Hello,

Question: At what ranges do you and yours REALISTICALLY EXPECT to be able to shoot and kill any attackers, looters or other targets?

In my prior postings, I've mentioned that:

FIRST: Consider the probable scenarios you're likely to face.

SECOND: Determine the optimal strategies and tactics for dealing with the most probable scenarios you're likely to face.

THIRD: NOW make decisions on what cal., loads, guns, equip, ect.

FOUR: ACTUALLY PRACTICE per the above -- and make sure you're ACTUALLY ABLE TO CONSISTENTLY ACHIEVE ADEQUATE RESULTS IN THE FIELD. ASSUME NOTHING -- GO ON SOME SHAKE DOWN FIELD TRIPS PER YOUR PLANS!!

So, what are your plans, expectations, and equip choices as to cal., loads, range, equip, ect? This should facilitate helpfull advice and collaboration for those having mutual interest and plans.

Thank you for your "survey answers".

Lurking,

-- Killer (DominantSniper@yahoo.com), July 08, 1999

Answers

Yeah sure. Right. Uh Huh.

At what range do you become a human?

BR

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), July 08, 1999.

I've got an idea, instead of waiting to shoot your neighbors, why don't you put your new generator and 300 LBS of pancake mix to good use and serve those hungry people up some pancakes. Then when the power comes back on, you will be an American hero, instead of a man who took other American lives.

We're all Americans here, lets take care of each other as best as we can.

Bryce

-- Bryce (bryce@seanet.com), July 08, 1999.

I'm human at EVERY range. I simply don't want myself or any other person to be the helpless victim of those who would rob, murder and rape others. My question concerns ATTACKERS, game animals, ect. I view this as a serious question to stimulate helpfull discussions. I view the need to defend oneself -- to whatever degree is necessary -- to be an unfortunate "reality" of any time period on this planet.

I believe it is more moral, ethical and right for good people to defend themselves against evil attackers. I believe the world suffers a tragic loss when good people are beaten, raped and murdered at the hands of evil people who only care about their own whims, desires and amusement from doing evil to other innocent people. I do not advocate "shooting at anything that moves", going "people hunting for kicks", or any other likeminded mentality or behavior. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who WILL use any Y2K type breakdown to rape, pillage, plunder, murder and whatever else they can get away with. I don't like this reality; I just prefer to avoid it if possible -- defend against it when necessary.

AGAIN, I'm not talking about "engagement" when unnecessary -- only when the alternative to not doing so is the murder, rape and robbery of oneself or other innocent people who would rather remain a

"light in the world" rather than a

"prematurely extinguished flame".

Regards,

Killer

-- Killer (DominantSniper@Yahoo.com), July 08, 1999.

Yes your honor, I shot him down at 300 yds, but I swear that I heard him whisper that he was going to rape me! Plus, the lady he was with looked hungry, and I had to protect my food! And in addition, the kids I blew away didn't smell like they had showered lately! So what's a blood thirsty scum to do?

-- Kilter (Dipshit@troll.jerk), July 08, 1999.

Killer, the name you have chosen for the forum is part of the reason for the negative response. It could well come to what you say and if it does your skills will be of great value to your family and friends. but after the initial time of terror and desperation the future of mankind will depend upon a relationship with our planet and our fellow humans that is based on love, respect, and co-operation. Your thinking will have to change completely.

-- Sand Mueller (smueller@azalea.net), July 09, 1999.

Killer,

137gr. spirepoint boat-tails in 7MM mag. with a hot load will "head" jack rabbits @ about 550 Yd.s if you're not nervous. I think you are REALLY nervous. Your best bet is to down-load the info on building mustard gas bombs and cheapo anti-personel mines and set them up about a mile or so from your fox-hole. If you have any balls at all, you need to go kype a few back-pack nukes and extend your perimeter. Otherwise, why not just get a bigger pot and some more pinto beans and send passers-by along with a full belly and a word of encouragement?

-- Roger (pecosrog@earthlink.net), July 09, 1999.

Killer and other concerned forum members,

My first reaction was something like the one by Bryce and others who have decided that killer is either a troll or a human being with none of the feelings of aversion to killing that we expect sane people to have.

However, upon rereading killer's defense of himself and his concerns, I would like to say a word about the issues he (or she) has raised.

