| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Lena B Katz > wrote:
>2. I've been in a building where someone shot a cannon at it. (It's called >the Cathedral of Learning... ever heard of it? Yeah, it made the news.) Anybody find out WHY they did this? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >, x-no-archive: yes > wrote: > (snip) > >>I'm sorry this ever started to begin with, but it has also been part >>of the solution. >>Let's get back to food. > > > Fat free yogurt sucks. Oh thank goodness I'm not the only one who feels the same! DH brought some home and it was gag city! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
TheAlligator wrote: > "aem" > wrote: > >I went and took a look at that group. I'm glad you didn't post here > >what you did there. Problem is, you got responses there that supported > >the worst of what you said, and even took it further. There are some > >seriously f***ed up people there. > > > >-aem > > > But there are also some seriously good ones, too. > I know - I said this wasn't an isolated incident, and it became more > common over the last few months. If you were able to piece it all > together, you'd see that some of the horrible things I have said were > in a very heated exchange, or is followed up by me - not exactly > apologizing - but elaborating in a calmer manner. > > A note to Sheldon - I like reading your stuff, and I really don't mean > this in a bad way, only as a question: Have you thought back to some > of the foul, disgusting things you have said to and about people on > occasion. You are obviously, for whatever reason, not yourself when > that happens. I don't hold it against you, and it'd be nice to get > the same from you. Or not - whatever you want. > > I have reasons, although not good ones, for why I keep snapping about > stuff. One is dealing with a medical problem, but it's no excuse. > There are good arguments that end up productive there, sometimes. But > it's no excuse to use whatever reasons you think you have to spew hate > about some thing or group, when it's not even necessary to the > discussion. I believe I have admitted this, said I don't like it, and > am at least doing something about it. A lot more things have happened > in the last few days than what I've said. Some of it very good, and I > hope it works. > I'm sorry this ever started to begin with, but it has also been part > of the solution. > Let's get back to food. I've been posting here for a very long time, so anyone here for a while can attest to the fact that I haven't changed much year to year, actually I haven't changed a whit... and believe it or not (I really don't care) I'm exactly the same in my civilian life. Anyway, I haven't had much time to cook the past few days, been having a renovation, having a new terlit and pedestal sink installed in my laundry niche, including a medicine chest, and light fixture, and a dry wall dropped in with a door... had a measly omelet for dinner. But for tomorrow I have a 6lb oven roaster chicken. I like to quarter them (remove the back and shit can it), then season and arrange it in a roasting pan with lotsa veggies... my kitty devils are ready for roast chicken too, they don't like being invaded by smarmy building trade types any more than I do. They left at 2pm and here it is almost 8pm, just a while a go finished cleaning up their schmutz. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
TheAlligator wrote: > "sf" > wrote: > >I think you racted like a loving father. Unfortunately, you made those > >statements in front of John Law. They reacted kindly... but you're on > >record now, so if you actually follow through - not only will they get > >you for retaliation, it's predetermined. > > > >Feel good that your little girl can take care of herself and not be a > >victim! > > > >  > > > No chance of following through. Self-defense is one thing, but murder > is out of the question. I think we're all doing pretty well now. She > has tried to carefully think over things so that she can drop the > latent fear that he could find her. I don't think so. My outlook on > a lot of things changed this week. I don't know if it's temporary - I > hope not. I found a side of me I don't like very much, and I want > that to go away. "Gator" (as you know who calls you) - you've gotten in touch with your feminine side! Remember the saying comparing mothers with mother tigers? That's you right now. Be happy you can feel these feelings and have control over them. I can not tell you I've been in THAT situation, but I was in another that involved my children's active imagination about death and me coming home to an empty house (hubby had taken them somewhere). I freaked out for about an hour calling the police, local emergency hospital etc. It happened about 20 years ago, but I still get a knot in my stomach when I think about it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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, Doug Kanter wrote: >>> >>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, TheAlligator wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote: >> OK..now I understand. I thought you were being serious. Never mind. > > I am being serious. Perhaps I've just been in more serious danger than > you. > > 1. I've been followed home, by about five people, in a rather deserted > urban area. You could've handled that nicely with a handgun. And, regardless of what the law says in most states about "brandishing" being illegal, you could've been 99% positive that the cops already knew the people who followed you, and would've patted you on the back if any of the thugs decided to call the cops about you. Of course, they would NOT have done that. You're fully aware of that fact. > 2. I've been in a building where someone shot a cannon at it. (It's called > the Cathedral of Learning... ever heard of it? Yeah, it made the news.) At least in the U.S., cannon fire is as likely as your house being hit by a meteorite. Mentioning it places your sanity and debating skills in question. You know that. > 3. I've regularly worked in places where there are week-old bloodstains on > the streets, and evidence of drive-by shootings. Not to mention the > liquor-scented stench of lost hope. So have I. It's not relevant to this discussion. Question: How much time have you spent practicing with a handgun? What kind? How much time with an instructor? What were the results? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name,
wrote: >Sometimes, people ask to be shot, and it's rude not to grant their request. ROFL! Emily Post was your mom, wasn't she? Carol -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message ... > "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, > wrote: > >>Sometimes, people ask to be shot, and it's rude not to grant their >>request. > > ROFL! Emily Post was your mom, wasn't she? > > Carol It's just common sense, Carol. Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly working gun of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the benefit of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long as they are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, but actually in the house. Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I don't know about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return for a VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' minds", and is asking to be shot. If a guest in my home asks for a glass of water or a beer, I'd never say no. Why shouldn't I show the same courtesy to a burglar? I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic might be slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Serendipity >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>I am so sorry to hear of this close call! Don't beat yourself up so >much. This is a tramatic experience and you reacted to the loss of >security, threat to your daughter, anger at the perp, guilt you weren't >there to help or prevent the attack, fear it might happen again, and so >many other emotions. I went through a very tramatic experience (murder >of a loved one) so know first hand how emotions can get the best of you. Very wise observations, Serendipity. I'm sorry that you had to go through something so horrible.  Carol -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"nancree" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>I was violently raped and the after effects were very damaging. {{{{{Nancree}}}}} |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name,
wrote: >"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message .. . >> "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, >> wrote: >> >>>Sometimes, people ask to be shot, and it's rude not to grant their >>>request. >> >> ROFL! Emily Post was your mom, wasn't she? >> >> Carol > >It's just common sense, Carol. Yeah. The wording just struck me as funny. I'm running on very little sleep, so I'm easily amused. >Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) >as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly working gun >of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the benefit >of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long as they >are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, but >actually in the house. I wish I could remember who told me this. They said that a police officer friend had told them that if you kill an intruder just as they're entering your home, and they don't fall forward into the house, you should drag their body inside, so you won't get in trouble. I can't imagine anyone doing that. Or getting away with it. >Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I don't know >about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return for a >VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' >minds", and is asking to be shot. Agreed. >If a guest in my home asks for a glass of water or a beer, I'd never say no. >Why shouldn't I show the same courtesy to a burglar? I'm sorry. No I'm not. I think you just said that you'd go grab a beer for your burglar. ROFLMAO! >I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic might be >slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-) Oh, okay. That explains the beer. Carol, still chuckling -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message news  > "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, > wrote: > >>"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message . .. >>> "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Sometimes, people