On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV,
>>>> no
>>>> Radio.) I see.
>>> By the way, no TV and no radio are not excuses for being ill-informed.
>>> You
>>> have a computer, so you have access to enormous amounts of news.
>>
>> Yeah. What I _don't_ have access to is enormous amounts of time.
>
> I'd like to comment in more detail on the misuse of pesticides by homeowners
> and landscapers, but because I don't have the time to study the issue more
> deeply, I know when to keep quiet. You should do the same with regard to
> guns.

I'll stand by my statement that a gun makes a horrible defensive tool. If
you're on the defense, you don't want a gun. You want something that
doesn't require "line of sight"... doesn't require knowledge of where the
other person is... and ideally something that doesn't require you being
there.

I'll further state that if you expect to be shot at with a gun, your best
first
defense is a bullet-proof jacket and the kind of instincts that send you
to the floor when you hear a loud noise.

as a way of regaining initiative, you might next choose to use a gun
(though I wouldn't recommend it). I would recommend instead using
something that will distract/disable your opponents (actually, using a
gun to take out the lights is a relatively decent strategic move.).

If, however, you are carrying a gun for the psychological intimidation
factor... you've got the wrong weapon. Studies show that knives (or
flamethrowers, for that matter, if you're willing to put up with the
explosion hazard) are more psychologically intimidating.

> I also asked your age. It's pertinent to the discussion. How old are you?

You think I'm just gonna let you get away with asserting that "it's
pertinent to the discussion?" nah... you've got to show that in at least
a little more detail... say, any detail at all.

>>>>> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
>>>>> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
>>>>> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
>>>>> what an assault rifle is.
>>>>
>>>> I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of
>>>> armored
>>>> cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
>>>> coming with explosive bullets.
>>>
>>> Don't blame it on "another post". ***YOU*** tossed those ridiculous ideas
>>> into this discussion. Not someone else. YOU.
>>
>> Yeah, I did. I stated that what I was talking about was a "working
>> definition", not a real, military definition.
>
> There is no military definition. A gun is a gun. There are DEFECTIVE
> definitions, most of which are kept in circulation by the press, and by
> ill-informed individuals like you.

.... have you read the post on what an "assault rifle" means? do so, if
you please.

>> p.s. don't be so hostile. you might even learn something.
>
> I'm not hostile. I'm playing trial lawyer and verbally pushing you into a
> corner from which you cannot escape. It's a valid debate technique, and you
> don't like it.

See, you've got to let me pick my own corners. Otherwise, you can't push
me into them. Particularly when you're throwing up strawmen arguements
about stuff I never said.

Lena