
give an example, if a U.S. athlete wins an Olympic medal in shooting,
they may mention the "U.S. Shooting Team".  They don't mention the fact
that the NRA is the organizing body for the U.S. Shooting Team!

If you go and look at the NRA budget, the vast bulk of it is spent on
firearms safety and encouraging the sporting use of firearms.  That is
just a plain fact that can be easily verified.  The NRA is under such
tight scrutiny that any attempt to hide politically-oriented funding
under some other category would soon lead to its demise.  In fact, to
avoid this problem all political activity occurs in a separate
organization known as the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.  It has
separate funding (except for some *identified* staff functions) that is
handled through specific contributions.  In other words, NRA membership
doesn't even pay for the political activity (except for those staff
functions).

The NRA's political stands should have an obvious source.  When any
activity in which a group of people share a common interest is attacked,
that group of people respond.  If they are associated through some
organization, then that organization is thrust into the battle by
pressure from its members.  When MASSPORT tried to impose fees on small
planes flying into Logan Airport, the organization that represents private
pilots jumped into the battle.  When legislation effecting the elderly
is proposed, AARP takes the best position for its constituency even if
such a position is extremely detrimental to their grandchildren.  Etc.
The NRA membership is large and diverse, leading them to battle all
gun control proposals because there is always some major portion of
their membership who oppose the proposal (even when other portions
support it or don't care).  This leads to their image problem amongst
many segments of the population.

If you are against firearms in any way, shape, form, or purpose, then
obviously you can't feel too good about the NRA.  However, if you are just
anti-NRA because of their political stands, then don't denigrate all
activities associated with them.  They are a very valuable and
worthy organization.

Now back to the topic at hand.  The NRA is the primary source of
training in the use of firearms.  More appropriately, they train the trainers.
Your local police are trained by instructors who were more than likely
trained by the NRA.  A course in firearms handling and safety for women
here in Colorado Springs is taught by a police officer, who is also an
NRA certified instructor.  The NRA has materials for use in elementary
schools that teach firearms safety and neither encourage nor discourage
firearms use (ie, they don't say guns are bad and neither do they say
go ask your mom or dad to teach you how to shoot, they say "if you see
a gun, don't touch it, go find an adult"  period).

The use of a firearm for self defense is a very personal decision that
should not be taken lightly.  In addition to your own moral beliefs and
the psychological impact of *potentially* taking someone's life to protect
yourself or loved ones, there are very narrow legal guidelines
associated with legitimate use of lethal force.  That applies to all
lethal force, not just the use of firearms.

People have been known to choke to death from Mace.  Now, if I walk up
to you and spray you with Mace and you die, I'll be charged with murder.
The excuse "it wasn't supposed to be lethal" won't do much except maybe
reduce my prison term a few years.  The laws that apply to the *use* of
Mace, or a baseball bat, or a gun are *identical*.  Once you choose to
exercise your right of self defense, the law is blind to the "tool"
chosen.  The reason you would choose a gun over Mace, or a baseball bat,
is that the gun is the most likely to bring a quick end to the attack on
you.  Mace and baseball bats are far more unreliable.

Guns have a bad reputation for a number of good reasons.  First, they
are dangerous.  They'd be useless if they weren't.  Second, slimeballs
like to use them to commit their crimes.  Of course they do!  They
choose whatever the most effective tool is for their trade.  If someone
aimed an aerosol can at you and asked for your money, you'd laugh at them!
Finally, people don't apply common sense to them, as they don't to many
foreign objects.  Leaving a gun in an unprotected state when kids are
about is every bit as stupid as leaving a bottle of lye in an unlocked
cabinet or matches on a table.  All are deadly and all will kill in the
hands of a child.  These aren't reasons to avoid guns, but they are
reasons to use your brain in all dealings with them!

Although this note has gotten very long, I'll tell my own major
self-defense story, which did not involve firearms but might have.  The
scariest night of my life is when someone followed my ex-wife home one
night.  He had her trapped in her car and blocked in with his own car. 
I heard her leaning on her horn, called the police, then went out to
intercede.  As I went outside I realized my choices were to (1) watch as
he harmed her or (2) watch as he harmed me!  I was already feeling
guilty because in taking the 2 minutes to call the police I had risked
harm coming to her. Had he actually been breaking into the car when I
first was summoned by the horn, I would have had no choice but to
substitute my safety for hers, without even the benefit of knowing the
police would eventually arrive (and hopefully save us).  I had no way to
defend us.  Fortunately the guy's girlfriend talked him into leaving and
they sped off just as I got there.  I then spent the entire night
watching out the window for the guy to return.  And the next night. 
And.... My wife was a nervous wreck for a week, and only my sitting by
the window with a kitchen knife in hand would let her sleep. Had he
returned, I'm not sure what I would have done.  I had no real way to
defend us!  We lucked out!

I'm not much for violence.  In those cases where only my own safety was
involved I have generally erred on the side of risking harm versus
harming another.  However, in both cases where a loved one was
threatend, I have come to the conclusion that I would do *anything* to
protect them.  Unarmed, my only real choice is to try to redirect the
attack to myself (which even if successful might only be a temporary
solution).  If I were willing to arm myself for such possibilities
(which for all practical purposes I am not), I could be more sure of
defending a loved one and could do so without nearly as much risk to
myself.

Hal

I was extremely bothered by one of the things in a reply to note 172.
Because some slimeball was a member of the NRA implies absolutely
nothing about the NRA or its other members.  Would the fact that a drunk
driver who kills is a member of the AAA imply that all AAA members are
drunk driving murderers?  Of course not, yet that is exactly the
implication of the note author who made the comment about the killer and
the NRA.

I would be willing to bet that a *higher* percentage of drunk drivers
are members of the AAA (or other auto club) than gunmen are members of
the NRA.  Also, the AAA expends plenty of effort fighting any proposal
which would harm car owners.  Do you think the AAA would fight an effort
to limit the horsepower of cars (because speed kills)?  Of course they
would. Would they fight a ban on red sports cars (because insurance
numbers show that red sports cars are involved in more fatal collisions
then any other kind of car)? Of course they would fight it.  Would they
fight automatic, secret, FBI investigations of purchasers of
Mercedes Benz's in Florida because they were a favorite car of drug
smugglers?  You bet!  Does all this make the AAA baby killing, red-neck,
*&^&#$?  Of course not!  It would make them an organization unwilling to
trade away their members' interests or rights to support the latest
fad solution to society's problems.

Should drivers be required to have drug and alcohol tests to get their
license?  Should a retest be necessary when you cross state lines? 
Should permission to drive through a state be required before you do so?
Should the police be permitted to randomly stop cars and test people
without reasonable cause?  Should failure to maintain (*forever*) a
complete record of who you sold your car to be punishable by 10 years in
prison?  Should the Motor Vehicle department be able to deny you a
driver's license even if you pass the written and driving test?  Without
cause, other than that the local director doesn't think you should be
allowed to drive?  If the AAA fought each of these issues, would you
consider them the lowest of the low?  Well, these are direct analogies
to existing or proposed gun control measures.  When equivalent measures are
presented to a gun owner, they sound as ludicrous as the above should
sound to most car owners.

Hopefully the above helps people understand where the NRA fits into the
grand scheme of things, including the relationship between members and
the organization.

In any issue, it helps to engage one's brain before placing ones mouth
(or fingers) in gear.

Hal

Ps: Disclaimer: No intent of actual AAA actions, policies, etc. should
be implied from the above.  They were merely used as an example that nearly
everyone can relate to.

re: .3 (and .4) 
Nice note Hal.
	Mez

    Please, for more information, see also the notesfiles:
    
    SIMVAX::FIREARM_ISSUES
    LOSER::FIREARMS
        
    -Jody
    

Discussion moved from note 172.
    
================================================================================
>Note 172.25                Home Safety Course Offering                  25 of 27
>FAIRWY::KINGR "Hospital called, your brain is ready!" 6 lines   5-JUN-1990 14:34
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    WHen the NRA has lobbied AGAINST the ban of ASSAULT/AUTOMATIC weapons
>    how can I trust them to teach hunter safty courses?
    
>         REK
    
>    WHat is wrong with this picture?

    
    REK, the ban was not of automatic weapons but of semi-automatic
    look-alikes. Since those look-alikes are functionally identical
    to common target and hunting arms, the ban could have been 
    extended to those arms. The NRA, through its lobbying arm, has and 
    will continue to oppose attempts to sneak through legislation
    we believe is an attempt to circumvent our 2nd Amendment rights.

    Dana Charbonneau

This is in answer to 172.x (REK) assertion that "the NRA lobbies against
laws regarding automatic and assualt weapons" (that is paraphrased if the 
meaning is incorrect asto his original quote, I apologise)

It has been said several times but, again, the NRA Institute For Legislative
Action is a Political organization paid for purely by donations from both 
members of the NRA and *OTHERS* who are concerned with preserving the
Second Amendment. The NRA is an educational organization that(as Eagle said)
keeps and teaches the rules of competetive sports, including the Olympic
shooting sports.

Before this gets into the assualt rifle argument I would ask REK to please
read the information posted in the other firearms files I believe that is a 
better place to argue the points.

My understanding of this note (82) is to discuss the use of firearms for
self defence not the general politics of firearms. There are two notesfiles
dedicated to that purpose. And while the use of various types of firearms
for self-defense is an item for this note perhaps including the scenarios 
where  even a full automatic weapon would be needed, and the legality of
using those weapons, I believe the moderators would prefer the politics be left 
out.    

Amos

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou for moving the discussion.
	Mez

	re: 172.14 (REK)

	>    THE NRA IS NOT A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION! 
	>    Lets get the facts straight.
    
	You get the facts straight  (or at least know your facts
	before you scream false statements at us).

	The NRA is a non-profit organization according to 
	Ch. 501(c)3 IRS codes.  

	I know this because myself and several other women have 
	set up a non-profit, and the NRA's bylaws and Articles of 
	Organization were one of several references used for the 
	fine details (along with the MA Wildlife Foundation's, a
	Crossbow association, etc..)

    > re: 172.22 (REK)    5-JUN-1990 14:07

    > Re:21 The question still stands, is the NRA a registered 
    > non-profit group? 

	REK, do you read notes in order?  

	Look at the following:

	(172.21 (Amos Hamburger)  5-JUN-1990 12:57)

	> BTW under the IRS laws, codes, etc the NRA *IS* a 
	> non-profit educational organization. 

	Do you think Amos doesn't know what he's talking about,
	or did you just not read it close enough so that you
	asked the exact question again that he answered one
	note before an hour earlier?

    > Another question, the information handed out who pays for them? 
    > Does the NRA pay for them then charge the people?

	It is logical to me that if the materials are supplied
	at the beginning of the course, the provider of the materials
	would have already had to pay the printing company, etc.

    > I'm questioning whether the notesfile is the place to advertise 
    > for this...

	Why?  What's your [remaining] problem with advertising this course 
	here now that you know Carol is certified, etc?
	
							nancy b.		

re 172.25:

Do you know what an assault rifle is?

Do you know what the proposed law says?

Do you know if the proposed law applies to assault rifles?

Have you come up with a rational reason for banning "them", whatever
"them" is?

