preece@uicsl.UUCP (10/06/83)
#R:qubix:-55900:uicsl:5400033:000:835 uicsl!preece Oct 5 08:40:00 1983 . John Wayne's portrayals are pure fiction. A responsible gun owner doesn't shoot at anything until he is absolutely sure of what he's shooting at. This applies to hunting (don't shoot your hunting partner), the target range (don't shoot at anything but your own target in your own sights), or an intruder in your home. ---------- Therefore the 'responsible gun owner' should be careful to avoid confronting a housebreaker in any case, since the housebreaker already knows that anything that moves is unfriendly. If he (or she) is the sort of housebreaker worth shooting (an immediate threat to your safety, as opposed to a simple burglar) there is nothing restraining an immediate attack on you, while you must be sure that the target is in fact a baddy. Your decision takes longer. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
jj@rabbit.UUCP (10/07/83)
Scott. You decision takes longer because you aren't careful, or reasonable, about when you make the decision. If you're surprised, they you shouldn't be thinking about shooting. If you know that you've been invaded, are hiding, and the person is coming toward your hiding place, YOU have the advantage. Then you decide, after you see WHAT the attacker is carrying! If you try to shoot it out like John Wayne (which is still clearly your concept of self-defense) you get what you ask for.
billp@bronze.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (10/07/83)
>>>Therefore the 'responsible gun owner' should be careful to avoid >>>confronting a housebreaker in any case, since the housebreaker already >>>knows that anything that moves is unfriendly. ... >>> >>>scott preece >>>pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece I suppose scott preece's idea of a 'responsible gun owner' would crawl under the bed and whimper.
ricks@tekcad.UUCP (10/17/83)
#R:ihuxs:-40200:tekcad:8200004:000:1209
tekcad!paulp Oct 16 21:10:00 1983
In the sort of places I've lived in these last few years (apartments,
townhouses, and a duplex), anything heavier than a .22 for home defense
could easily be lethal to the folks next door. A 180 grain soft point
from a 30-06 rifle has a muzzle velocity of about 4000 feet/sec. If
it misses the major bones there's more than enough energy left to
puncture several thicknesses of drywall and kill someone else, too.
Handgun loads, e.g. 9mm, .45, are designed to deposit their energy
within the body (by mushrooming) but a miss will still go thru a wall.
For urban home defense you can't beat a sawed off 12 guage shotgun fitted
with a pistol grip instead of a stock. Experimentation with the various
commercial loads should result in a very lethal, yet limited, weapon.
Obviously, this isn't suited for hostage situations or someone holding
your Ming vase. In the long run there's no substitute for learning how
to shoot accurately.
Paul Pomes
uucp: {decvax,harpo,ihnss,pur-ee,ucbvax,unc,zehntel}!teklabs!tekcad!paulp
ARPA: tekcad!paulp.tek@Rand-Relay CSnet: tekcad!paulp@tek
US Mail: Paul Pomes, Tektronix, Inc.
Box 500 MS 59-323, Beaverton OR 97077
Phone: 503-627-2341preece@uicsl.UUCP (10/20/83)
#R:ihuxs:-40200:uicsl:5400034:000:2144 uicsl!preece Oct 13 14:41:00 1983 I suppose scott preece's idea of a 'responsible gun owner' would crawl under the bed and whimper. ---------- My idea of a 'responsible gun owner' would do everything possible to avoid the situation. The most obvious action being to place a locked barrier between the intruder and everyone in the house, if that can be arranged. I wasn't saying anything about the behavior of the responsible person, if you'd look at my note again; I said that the behavior described by another writer as responsible, namely ascertaining whether the intruder is friend or foe, places the homeowner at a tactical disadvantage, given that the intruder knows everyone is the enemy. Obviously there are situations where I would use a gun if I had one. The person trying to batter down the bedroom door is obviously not a friend (well, I guess I have had friends who were that boisterous, but that's another story). Clearly there are situations which cannot be avoided. Someone who has put you in a situation you can't run from and is clearly both hostile and dangerous is a fair target. But I sure as Hell wouldn't buy a gun just for that kind of situation. (I should say that the note with the four scenarios, which prompted this string of responses, never made it to this site, so I may be talking at cross purposes). Crawling under a bed might be useful; whimpering is counterproductive -- it would give your position away. There's nothing shameful about avoiding an unnecessary fight, calling for help, hiding, or otherwise escaping the need for violence. There IS something shameful about killing somebody who wanted to grab your toaster oven and get away without ever seeing, let alone harming, anyone. If I knew someone was downstairs in my house, I would move my wife and myself to our kids' room, lock the door, and call the police. I might also announce that I had done so. I'm not really worried that the intruder would then come upstairs just to make trouble, even though I know that that does, occasionally, happen. I also don't worry too much about meteors killing me in my bed (or is that meteorites?). scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece