Fencing is obsolete today ! ! !

> Granted. But at least part of the equation has to do with the mindset
> of the two combatants. If Joe Mugger thinks that just because he has a
> gun, his victim must now do everything he says (even though Joe's only
> experience with guns is from watching movies and TV) and his victim is
> a trained fighter who *does* know how to close, disarm and disable,
> then Joe is in for a *big* surprise.
>
> The first thing to do, of course, is make sure the gun is no longer
> pointed at you, possibly with a saber-type cut or open-hand parry to
> the wrist.
>

youre the one who saw too much t.v. man don't ever try that you will get
killed on about 95 % of the time... Where the 4.9 % is where you will get
shot but will not die. Okay that leaves you some chances. No seriously
surprise is the worst thing you can try against a gunman especially some
nervous joe who use it for the first time. Would he get surprised he will
fire 80 % of the time. A trainned fighter would never risk something like
this. What you have to do is to calm the other guy by doing what he tells
you after that you can most of the time talk your way to run away or letting
him go while you stay on the floor. The point is that this guy is not here
to kill you so you will live if you stay calm. Or hope so cause if he is
there to kill you. You wont have the chance to get close enough for a
disarm. Hope he misses you and run for your life.

Trim Plus Expert writes:
> Okay that leaves you some chances. No seriously surprise is the worst
> thing you can try against a gunman especially some nervous joe who use it
> for the first time. Would he get surprised he will fire 80 % of the time.

And he will miss about 50% of the time (yes, I mean at point-blank range).

> What you have to do is to calm the other guy by doing what he tells you
> after that you can most of the time talk your way to run away or letting
> him go while you stay on the floor. The point is that this guy is not
> here to kill you so you will live if you stay calm.

There is a substantial risk that he will shoot by accident (and he's more
likely to hit you then).
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
news:TPb9d.94$Am6.4122@news20.bellglobal.com...
> No I am just kidding but, governement is disarming more and more cops and
> the population while theses criminals gets more and more weapons.

You mean that the bad guys are not outgunning the cops?

That sounds more than a little odd.

The
> problem is that they do about nothing against them. Okay there are some
> arrestations, but not much considering how much they are. Here the Hell's
> act a little like the mafia. They no longer wear uniform and control about
> every drug deal there is.

Who would you rather have controlinbg drug deals?

You won't stop some kids doing drugs, it's what lots of kids do.


It's not that I want that much to fight against
> drugs but theses guys grow more and more arrogant. They have nothing to do
> about the laws, they corrupt cops, judges and there seems to have no way
to
> stop them. Our law system grow more and more weak. For an example there is
a
> hockey coach who sexually abused at least 5 childs, was found guilty of
all
> accusation but he was relesed after two years of jail to finish his
sentence
> in the scociety.

Was he a Hell's Angel? All the Angels I've met have always been against
stuff like that. Their personal habits can be a bit odd but as a general
rule they have as little time for child molesters as anyone else.

And I don't think that heavily armed child molesters shooting cops are much
of a problem either.

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
news:23c9d.96$Am6.4199@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Granted. But at least part of the equation has to do with the mindset
> > of the two combatants. If Joe Mugger thinks that just because he has a
> > gun, his victim must now do everything he says (even though Joe's only
> > experience with guns is from watching movies and TV) and his victim is
> > a trained fighter who *does* know how to close, disarm and disable,
> > then Joe is in for a *big* surprise.
> >
> > The first thing to do, of course, is make sure the gun is no longer
> > pointed at you, possibly with a saber-type cut or open-hand parry to
> > the wrist.
> >
>
> youre the one who saw too much t.v. man don't ever try that you will get
> killed on about 95 % of the time... Where the 4.9 % is where you will get
> shot but will not die. Okay that leaves you some chances. No seriously
> surprise is the worst thing you can try against a gunman especially some
> nervous joe who use it for the first time. Would he get surprised he will
> fire 80 % of the time. A trainned fighter would never risk something like
> this. What you have to do is to calm the other guy by doing what he tells
> you after that you can most of the time talk your way to run away or
letting
> him go while you stay on the floor. The point is that this guy is not here
> to kill you so you will live if you stay calm. Or hope so cause if he is
> there to kill you. You wont have the chance to get close enough for a
> disarm. Hope he misses you and run for your life.

At ranges inside seven yards about 75% of aimed shots will miss.

Less than 50% of hits will disable.