I think this person is doing us a service by confronting us with the reality of the choices that must be made in times of violence. We speak about the possible breakdowns here, but the issue of how we will deal with attackers is discussed far less than the y2k news and other preparations.

For those of us who have never been to war, never been attacked, never had to imagine a world with no police, no 911, no protection from society, the thought of having to kill anyone is horrifying. We expect others to be as horrified as we are. And if it must be dealt with at all, then at least do it in an indirect, subtle way, with as little of the gory details involved as possible.

The only people in a civilized society that can deal with these issues directly are the military, police, or serial killers. We do not expect to have to face a situation in which we have to form our own defenses, either with our family, or with neighbors. None of this has the legal sanctions of our current society. So if it breaks down, we will essentially be forming our own gangs for protection.

If y2k is big enough to cause the total loss of power for a month, in any large city or suburb, chaos will be inevitable. Most people prefer to simply assume that y2k will be nothing more than a few days of total breakdowns, after which someone puts it back together and the worst we deal with is a depression. The Great Depression was a time of crime, but this time we have a much worse situation with huge populations in huge cities. Whether or not power goes down, shortages of food and other supplies could be extreme. The few who have anything will have to protect it from all those who don't.

We may know this intellectually, but the stark reality of such an existence is understood only by those who live in the inner cities and those who have been to war. I have asked myself many times what I would do if this happens in my suburb. I have never shot a gun in my life. I have been attacked, though. And this helped me to realize that I had to learn to defend myself. All the intentions on my part of living peacefully with my neighbors and family do not change the reality that there are people who really want to hurt others, who really do not care.

How am I going to protect myself and my children? How am I going to stay alive here? My first choice, given the possible chaos, was to relocate to a place so remote, I would not have to worry about them reaching me. This is not possible. I am forced to deal with the choices that I did not want to have to make.

I can see that some people have had life experiences which allowed them the opportunity to completely accept the need for self defense, the need to defend a community in times of war, the need to defend a family member from a violent attack. It was a revelation to me, when I took self defense courses, that many very wonderful, kind, generous, peaceful people were there, just like me, learning how to punch and kick another human being after the need for it had been established.

This has changed me, as well as y2k. And being a mother. I would kill to defend my children from harm.

Now, what I think killer is trying to do here, by the choice of his intimidating handle "dominant sniper", is to place these issues in front of us, which most of us are so in need of facing in order to be ready for a time of chaos and violence.

And if we can imagine y2k as a coming war in which many starving people will do whatever it takes to survive and feed their children, and we do not have the means to avoid it by relocating and learning to survive in a rural place, and we decide that yes, we will defend ourselves if we must, then can we speak about it the way we can talk about the food we store and the gardens we plant? Have we completely resolved to learn, plan, buy supplies, and face our fears and change our minds?

This has allowed me to realize that I still have a long way to go in this regard. I have had the luxury of allowing others to do the defending, but this may end soon. I find it very difficult to face my fears of crowds of neighbors gathering outside my door, or gangs moving into our area.

I believe we are headed for a period of breakdown and death and violence, but that eventually, rebuilding and community will be possible. Given that most people are unable to see y2k coming and will not prepare, and do not know how to live on the land, and the lack of resources in cities and suburbs for farming, I see famine and shortages for many years.

Next to a good place to relocate would be a very good place to hide to avoid the war zone. Those who get through to the other side and who are living where there are enough resources to rebuild will be the first ones able to make community. I hope to be there myself, or get my children there. But I do not see how community is possible where there is so little to go around.

If y2k is a 3, then all of this is irrelevant. But we seem to be born at a time in which the possibility of breakdown is very high. If not y2k, then war, or ecology, or any number of threats out there. The interdependence and global reality is a very weak and vulnerable system just waiting for something like y2k to topple it.

That is just my 2 cents. I hope this has been helpful and taken in the spirit of serious discussion of our situation.

-- lurker (artemis45@hotmail.com), July 09, 1999.

Another "clarification":

I respectfully profer that many apparently project or attribute characteristics or mindsets I don't have upon me. Im not worried or offended by that; just dissapointed. Those who know me DO describe me as a very loving, giving, warm harted person -- but also one who is no "easy target" -- one who will fight back until he wins or dies.