ask to be shot, and it's rude not to grant their >>>>request. >>> >>> ROFL! Emily Post was your mom, wasn't she? >>> >>> Carol >> >>It's just common sense, Carol. > > Yeah. The wording just struck me as funny. I'm running on very little > sleep, so I'm easily amused. > >>Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) >>as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly working >>gun >>of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the benefit >>of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long as >>they >>are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, but >>actually in the house. > > I wish I could remember who told me this. They said that a police officer > friend had told them that if you kill an intruder just as they're entering > your home, and they don't fall forward into the house, you should drag > their body inside, so you won't get in trouble. I can't imagine anyone > doing that. Or getting away with it. I think it depends on the cop you end up with. I wouldn't want to risk ending up with a cop whose thinking was not evolved. I might end up with a jury which included several Unitarians, and then where would I be? I have great respect for them, but once, one of them said to me "Well...sometimes when things are stolen, it means you'd owned those things long enough and it was someone else's turn". Bite me. Imagine that person trying a self-defense shooting. :-) >>Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I don't >>know >>about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return for a >>VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' >>minds", and is asking to be shot. > > Agreed. > >>If a guest in my home asks for a glass of water or a beer, I'd never say >>no. >>Why shouldn't I show the same courtesy to a burglar? > > I'm sorry. No I'm not. I think you just said that you'd go grab a beer > for your burglar. ROFLMAO! No! I don't offer beer to people like that. >>I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic might be >>slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-) > > Oh, okay. That explains the beer. > > Carol, still chuckling Actually, it might be more fun to take a burglar hostile (I'd say hostage, but Bush said "hold our country hostile", and he's the president so he must be right). Tie him to the basement rafters, get his family members over there one at a time, and collect opinions as to why he should live. Maybe his own mother would say "Hell....he's a pain in the ass anyway....gimme the gun". :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name,
wrote: >"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >news >> >> I wish I could remember who told me this. They said that a police officer >> friend had told them that if you kill an intruder just as they're entering >> your home, and they don't fall forward into the house, you should drag >> their body inside, so you won't get in trouble. I can't imagine anyone >> doing that. Or getting away with it. > >I think it depends on the cop you end up with. I wouldn't want to risk >ending up with a cop whose thinking was not evolved. I might end up with a >jury which included several Unitarians, and then where would I be? I have >great respect for them, but once, one of them said to me "Well...sometimes >when things are stolen, it means you'd owned those things long enough and it >was someone else's turn". Bite me. Imagine that person trying a self-defense >shooting. :-) WTF? That is one bizarre philosophy. Are you sure that it's a Unitarian thing, or just one odd person's? People rarely leave our house without some of our belongings. Things we like, but we like the friend more than the object, and we know it would make them happy. But if some burglar comes in and takes our stuff, what will we give away? >>>If a guest in my home asks for a glass of water or a beer, I'd never say >>>no. Why shouldn't I show the same courtesy to a burglar? >> >> I'm sorry. No I'm not. I think you just said that you'd go grab a beer >> for your burglar. ROFLMAO! > >No! I don't offer beer to people like that. Sorry. I *had* to say it. <G> >Actually, it might be more fun to take a burglar hostile (I'd say hostage, >but Bush said "hold our country hostile", and he's the president so he must >be right). I'm proud to say that I didn't vote for him. >Tie him to the basement rafters, get his family members over >there one at a time, and collect opinions as to why he should live. Maybe >his own mother would say "Hell....he's a pain in the ass anyway....gimme the >gun". :-) That seems a little extreme for a burglar. Especially one who hadn't even had a nice frosty beer.  But if it's a rapist or murderer, the above scenario is much too kind. Carol -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message ... > > > 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 When you're ready to continue this discussion using factors that actually exist in the real world, let us know. Sulfuric acid......gimme a break. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message news  > "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, > wrote: > >>"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >>news >>> >>> I wish I could remember who told me this. They said that a police >>> officer >>> friend had told them that if you kill an intruder just as they're >>> entering >>> your home, and they don't fall forward into the house, you should drag >>> their body inside, so you won't get in trouble. I can't imagine anyone >>> doing that. Or getting away with it. >> >>I think it depends on the cop you end up with. I wouldn't want to risk >>ending up with a cop whose thinking was not evolved. I might end up with a >>jury which included several Unitarians, and then where would I be? I have >>great respect for them, but once, one of them said to me "Well...sometimes >>when things are stolen, it means you'd owned those things long enough and >>it >>was someone else's turn". Bite me. Imagine that person trying a >>self-defense >>shooting. :-) > > WTF? That is one bizarre philosophy. Are you sure that it's a Unitarian > thing, or just one odd person's? People rarely leave our house without > some of our belongings. Things we like, but we like the friend more than > the object, and we know it would make them happy. But if some burglar > comes in and takes our stuff, what will we give away? Well....it was 58% humor. My ex is a Unitarian and I've met some of the people from the church. It's an interesting blend of misunderstood philosophies, I think. But at least they don't travel the world "helping" other cultures by delivering venereal disease & smallpox. > >>Tie him to the basement rafters, get his family members over >>there one at a time, and collect opinions as to why he should live. Maybe >>his own mother would say "Hell....he's a pain in the ass anyway....gimme >>the >>gun". :-) > > That seems a little extreme for a burglar. Especially one who hadn't even > had a nice frosty beer. > > But if it's a rapist or murderer, the above scenario is much too kind. Rape's a separate subject. I'd gather 12 women from the neighborhood, give each of them a brand new mat knife, describe the situation and say "I'll be upstairs if you need anything". :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message > ... >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: >> >>> >>> "TheAlligator" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote: >>>>> Did they catch the guy, or is wandering around minus an eye? >>>> No, he's still wandering around, and will continue to, if the usual >>>> Nothing happens, like it seems to around here. I don't know if she >>>> actually destroyed his eye, but she seems to think so. I'm sure my >>>> tax dollars will make him well - and around here, it wouldn't surprise >>>> me if he files a damage suit against us - and WINS, by the way. >>>> Welcome to Amerika. >>> >>> That last comment is the best reason of all to do one or both of: >>> >>> >>> 2) Wait two more years and see if your daughter wants a handgun. Rape >>> usually does away with any nonsensical thoughts about how evil guns are. >> >> oh, to hell with that idea! >> >> try this one: get her the kind of purse you can put a 9mm in (it's not >> big and bulky, it looks like a pagebag). Then teach her how to walk like >> she's got heat. >> >> preventitive medicine, with none of the bad consequences of carrying a >> concealed weapon. >> >> lena > > What bad consequences? If you have 50 acquaintances, I'll bet 20 carry > concealed, legally, and you have no awareness of it. You're assuming an awful lot. You're assuming that the proportion of people you know have guns is similar to the proportion of people I know that have guns. There are bad consequences associated with carrying a loaded gun... not the least of which is the safety factor. Another factor is having the gun be used against you (whether you had it on your person at the time or not). If I don't know that they're carrying a gun, they're probably not doing it right. People who carry guns should be trained on how to react to gunshots (or fireworks, or cars backfiring, which sound similar to the amygdala). I know people who hit the floor, and reach for a gun, whenever they hear gunshots. lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, AlleyGator wrote: > Lena B Katz > wrote: >> 2. I've been in a building where someone shot a cannon at it. (It's called >> the Cathedral of Learning... ever heard of it? Yeah, it made the news.) > Anybody find out WHY they did this? F*cking idiotic re-enactors. Somebody thought they'd do it with live ammo. Happens every year (though it is more common in Gettysburg). Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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, Doug Kanter wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, TheAlligator wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote: >>> OK..now I understand. I thought you were being serious. Never mind. >> >> I am being serious. Perhaps I've just been in more serious danger than >> you. >> >> 1. I've been followed home, by about five people, in a rather deserted >> urban area. > > You could've handled that nicely with a handgun. And, regardless of what the > law says in most states about "brandishing" being illegal, you could've been > 99% positive that the cops already knew the people who followed you, and > would've patted you on the back if any of the thugs decided to call the cops > about you. Of course, they would NOT have done