These figures are for US policemen.

In other words on average your opponent, assuming he is as well trained as
the average cop in the USA, will have to fire more than four times to have
a 50% change of putting you down.

Given those odds, and assuming the range is close, I think I'd prefer a
small sword.

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

Do you have a source for that assertion that you will share with
us? Also some detail about the conditions?

For example, I could see such statistics for moving targets
shooting at you in the dark, but I would be astounded if only 25%
of aimed shots hit a stationary target in proper light.
Certainly I have seen many people do far better on target ranges,
even for moving targets. Perhaps some unusual definition of the
word "aimed" is in play here.

{snip}

> At ranges inside seven yards about 75% of aimed shots will miss.
>
> Less than 50% of hits will disable.
>
> These figures are for US policemen.
>
> In other words on average your opponent, assuming he is as well trained as
> the average cop in the USA, will have to fire more than four times to have
> a 50% change of putting you down.
>
> Given those odds, and assuming the range is close, I think I'd prefer a
> small sword.
>

No it's just that I am tired of this sick governement. We are the more taxed
in the world and we have about no services. The roads are ugly, there is
about no subvention going in sports, our so called free medical systems is
so bad that I volunter to go to private medical clinic and pay instead of
going there, the school system lacks money so our poeple are more and more
stupid (I had to pay for private instruction) and worst of all, they pay
all who doesn't work an amount every month for doing absolutely nothing and
at least 90% of them don't even want to work, they only wait for the end of
the month so they can buy beer and cigarettes. But of course stupid people
are easy to govern, so there is about nothing we can do about it. Of the 49
% thinking like me, 90% are too affraid to do anything and others don't know
how such a small dispersed group is supposed to do anything. The 51% is two
groups, one who don't understand what is happenning and others who dont
care at all. I say the governement should take control of the drug market
(so at least that would make money).

Sorry for giving you a course on Quebec culture.

Best regards JP



"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ck3se3$okb$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
> news:TPb9d.94$Am6.4122@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > No I am just kidding but, governement is disarming more and more cops
and
> > the population while theses criminals gets more and more weapons.
>
> You mean that the bad guys are not outgunning the cops?
>
> That sounds more than a little odd.
>
> The
> > problem is that they do about nothing against them. Okay there are some
> > arrestations, but not much considering how much they are. Here the
Hell's
> > act a little like the mafia. They no longer wear uniform and control
about
> > every drug deal there is.
>
> Who would you rather have controlinbg drug deals?
>
> You won't stop some kids doing drugs, it's what lots of kids do.
>
>
> It's not that I want that much to fight against
> > drugs but theses guys grow more and more arrogant. They have nothing to
do
> > about the laws, they corrupt cops, judges and there seems to have no way
> to
> > stop them. Our law system grow more and more weak. For an example there
is
> a
> > hockey coach who sexually abused at least 5 childs, was found guilty of
> all
> > accusation but he was relesed after two years of jail to finish his
> sentence
> > in the scociety.
>
> Was he a Hell's Angel? All the Angels I've met have always been against
> stuff like that. Their personal habits can be a bit odd but as a general
> rule they have as little time for child molesters as anyone else.
>
> And I don't think that heavily armed child molesters shooting cops are
much
> of a problem either.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
> is no basis for a system of government
>
>

Regarding our stupid school system they may be wrong so I am going to trust
you, but it's not at all what do they teach us in police school here and it
seems illogical, but under a stress situation it could be.



"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ck3sl5$okr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
> news:23c9d.96$Am6.4199@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Granted. But at least part of the equation has to do with the mindset
> > > of the two combatants. If Joe Mugger thinks that just because he has a
> > > gun, his victim must now do everything he says (even though Joe's only
> > > experience with guns is from watching movies and TV) and his victim is
> > > a trained fighter who *does* know how to close, disarm and disable,
> > > then Joe is in for a *big* surprise.
> > >
> > > The first thing to do, of course, is make sure the gun is no longer
> > > pointed at you, possibly with a saber-type cut or open-hand parry to
> > > the wrist.
> > >
> >
> > youre the one who saw too much t.v. man don't ever try that you will get
> > killed on about 95 % of the time... Where the 4.9 % is where you will
get
> > shot but will not die. Okay that leaves you some chances. No seriously
> > surprise is the worst thing you can try against a gunman especially some
> > nervous joe who use it for the first time. Would he get surprised he
will
> > fire 80 % of the time. A trainned fighter would never risk something
like
> > this. What you have to do is to calm the other guy by doing what he
tells
> > you after that you can most of the time talk your way to run away or
> letting
> > him go while you stay on the floor. The point is that this guy is not
here
> > to kill you so you will live if you stay calm. Or hope so cause if he is
> > there to kill you. You wont have the chance to get close enough for a
> > disarm. Hope he misses you and run for your life.
>
> At ranges inside seven yards about 75% of aimed shots will miss.
>
> Less than 50% of hits will disable.
>
> These figures are for US policemen.
>
> In other words on average your opponent, assuming he is as well trained
as
> the average cop in the USA, will have to fire more than four times to
have
> a 50% change of putting you down.
>
> Given those odds, and assuming the range is close, I think I'd prefer a
> small sword.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
> is no basis for a system of government
>
>

