"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.




>> 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.




>> 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.



>> 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?