Or, did someone tell you something was bad and you believed it without
any investigation and thought of your own?

I'm new to this conference, so I don't know if REK belongs to the
frequent flamer program or if guns bring out this behavior.  If the
former, then I'm sorry.  If the latter, then I would be happy to have a
1:1 *rational* discussion with REK (or anyone else for that matter)
about gun control.  I'm not for name calling, lies, or emotional
arguments, in either direction.

Hal

    Ok lets have a little fun here... What does a person need a GUN that
    fire more than 1 bullet when you pull the trigger?
    
    REK
    
    Re: 11 please enlighten me, what is an assault rifle?

    RE .12 Multiple assailants. (Which, BTW, does in and of itself
    justify use of deadly force in a court of law.)
    
    How did this subject turn to full-automatic weapons ? They've
    been strictly controlled since the 1930's.

> <<< Note 82.12 by FAIRWY::KINGR "Hospital called, your brain is ready!!!!" >>>

>    Ok lets have a little fun here... What does a person need a GUN that
>    fire more than 1 bullet when you pull the trigger?
    
>    REK
    
>    Re: 11 please enlighten me, what is an assault rifle?
An assault rifle is a light to medium caliber short rifle capable of selective 
fire(both full and semi auto modes) This is the definition used by most 
militaries of the world.

Full auto is the ability to fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the
trigger.
Semi-auto means that *ONE* bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger
and then either recoil or gas-pressure cycles the bolt causing another
cartridge to be picked up from the magazine and loaded into the chamber.

Full automatic, hence assault rifles as well, (the true assualt rifle not
the look-alikes the media screams about) have been tightly controlled by
government law since the National Firearms act of 1934.
Since that law there are about 200,000 legally owned machine guns,
owned by collectors and shooters who went through the exhaustive background
tests and paid the tax fees. since 1934 there has only been *ONE* crime
commited with a legally owned machine gun.

Now as far as need to own one, I can think of scenarios where one would need
one, multiple attackers immediately comes to mind. However without getting 
into all that,  the real point is that the government should not have the
power to decide what any citizen does or doesnot *NEED* to own.
According to the FBI uniform crime report, more people drown in swimming pools
ea<ch year than are accidently killed with guns, for the good of society
you do not *need* a swimming pool.
3 times as many people are killed by drinking drivers than are killed by
firearms, you don't need a car that goes over 55 miles per hour and you don't
need to be able to buy alcohol.
Do you want the government to control those things?

What gun owners and the NRA are saying is that under the constitution people
have the right to choose to own firearms for sport or self defense.
the argument that some misuse them should not penalize the 70 million who owen
firearms and do not misuse them.

Just as Organizations like NOW are saying that *CHOICE* is what makes a woman
free, free from fear of rape/incest/unwanted-preg, free to pursue career goals
and decide her own timing on reproduction. I say we should have the choice to
own or not, any firarms. There are people who use the argument guns are
killing people therefore they must be eliminated, there are a vocal minority 
that say that abortion is murder that "the government" must control everything
we do or say. 
Freedom means keeping our *choices* in every area and using them responsibly
the cost of losing those freedoms is too high to pay. the results of
losing the freedoms that our ancestors fought for is Tien an mien square
and Lithuania and Afghanistan and all the other oppressive situations.

And if for no other reason, I *NEED* a firearm that fires more than one bullet
for each trigger-pull to resist a government that decides that *it* has the
*right* to control every aspect of my life and the lives of my friends and 
family.
Amos

    Dana, if they are "strictly controlled" then how come the NRA spent
    thousands of dollars trying to stop the ban of assault rifles in
    Boston?
    
    REK

    REK, one more time, the ban was not on full-automatic but on
    semi-automatic weapons. 

    Re:14 People like you need to get out more... People like you scare me!
    As for people drowning and drunk drivers...More people are killed by
    cancer than both of those combine... what does that prove?
    
    DO you get a special feeling when you pull the trigger? Do you run and
    get your gun everytime you hear a funny noise in the house? Do you run
    and get your gun everytime you hear a knock on your door?
    
    REK
    
    Go out and buy a cap gun... then you won't hurt anybody.....

    Re:16 What is the difference between a semi and an auto?
    
    REK

    An auto usually carries a small number of people.

    A semi usually hauls a much larger trailer.

{  <<< Note 82.18 by WOODS::KINGR "Hospital called, your brain is ready!!!!" >>>
{
{    Re:16 What is the difference between a semi and an auto?
{    
{    REK
{
Amos explained the difference in 82.14


ken

    Instead of trying to remember all the stats I will get real
    information and post it in here when I get it...
    
    REK

>  <<< Note 82.17 by WOODS::KINGR "Hospital called, your brain is ready!!!!" >>>

>    Re:14 People like you need to get out more... People like you scare me!

Personally I am more frightened that federal agents have taken to wearing face 
masks to conceal their identities when they make their raids, why do they have 
to hide if what they do is legal. A government that tells us we must put up 
with illegal search and seizure scares me. I feel sorry for you if you are 
scared of someone who has sworn to defend the Constitution of this country.


>    As for people drowning and drunk drivers...More people are killed by
>    cancer than both of those combine... what does that prove?
 
 It enhances my point that people who scream "we can save lives with gun
 control" could better spend their time and money (read that as save more 
lives) by concentrating on those things that take the most lives.

   
>    DO you get a special feeling when you pull the trigger? Do you run and
>    get your gun everytime you hear a funny noise in the house? Do you run
>    and get your gun everytime you hear a knock on your door?

The first question is contemptible. Unless you mean do I get the same 
satisfaction out of hitting my target that a baseball player gets from
hitting a home run, then the answer is yes.

In my home a gun is the last line of defense in a system of home security
that includes proper locks, a dog, automatic lighting etc. you would have
to be more explicit about what kind of "funny" noise before I copuld answer 
that with a yes or no.

When I answer the door it depends on the time of day. at 3AM yes at 3PM no
BTW when my wife answers the door if she is home alone the answer is 
more often yes, however we can see who is at the door and that makes a
difference whether it gets opened *and* whether we arm ourselves.
    
>    REK
    
>    Go out and buy a cap gun... then you won't hurt anybody.....

I have owned more firearms of all types than even some dealers see in their 
lives. I have never "hurt" anyone exept the one or two that had decided
to attack me *FIRST*. I have *NEVER* had a firearm discharge accidently
(one thing you learn in the NRA) I have never handled a firearm in an unsafe
manner. Neither have any of my students, that I am aware of.
Amos

This note has degraded into a typical gun control discussion.  Next REK will
post some statistics which Amos or one of the other participants will
trash beyond all belief as being completely and utterly useless.  REK
will attempt to counter our statistics in some way.  Thousands of disk blocks
will be wasted repeating discussions that go on daily in conferences wholly
or partially devoted to gun control.  Volumes will be written about 
statistics that show gun control doesn't work, analogies with
other countries which can prove any argument, dissertations on the intent
of the writers of the constitution, philosophical disscussions on the role
of government in society, etc.

If the moderators have any pity, they will redirect this discussion elsewhere (ie, 
one of the earlier referenced conferences).  At a minimum, it should take place
in a note devoted to firearms politics (or
some such title) and not in the note discussing the use of firearms in
self defense!

Hal

Since this file is open to topics of interest to women, if women are interested
in discussing the NRA, or the politics of gun control, it belongs in this
notesfile.

However, if you really are discussing politics, the appropriate topic is the
next one over, 83.

And, Hal, the processing topic is 22. That's where discussion of what belongs
in this notesfile goes (meta-noting).
	Mez

Why does someone need more than 1 bullet?  I can think of a whole bunch of
reasons that someone might "need" more than one, although Amos pointed
out that really isn't the point.  Just a few are:

- You might miss.  Gee, that rapist will be real pleased that you tried to
  shoot him and will just hang around waiting for you to reload and try
  again.  Guns, especially handguns, are notorious for NOT being able
  to stop someone with a single shot even when you hit!  Note I said STOP
  rather than kill.  A single shot will kill someone, eventually, but they
  may have seconds or minutes in which they can continue to harm you.  Thus,
  a murderer needs only a single shot firearm while someone defending themself
  needs a multiple-shot weapon!

- Their might be multiple assailants.  A firearm may be, in fact, the only
  defense you have against multiple assailants.  Its the only tool that
  has the potential to be used multiple times before one of the assailants
  can disable you, and the only tool likely to scare away the assailants
  rather than having them continue their attack.  THEY know you can handle
  more than one of them and that alone is enough to have them break off
  an attack.

- You are involed in a shooting sport that has a speed component.  I mean,
  an auto race with YUGOs does not compare to the Indy 500.  The same is
  true in shooting sports.  Without a reasonably high capacity firearm
  the sport I compete in would be impossible.  I NEED more than one bullet like
  a golfer needs more than one club.  Could you imagine a real game of golf
  if the only club you had were a 9 Iron?

It's interesting that some of Amos' statements scared REK.  Most of us like
to think of the government as on our side, or at least benign.  It baffles
us as to how someone could mistrust the government enough to even conceive
of the day when they would need to take up arms against that government.
Thomas Jefferson was not so baffled, he believed it would be necessary every
50 years or so!  And, if one goes back and reads the writings of the rest
of the founding fathers on this topic, one finds that their intent was very
much that citizens have private firearms as just such a check on the government.
So, Amos' definition of why you need more than one round is an extremely good
one from a philosophical and legal perspective.  But, further exploration
of this goes right into the rathole I'd like to avoid.

In a personal defense firearm you definitely need multiple rounds.  5-6 is
probably the minimum you can safely get away with, assuming you never expect
to have to deal with more than 1 or 2 assailants.  If non-human threats or gangs
are a concern, that may not be enough.  You urbanites back east may worry
most about a mugger or rapist.  In the outlying areas around here your worry
might just as much be dog packs or a rattlesnake.  I know quite a few people who
take a gun with them when walking, running, or biking in certain areas and
its not primarily because of concerns over human assailants.  Which brings me
to one inaccuracy in a previous statement I made in an earlier reply: I do actually
rely on a firearm for self-defense in one case...I have taken a pistol hiking
in the mountains. (*)

Hal

* Interestingly, today's newspaper has a story about dogs in my neighboorhood
having been attacked by Mountain Lions.  They are warning people that it
might not be wise to keep your pets outside at night or to let small children
play alone outside after dusk.  And this is inside the city limits!

    REK, I don't like guns either, and, so far, I have chosen to live
    my life without owning one and/or knowing how to use one.  I, also,
    have no interest in them as a sport.  The thought of animals being killed
    depresses me, and guns always bring an image of violent death to my
    mind.  However, having said all that, I realize that I still have to
    live in a world where other people have guns.  If other people are
    going to have guns, then I, personally, am glad that there are safety
    classes available and I have no problem with them being announced
    in this file.  If people are going to be out there with guns, don't
    you at least feel better knowing they know how to use them the right
    way?
    
    Lorna
      

>    have no interest in them as a sport.  The thought of animals being killed

This equation, sport = hunting, always bothers me.  I'm sure that most of you
equate archery with taking a bow and arrow out in the backyard and
shooting some arrows at a target.  You may even think of some college or high school
archery competition.  But, you don't equate the sporting use of bows & arrows
as equivalent to hunting.  Well, bow hunting is quite popular.  (and, bows &
arrows have only one purpose: to kill, be it human or animal).