Whatever happens, I too will do what I can to help restore, rebuild or re-whatever...I simply believe it wise, moral and right to preserve the "good seed"...lest the "bad seed" overrun the land.

Why be a helpless victim via unpreparedness so that some rotten person can loot and kill you and yours just because he/she/they can; and don't mind doing so since they are "have not's" and you "have". I'm not against sharing and helping.

However, THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO WILL !! "HELP THEMSELVES" OVER MY, YOUR OR ANY DEAD BODY!! I'm wondering if there are TWO kinds of "pollys"; ones who do not wish to be "disturbed" by thinking Y2K will be more than a bump in the road...and a second kind who do not wish to be "disturbed" by thinking 300 million other people in these United States will be anything other than kind, loving, and respectfull of others and their property in the event of crises, shortages, and civil unrest. This is NOT meant as an insult, put down or slight...it's just an observation based on the responses I'm getting from my post; successful post since they shed light on where people are at...and prompt, I suspect, some soul searching out there.

I guess the big difference is that, having put my life on the line, engage in armed "encounters" with some really "not very nice" people who were determined to do "bad deeds" against innocent others, I've already dealt with the moral issues -- and decided it's better to defend against evil than to let it have its way -- while most others have been fortunate enough not to have to face these dark "realities".

Regards,

Killer

bump in the road...and a second kind who

-- Killer (DominantSniper@Yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.

Clearly none of you who are taking this lightly live in the vicinity of

a) a large Section VIII housing complex,

b)a fragile inner city with a documented history of coming apart [can you say Watts, Hough or Glenville, oh I'm sorry you are all too young and the modern history instruction left out the "Burn Baby Burn" period of American History] or

c)Project Housing in which the outside evident residents are the local rec chem drugists.

You don't have to scrub the gang grafitti off the houses or buildings in the neighborhood, either.

SOME of us have to think like this because we are, otherwise TOAST (we may be TOAST ANYWAY because we live in a large city).

chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 09, 1999.

lurker, you are absolutely right. i live within ear-shot of a neighborhood which is locally called "criminal woods" (really "cinammon woods"). a neighbor's child, of about 11 years old, told me when we were shovelling snow over the winter that he had seen young boys with guns in the woods not a block from our houses after school. not just once, but many times. though it may be awful to think of, please don't assume everyone that might try to take what is yours will be a fully- reasoning adult. please don't let that thought stop you from prepraring, either.

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), July 09, 1999.

Killer,

I think I misunderstood your intentions.. Your tag names threw me off, I apologize.

I think that in a country where 1/3 of us own at least one gun the chance of widespread looting and extreme civil disorder is not likely (my opinion). Thank God we are not in Kosovo or some hell hole where a man can't arm himself. As in Kosovo, it's clear what can happen when the general citizen is not allowed to have arms. I was a cavalry scout in the Reagan days (and a defense contractor, thanks RR). I know the basics. I've got weapons that I keep unloaded and safe because of kids. Where I live (suburb) I guess range is not an issue. I'd rather work with the cops that live on my block and my other neighbors to form a watch, than try to go it alone. I think security is a teamwork thing.

Bryce

-- Bryce (bryce@seanet.com), July 09, 1999.

It takes a keen discrimination to be able to identify a person "going to a crime"....

Given the fallibility of human judgment, killing someone "going to a crime" who was not in fact going to a crime might provoke others in the neighborhood to assess the shooter as a menace to the community, and incite them to respond appropriately.

Sieges almost always win. Bunkers almost always lose. Not attractive odds.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 09, 1999.

Dear Kilter,

I do not advocate "shoot on sight" or any other such behavior. There is a world (and eternity) of difference between shooting anything that moves on sight -- and shooting a murderous horde of looters bent on your destruction. How can one be sure an approaching horde is bent on your destruction? You can't be sure. But if you are, ask yourself if the world and those in it will be better off with you in it, or a horde of looters, rapist and murderers. I wonder what the survivors of Kosovo, urban riots, and other "man-intensified" horrors would say?

