On Thu, 10 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 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.

That's actually a good idea. But it is still a judgement call... how
likely is the thief to decide that the best stuff is inside that room?
Yes, it has a deadbolt, but how likely is the thief to have the means of
getting through the deadbolt? (sulphuric acid does nicely for going
through _any_ metal).

Lena