I think of sporting use of firearms as either recreational, ie shooting
at tin cans for pure pleasure, or competitive, ie, shooting at paper targets,
steel plates, and bowling pins for fun (and place).  I personally don't
equate hunting with sport, but I have a pretty strong aversion to killing
anything.  That's probably why I react pretty strongly to implications that
the only purpose of a gun is to kill.  MY guns have the same purpose to me
as skis and golf clubs have to my brother, a crop and halter have to my wife,
a bat has to a softball player, etc.  Yes, I could use a gun to defend myself,
just as a baseball bat could be so used.  But that is incidental to MY
primary use (*).

For people who actually own guns with a primary motive of self-defense, proper
training is essential.  For the rest of us, training makes both ourselves
and the rest of the population safer and more secure.

Hal

Ps: I mentioned in a previous reply the mountain lion problem we are having.
One wildlife expert recommended using a baseball bat or axe to kill or drive off
a mountain lion (who was attacking your dog or a child, killing them otherwise
requires a hunting license) rather than a gun "because you never know where
the bullet will end up".  Well, first, anyone who has proper firearms safety
training knows that you are supposed to make sure of what's beyond your
target before firing.  But, the interesting point, is that my wife (who
is certainly no gun lover) and one of her female friends both had the
same reaction:  "Right, I'm going to go after a 6-8 foot long 150 pound
mountain lion with a bat!  I'm going to go get the gun...." 

    mountain lions are reputed to be very shy of people, are these real
    live documented attacks?  Here in NE, lion sightings are most often
    taken as wishful thinking!
    
    I don't hunt myself, but I don't mind that others do.  Some people need
    the food.  Some like the food.  And some see it as sport.  I don't care
    for that sport, but <opinion alert> I mind it less than, say,
    professional hockey, or football, or war.
    
    There's a (true) story of a hunting trip (in New Mexico) on which
    three friends must have inadvertantly camped too close to a lion's den.
    The non-hunter of the group alerted the 2 (bow) hunters to the fact that
    he was being attacked by a lion, by hollering his head off from up a tree,
    so loudly that they could hear him from half a mile downslope.  The two
    rushed back to camp and yelled at the cat, who then noticed them and
    left off trying to get to the man in the tree (he was fending it off
    with a long hiking stick) and started for the bow hunters.  One hunter
    got one arrow into the cat but the cat kept coming.  She kept the cat
    at bay with another arrow until the other hunter got his bow ready and
    killed it with a second arrow.
    
    They never reported it, because they would have got into big trouble
    for killing the lion.  I think it is sad that the lion was killed, but
    I don't see what else they could have done in the circumstances.  I
    like the woods a lot; hope I never run into a momma bear!  For that
    matter, moose are reputed to be dangerous in certain times of year...

    Any large animal can be dangerous - people have been killed
    by deer. (Yeah, it sounds crazy.) Only a wounded animal, or
    one protecting young, would be likely to attack a human. 
    Sadly, the naked apes are exceptions to this rule, attacking
    for hatred, money, power, lust, etc...

	If I have a gun for self defense (legally) what is the
	greater probability:

	. It will be used in domestic violence in my own home
	. It will injure a family member accidently
	. I will be able to use it in a legitimate defense of my family

-D-

    While assaults within the family do occur, and accidents also,
    I don't believe they happen nearly as often as incidences of
    armed self-defense. The number 600,000 incidents per year pops
    into my head, don't have the source handy. You have to remember,
    in most cases the sight of the gun in the victim's hand causes
    the assailant to stop and flee. (But remember, you may have to 
    really pull the trigger. There's no bluffing.)
    
    Accidents can be prevented. If there is a likelihood that someone
    in your family will assault you, you might choose not to own a gun.
    It's not a cure-all.
    

	RE: Accidents The number (not just per 100,000 rate but total number)
	of accidental gun deaths has been dropping year by year. I saw two
	interesting statistics in seperate articles lately. Children killed
	by gun accidents a year ~250 and dropping. Children killed by bicycle
	accidents ~1000 a year and going up. Something like 500,000 children
	a year go to the hospital because of bicycle accidents BTW. I believe
	the gun related trips are a lot less.

	The important thing with guns is keeping them safely locked away. You
	don't want to be any less careful with a gun then you are with
	poison for example. Mine are ALWAYS locked up with the ammunition
	kept seperately. I've also trained my son from an early age that
	guns are not toys and he must never touch them without me there. I
	do let him see and handle them (under close supervision) to remove
	the mystery. He wants a .22 of his own becaus he enjoys target
	shooting. It will probably be a while before he gets one though.

	I also quiz my son regularly of safety rules especially if we haven't
	gone shooting recently.

			Alfred

    RE: .34 I hesitate to reply because anything less than 21 is probably
    going to get someone on my case. He's shot the .22 rifle since about
    10 (supervised in that case meant I was still holding on to the gun
    BTW.) I know others who've started much younger. My son has also had
    a BB gun since about age 8. He's held other guns at various times but
    not while they were loaded. He's a very good shot and I think that
    the skills shooting teaches (patience, concentration, eye hand
    coordination, and concern for safety) are valuable lessons.

    		Alfred

    
    re .37
    
    Why did you kill a porcupine?
    
    
    I think that's one of the things that bothers me about guns.  I worry
    that some young people might use harmless creatures for target practice.  
    Herb, if you shot that porcupine by accident (or in self defense??), I
    retract the the reference to you, but my concern about harmless
    animals being shot remains.
    
    Justine

    re .38, I agree.  It especially bothers me that he referred to it
    as "fun."
    
    Lorna
    

Kids are all different, I have trained a number mostly Boy Scouts, age 12-16    

my own two(boys) learned at age 6 or so. I spent time teaching shooting from a
sitting position with a short-stocked rifle(the kind at the turn of the 
century known as "boy's rifles" :-}). Now, at age 14 and 11, I would let
the younger one go shooting un-attended *IF it were legal* (I do *NOT*
because of laws) he is truely capable and thinks about what he is doing all 
the time. The older boy hasn't demonstrated the attention to detail or
willingness to follow rules so I wouldn't let him go alone. The whole question 
is academic as we all have to be together but I don't have to "watch"
David as carefully as I do Luke.(don't ever tell him that :-})

Some of the scouts I have taught pick it up right away, some are still clowns
hopefully they will all grow into the right attitude about personal safety and
the safety of others. These lessons seem to carry over into the use of all
tools, swimming, bike riding etc.

Amos

	RE: Young. I think many of this is relative. For example I know
	kids who have been driving 4 wheelers since age 6-7. I know people
	who started driving trucks and tracters at age 9-10. Are those
	activities more or less dangorous then shooting? If you grow up
	where such activities are common place it seems pretty normal.
	In the city where I grew up few people drove before 19-20 and I
	was always shocked as a kid to hear about 15-16 year olds driving.
	
	You have to take physical size into account too. A .22 isn't a lot
	to handle. The gun is light and the noise and kick are easily handled
	by little people. A shot gun on the other hand would knock a child
	on their little butt. I don't expect my son to shoot anything bigger
	then a .22 for a couple of years.

	One of the other things to do with children is to show them what
	real guns can do. Shooting a Coke bottle with a shotgun will provide
	a very graphic lesson is why it's not a toy. The noise alone will
	teach wonders. Just telling a kid something is often not enough as
	kids are very "I want to see it for myself."

		Alfred 

>        <<< Note 82.39 by DZIGN::STHILAIRE "another day in paradise" >>>
>
>    re .38, I agree.  It especially bothers me that he referred to it
>    as "fun."
    
>    Lorna
 
If you re-read it Lorna the "fun" was the .30-06. he shot the porky with a 
Luger, two different things.

Not all shooters shoot animals! many shooters have *NEVER* shot at anything 
more than a paper target.

When I was raising chickens a few years ago there ware a couple of racoons 
that would invade the chicken yard and kill 6-10 birds a night. The local 
animal control people said "that's your problem, I'm not comin out at 3AM
for a 'coon. after trying better fencing etc. the 'coons finally had to be 
shot, by me. BTW there is a law that clearly states "wild animals harrasing
live-stock or destroying crops may be killed". 

Porcupines (at least in maine) are very destructive around lumber camps
farm buildings etc. they may also carry RABIES. in fact according to
a number of biologists rabies are prevelant in over 50% of all wild
life(meat eaters) in New England. with a fair percentage that
actually become rabid and cause problems. 
Please don't jump to the conclusion because an animal is killed that it was 
just for the h*ll of it.

Amos   

From Monday's Boston Globe..........

Public Opinion on GUN control..

Gallop Poll Feb. 28- Mar. 2, 1989

"In general, do you feel that laws covering the sale of firearms should
be more strict, or kept as they are now?"

More Strick:============== 70%

Less Strick:= 6%

Kept same  :==== 22%

No opinion : 2%


"Would you fovor or oppose federal legislation banning the manufacting,
sale, and possession of semiautomatic assault guns, such as the AK-47?"

Favor      :============== 70%

Oppose     :==== 23%

No Opinion : 2%

*******************************************************************************

The Gallup poll  Sept. 25- Oct. 1 1988

"Would you favor or oppose a national law requiring a 7-day waiting period
before a handgun could be purchased, in order to determine whether the 
prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or is mentallt ill?"

Favor      :================== 91%

Oppose     :== 8%

No Opinion : 1%

*******************************************************************************

The Harris Poll March 23-29, 1989

"Assult rifles are manufactured both here and abroad. DO you favor or 
oppose banning the sale of all assult rifles made abroad?"

Favor      :============== 67%

Oppose     :====== 29%

Not sure   := 4%


     NRA Members

Favor      :========== 48%

Oppose     :========== 52%

    
    I think the assassination of innocent porcupines is reprehensible. 
    
    And people wonder why gun owners get reputations as yahoos...
    
    I hope you at least had the decency to eat the departed critter.
    

> "Would you fovor or oppose federal legislation banning the manufacting,
> sale, and possession of semiautomatic assault guns, such as the AK-47?"

    Interesting way of putting the question. An AK-47 is not semiautomatic
    and an AKS-47 is not an assault gun. Which are they asking about? If
    the latter why didn't the question read

"Would you favor or oppose federal legislation banning the manufacturing,
sale, and possession of semiautomatic target and hunting guns, such as the 
    AKS-47?"


>"Would you favor or oppose a national law requiring a 7-day waiting period
>before a handgun could be purchased, in order to determine whether the 
>prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or is mentallt ill?"

    Did the pollers also point out that most Police officials believe
    that nothing less a month is sufficient even if they had the staff
    which they don't? Did they also point out that the DOJ believes
    that current records are worse then useless for this purpose?

>"Assult rifles are manufactured both here and abroad. DO you favor or 
>oppose banning the sale of all assult rifles made abroad?"

    Are they asking about such guns as the FAL listed in S 1970 which has
    never been used in a crime in the US AND which is also not an assault
    rifle. Are they asking about AR-15 type weapons? Why do they say
    assault weapon when they mean semi automatic hunting and target
    rifle? To slant the answers? Nah, no one does that. :-)

    		Alfred

    An other example question:
    
    Do you favor outlawing the gun most commonly used to shoot Policemen?
    
    If you said yes I can report, as accuratly as the Gallop polls quoted
    earlier, that you favor taking guns away from the Police. Most,
    something like 2/3, of police shot are shot with either their own
    issued gun or their partners. 
    
    		Alfred

    The issue I am concerned about is NOT the second amendment. When the
    second was written I don't think it was meant to include semi/auto
    waepons and other fast-firing guns. These should be regulated on a
    different set of rules.
    
    I guess I'm getting tired os read/hearing about all the kids being shot
    down in Boston. The laws are not working now, what can we do to change
    them so the can work and stop the shooting gallery? Drive bys are
    getting more common everyday and I don't think its confined to Boston.
    
    OK NRA members, what can we do to stop this?
    
    REK

    re .51 Blaming guns for society's ills is not the answer. It's
    a 'quick fix' that politicians are so fond of. It gives the 
    illusion of 'doing something' while making no significant difference.
    These kids need jobs, they need hope, they need moral guidance
    to the effect that murder is wrong, that drugs are a dead end,
    that education is their ticket out of the back streets. They're not 
    getting it at home or in the schools. I don't think the folks
    on Beacon Street want to take any serious steps towards fixing
    that for one simple reason - it costs money, which equals more
    taxes, which equals political suicide. And we all know the first
    rule of politics - get reelected.

This was .52 and .53.... with a little change to make this "legal"
    
*    What can "we" do Rick?
*    Ill tell you what you can do, the same thing I told you in person....

OK, now tell everyone in here
    
*    Stop talkin out yer @ss.  It only shows your ignorance on the subject
*    pal.....

No comment and leave my tush out of this    

*    Its as simple as this pal....

OK
    
*    ya see, you rads like go and make it vertually impossible for a LAW
*    ABIDING person to obtain a "semi automatic firearm (what the hell
*    constitutes a semi auto anyhow?)" and do you know what that does???
    
Why do you need an auto/semi weapon for? To protect yourself from
invading British troops? 

*    it keeps LAW ABIDING PEOPLE from obtaining them.  thats it PAL!
*    the scum of the earth will STILL BE ABLE to get em!  is that so damn
*    hard to see??????

The present laws are not working, the "scum" seems to be able to get their
hands on guns with no trouble what so ever. I say its time to take a 
realistic at the laws that govern guns.
    
*    and as for you "stats", it has been said so many darn times that I
*    forget how many..... You can manipulate your sample by asking the
*    questions a spacific way.... you know that Rick......

True Al, very true. Anybody can work stats in their favor.
    

>    The issue I am concerned about is NOT the second amendment. When the
>    second was written I don't think it was meant to include semi/auto
>    waepons and other fast-firing guns. These should be regulated on a
>    different set of rules.
 
	Why do you think this? This is a serious question. When I read the
	historical record of what the writters of the Constitution thought,
	practiced, and said about the Second amendment and gun ownership I
	come to the conclusion that military style weapons was exactly the
	kind of weapon they meant to let the people have. Back then private
	citizens were often better armed, in the US at least, then the
	Army of the day. This has been true in the US up until the last 60
	years or so. The Supreme Court some years ago ruled that one particular
	gun could be banned ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT a military use gun.

>    I guess I'm getting tired os read/hearing about all the kids being shot
>    down in Boston. The laws are not working now, what can we do to change
>    them so the can work and stop the shooting gallery? Drive bys are
>    getting more common everyday and I don't think its confined to Boston.
 
	This concerns me too. But stopping me from owning a semi automatic
	target rifle is not going to do anything to stop this. Let's try
	putting people in jail for such activities first ok? Let's try
	jailing fellons found with guns. It's already illegal and yet only
	a hand full of people are jailed for it every year. Let's try arresting
	people doing criminal things and putting them in jail before we
	try and fix the problem by punishing innocent people.

>Why do you need an auto/semi weapon for? To protect yourself from
>invading British troops? 

	One could just as well as this about booze, fast cars, CD players,
	or a host of other things that people don't need. What has need
	got to do with anything? People don't need to vote. They don't
	need WOMANNOTES, they don't need all kinds of things that still
	contribute to their quality of life. A Semi auto is fun. Mine is
	very accurate and a joy to punch holes in paper with. It's more
	fun then a bolt action for the same reason that a car with an
	automatic transmission is more fun in city traffic then a standard.
	It's not intrincicly bad. Besides the Constitution says I can have
	it.

>The present laws are not working, the "scum" seems to be able to get their
>hands on guns with no trouble what so ever. I say its time to take a 
>realistic at the laws that govern guns.
 
	I agree that we need to take a realistic look at gun laws. When I
	do so I conclude we need to get rid of a lot of them. The question
	for you is why do you think that making it harder for target shooters
	to get guns is going to make it harder for bad guys? The toughest
	places to get a gun in the whole country have the most gun crime.
	Toughening gun laws seems to be followed by increased crime. Yet
	in places were gun laws are loosened to make it easier for people
	to own and carry guns crime goes down.

			Alfred

 

 

re Note 82.57 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>         Back then private
> 	citizens were often better armed, in the US at least, then the
> 	Army of the day. 

        In the colonies, the only armies were the militia, and the
        militia simply consisted of private citizens armed with their
        private weapons.  In fact, free males in at least some
        colonies were required to own private weapons, for use in
        case they were called up to form the militia.  I seem to
        recall, though my memory on this is dim, that one of the
        tactics the British used to control the colonists was to
        limit this gun ownership.  By limiting private ownership in
        such a society, they were effectively disarming the only
        available army.

        I really do think that the second amendment has little or
        nothing to do with private gun ownership;  I do think it has
        to do with the right of the people to have locally controlled
        armed forces.  But since local control of the National Guard
        seems to be going by the boards, perhaps we once again will
        need to rely upon the ultimate backup of organized, armed,
        private citizens.

        Bob

O, reason not the need! our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous. 
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is cheap as beast's.
	Wm Shakespeare
	King Lear
	II.iv.

	Yesterday morning I went to an outdoor gun range with
	three friends.  One person had never touched a gun
	before, and the other two were very experienced with 
	firearms.  Between the three of us, we had a variety of
	handguns and rifles for my friend to try out, along with	
	a variety of targets - empty aluminum cans mounted at 
	various places up and down the backstop hill, gallon milk 
	containers and plastic laundry detergent containers hanging 
	from a metal target stand, cookies, the piece of PVC pipe
	that had caused one guy's house to flood, etc...

	Also on the range was a police officer, a man and his two
	boys (7 & 10?), and two older men that had some interesting
	WWI relics.

	Anyway, I was watching my friend try an H&K P7 M8 when I 
	saw a small chipmunk scamper across the end of the range.  
	I immediately thought [Oh no, somebody's going to shoot it.]
	Much to my relief (and surprise), *everyone* stopped shooting
	till it got to the other end of the range.  It made me feel
	good to see that.

							nancy b.

    
    I bet it was only becuase you were there...

Nancy's good karma _can_ be overwhelming :-).
	Mez

    re .63, .64, I would mostly find it completely boring.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .65 Lorna, you'd be surrounded by males eager to assist you.
    Usual m/f ratio is about 10-1. Doubt you'd be bored. 

    re .66, your faith in my ability to amuse myself is flattering.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .68 > 5)Availability of guns breeds violence
    
    Hmmm, since the preponderance of these black-on-black youth
    murders take place in cities, like Washington, D.C., New York
    City, L.A., where gun control is strictest, and since these
    youths are below the legal age to buy a gun, I don't think 
    the 'availability' argument holds much water. 

>children both legitimate and il

All children are legitimate.

D!

    re: .68
    (rough quote from Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love")Experiments
    with rodents have shown that, when sufficiently crowded, they will
    become withdrawn and quarrelsome ... Man is the only animal which
    deliberately subjects itself to such conditions.
     

          Last Friday night, the non-profit I started organizing last
          spring (A.W.A.R.E.) had it's first event:

          The author of the book, "The Truth About Self Protection", and
          seven other books on self-defense, a columnist for several
          national handgun magazines, director of a firearms training
          instutute in New Hampshire, Massad Ayoob was presenter.

          Attendance was approximately 100 - there were 96 chairs and
          several people were standing in the very back.

          Ayoob was amazing, giving an extremely informative and colorful
          presentation on the role of firearms in self-protection, and it's
          relevance to women.  On top of that, he kept the audience
          laughing at regular intervals :-).

          The evening went as follows:

          Welcome and introduction:  I described

                    o  The goals of AWARE
           (to be a source of information, education, and support for
           women considering using firearms for self-protection;
           ultimately, to decrease the rates of violent crimes
           committed against women by raising an AWAREness that women
           are both willing and able to defend themselves.)

                    o  What motivated me to found AWARE
           (I described some of the very negative introductory
           experiences I had after deciding to use firearms for self-
           protection...problems in getting proper licensing, having a
           very condescending instructor in my safety course, going
           into a certain gun store on Rt. 30, Southborough, and being
           insulted by the owner (judging from the snickers I heard
           people seemed to know who I was talking about!), and
           eventually being denied a license on the grounds that I had
           "insufficient reason".  This is what I know.  What is
           happening to others?)

                    o  Introduction of AWARE's officers and BoD


          Highlights of Ayoob's speech (approx 1.5 hours) included:

                    o  Discussion of how the social conditioning of girls
          and women affects their attitudes towards firearms and decisions
          about fighting back.

                    o  Discussion of attitudes of prominent feminists on
          the use of firearms for self-protection.  He referenced Susan
          Brownmiller's _Against Our Will_ several times, and described
          Paxton Quigley's _Armed and Female_ as the manifesto on the
          subject of women and firearms.

                    o  Description of the circumstances under which the use
          of lethal force is legally justified.

                    o  Description of a case involving a battered woman
          where he was 'learned counsel' testifying for a woman who shot
          and killed her husband in Miami.

                    o  Demonstration of several handguns brought to show
          which features and which handguns are more suitable for women. He
          also described the case where he testified for Christine Hanson V
          FBI.  Hanson and several other women were disqualified at the FBI
          academy because they could not qualify with the handgun designed
          to fit the larger male hands.  She (and others) brought a class-
          action suit against the FBI and won.

                    o  Discussion of suitable holsters for a woman's
          anatomy

                    o  Discussion of the strengths of women w.r.t. the use
          of firearms in self-protection
          (started out by quoting a paper on "the natural superiority
          of women"; described the after-effects of a shooting encounter
          and how, statistically, female police officers mentally recover
          quicker than their male counterparts after an incident; superior
          fine motor skills and coordination; something about women's
          resilience - described how a female LAPD officer recovered
          from a .357 through her heart, and he mentioned something
          about women living 7 years longer and being multi-orgasmic.
          (that was for comic relief :-)  Basically, the main point was
          that w.r.t. self-defense with a firearm, the strengths of women
          make them equally if not more competent than men in a self-
          defense situation.

                    o  and probably several other topics I missed when I
          was in the back


                    After a break, there was a 45 minute Q&A session.