that. You're fully aware of > that fact. Like Hell. These people weren't following me in a group. Picture people with radios, following me in a semicircle, about a block distant (in three directions). Considering the tech they had on my front door (I went in the back), I wouldn't have been surprised if they had considerably more than your average gun. >> 2. I've been in a building where someone shot a cannon at it. (It's called >> the Cathedral of Learning... ever heard of it? Yeah, it made the news.) > > At least in the U.S., cannon fire is as likely as your house being hit by a > meteorite. Mentioning it places your sanity and debating skills in question. > You know that. Would you rather I say mortar fire? There are quite a few neighborhoods in D.C. that have buildings that still haven't been repaired from the last mortar that hit them. Cannons are unlikely anywhere, but only because mortars are far more portable. > Question: How much time have you spent practicing with a handgun? What kind? > How much time with an instructor? What were the results? None. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. 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? 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. 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. I take it a step further and say that if he's got a gun, it doesn't matter whether it's in his hand or not. It's automatically a self defense situation. You really ought to spend some time in another newsgroup. rec.guns, and float some of your wacky ideas there. There are plenty of people who have the resources and statistics at their fingertips, and thus are able to grind your foolishness into the dirt, as appropriate. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lena B Katz >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>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). <Damsel adds sulphuric acid to her list of burglary tools> Thanks for the suggestion, Lena! Carol -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >>> preventitive medicine, with none of the bad consequences of carrying a >>> concealed weapon. >>> >>> lena >> >> What bad consequences? If you have 50 acquaintances, I'll bet 20 carry >> concealed, legally, and you have no awareness of it. > > You're assuming an awful lot. You're assuming that the proportion of > people you know have guns is similar to the proportion of people I know > that have guns. Neither of us has any idea who's carrying a gun. My number was based purely on pistol permit stats for NY, not counting NY City & Long Island, whose rules are totally different than upstate. > There are bad consequences associated with carrying a loaded gun... not > the least of which is the safety factor. Gee....ya think? Maybe this is why there are pistol safety classes, and gun shop staff who (based on my experience) are fanatical about helping people choose holsters which contribute to safety. (I don't suppose you are aware of any specifics in that regard). > Another factor is having the gun be used against you (whether you had it > on your person at the time or not). Wow. Maybe this is why many states require that the gun be concealed, and why cops will get all over your case if you don't conceal effectively. > If I don't know that they're carrying a gun, they're probably not doing it > right. People who carry guns should be trained on how to react to > gunshots (or fireworks, or cars backfiring, which sound similar to the > amygdala). I know people who hit the floor, and reach for a gun, whenever > they hear gunshots. Let me get this straight: If they "doing it right", according to your definition, they should be drawing the gun any time they hear a loud noise which resembles a gunshot??? To me, that sounds totally irresponsible. Where do you get these ideas? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name,
wrote: >"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >news
>>Well....it was 58% humor. My ex is a Unitarian and I've met some of the >people from the church. It's an interesting blend of misunderstood >philosophies, I think. But at least they don't travel the world "helping" >other cultures by delivering venereal disease & smallpox. This is true. I explored the Unitarian Universalist church briefly. The one I attended was loaded with intellectuals, but there wasn't much spirituality taking place. I don't really enjoy intellectual discussions much. >Rape's a separate subject. I'd gather 12 women from the neighborhood, give >each of them a brand new mat knife, describe the situation and say "I'll be >upstairs if you need anything". :-) Yeah, Doug. You're in charge of the rubbing alcohol and lemon juice. Carol -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lena B Katz >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > >> 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. What drugs, specifically, are you on? I'll list them as drug allergies in my medical records so I'll never wind up sounding like you. Carol -- "There's things about me you don't know, Dottie. Things you wouldn't understand. Things you couldn't understand. Things you shouldn't understand.... I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel" *Paul Reubens* in the 1985 movie, _Pee Wee's Big Adventure_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> Lena B Katz >, if that's their real name, wrote: > > >>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). > > > <Damsel adds sulphuric acid to her list of burglary tools> > It doesn't work. Don't ask me how I know.... Best regards, Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message > news