Kilter, no insult or slight by my response is intended. Just trying to "adjust the glasses you happen to be looking at me thru". I assert that regardless of your "interpretation", its better for one to consider such life and death decisions and situations while one has the benefit of TIME, reflection and reason...rather than wait for the moment of "kill or be killed"...by omission or commission. May I humbly suggest some may benefit from an analysis of themselves and their reaction to my post more than an analysis of me, who they don't know and will never meet.

P.S. The Commendations from the U.S. Treasury Department for my "services rendered" don't seem to indicate any character flaws. Those that know me, family and friends, fear me not.

Regards and best wishes,

Killer

-- Killer (DominantSniper@yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.

Except for Chuck and Tom,

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

-- WHO (ARE@THESE.PEOPLE), July 09, 1999.

If you ASSUME(make an ASS out of You and ME) a total breakdown, which gives me the willies, then you will have to expect a long range encounter.This may be 1000yds+. This is followed by a moderate encounter, 1000yds to 300 yards. Which follows a close encounter of 300 yards to 20yards. Lastly there is the 20 yards to in your face. I can't afford the 1k weapon so am not able to respond adequately.

Given the 1000 to 300 yard question, get a good rifle which will print a small (1.5MOA or less) target. And go to the range and shoot. Get good with it,shoot with 18 out of 20 where you want them.

With 300 to 20 yards, get the battle rifle of your choice. An AK clone if you're lazy, an AR clone if you're not. An easy way to practice is to shoot your rifle at a target which is 25 yards away. Put a 1 inch square on it. When you can dump a whole mag there every time you are done. For the 20 yard until in your face problem, Use the best heavy handgun you can operate.

So here it is, for country work, as far as you can see. In town, about three blocks, a battle rifle.

In the block 75 yards or less, A good sub caliber rifle. AT HOME, 20 yards or less A REAL(REAL) good SHOTGUN. For ranges less than my back yard(a good heavy revolver)

-- nine (nine_fingers@hotmail.com), July 09, 1999.

I say case-by-case. Sadly, I have no gun, but...

If someone is knocking on your door (1 foot?) to tell you that Jesus forgives all sins and loves you, shooting them in the face is probably "over-kill". If someone is a block away (200 yds?), and taking "pot-shots" at your house, you may want to fire back.

If 15 people come at your house with gasoline and matches, you may a) not want to fire at them (hoping they will only take your "stuff" and leave) or b) not find killing a few helps much, other than to give you 3 minutes of satisfaction (until you burn to death).

Case-by-case...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 09, 1999.

Luckily, I'm gonna be over 100mi from a major city, and the closest thing to me will be 20 miles away(city of about 300). They would practically need a GPS(lol) to find me and mine.

Looters/renegades, WON'T be a problem for me.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 09, 1999.

Killer,

"At what ranges...?"

We have a shooting range close by where "they" line up looters and rioters so that we can get some good target shooting. They are then allowed to run free in the range except that their shoelaces are tied in order to give the new shooters a fighting chance. This is the only range I know of that allows live fire at live targets.

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), July 09, 1999.

In a total breakdown situation, it is naive to think that the criminal element will not become predator in order to survive. From his standpoint, there probably is no choice. He has no preps, he already was anti-social, and there may be no hesitation to feel entitled to take what he needs from those who have it.

Los Angeles is not habitable without the water which is pumped from the aquaducts over the mountains. Are all the residents there simply going sit around dying of thirst peacefully? I think it is entirely possible to envision a scenario where someone is going to see what you have without first asking nicely.

What to do about it? Unless you have an organized armed community with perimeters established (very unlikely to be in place if TSHTF), my suggestion is to be as inconspicuous as possible. Greet strangers with a ready weapon until you have determined their intentions. Help those who you can. But accept the fact that no matter what happens, you probably aren't Rambo. You could be outmanned and outgunned. Shit happens. Do the best you can.

You should be proficient with firearms and not be afraid to brandish them if you feel apprehensive. The predator will be looking for the easiest available target, and even he doesn't like getting shot at every day.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 09, 1999.

What is a real good shotgun and the price I can expect to pay? I was in my local pawn shop yesterday and they had several Mssberg pumps ranging from $175 to $275. What's a good deal?

-- (Theman@noname.net), July 09, 1999.

I made a decision before purchasing a weapon that I would use it if necessary. Otherwise, why bother?