                    One question that made me do a double-take was one when
          a woman asked about the legal implications of using a _machine
          gun_ to defend herself in her home.  (Ayoob said she is the first
          woman he's met that has a machine-gun license in MA)

                    Another woman asked if he was familiar with Model
          Mugging.  He talked a bit about its history and their sound basis
          for teaching women to use their legs and fight from the ground
          (as opposed to upright) as the best way for women to defend
          themselves in  contact fighting.  Ayoob expressed it as "using
          the earth as your fulcrum" and basically gave a very positive
          endorsement of what they are doing.

                    I then described AWARE's next series of events (I'll
          put that in a different reply), and Nancy Eaton and Nancy Snow
          (an officer and BoD) drew for doorprizes.

                    Our doorprizes were 2 sets of hearing protection,
          shooting glasses, a soft-shelled gun carrier, a hard-shelled gun
          carrier, a tee-shirt showing a female hand around a revolver and
          the slogan "The Best in Feminine Protection", and two purses, 1
          denim and 1 leather, with concealed areas in the middle with a
          holster.

                    Contributing stores were :  ARMCO Gun Sales, Boylston;
          The Gloucester Cobbler, Glouceseter; The Gun Room, Shrewsbury;
          and Lew Horton's Outfitters, Framingham.

                    And it was over as quick as it begun.
                    (well, 3 hours later)
               
                    I talked with some very interesting people.  One man
          said he used to run training classes exclusively for women at
          Woburn, and that he must have trained 300+ women.  He said he
          was  surprised to see someone so young organizing this, because
          the overwhelming majority of women who signed up for his classes
          were over 40.
                    
                    I hope all our events go this well.

                    Ayoob is such a hot ticket.  We were very lucky to have
          him speak at our first event.
                                                            nancy b.



    
    
    	P.S.  The presentation was videotaped, and anyone interested
    	      in viewing it can send me mail. 
    
    	       (It is going to be re-shown at Woburn Sportsman's Association
    	       which is very close to the Burlington Mall)
    
    							nancy b.
    
    
    		

    
    	An elderly woman with arthritis has requested advice
    	(from AWARE) on what kind of a firearm would be best
    	for home self-defense.  
    
    	Any advice or experience you have I'd be interested in
    	hearing!  I will summarize the info I'm getting from
	other sources and post it here if anyone is interested...
    
    						nancy b.
    
    

    With arthritic hands the problem is threefold - being able to
    manipulate the trigger, being able to control recoil, and
    being able to operate the mechanisms. A double-action revolver
    requires 10-12 pounds of force to operate the trigger, so
    a single-action pistol is probably the better choice. This
    requires less trigger pull, but she will have to a) load
    the magazine (or have it done for her,) b)operate the slide
    to load the gun and c)manipulate the manual safety before
    firing. A smaller-caliber gun, say a .380 ACP, in single-
    action, would probably be the easiest. My vote would be
    for the Colt 380 Government model or the 'Mustang' version.
    
    Dana

    Mossberg makes a 410 shotgun especially for home defense,
    short, moderate recoil, and the muzzle enlarged to make the gun
    look more intimidating (you're less likely to have to pull the
    trigger.)

    
    	re: the replies in the sexism is alive and well topic
    	    about women and men competing together in target shooting
    
    	I don't know all that much about competitive target shooting, but
    	a week or so ago I read of a study which showed that during a
    	woman's cycle, at some phase she becomes _better_ at target
    	shooting than her male counterparts, while during the rest of the
    	cycle, she is "only" as good as they are.
    
    							nancy b.
    
    	(didn't say _when_, but I'd guess Day 13ish or Day 21ish)
    
    

    Re: .82
    
    > while during the rest of the cycle, she is "only" as good as they are
    
    I believe that women might be better at any time.  A few months ago I
    had to wait for my car at the garage and was looking through an old
    copy of Sports Illustrated.  There was an article on competitive
    shooting (I think it was small bore rifles, does that sound right to
    any of the shooters out there?) and the women were better than the men.  
    They won a majority of the events.  There were (I think) three
    different types of rifles that were used and for each type there were
    competitions in shooting prone, kneeling, and standing.  The article
    said that standing was the hardest position to shoot from, but that
    women find it easier because of the way they are built (can't remember
    the details of exactly why).  
    
    I think there were 6 women in the competition and most (if not all) 
    were in the top ten of each category.  It was quite impressive.  The 
    writer talked with some of the coaches(?) to get some insight on why 
    the women are better.  I recall someone mentioning that it seems like 
    the women don't have to prove anything to themselves so they are more 
    calm while shooting and don't show any emotion if they make a bad shot.
    They mentioned that the men get caught up in being macho and having to
    shoot better than anyone else and that they get really upset with a
    bad shot which affects subsequent shots.
    
    If anyone else has seen this article, please correct any errors I might
    have made in relating this.  The only reason I looked at it was on the
    cover of the magazine they had some saying like - why women shoot
    better than men.
    
    						Jan

	1 week from this Saturday,  I will be co-instructing a 
	basic firearms safety class with Amos (infrequent =wn=er)
	at Clinton Fish & Game in Berlin.  

	Please send mail if interseted.  (more details below)

						nancy b.



DATE:    OCT 20 1990

TIME:    9:00 am - 3:00 pm

PLACE:   CLINTON FISH & GAME, Berlin, MA

COST:    $35.00 (includes lunch, materials, and ammunition )

FORMAT:  Lecture 9-12am, Range 1-3 (students will get to
         try 3 or 4 different handguns 5-10 shots each.)

LUNCH:   Provided

PERSONAL FIREARMS:  Please do not bring personal firearms without
		    asking us in advance, and then only for the purposes
		    of safety instruction or instruction in operating the
		    actions.
		    

	  We are AWARE is a non-profit dedicated to enabling women to
	  consider firearms as a means of self-protection.  Last week
	  we were approved by the state of MA as a non-profit 501(c)3
	  organization.

	  As a fund-raiser, we are selling t-shirts (just in time 
	  for Christmas ;-) that make a positive statement about women,
	  firearms, and self-protection while providing a neat double-twist
	  on a common phrase, "feminine protection".  If you are 
	  interested, you may fill out the form below and mail it to me.  

          On the front of the t-shirts is a front view of a revolver held by a
     woman's hand.  Above the revolver reads "...the ultimate in"  and beneath
     the revolver reads "Feminine Protection."  (get it, get it ;-)?
     On the left sleeve is a small version of our name    We are
     (the AWARE is 2*size of We are)                      AWARE
     (for a total size of 5 computer keys long X 2 computer keys wide)
     The t-shirts are medium weight and available in a blue that's technically
     called pastel blue (but it looks more blue than a pastel blue IMO), and
     pink (I wanted lavender and blue, but the t-shirt company didn't have
     lavender, or orchid, or fuschia!!![gasp].  
     Sizes are adult S, M, L, and XL, and cost is $12.25 + $1.75 s&h.  I
     have seen these shirts at gun shows for $14 each.   With each order you
     will receive 2 AWARE informational fliers.

          *All* proceeds from t-shirt sales will go to We are AWARE.
     Specifically, we hope to raise funds for the purchase of a good used
     projector for our presentations (we already have one picked out), the cost
     of turning overheads into slides, the advertising costs for our next
     several events, and the rest of AWARE's expenses for the first half of
     1991.

          If you are interested, 

          1) Fill out the form below.
          2) Snail-mail (US mail) your check **and**
             the form to the address below.
             Checks can be made out to "We are AWARE".
          3) E-mail a copy of the form to me (DCL:NANCYB)
             (friends of readers who would like to order a shirt
              but don't have access to the net can skip this)


                                                       nancy b.
                                                       president of AWARE

     cut here -----
                  |
                  v
     =========================================================================


     Size(S,M,L,XL) | Color (pink|blue) | Quantity | Total Price (@12.25 each)
     ---------------|-------------------|----------|--------------------------
                    |                   |          |
                    |                   |          |
                    |                   |          |
     ---------------|-------------------|----------|--------------------------
                                                   |
                                         Subtotal  |
                                                   |--------------------------
                                         Shipping  |
                                       (@$1.75each)|--------------------------
                                                   |
                                         Total     |--------------------------


     Name:               _____________________________
          
     Street, Apt:        _____________________________

     City, State, Zip:   _____________________________



     Please mail check and this form to:    We are AWARE
                                            P.O. Box 255
                                            Maynard, MA  01754

=============================================================================

    After reading .85 can I advertise a non-profit organization
    in Womannotes?

    REK

	Saturday,  Feb 9,  I will be co-instructing a 
	basic firearms safety class with Amos (infrequent =wn=er)
	at Clinton Fish & Game in Berlin.  

	Please send mail if interseted.  (more details below)
	The class has a limit of 12, and 7 are signed-up now.

						nancy b.



DATE:    Feb 9 1990

TIME:    9:00 am - 3:00 pm

PLACE:   CLINTON FISH & GAME, Berlin, MA

COST:    $35.00 (includes lunch, materials, and ammunition )

FORMAT:  Lecture 9-12am, Range 1-3 (students will get to
         try 3 or 4 different handguns 5-10 shots each.)

LUNCH:   Provided

PERSONAL FIREARMS:  Please do not bring personal firearms without
		    asking us in advance, and then only for the purposes
		    of safety instruction or instruction in operating the
		    actions.
		    

    Good news from the Supreme Court... Owning a MACHINE GUN is
    not covered under the second Amendment.... NRA loses appeal..

    REK

    One step at a time....

    
    There is quite lengthy discussion in FIREARMS that seems to indicate
    that this interpretation is based on a reporters missinterpretation.
    
    Perhaps somebody closer to the matter would care to report more
    accurately?
    
    My understanding is that the Farmer case only refers to full auto
    weapons made after 1986 (so "owning a machine gun..." is a gross
    exageration) and that the Supreme Court refused to review the case,
    rather than delivered a ruling, so it is probably incorrect to say that
    the Supreme Court said anything.
    
    /. Ian .\                       

    
    In my opinion there is a world of difference between a system whereby
    any law abiding, sane citizen can get a licence (albeit a rather
    expensive one, following substantial investigative checks) to buy a
    thing and a system whereby possesion is absolutely banned.
    
    With the 1986 amendment to the Gun Control Act possession of full auto
    firearms passed from licenced to forbidden. Of course you can still get
    a licence to own a machine gun, and of course you can still buy one.
    But with modern production being banned the cost of a legally
    transferrable full auto has become stratospheric. This is in effect
    saying that possesion of a machine gun is available to anybody ...
    provided they are filthy rich.
    
    *THIS* is what is unacceptable.
    
    /. Ian .\

                     Nashua Fish and Game Association
                        National Rifle Association
                       Personal Protection Program

    The course goal of the NRA Personal Protection Program is to teach the 
    basic knowledge skills and attitudes necessary for the safe and proper
    use of a handgun and to provide information on the citizen's right of 
    self-defense.

    THIS COURSE IS DESIGNED FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LITTLE OR NO EXPERIENCE
    WITH  HANDGUNS.

    The course length is 12 hours total, spread over six 2 hour sessions. 
    The  topics covered are:

	1. Handgun knowledge and safe gun handling
	2. Ammunition knowledge and the fundamentals of handgun shooting
	3. Firing the first shots
	4. Handgun shooting positions
	5. Firearms and the law
	6. Avoiding a criminal attack and controlling a violent 
           confrontation

    Topics 1-4 will be presented by NRA Certified Personal Protection
    Instructors.  Topics 5-6 will be presented by local law enforcement
    officers.

