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 Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Pan Ohco wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:31:43 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, TheAlligator wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> That last comment is the best reason of all to do one or both of:
>>>>>>> I thank you for your comments, and your points are noted. She has no
>>>>>>> fear of guns, by the way. She can outshoot me on any given day, as
>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>> has since she was little. It's embarassing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry Lena. If you learn how to use a gun, it is really easy to
>>>>> defend yourself.
>>>>
>>>> not really. you need to be "good" with a gun to defend yourself. be
>>>> "calm" in the face of danger. and, most of all, you've got to be able
>>>> to
>>>> see the other person.
>>>>
>>>> If you can see the other person, that was his second mistake. The first
>>>> was not wounding you severely on the first shot.
>>>>
>>>> but, you can find weapons that are more effective against ... more
>>>> intelligent foes. and you shouldn't assume that the person attacking
>>>> you
>>>> is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> The reaction of hearing a bullet/gunshot should never be reaching for
>>>> your
>>>> gun... it should be "hit the deck" followed shortly thereafter by
>>>> creating
>>>> a physical blockade of stuff between you and where the gunshot came
>>>> from.
>>>>
>>>>>> 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"
>>>>> Point, aim and shoot are instinctive if you are trained
>>>>
>>>> yeah. but they shouldn't be the only instincts you're trained with...
>>>> and
>>>> they're probably not the best instincts, anywhichway.
>>>>
>>>>>> guns are offensive weapons.
>>>>> Many in this country are used for self defense
>>>>
>>>> by idiots, fighting idiots.
>>>>
>>>> lena
>>>
>>> Someone who drops an intruder in their home in the middle of the night is
>>> a
>>> "fighting idiot"???
>>
>> That's not using it defensively. You're on the offense there, not the
>> other person.
>>
>> Lena
>
> The definition of "defensively" depends on your perception of the situation.

bullshit. The definition of "defensive" is in the dictionary. According
to your "definition"... it is self-defense to shoot at kids lighting
fireworks on your property ("well, officer, it sounded like a mortar...").

I thought I made it rather clear I was talking about tactics and strategy,
and not necessarily about legalese.

> If someone's in your home at 3:00 AM and you didn't invite them, do you
> assume it's likely they will harm you, or not?

You don't want me to answer this question. So I'll answer it for my
parents: If a person was uninvited in their home, yes they would consider
it likely that they would be harmed by the person.

> I'll help you with this: Somewhere on this website: www.davekopel.org is an
> article about interviews with people serving time for burglary. The vast
> majority said they tried very hard to choose homes which were unoccupied,
> for obvious reasons.

Well, duh.

> You can draw your own conclusions about that, but mine
> is that if a burglar enters a home that is occupied, he is fully prepared
> and willing to deal with whatever happens.

mistakes happen. I doubt your house is nearly as prepared to defend
against a robber as you think. (are you a light sleeper?).

Lena