Information concerning use is helpful, and the choice to use is mine. I am responsible for my actions. I had better know what I am doing because this is not a game.

If Killer's threads offend, then perhaps owning a weapon is not right for that person. His handle is unique and one does not have to click on the mouse.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), July 09, 1999.

Killer said: "The Commendations from the U.S. Treasury Department for my "services rendered" don't seem to indicate any character flaws."

Can anyone say, "agent provacateur"?

-- GI@seenit.beenthere (GI@seenit.beenthere), July 09, 1999.

F.Y.I.

Concurrent Killer thread on Prep Forum...

Survey of expected enemy engagement ranges

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0013mh

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.

killer,

why don't you stop by my place hon and i'll attempt to kill you with kindness.

a death defying smooch to ya hon.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 09, 1999.

there does seem to be a recurring sanctimonious attitude of "I'll feed anyone who knocks"...great,you've just joined the ranks of starving masses.Now I can understand this attitude for the lone person.But if one has children,is it not irresponsible to give away food your children might need to survive?

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.

Nothing in my post above ("Sieges almost always win. Bunkers almost always lose") should be read as supporting the view that civil disorder won't happen. I think that's a distinct possibility, but not necessarily a certainty. If it does develop, its depth and extent can't be known before the event.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 09, 1999.

Nine said:

So here it is, for country work, as far as you can see. In town, about three blocks, a battle rifle. In the block 75 yards or less, A good sub caliber rifle. AT HOME, 20 yards or less A REAL(REAL) good SHOTGUN. For ranges less than my back yard(a good heavy revolver)

Hey Nine, do you carry this stuff around in a friggin shopping cart? What, do you have a small arms caddy or something? "Laser range finder says target at 400 meters. Hand me the Smith&Wesson light proton bazooka, Billy Bob."

Geez. I sure as hell hope none of your neighbors comes over to borrow a cup of sugar post-y2k. :)

-- a (a@a.a), July 09, 1999.

I'm going to be living in a very hilly, heavily wooded area where you can't see more than maybe 100 yards, so I feel no need for anything bigger than a 5.56. I'm a beginner at this, but I think some people are buying a bigger caliber than they really need. Especially if you may have to bug out with only what you can carry on your back, since for the same weight & bulk you can carry more rounds in a smaller caliber.

I don't think I'd shoot someone unless they were on my property which is pretty small (rural area, but this is one of several small lots around a lake) , or unless they were directly threatening me from just outside it.

-- y2kbiker (y2kbiker@worldnet.att.net), July 09, 1999.

Tom,

Sieges almost always win. Bunkers almost always lose. Not attractive odds.

I brought this up in another thread, but in a traditional siege isn't the goal to kill the enemy and take the ground they are holding? It won't do you much good to burn down someone's house if it also means burning up the supplies you're trying to get at in the first place.

I don't have any military experience so I may be way off base here but it seems to me that unless you're facing a real military unit (who will likely have supplies, superior weapons, etc.) a fixed position might just be pretty defensible in a 'likely' Y2K defensive situation. If you're forced to defend your home, it'll probably be against a group of people that are cold, hungry, and untrained. A group like that wouldn't be able to maintian a siege for very long. They'll just move on...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 10, 1999.

I'm with Zoobie! I was raised around guns, been shooting since I was six, have a healthy respect for their power and consequences. I do not have a healthy respect for many people I've come in contact with in high population cities (Honolulu, Denver, DC, LA, San Fran, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Birmingham, Kansas City, Wichita, OKC, Vegas, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, Boise, Salt Lake City, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, to name a few). I've seen hungry, down on their luck, chemically dependent, homeless, mentally disturbed, angry masses everywhere I've been, under 'normal' circumstances! Even *I* would take drastic measures to put food in my children's stomachs. As a matter of fact.....I already have and I'm not going to share their portions with many. Cold, hard fact. Also, this is the *absolute*, main reason we found the most secluded, well hidden location, as far from a populated center as possible and still be able to commute and retain employment. I don't like the possibility of needing to take another's life, I won't refuse to, given a certain set of circumstances and our location improves the odds of NOT having to do so. If some of you are not so lucky to be living away from the chaos that will be created by 'several' weeks without power or other disturbing factors..... start doing some serious soul searching. This is *JULY 1999*.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 10, 1999.