Phil Fites writes:
> Certainly I have seen many people do far better on target ranges, even
> for moving targets.

Correct. People do far better on target ranges.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

"Phil Fites" <foxtrot_india_tango_echo_sierra_@at_rogers._dotco m> wrote in
message news:VIqdnQoEyawr5fjcRVn-uA@rogers.com...
> Do you have a source for that assertion that you will share with
> us? Also some detail about the conditions?

'Cooper on Handguns' by Jeff Cooper, which is quite old but all that seems
to have changed recently is that US cops carry guns with a larger ammunition
capacity

> For example, I could see such statistics for moving targets
> shooting at you in the dark, but I would be astounded if only 25%
> of aimed shots hit a stationary target in proper light.

As a general rule you don't wander about finding a good spot with decent
lighting before you start shooting at people with a pistol, you need to be
where the people you want to shoot at are.

You also don't get to ask them to stand still while you take aim.

Or did you think that people shoot other people only by arrangement? There
hasn't been a fight like that since the last pistol duel.

> Certainly I have seen many people do far better on target ranges,
> even for moving targets. Perhaps some unusual definition of the
> word "aimed" is in play here.

On a target range a competant pistol shot can hit a man's head ten times out
of ten at twenty five yards.

If the target shoots back and dodges about down a dark alley I think you may
find that the hit rate goes down.

Pistol shooting on range is all about sight radious, breath control and
even trigger preasure.

A heart rate three times normal and adrenaline all over your cardio vascular
system tends to screw that up.

Get your mates round at the shooting range to run a couple of hundred yards,
drink a couple of cups of coffee while they get their breath back and then
burst a balloon behind their backs before they shoot. They'll be lucky to
be able to load their guns without dropping a few rounds, never mind hit
the target.

Also, as a general rule, pistols used to shoot at people have a
considerably shorter sight radious than pistols used on a target range as
lugging a gun around the place that is about a foot long isn't really
practical.


--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
news:0Ef9d.104$Am6.4580@news20.bellglobal.com...
> No it's just that I am tired of this sick governement. We are the more
taxed
> in the world and we have about no services. The roads are ugly, there is
> about no subvention going in sports, our so called free medical systems is
> so bad that I volunter to go to private medical clinic and pay instead of
> going there, the school system lacks money so our poeple are more and more
> stupid (I had to pay for private instruction) and worst of all, they pay
> all who doesn't work an amount every month for doing absolutely nothing
and
> at least 90% of them don't even want to work, they only wait for the end
of
> the month so they can buy beer and cigarettes. But of course stupid people
> are easy to govern, so there is about nothing we can do about it. Of the
49
> % thinking like me, 90% are too affraid to do anything and others don't
know
> how such a small dispersed group is supposed to do anything. The 51% is
two
> groups, one who don't understand what is happenning and others who dont
> care at all. I say the governement should take control of the drug market
> (so at least that would make money).
>
> Sorry for giving you a course on Quebec culture.

Why don't you leave?

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

The original assertion was not qualified as to conditions, and
was and is very much at variance with my personal experience
under many conditions, including "combat shooting" where the
targets do move but do not shoot back. I also have relatives who
have been in military combat situations with moving targets
shooting back and achieved a much higher hit rate.

Specifying that the reported results occur in combat situations
changes things significantly, although the actual conditions,
firearms, and ammunition still have not been specified.

Thank you for the citation.

Did Cooper report on results involving revolvers rather than
semi-automatic handguns? There are more differences than
magazine capacity, two of which are typical sight radius and
double-action versus single-action, both significant factors in
accuracy.