    The price for the course for individuals over 18 years of age is $50.
    This includes all texts, materials and ammunition.  .22 caliber
    handguns will be available.

    The course will be run at the Nashua Fish & Game Association on April
    8, 10, 15, 17, 22 and 24 (consecutive Mondays & Wednesdays) from 7PM to
    9PM each night. Space is limited and will be reserved on a first come
    first served basis.

    This course will be offered again in the local area - dates and
    locations to be determined.

    For more general information and registration, call Jon Choate at 
    603-424-3200.

    You will need a check made out to "Nashua Fish & Game Assoc."

I've always been a read-only type in the file but Nancy asked me to tell about
the course she described in 82.94 since I took it in October. (sorry its so
long)  -Margaret Crowley
    

I think that if someone went through the course and decided they could never
bring themselves to use lethal force, they would of learned alot about personal
safety and gun safety. (I can't even see a gun on TV without "Keep the muzzle
pointed in a safe direction " and "Keep your finger off the trigger until
ready" flashing through my brain")

I was always curious about guns. Dad always had one and he and my brother would
go out target shooting. Mom always said guns were "unlady-like", I've found
this means that they were likely to be fun, so I signed up.

The class was about 50% female. The first session was basic safety rules, and
how to work a revolver or an automatic-loader. Some of folks in the class had
NEVER even touched a gun before and were very timid at the beginning of the
evening, by the end of class they were working the actions  and taking apart
(and reassembling) some very complicated pieces of hardware like they'ld been
doing in for years. We also had some "snap caps", pretend bullets to practice
loading the equipment. There was no live ammo in sight.

The second class was on the different kinds of ammunition. What types are best
for self-defense, what the different types look like, what goes into a bullet.
They passed around different size shells so you could see the difference. The
guns and the live ammo were kept far apart. All the guns had the actions open
so everyone could see they were unloaded. They also covered the basic safety
rules again.

The third class, we were on range. First the safety rules were reviewed. Then
the class was divided in half to take turns shooting .22's. Each shooter had
an instructor working with them all the time. The first group of 5 shots
was done while you were sitting down resting your hands on a shelf in front of
you. By the end of the class everyone had shot several different guns from
all of the different stances and grips.

The fourth class, they allowed people to bring in their own guns and they
provided several different types to try. If you didn't own a gun it wasn't
a problem. First they reviewed the safety rules. Then they checked over the
guns that the students brought in. It was amazing how many of people had
brought in guns that weren't safe to use. It seems lots of people get old
guns from relatives and throw them in a drawer for 15 years and expect them
to work in an emergency, but atleast these folks were responsible enough to
take a safety class. Everyone had a chance to try .38's 9mm and .45's of
different sorts.

Class 5 was about the gun laws in NH. They briefly touched on the Ma. gun laws
as well. You'd think that sitting there reading the laws would be dull but the
officer who taught this made it great fun. They also explained how the law
differs inside YOUR house from on the street, how the law differs for cops,
the moral and ethical issues involved in using lethal force, why you have
to be very very careful about using lethal force in defense of a third party,
and what to after you've shot someone.

Class 6 was about how to avoid needing to use a gun. This was taught by a
member of the Nashua Police Force and was as entertaining as it was
educational. Even Sarah Brady would of appreciated some bits of this last class.
There is more to it than just common sense. There were some things I'ld never
consider a threat until they were explained to me.
                                                                

In conclusion: I learned alot, I had fun, I met some really neat people, and
I'm alot more confident in my ability to stay out of trouble.

 
	  AWARE directors and supporters handed out approx 900 fliers in a
	  little over 2 hours Thursday between 4:30-6:30pm in a 2 block area
	  of Harvard Square near the Harvard T stop.
 
	  I quickly realized that I had a maximum  of 3 seconds to get the
	  average person walking by to decide to take a flier.  The words
	  "self-protection for women" or "women's self-protection
	  organization" were what caused most women to take the flier.
	  Even if they would first avoid taking anything, when they heard
	  the words women's self-protection, they turned back, took one,
	  and kept walking.
 
	  It was as though their thought circuit of not taking fliers from
	  the people in the square suddenly shorted as they flashed on
	  something about the murder of a woman a week ago just blocks
	  away, or perhaps the 3 unsolved rapes that have occurred in north
	  Cambridge this month.
 
	  If my first words just involved something about a "rape whistle"
	  I received only weird looks.  However, if they took a flier and
	  stopped to read it, I would then add that we thought the
	  recommendation by the Cambridge official that women carry rape
	  whistles was ridiculous, and why.
 
	  Over 30ish women were generally more likely to take a flier than
	  women below age 30.  Therefore, given a crowd of people walking
	  by, my first attempt would be to hand a woman to an over 30-ish
	  woman and pause to talk if she had comments or questions.
 
	  Everyone who stopped to talk with me was interested in Cap-Stun.
	  **Not one** woman I talked with was anti-gun; one woman said
	  (basically) that she wasn't anti-gun, but she didn't like the
	  NRA.   Many expressed dismay, disgust, or a sense of hopelessness
	  that they now think they must restrict themselves to (for
	  example) going out only during the daytime.  Several women took
	  many fliers for others and their work place (in Cambridge) where
	  they were typically leaving at the time we were there.  Hopefully
	  we will be able to give presentations and training to groups as a
	  result.  I am looking into meeting rooms in Cambridge to rent or
	  be donated.
 
	  After about an hour of handing out fliers, a timely event
	  happened about 15 feet away from me in front of the Harvard Coop.
	  I knew something was wrong when 2 (white) plainclothes men with
	  walkie-talkies on their belts cornered a (black) man and started
	  aggressively talking with him and touch-frisking him.  They
	  eventually pulled something out of his coat (it looks like he
	  shoplifted), took him back inside the Coop, and then I hear
	  someone yell "Police!".  By this time I had walked around the
	  corner out of sight.  A passerby said the shoplifter had pulled a
	  switchblade on them.  A crowd had gathered, so I gave AWARE
	  fliers to the women on the outside edge of the crowd.
 
	  Interestingly enough, the only strong negative responses I
	  encountered came from the men.
 
	  One man was annoyed that I gave a flier to a woman who walked by
	  and not to him (he turned around after he walked by and asked me
	  why I didn't give him a flier in a somewhat accusing manner.)
 
	  Another thought we should be doing something about violence
	  against all people, not "just" women.
 
	  Another seemed generally disgusted with the idea of women's self-
	  protection.
 
	  And finally, I thought I had heard every slanderous comment made
	  about feminists that could possibly be said.  Uh-uh.   After
	  looking at the flier, one very odd man said just out-of-the-blue
	  in a very mean way:
 
			 (warning for obscenity formfeed)
 

 
		      "You feminists just need a good fuck."
 
 
	  I would have preferred to not hear that.
 
	  Our next event is next Thursday night, April 18.  Lyn Bates
	  contacted the Cambridge Women's Commission who gave a display
	  table to AWARE at a meeting in Cambridge sponsored by them and
	  the Cambridge police, who will be speaking.  AWARE will have
	  sign-up sheets for a Cap-Stun course and presentation, will be
	  selling _Armed & Female_, _The Truth about Self-Protection_,
	  etc...  Location is the North Prospect United Church of Porter
	  Square.
 
					     nancy b.

    Re -1
    
    Were the race characterizations needed?  Did it help clarify the
    picture for you?
    
    It is getting so that I hardly wish my Black Male Husband (21 years
    old) 6 Feet tall and 350+ pounds to walk the streets of Cambridge.
    I fear they will accost him first...
    
    
     and then check on his Harvard Law School id Second
           
          if they get there at all.  
    
    But then... this is Boston...
    Did I expect more?
    
    Cindi
          

    
    	re: .97 (Cindi)
    
    	Yes, it was the fact that the people doing the "attacking"
    	were white and the person being picked on was black that
        made me realize something was very wrong.  Why?
    
    	For a split second, I thought I was about to witness a
	racially-motivated hate crime.

    						nancy b.

    
    	The latest Utne Reader (May/June 1991) has an article entitled
    
    	"A peaceful woman explains why she carries a gun".
    
    	Linda Hasselstrom starts out with, "I am a peace-loving woman.
    	But several events in the past 10 years have convinced me I'm
    	safer when I carry a pistol.  This was a personal decision, but
    	because handgun possession is a controversial subject, perhaps
    	my reasoning will interest others."
    
    	She concludes with :
    	[..] intelligently weilded, it can shift the balance of power
    	[with men] and provide a measure of safety.
    
    	I called the source of the Utne Reader article, a Rocky Mountain
    	Publication called  High Country News  from Peonia, CO, to request
    	permission to reprint, which I was granted.
    
    	If you would like to obtain a copy of this article, please send
    	me mail.
    						nancy b.
    

	re: Justine (from 762)

>  ... I hope that even the women who do decide to carry guns will 
>  learn alternate methods of self-defense as well 

	Most women I know that do carry have been trained in
	many other forms of self-defense as well.  This is 
	because those women that do decide to carry guns well 
	understand guns are not appropriate for lower levels of threat.  

	One woman I know that carries said she started to carry only
	after taking martial arts training for self-defense, because
	that made her realize how really vulnerable she was.

						nancy b.

> (what if he grabs you from behind and you don't have/can't get 
> to your gun*), 

	Recently in California, a woman was attacked from behind
	while walking from her house to her car.  A scuffle ensued.
	She eventually was able to retrieve her gun from her purse
	and shot the attacker over her shoulder twice in his 
	stomach.  

>  *ps if you want to answer this What-if question, let's take it to the
>   self-defense note.  I don't want to sidetrack this note about Professor
>   Frug's murder.

	Now Ms. Sullivan, you *know* I would do that ;-) !!

						nancy b.

    . 96 -
    
    Regarding some of the negative responders - wonder if any of them had
    come from Out of Town News, the news/magazine kiosk that must have been 
    a few yards from where you were standing, that has the most impressive
    display of *Women as Meat* I've seen in that area, right opposite the
    cash register!
    
    D. 

    Out of Town news also happens to have the broadest selection of
    domestic and foreign newspapers and non-skin magazines around.
    
    I needed copies of the Manchester Union Leader for a school project,
    and they said no problem, we get that, it will be a couple days delay.
    You could probalby get things like the Washington Post there too, but I
    haven't tried.
    
    Lisa

    - .1
    
    Indeed they do, and whole lots of other stuff as well. I'd just like to
    go in there and buy whatever it is I'm after, without having to deal
    with Women as Meat, which is impossible to miss. That's all I'm saying.
    
    D.

                     Nashua Fish and Game Association
                        National Rifle Association
                       Personal Protection Program

    The course goal of the NRA Personal Protection Program is to teach the 
    basic knowledge skills and attitudes necessary for the safe and proper
    use of a handgun and to provide information on the citizen's right of 
    self-defense.

    THIS COURSE IS DESIGNED FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LITTLE OR NO EXPERIENCE
    WITH HANDGUNS.

    The course length is 12 hours total, spread over six 2 hour sessions. 
    The topics covered are:

	1. Handgun knowledge and safe gun handling
	2. Ammunition knowledge and the fundamentals of handgun shooting
	3. Firing the first shots
	4. Handgun shooting positions
	5. Firearms and the law
	6. Avoiding a criminal attack and controlling a violent 
           confrontation

    Topics 1-4 will be presented by NRA Certified Personal Protection
    Instructors.  Topics 5-6 will be presented by local law enforcement
    officers.

    The price for the course for individuals over 18 years of age is $50.
    This includes all texts, materials and ammunition.  .22 caliber
    handguns will be available.

    The course will be run at the Nashua Fish & Game Association on June
    10, 12, 17, 19, 24, and 26 (consecutive Mondays & Wednesdays) from 7PM
    to 9PM each night. Space is limited and will be reserved on a first 
    come first served basis.

    This course will be offered again in the local area - dates and
    locations to be determined.

    For more general information and registration, call Jon Choate at 
    603-424-3200.

    You will need a check made out to "Nashua Fish & Game Assoc." at the 1st
    meeting.

	Saturday,  June 15,  I will be co-instructing a 
	basic firearms safety class with Barbara Clorite-Ventura
	at Clinton Fish & Game in Berlin.  This is the course many
	police chiefs require before issuing firearms licenses.

	The president of Clinton F&G (Hi Amos! ;-) is generously
	designating this course to be a fundraiser for AWARE.

	Please send mail if interseted.  (more details below)
	The class has a limit of 12, and 3 are signed-up now.

						nancy b.

	p.s.  A man who took an earlier course from us said he
	had no problem getting a permit in Wakefield, and a woman
	just reported that it looks like she is going to be able
	to get a permit for protection in Shrewsbury.



DATE:    Saturday, June 15, 1991

TIME:    9:00 am - 3:00 pm

PLACE:   CLINTON FISH & GAME, Berlin, MA (about 10 min west of Maynard)

COST:    $35.00 (includes lunch, materials, and ammunition )

FORMAT:  Lecture 9-12am, Range 1-3 (students will get to
         try 3 or 4 different handguns 5-10 shots each.)
		    

	Would anyone like to go shooting tomorrow night at 
	Clinton F&G?  I am meeting Janis beforehand for dinner
	at an Italian restaurant around the corner at 6:30.
	This is about 10 minutes west of Maynard.

	I just bought a new .380 before the Brady Bill passes
	so that my chief can't not approve its purchase, and
	am looking forward to trying it out!
	(beginners are welcome)

					nancy b.

         

	>I just bought a new .380 before the Brady Bill passes
	>so that my chief can't not approve its purchase, and
	>am looking forward to trying it out!
	>(beginners are welcome.
    
    I've never been shot before.. wonder what its like .. .?
    

re: .108 (Bob Holt) 

> >I just bought a new .380 before the Brady Bill passes
> >so that my chief can't not approve its purchase, and
> >am looking forward to trying it out!
    
>    I've never been shot before.. wonder what its like .. .?
    
I've heard it feels like you've been hit with a sledgehammer.
(which is probably why it's so effective at _stopping_ an attacker.)

								nancy b.

          When I first read Bob's question, I thought he was asking what
          was shooting (as in target shooting) like...

          Then I recalled Bob's prior comments in this topic and something
          told me to go back and reread the question and look for what he
          really was trying to ask.  (Good thing I did ;-)

          Anyway, in response to what I first thought Bob asked (not what
          he actually asked), IMO, the fun thing about target shooting is
          the challenge of being able to control your breathing, movements,
          mind, etc.., to achieve accuracy.

          This requires total concentration - I *have* to stop thinking
          about work, etc..

          The summertime makes for particularly enjoyable Saturday mornings
          at outdoor ranges when a variety of targets can be used at a
          variety of distances (coke cans perched at different heights
          along the hill, oreo cookies closer in, revolving metal disks,
          etc...)

                                                  nancy b.

    Nancy!
    
    Why didn't you tell me you used Oreo cookies as targets?
    I'd love to shoot at them.  I figure it's them or me; 
    lately they have been winning.  :^)
    
      Margaret

    Let us all know when the uzi and grenade launcher come in.

                              L.J.

re: .112  (USWRSL::SHORTT_LA)

>    Let us all know when the uzi and grenade launcher come in.

	Ya know, it's funny.

	People I know who are gun-owners talk about  target
	shooting, plinking (what I described re: Oreos), reloading,
	collecting, hunting, skeet, self-defense, etc...

	People who are on the outside looking in through a very negative
	filter talk about  grenade launchers, "UZI"s, personal nuclear
	weapons, cannibalism, killing for enjoyment, guns-as-penises, etc...

	I think both camps illustrate quite well what's on their mind.
 
						nancy b.
 
	(L.J., was this revenge for  22.1987 ?)

re:              <<< Note 82.114 by RYKO::NANCYB "window shopping" >>>

Nancy,

	I know how you feel. The other day I was talking about handguns and
	how much I enjoyed target shooting with someone that is anti-gun.
	The next day he asked me if I'd shot anyone lately. AARRRGHHH!

	Why do these people think that everyone that owns a gun can't
	wait to go out and shoot someone??

Jenna

PS. I've never shot an Oreo. Think I'll have to try that but I doubt
    you could eat it afterwards :-).

>PS. I've never shot an Oreo. Think I'll have to try that but I doubt
>    you could eat it afterwards :-).

I'm sure some of us could still eat it afterwards quite easily.

D!

RE: UZI's etc

Since TV shows approximately 35 murders per week with automatic weapons,
very often UZI's, the perception is that they are everywhere, and used
exclusively in crime.

the actual statistics are that in 10 years only one law enforcement official
(DEA agent) has been killed with an "assualt weapon".
that between 1934 when full-auto weapons became controlled by the gov't
and 1986 not one legally owned machine gun was ever used in a crime
between 1986 and 1990 only one crime was commited with a legally owned
machine gun. There are several hundred thousand legally owned machine guns of 
all types(including UZI's) in the country. If the firearm is the problem,
why haven't they been used in crimes? the answer is that the law
abiding gun owner is not the problem, nor is _the gun_.

Amos

    re.114 and .115 Look at the bright side - at least _you_ don't
    get accused of having a penile inferiority complex ;-)/2
    
    

    During the period 1934 to 1990, how many Oreo's have been destroyed by
    legally owned machine guns?
    
    :-)
    
    ed

    re.114
    
        I own a gun.  Most of my friends collect weapons of some sort
    from daggers to maces to swords to uzi's.  I usually stick to bows
    and daggers, but a friend bought me a gun and I've used it all of
    once just so I'd know how.
    
        This was not a negative comment, I simply left off the smiley
    face.  God forbid!  ;^)
    
        As to the other thing in 22.1987, I don't see a need for revenge.
    I *was* indeed being sarcastic---showing my claws if you like that
    term. It was meant in a humorous way, but again, was left without
    a smiley.  Slap my little typing fingers!  ;^)

    
    re .116, D!:
    
    I wouldn't recommend it, as a piece of lead (albeit, small)
    just passed through the Oreo, and ingesting any amount of
    lead is very bad.
    

        re .-1,
        
        Check the title of .116 ... I thought she meant she would
        miss the Oreo so it would be easy to eat [and still be
        unleaded].
        
        Dan

>a piece of lead (albeit, small)
>    just passed through the Oreo,

no it didn't.  Trust me on this one.

D!

    re:.123
    
    Were you being sarcastic?  There was no smiley face in your reply.
    No, I'm not being paranoid.  Why do you ask?
    
                                      L.J.

    
    
    	The gun safety and familiarization course on June 15 is 
    	now full.
    
    
    
    

    Sorry about being so late, but I work remote and have to play catchup,
    nearly everytime i check in.  
    re: .100 (also learn alternative forms of self-defense)
    
    I highly recommend the book "Principles of Personal Defense" by Jeff
    Cooper.  Although Mr. Cooper is very well known for his promotion of
    modern pistol techniques, this book isn't at all about shooting.  It is
    rather about defensive techniques which will minimize the likelihood of
    having to engage in personal combat.
    
    {while it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6, it is
    nonetheless VERY expensive.}	[dale]

    
    
    	Well, my article in Guns&Ammo is out (August issue, 1991).
    
    	But I chickened out at the last minute and decided to use
    	the pen name of:
    
    			
    
    
    			Lorna St. Hilaire
    
                             

    No!

    I can't wait to read it, Nancy. One of my coworkers reads the magazine
    and he let me copy the article out of it. I'll read it tonight. He
    reads the guns notesfile and knows of you from there. 
    
    Congrats on being published. 
    
    PJ

Whatever your feelings regarding Firearms, Nancy has succeded against tough
odds in getting this published. The whole community should be proud of her 
work.

Amos

    re .128, gee, thanks, Nancy!  :-)  I can't wait to get all my fan mail
    from all the gun-crazed hunks out there! :-) :-) :-)  Maybe this way
    I'll finally get a chance to meet some real he-men! :-)
    
    (explanation:  see, one of Nancy's selling points in trying to interest
    me in guns is that there are a lot of *men* at the ranges.) :-)
    
    (As though *that* would ever be an attraction for *me*....my word,
    Nancy.) :-)
    
    Seriously, though, congratulations on getting published Nancy!  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE:  .128 Thats excellent, Nance!!!!!!!

	re: .129  (Dana Charbonneau)

	>  -< You're evil, Flinchy! ;-) >-

	Mr. Charbonneau, I can see it's high time I invited you out
	to a range in these here parts so I can demonstrate my
	now flinch-LESS (well, almost..;) form.  

	re: .133  (Lorna St.Hilaire)

> gee, thanks, Nancy!  :-)  I can't wait to get all my fan mail
> from all the gun-crazed hunks out there! :-) :-) :-)  Maybe this 
> way I'll finally get a chance to meet some real he-men! :-)
    
>    (explanation:  see, one of Nancy's selling points in trying to interest
>    me in guns is that there are a lot of *men* at the ranges.) :-)

	Now Lorna, I have met some very nice men at gun ranges who
	weren't at all "macho".  You just gotta make sure you don't
	shoot better than them with _their_ guns in their presence
	and they'll stay nice ;-) ;-).

						nancy b.

    
    	
    		OK.  I've decided that for future articles when
    	I  want to be taken seriously, I'll use the 
    	[male] pename(s):
    
    		
    
    
    
    		Mike Valenza      (or)       Joe White
                       
    
    		(I'll alternate... ;-)
    
    

    re: (-.1)
    	> ... you just gotta be sure that you don't shoot better than them
    with _their_ gun ...
    	TRUE STORY.  Up to that point they could always fall back on:
    "It's overdue for a trip to the gunsmith."
    	[dale]
    	

>	re: .129  (Dana Charbonneau)

>	Mr. Charbonneau, I can see it's high time I invited you out
>	to a range in these here parts so I can demonstrate my
>	now flinch-LESS (well, almost..;) form.  

    Sure, I'd love it (now I gotta go practice and get the rust off
    so she doesn't outshoot me, bad for the image... ;-) )
    
>	weren't at all "macho".  You just gotta make sure you don't
>	shoot better than them with _their_ guns in their presence
>	and they'll stay nice ;-) ;-).

    Must put the oversize 'men's large' grips on the 44 and see how
    well she does >;-)
    
    Dana
						nancy b.

