NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/politics/guns/24383

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 3.5 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!radian!markbr
From: [e-mail] (markbr)
Subject: Re: Guns & self defense
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet login for mail routing)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:24:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: zippy.radian.com
Organization: n.o.y.b
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
>>This is true. But do you really believe that you'll be able to use that
>>fraction of a second to draw a gun, release the safety, cock it (if necessary),
>>and fire it effectively any faster than you could use hand to hand combat
>>techniques, or, better yet, run away and scream your bloody head off?
>
>Let's consider MacAnndra's scenario.
>
>You're standing about 5 feet away from someone who has the ability to
>kill you in the time it takes to move a finger.  He's said "move and
>I'll kill you" and you're pretty sure he's going to kill you no matter
>what you do.
>
>He can move that finger before you can do much.  You don't have time
>to close, let alone do anything useful when you do.  Yelling won't
>help and you don't have time to turn, let alone to run.  However, you
>can draw and fire a couple of shots accurately before he can move that
>finger.
>
>Why?  Well, reaction, which is what he's doing takes time.  It doesn't
>take a lot of time, but it does take time.  You can complete some acts
>during that time, but not many.  It's easy enough to demonstrate that
>draw and fire is one of those things.  (Police understand this, which
>is why they're so twitchy in certain situations; the action/reaction
>gap doesn't depend on the legal status of the parties involved.)
>However, if your "fire" doesn't have a decent chance of stopping that
>finger, it won't help.  There aren't many things other than guns that
>qualify.
>
Hey, guy, can't you get Reality Chex cereal where you live?

Let's see if I have this right: a guy is standing there, with a gun pointed
at you, and you have time to draw your gun, aim, and blow him away; this is
a guy who's already twitchy (armed robbery on the streets isn't exactly a
low-risk profession). He's going to wait while you say "make my day", too?
Let's try this: *I* hold a water pistol aimed at you, and you draw. Betcha
you get wet first, and I may not at all. When do you want to try this
experiment, and where?

And then there's what may be the more common case, where someone jumps out
and holds a gun to your head. You gonna outdraw his finger, too? Or let's
talk *reality*. Years ago, my dad got mugged. He was in his 60's. He was
walking along the street, and two guys ran quietly up behind him, hit him with
something, grabbed his wallet, and ran, before he was undizzy enough to see
what had happened. Also, his hearing wasn't great. At what point could he,
had he had a gun, blown away these two guys, neither of whom, so far as I
know, has committed a capital crime? Before they hit him (when he didn't
hear them)? After, when he couldn't see straight? Wouldn't they have simply
taken the gun from him, and, as likely, shot *him*?

C'mon, asshole. I'm sick and tired of this "everybody ought to carry a rod"
mentality. Show me how it would work in this *REAL* situation, or take your
stupid thread back to alt.guns.r.us.

    mark, the fed up