>>>"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, >>wrote: >> >> >>>"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >>>news
>>>>>>>I wish I could remember who told me this. They said that a police >>>>officer >>>>friend had told them that if you kill an intruder just as they're >>>>entering >>>>your home, and they don't fall forward into the house, you should drag >>>>their body inside, so you won't get in trouble. I can't imagine anyone >>>>doing that. Or getting away with it. >>> >>>I think it depends on the cop you end up with. I wouldn't want to risk >>>ending up with a cop whose thinking was not evolved. I might end up with a >>>jury which included several Unitarians, and then where would I be? I have >>>great respect for them, but once, one of them said to me "Well...sometimes >>>when things are stolen, it means you'd owned those things long enough and >>>it >>>was someone else's turn". Bite me. Imagine that person trying a >>>self-defense >>>shooting. :-) >> >>WTF? That is one bizarre philosophy. Are you sure that it's a Unitarian >>thing, or just one odd person's? People rarely leave our house without >>some of our belongings. Things we like, but we like the friend more than >>the object, and we know it would make them happy. But if some burglar >>comes in and takes our stuff, what will we give away? > > > Well....it was 58% humor. My ex is a Unitarian and I've met some of the > people from the church. It's an interesting blend of misunderstood > philosophies, I think. I'm pretty sure they don't believe anything in particular anymore. Seriously. I should go yo a Unitarian church service sometime just to see what they talk/sing about. (trying to get another topic drift going...) Best regards, Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
zxcvbob >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>Damsel in dis Dress wrote: >> Lena B Katz >, if that's their real name, wrote: >> >>>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). >> >> <Damsel adds sulphuric acid to her list of burglary tools> > >It doesn't work. Don't ask me how I know.... Damn! Gonna have to go back to the ol' crowbar. Just when you think something will make your work easier, it gets snatched away. Life just isn't fair. Carol -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
zxcvbob >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>I'm pretty sure they don't believe anything in particular anymore. >Seriously. UU was described to me as believing everything and nothing. >I should go yo a Unitarian church service sometime just to see what they >talk/sing about. As I recall, they were pretty political. I remember singing Morning Has Broken (Cat Stevens). >(trying to get another topic drift going...) Good job, Bob! Carol -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote: > "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, > wrote: > > >"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message > >news
> >> >Well....it was 58% humor. My ex is a Unitarian and I've met some of the > >people from the church. It's an interesting blend of misunderstood > >philosophies, I think. But at least they don't travel the world "helping" > >other cultures by delivering venereal disease & smallpox. > > This is true. > > I explored the Unitarian Universalist church briefly. The one I attended > was loaded with intellectuals, but there wasn't much spirituality taking > place. I don't really enjoy intellectual discussions much. > Hey, I went to a Unitarian church for a few weeks a long time ago in Cincinnati. Nice people, mostly (I assume) academics ... it was near the U. of Cincinnati. In my rather fuzzy memory the "sermons" went something like " God, if he or she exists, might want us to live like this. Then again, he or she may not. How are we to know?" In any event, the "sermons" were uninformative but mercifully brief and generally followed by a harpsichord recital. I don't like harpsichord that much, so I stopped going. OB food: Tilapia this evening. My new and dear wife will be doing the honors so I don't know how it will be prepared or with what it will be accompanied. But I know I will enjoy it. Regards, Dave W. -- Living in the Ozarks For email, edu will do. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell, (1903-1950) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >>> 1. I've been followed home, by about five people, in a rather deserted >>> urban area. >> >> You could've handled that nicely with a handgun. And, regardless of what >> the >> law says in most states about "brandishing" being illegal, you could've >> been >> 99% positive that the cops already knew the people who followed you, and >> would've patted you on the back if any of the thugs decided to call the >> cops >> about you. Of course, they would NOT have done that. You're fully aware >> of >> that fact. > > Like Hell. These people weren't following me in a group. Picture people > with radios, following me in a semicircle, about a block distant (in three > directions). Considering the tech they had on my front door (I went in > the back), I wouldn't have been surprised if they had considerably more > than your average gun. If they were a block distant, they were not a threat. If they *were* a threat, in your opinion, there's nothing you could have done about it anyway, since this is all in your imagination, and in your dream, you've armed yourself with weapons which you cannot obtain, couldn't learn how to use, and probably couldn't throw far enough anyway. I'm not even sure why were discussing this any more, except that sometimes, crazy people are entertaining. :-) >>> 2. I've been in a building where someone shot a cannon at it. (It's >>> called >>> the Cathedral of Learning... ever heard of it? Yeah, it made the news.) >> >> At least in the U.S., cannon fire is as likely as your house being hit by >> a >> meteorite. Mentioning it places your sanity and debating skills in >> question. >> You know that. > > Would you rather I say mortar fire? There are quite a few neighborhoods > in D.C. that have buildings that still haven't been repaired from the last > mortar that hit them. During what period in history did mortar fire hit buildings in DC? Give or take 10 years is close enough. > Cannons are unlikely anywhere, but only because mortars are far more > portable. But, you're not going to say that any more because we're discussing threats which may actually exist in today's society. Mortars are not in that category. >> Question: How much time have you spent practicing with a handgun? What >> kind? >> How much time with an instructor? What were the results? > > None. None. I see. Then, where do you come up with the information to discuss their effectiveness? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"zxcvbob" > wrote in message ... > Doug Kanter wrote: > >> "Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >> news
>>>>>"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >>>>news
>>>>>>>>>I wish I could remember who told me this. They said that a police >>>>>officer >>>>>friend had told them that if you kill an intruder just as they're >>>>>entering >>>>>your home, and they don't fall forward into the house, you should drag >>>>>their body inside, so you won't get in trouble. I can't imagine anyone >>>>>doing that. Or getting away with it. >>>> >>>>I think it depends on the cop you end up with. I wouldn't want to risk >>>>ending up with a cop whose thinking was not evolved. I might end up with >>>>a >>>>jury which included several Unitarians, and then where would I be? I >>>>have >>>>great respect for them, but once, one of them said to me >>>>"Well...sometimes >>>>when things are stolen, it means you'd owned those things long enough >>>>and it >>>>was someone else's turn". Bite me. Imagine that person trying a >>>>self-defense >>>>shooting. :-) >>> >>>WTF? That is one bizarre philosophy. Are you sure that it's a Unitarian >>>thing, or just one odd person's? People rarely leave our house without >>>some of our belongings. Things we like, but we like the friend more than >>>the object, and we know it would make them happy. But if some burglar >>>comes in and takes our stuff, what will we give away? >> >> >> Well....it was 58% humor. My ex is a Unitarian and I've met some of the >> people from the church. It's an interesting blend of misunderstood >> philosophies, I think. > > > I'm pretty sure they don't believe anything in particular anymore. > Seriously. > > I should go yo a Unitarian church service sometime just to see what they > talk/sing about. > > (trying to get another topic drift going...) Hey...they're harmless. They do lots of stuff around town here, like bring hot meals to people. The weddings aren't bad. Much less brutal than a couple of Catholic ones I've been to, which lasted upwards of 9 hours, and a certain ancient carpenter with a beard was mentioned more often than the bride & groom. I wasn't sure who was marrying whom. :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
... > zxcvbob >, if that's their real name, wrote: > >>I'm pretty sure they don't believe anything in particular anymore. >>Seriously. > > UU was described to me as believing everything and nothing. I guess that's why Garrison Keillor enjoys making fun of them (and Lutherans) so much. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > > "Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message > ... >> "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, >> wrote: >> >>> Sometimes, people ask to be shot, and it's rude not to grant their >>> request. >> >> ROFL! Emily Post was your mom, wasn't she? >> >> Carol > > It's just common sense, Carol. Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) > as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly working gun > of some kind. Who is doing this estimating? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it isn't the "anti-gun" advocates. > In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the benefit > of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long as they > are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, but > actually in the house. Your home is your castle, and all that. Old law, dating back to England. > Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. Damn. That's gotta be a stretch. You're trying to tell me that a shotgun is going to kill that burglar? Seriously, let's think about this: in order to shoot someone, you need to be able to find the gun, be able to aim and shoot (that is, the person in the house needs to be able to fire and be accurate), and have a gun that is capable of killing someone before they get to the hospital. Fat chance, unless you are a crack shot, or enjoy letting people bleed to death (if you do, you have earned my enmity and hatred). Hospitals know how to save most people from a lousy bullet wound. But, how many people do you know who keep their guns on them at all times? Most of the people I know keep them in places where the robbers would have an easier time finding the gun than the people who own the house. > I don't know > about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return for a > VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' > minds", and is asking to be shot. He's asking to go to jail. That's all. But any competent thief will know when you go to bed, and will know when you aren't there at all. (it's only expert thieves that will use gas, but then you've got bigger problems). lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name,
wrote: >"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message .. . >> zxcvbob >, if that's their real name, wrote: >> >>>I'm pretty sure they don't believe anything in particular anymore. >>>Seriously. >> >> UU was described to me as believing everything and nothing. > >I guess that's why Garrison Keillor enjoys making fun of them (and >Lutherans) so much. The "h" is silent. Carol in Minnesoda -- "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say, 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message > ... > > >>>> 1. I've been followed home, by about five people, in a rather deserted >>>> urban area. >>> >>> You could've handled that nicely with a handgun. And, regardless of what >>> the >>> law says in most states about "brandishing" being illegal, you could've >>> been >>> 99% positive that the cops already knew the people who followed you, and >>> would've patted you on the back if any of the thugs decided to call the >>> cops >>> about you. Of course, they would NOT have done that. You're fully aware >>> of >>> that fact. >> >> Like Hell. These people weren't following me in a group. Picture people >> with radios, following me in a semicircle, about a block distant (in three >> directions). Considering the tech they had on my front door (I went in >> the back), I wouldn't have been surprised if they had considerably more >> than your average gun. > > If they were a block distant, they were not a threat. Right... five people, converging on your location, obviously following you, not a _threat_? Jesus. > If they *were* a > threat, in your opinion, there's nothing you could have done about it > anyway, I did the sensible thing. I ran. > since this is all in your imagination, and in your dream, you've > armed yourself with weapons which you cannot obtain, Have I ever claimed to have owned a smoke grenade? Didn't think so. >>>> 2. I've been in a building where someone shot a cannon at it. (It's >>>> called >>>> the Cathedral of Learning... ever heard of it? Yeah, it made the news.) >>> >>> At least in the U.S., cannon fire is as likely as your house being hit by >>> a >>> meteorite. Mentioning it places your sanity and debating skills in >>> question. >>> You know that. >> >> Would you rather I say mortar fire? There are quite a few neighborhoods >> in D.C. that have buildings that still haven't been repaired from the last >> mortar that hit them. > > During what period in history did mortar fire hit buildings in DC? Give or > take 10 years is close enough. 1990's. Near the park where the dead people are always buried (like the lady from Florida). Nice park, except for the corpses. >> Cannons are unlikely anywhere, but only because mortars are far more >> portable. > > But, you're not going to say that any more because we're discussing threats > which may actually exist in today's society. Mortars are not in that > category. You gonna tell me next that the Mafia doesn't exist either? Mortars are a rather extreme example of urban violence. >>> Question: How much time have you spent practicing with a handgun? What >>> kind? >>> How much time with an instructor? What were the results? >> >> None. > > None. I see. Then, where do you come up with the information to discuss > their effectiveness? Let's see... 1. Discussions with people who have been trained in US Army-like training. 2. Discussions with people who have been trained in paramilitary training. 3. Discussions with master tactitians and strategists. 4. My own knowledge of metallurgy, physics and chemistry. Lena |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crhistians attacked for christmas | General Cooking | |||
| In California, wave a U.S. flag and be attacked by foreigners who snuck into the country illegally | General Cooking | |||
| Man attacked by Omulet causes New Orleans disaster | General Cooking | |||
| A Coffee-Monster attacked me | Coffee | |||
Linear Mode