William Black wrote:

> "Phil Fites" <foxtrot_india_tango_echo_sierra_@at_rogers._dotco m> wrote in
> message news:VIqdnQoEyawr5fjcRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>
>>Do you have a source for that assertion that you will share with
>>us? Also some detail about the conditions?
>
>
> 'Cooper on Handguns' by Jeff Cooper, which is quite old but all that seems
> to have changed recently is that US cops carry guns with a larger ammunition
> capacity
>
>
>>For example, I could see such statistics for moving targets
>>shooting at you in the dark, but I would be astounded if only 25%
>>of aimed shots hit a stationary target in proper light.
>
>
> As a general rule you don't wander about finding a good spot with decent
> lighting before you start shooting at people with a pistol, you need to be
> where the people you want to shoot at are.
>
> You also don't get to ask them to stand still while you take aim.
>
> Or did you think that people shoot other people only by arrangement? There
> hasn't been a fight like that since the last pistol duel.
>
>
>>Certainly I have seen many people do far better on target ranges,
>>even for moving targets. Perhaps some unusual definition of the
>>word "aimed" is in play here.
>
>
> On a target range a competant pistol shot can hit a man's head ten times out
> of ten at twenty five yards.
>
> If the target shoots back and dodges about down a dark alley I think you may
> find that the hit rate goes down.
>
> Pistol shooting on range is all about sight radious, breath control and
> even trigger preasure.
>
> A heart rate three times normal and adrenaline all over your cardio vascular
> system tends to screw that up.
>
> Get your mates round at the shooting range to run a couple of hundred yards,
> drink a couple of cups of coffee while they get their breath back and then
> burst a balloon behind their backs before they shoot. They'll be lucky to
> be able to load their guns without dropping a few rounds, never mind hit
> the target.
>
> Also, as a general rule, pistols used to shoot at people have a
> considerably shorter sight radious than pistols used on a target range as
> lugging a gun around the place that is about a foot long isn't really
> practical.
>
>

William Black wrote:

>Why don't you leave?
>
>
>

Come join us in the USA where we complain about the gvt too, but at
least we have direct elections for our gang of idiots. None of that
parliamentary system for us! Give me an Electoral College any day!

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

William Black wrote:

>The problem with elections is that the government always gets in...
>
>
Thank you Will Rogers.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

"Amy & Joseph Kormann" <ajkormann@monmouth.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ck4kmn$bqp$1@news.monmouth.com...
> William Black wrote:
>
> >Why don't you leave?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Come join us in the USA where we complain about the gvt too, but at
> least we have direct elections for our gang of idiots. None of that
> parliamentary system for us! Give me an Electoral College any day!
>
> --
> Amy and Joseph Kormann
>

If I leave I think I am going for one of those fiscal heaven like Monaco but
US seems a pretty good alternative. As I said I am gonna wait about 10 years
till my buisness is really worth having it. I am gonna sell and start
something in the US. Till then I have no choice but to complain

Just remember: Today will be obsolete tomorrow.

B.C. Milligan
Relayer of the Obvious to the Stars

In rec.sport.fencing on 13 Oct 2004 01:57:03 GMT
Rufus T. Firefly <remise@aol.com> wrote:
> Just remember: Today will be obsolete tomorrow.

But the day after that it's retro, and the day after that it's back in
fashion as a new look!

Zebee
- who was horrified to see platform shoes come back

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on 13 Oct 2004 01:57:03 GMT
> Rufus T. Firefly <remise@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Just remember: Today will be obsolete tomorrow.
>
>
> But the day after that it's retro, and the day after that it's back in
> fashion as a new look!
>
> Zebee
> - who was horrified to see platform shoes come back
Days?!?!

Sometimes I think it switches between morning and afternoon!!!

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

Sometimes I think it switches between morning and afternoon!!!

======
Bring back the flick!

Wait -- too soon.

>But the day after that it's retro, and the day after that it's back in fashion
as a new look!
>
>Zebee

You're wrong: It's called "classical" then.

Chris

zoergiebel@aol.com (J. Christoph Amberger) wrote in message news:<20041013095924.04253.00001420@mb-m23.aol.com>...
> >But the day after that it's retro, and the day after that it's back in fashion
> as a new look!
> >
> >Zebee
>
> You're wrong: It's called "classical" then.
>
> Chris

Or "traditional." "Traditional" is anything that's been around longer
than the most recent member of your group.