    Nerd call.  Where, near Nashua, is there a *really* cheap -- preferably
    free -- place to go and sharpen my skills with a .22 target rifle?
    
    -d

    Re:140 Try any street corner... It works it Boston.....
    
    REK

>  <<< Note 82.141 by FDCV06::KING "If the shoe fits... BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!" >>>

>    Re:140 Try any street corner... It works it Boston.....
    
>    REK

 That is exactly the kind of remark I expect from you. I really get tired of 
that, why don't you find another forum to crybaby in.

-d, (smurf::BINDER)  I will try to get the address of Nashua fish and Game
however if you would like to come to Mass to the Clinton club we would
be more than happy to have you as our guest. There is no charge for
guests-who-occasionally-show-up, but we are always looking for new members :-}

We have a 50ft indoor range and a 50yd outdoor range(useable in good weather)

Send mail if I can help.
Amos

    Nashua Fish and Game Association
    PO Box 28
    Nashua NH, 03061

    Amos, I'm real glad that I was able to live up to your expectations.

    REK

    
    OK, Guys, I'd say you're even now, so let's stop the back and forth --
    you can stick your tongues out at each other at the next noter's party
    :-)
    
    Justine - cranky comod 

re: .139 (Dana Charbonneau)

>>	weren't at all "macho".  You just gotta make sure you don't
>>	shoot better than them with _their_ guns in their presence
>>	and they'll stay nice ;-) ;-).

>    Must put the oversize 'men's large' grips on the 44 and see how
>    well she does >;-)
  
	Which is reminiscent of what the FBI did... 

	Last year when Massad Ayoob (police trainer, self-defense 
	expert, frequent expert witness, etc..) gave a talk for 
	AWARE's benefit, he described a case where he testified for
	a female FBI agent that had very small hand and was being
	forced to 'qualify' with a gun that whose grips were obviously
	too large for her.  She won the case and set a precedent for
	other female FBI agents.


re: FDCV06::KING (REK)

	Oh, REK, you are my favorite gun-control nut !! ;-)

						nancy b.

    Ok Justine....
    
    REK

    I know, Nancy, Ayoob details it in one of his books (same chapter
    where the woman with the 45 is outshooting the guys with the 38's.)
    
    ( I hate it when people know about my tricks >;-) )

    
    
    	Thanks, Eagles.   However, womannotes is not about "notes file
         soapboxing", and the words that make up this living community
    	can in no way be compared to a magazine.  I even prefer it to
    	MS :-).   In =wn= you dont' get the title of your reply 
    	changed to something you don't like and paragraphs deleted !!
    	[no one told me magazines have __editors__ ;-]
    
    	Stop by some other topics, Eagles, and you will see an 
    	incredible amount of sharing that has taken place over the past
    	month.
    						nancy b.

	"congraduating"???

  :-)  :-)  :-)

Sara

    I _finally_ get the new G&A - there's the former World Champion's
    byline, there's the Outstanding Handgunner of the Year, there's 
    *Nancy Bittle* ! Some impressive company you keep nowadays! 
    
    Sign me 
    'Impressed'

	Guy diagonally over the cube wall has a copy.  I haven't had a chance
to borrow it yet to read the article...

						--D

          LFI-1, The Justifiable Use of Lethal Force, was quite an
          experience.  I would definitely not call it fun, because it was
          so intense.  The videos and lectures refreshed a lot of
          unpleasant memories I'd rather not have disturbed :-(.  But I can
          now carry a gun with full confidence that I well understand the
          circumstances where I'd be justified in using it to defend
          myself.

          It was a big class -   28 people, 24 men and 4 women. 3 were
          AWARE(TM) women, and 1 was a police officer.  There were 3 police
          officers, 1 prosecutor, and a couple lawyers including one from
          South America.

          While on the range, I had to stand on the far left of the range
          since I was drawing from the back compartment of a waistbag, and
          my muzzle would point left and down when holstered.  We shot in 2
          relays of 14 people each.

          We learned 3 different positions, the Weaver, Chapman, and
          Isosceles.  We started with 3 rounds of 6 shots in a weaver
          position.  I heard the police officer in the relay behind me say,
          "I feel sorry for any guy that tangles with her."

          Then we got into the speed crouch, high kneel, and low kneel.
          After those rounds, Ayoob says something like, "Team, gather over
          here.  Shooting with a 9mm, Nancy Bittle just put 16 of the last
          18 shots IN THE SAME HOLE.  You have all just paid $500 to come
          here and be beaten by a *woman* !  I'd like to see you all
          demonstrate the same grasp of fundamentals that she does."  Part
          of me was happy, and part of me wanted to go hide behind the
          berm!

          Then later he announced that I had put 20 of 24 shots in the same
          hole, and that "This gives new meaning to the phrase 'shooting
          like a girl.'"   For the rest of the range session, he said he'd
          like to see "Nancy Bittle Signature Groups" from everyone.

          By lunchtime, I was getting a lot of interesting comments from
          the other students ;-).

          For example:

          (from another LFI instructor)
          Do you shoot the balls off of gnats for fun?

          (from the prosecutor) Are you a bounty hunter?

          Are you shooting 12 gauge rifled slugs?
          (to which I responded, "No, silly, I'm shooting a 9mm!"  He meant
          it as a joke because by that time, I had a solid hole in the
          target ;-).

          The lawyer type came up to me and said that Ayoob told him to ask
          me what I was thinking about when I was pulling the trigger.  I
          decided the truth would be difficult to explain, so I have him a
          partially true answer:  "I'm glaring at the front sight."

          Ayoob (and the other RO's there) told me I should seriously
          consider shooting competition.  But I dunno...  I have a finite
          amount of free time, and I'd like to focus on AWARE.

          At the end of the day, Ayoob got me on a video with the target.

          He said, "And how long have you been shooting?"
          I said, "I first applied for my license in Summer of '89.  I went
          shooting with some friends once then and had a great time.  After
          that I quickly developed a flinch and then it wasn't much fun,
          plus I resented having to ask someone to take me shooting just
          because I didn't have a license.  I finally got my license last
          winter, and started practicing semi-regularly this March.  I've
          been to some IPSC practices in the evenings, but not to a real
          match yet."    He said, "So you've only been shooting since
          March?"

          [Hey, Dana Charbonneau, remember how you gave me the nickname
          "flich" ? Well, you better think of something new, bucko! ;-)]

          At one point he said [in a lower voice] (but I bet this is on the
          video), "Nancy, don't point your gun at my groin"  (but he had
          *asked* me hold it against the target, and he was on the other
          side!! ;-).  I said, "hey, nothing personal ;-)"


          Seriously though, some of the specific things I've been taught
          and done this year that helped me improve have been:

          -  I went shooting with one of DEC's corporate lawyers (the guy I
          had to ask permission to write for Guns&Ammo (because I wanted to
          include my enet address) turned out to be an ex competitive
          shooter).  He spotted my flinch and cured me of it in less than
          an hour by not telling me when he put a round in my magazine, and
          by giving me some other tips about what I was doing as I pulled
          the trigger, like sometimes closing my eyes (no kidding!)

          -  A local IPSC shooter (Rob Boudrie)'s friend (and police
          officer) Bob Draper showed me this trick with my H&K P7 where I
          don't have to let the trigger return all the way before another
          shot can be fired.  This saved me on the rapid fire, especially
          with weak-hand.   Ayoob told me that my groups actually became
          tighter under rapid fire, not bigger.

          -  One afternoon of group shooting at the outdoor range at my
          club for a couple hours.  I learned how to keep both eyes open,
          and how to keep the sight picture in line while I pull the
          trigger.  By the time I left, I decided I was ready for LFI.


          On Sunday, the day of our qualification, we headed straight out
          to the range again  to first practice longer range shooting (45
          feet approx.)  When my shots went all in the A zone, Ayoob walks
          by and says, "It looks like I might lose some money today..."

          It was cool and raining steadily during our qualification.  I
          didn't put on my rain gear which I had, because then I couldn't
          draw easily from the waistbag, and part of our qualification was
          rapid fire.  In addition to being cold and wet, I had a full
          bladder and a small amount of hand tremors.

          But what really shocked me during the qualification, was that my
          H&K P7 M13 jammed.  It was a feeding jam.  I have never had a jam
          in that gun before.  I've heard they *don't* jam.   It was the
          first time I've used reloaded ammo in it, so maybe that was why.
          But it was full-power FMJ, which I called H&K to verify was
          appropriate for the P7.    It only took a split second to pull
          the slide back and feed it properly, but still...


          I couldn't see through the rain at 45 feet (our final position on
          the qualification) what my score was like,  but Ayoob quickly
          walks up to the target and yells "She cleared it!".
          The guy was just tripping out !!  He said, "God I love it when
          the best shot on the range is a woman!" ;-)

          He was definitely happier about it than I was at that point - I
          was just relieved it was over!  But now I'm happy about it too.

          One of the police officers came up to me after the qualification
          and said, "I thought I would have a real problem with getting
          beaten by a woman.  But you did a great job, and you could be my
          backup anyday."

          I told him thanks, and don't worry about it, and that I've given
          an on-duty police officer I didn't know  a bloody nose before [so
          I am used to beating police officers ;-], and that riding backup
          sounded like fun.  (he took a step back after that ;-)

          Ayoob even bought a pink AWARE tee-shirt for himself and said if
          I went to a match with him, that he would wear the pink AWARE
          tee-shirt if I wore a blue LFI tee-shirt!
          That would be a riot ! ;-)

          Ayoob presented me with an autographed $5 bill certifying that I
          tied him, and he signed my target, "To the top shot at LFI-1,
          9/91".  So that was cool.

                                                  nancy b.

   Nancy,
   	
   That's a great accomplishment.  That's a lot of work to get those
   results.

   Allison

You're right, Nancy, that belongs under the accomplishments topic!

Congratulations!

Kathy

    You're impressive! I always thought you'd been shooting for a few 
    years, not a few months!! 
     
    Maybe now Ayoob will think twice before he uses "shooting like a girl" 
    and "being beaten by a woman" as a put-down.
    
    Linda

    	I'm glad Nancy knows me by name and still says "Hi."
    
    	If she didn't, I think I'd have to go hide.
    
    	Great shooting.
    
    	Old trick, not knowing whether the mag is empty or not.
    	Marine PMIs would do the same thing. If you bucked with
    	you shoulder or jerked on the trigger pull, they'd just
    	beat the crap outa you and say, "Let's try again."
    
    	Scott

Re: <<< Note 82.159 by LJOHUB::CRITZ >>>

>>    	I'm glad Nancy knows me by name and still says "Hi."
    
>>    	If she didn't, I think I'd have to go hide.

And if she hated your guts and didn't say "Hi" you would still have nothing to
fear...

I know you were kidding, but as a gunowner I've been on the receiving end of
these "you own guns and therefore are dangerous" jokes for so long that it has
gone long past wearing thin...

I was telling my cousin about my competitive shooting and she said "Well I'm
glad you shoot competition [to get it out of your system] so you don't shoot
people"

My response:

"I don't shoot people because of my personality, not because I compete"

Sorry, such jokes are a sore spot.

                                   Roak

So Nancy, when are you going to start shooting IPSC?