NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/rape/2208

Text File | 1992-08-18 | 1.6 KB | 38 lines

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!boggs
From: [e-mail] (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Subject: Mace vs. Handguns
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:25:05 GMT
Lines: 28

I think both are good options for preventing attacks of just about any kind.
I believe carrying one or both increases your relative safety.

I also think it's a personal decision: mace or a handgun.  Out here in Oklahoma
I've heard tell that you can get away with murder (pun intended).  We're a
bloodthirsty, backwater lot of people -- NOT!   Sorry, my writer's flair was
acting up on me again.  Happens from time to time.

Given the choice, I'd opt for the handgun.  Although I don't remember any
incident (other than ones in the movies) where an attacker pulled out their gun
and started firing on the "victim" and the victim whipped out their weapon to
return fire, a handgun would be the weapon of choice in that situation.

I dunno.  Like I said, I think it's a matter of opinion.

Personally, I prefer the handgun.  It can be more effective and have a greater
range.  Course then again, it might also have heavier consequences when you
use it (or in the event that it's taken away from you).

(sigh)  I dunno.  But I still prefer the handgun to mace.  I think it a better
deterrent, and if it comes to that, better stopping power.


--
Grant Boggs
[e-mail]
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma