"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 it takes you 5 seconds to draw a carry piece and use it, you have
>> bigger
>> problems than the situation you're in at the moment. I can do it in 2
>> seconds, as can most of the participants of the civilian pistol
>> gatherings I
>> attend every now and then at my gun club. We're shooting at 8-1/2 x 11"
>> targets from 50', and drawing from inside typical outerwear.
>>
>> You might want to look at the second hand on a watch as it ticks through
>> 5
>> seconds.
>
> Order of magnitude approximation? What kind of holsters are you using,
> btw?
>
>>>> 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_.
>>
>> That's a sweet thing to say, but generally speaking, nobody can get those
>> things, nor would they want to carry them. If they did, they wouldn't be
>> trained in their proper use. And, it might be tricky asking an attacker
>> if
>> he could please stand downwind of you.
>
> Generally speaking you can get whatever you want. It just depends on how
> much effort you want to expend to acquire it. Hell, you could probably
> get a fully automatic rifle (yeah, i know people who have them. For bear
> hunting, presumably).
>
> You can get training in most things, including proper use of grenades,
> smoke bombs, and explosives. Hell, they teach those skills to thirteen
> year olds, last I checked (when they said boot camp, they meant it).
>
> Using smoke bombs outside of urban combat is just idiotic. But putting up
> a strawman is idiotic too.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> You are watching too many movies. The things you've mentioned would be
>> absurd options for civilian self defense.
>
> Not at all. So you're telling me you've got a better solution to twelve
> year olds on motorcycles with assault rifles shooting your family? (here's
> a hint-- think "caltrops").
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> In some instances, an attacker or intruder makes a clear request to be
>> killed. It is your civic duty to oblige. I hope I never have to, but
>> things
>> happen, you know?
>
> No thief wants to meet someone in the house. Bothering them is asking for
> a panicked person.
>
> While a panicked person with a knife or gun is probably less dangerous
> than a panicked person with a car, you're better off just leaving.
>
> lena

Leaving your own house??? Whattya....nuts? If anything, you should have a
"safe room", with deadbolt. Let the guy ransack the house.