On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, TheAlligator wrote:
>>
>>> Lena B Katz > wrote:
>>>> just don't try using guns to defend yourself... it is _such_ a bad idea.
>>>> if people want to use stuff to defend themselves, there are more
>>>> practical
>>>> ideas (like sound grenades).
>>>>
>>>> never try to defend yourself with something that requires line-of-sight.
>>>> in most situations, you're lucky if you have _awareness_ of an attack,
>>>> before it occurs, let alone time enough to "point, aim, shoot"
>>>>
>>>> lena
>>>>
>>>> guns are offensive weapons.
>>> Nothing personal, but I don't like you very much. You sound like an
>>> idiot.
>>
>> you walk different streets, you learn different lessons. I enjoy passing
>> on a bit of knowledge that I've learned. If you don't want to learn,
>> that's fine with me.
>>
>> but why does a good knowledge of the strategic limitations of a gun make
>> me sound like an idiot?
>>
>> Lena
>
> (From a different guy)
> I don't think you're an idiot, but you might need to slow down a bit before
> you write.

Or, maybe try thinking a bit before hitting send. ;-)

> 1) "just don't try using guns to defend yourself". That's a silly
> generalization.

Not really. With guns, the hunter always has the advantage. If, say,
someone was breaking into your house, and you had a blind (of some
sort...), you'd be the hunter. If someone's already drawn a weapon on
you, chances are you'd be better off dealing with that without use of a
gun (believe it or not, but people with knives can cut you quicker than
you can draw a gun... close range for knives is about six feet (That's
assuming a 5 second draw-aim-shoot time. Yes, with extensive practice in
the art of quickdraw, you can get it down lower.)

If you are in the situation of close combat, it pays more to know
vulnerabilities and how to exploit them. And it pays to fight dirty.

> 2) You suggest sound grenades. That's ridiculous. If you could get them
> easily, half the country's teenagers would be deaf by now.

Who says they aren't? I'd imagine most teenagers suffer from at least
temporary hearing loss.

And getting something "easily" is a different idea than getting something
because it is _necessary_.

> 3) Your line of sight comment assumes you have a choice of how you're going
> to be threatened.

Depending on where you go, and what you do, you can gauge likelihood of
various criminal elements trying to kill you. You can also gauge
likelihood of weapon, attack posture (ambush, mugging, barfight), etc.

> And, are you suggesting some sort of weapon that works
> around corners?

Smokebombs do. Sound grenades do. Explosives do. There are many
defensive weapons; just as there are many offensive weapons.

> 4) If you are, in fact, in a situation where a handgun is your only option,
> then by definition, you have no choice but to draw the gun and muster
> everything you've learned from practicing.

There is no situation where a handgun is your "only" option. You still
have options like "charging the person" or "physically disarming them by
taking a knife in the arm". There are very few times when using a handgun
is the "best" option.

> 5) Your typing gives me a headache. Throw in some capital letters and proper
> punctuation, for the good of the world.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to give you a headache. Hope this
helps!

lena