XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns
XPost: aus.politics.guns
From: murff@warlock.org
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:12:47 -0500, Scout wrote:
> "Murff" wrote in message
> news:l5fuld$o79$1@dont-email.me...
>> Not all adversaries are 220lb rapists. Some of them are political - gun
>> control types for example.
>
> True, but his assertion is that other options are always smarter to
> use....I'm just asking him to back up that assertion with a specific
> scenario.
>
> Of course, you're free to show the alternatives as well.....if you can.
Certainly relying solely on DGU is unwise. Working from the first rule of
gunfights being to bring a gun, what if she can't for local legal
reasons ?
Obviously, you can constrain the scenario to the point where there really
is no choice. But to answer your question directly: In your *specific*
case, I'm wondering how it came about. The scenario exists before this
220lb adversary is doing whatever such people do in the attack itself.
There are ways to manage the development of situations that involve group
protection, awareness and avoidance of dodgy areas (or characters),
unarmed martial arts and so on. Much "self defence" training focuses on
self-assurance to the extent that vulnerability signals are reduced or
avoided.
None of this gets away from recognising that there does come a point when
shooting or otherwise incapacitating said assailant is the best or only
course of action. But that is a very specific case and it isn't
restricted to the use of a gun (I've never shot anybody - but I did have
to hit a bloke in the face with a chair once).
So the "end game" of the 220lb rapist scenario is too limited to be of
value in refuting the assertion.
--
Murff...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
