X-Ftn-To: M.G.

legarageremove@mindspring.com (M.G.) wrote:
>Now remember, for this experiment to work, Danijel needs to have a
>target subject, in a wind-less room, free and clear of any alcohol or
>drugs that may reduce the efect of the spray. Also the subject must no
>be farther than 10 feet and standing still and blindfolded.

Since you failed to follow the links that I provided, I'll help you:

"Pepper Spray is a self defense product derived from hot cayenne
peppers. Our pepper spray contains 10% & 15% Oleoresin Capsicum, with
a 1.5 and 2.0 million Scoville heat unit rating, the strongest pepper
spray formula available. When sprayed in the face, OC pepper spray
will cause temporary blindness and restricted breathing. The effects
of the pepper spray last for 30 to 45 minutes. This pepper spray is
non toxic, nonflammable, and will not deteriorate with age. Since OC
pepper spray is an inflammatory agent, it is effective against those
who feel no pain such as psychotics, drunks, or drug abusers. Our
pepper spray also contains ultraviolet dye for police identification.
This pepper spray has also proven to be the best deterrent available
for attacking animals. Yosemite National Park is now advising all
visitors to bring pepper spray to protect themselves from bears. "

"Pepper Foam will stick to the attacker and spread on contact with the
same effect as pepper spray. Mace Pepper Foam is a full strength, 10%
OC formulation, and has a Flip-Top Safety Cap. Pepper Foam is safer to
use when windy. Because it sticks, it works better in the rain, and it
is effective for attackers wearing goggles."

"Mace Triple Action Pepper Spray contains a careful blend of OC Pepper
Spray and CN Tear Gas with UV Dye. OC Pepper Spray causes the
assailant's eyes to slam shut with uncontrolled choking. CN Tear Gas
causes profuse tearing, an intense burning sensation to the face, and
disorientation. UV Dye coats an assailant with an invisible dye which
may aid in identification when apprehended."

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: M.G.

legarageremove@mindspring.com (M.G.) wrote:

>wait.. you said:
> "As far as I'm concerned, if I go to the States I wouldn't object
>a little exercise at the range with you gun freaks, under a condition
============
>that I leave the piece there, where it belongs."
>
>Can you contradict yourself any better?

Notice the crucial part, underlined for your convenience.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Jeffrey C. Dege

jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>You are, on the other hand, far too facile with the models of civilian
>handguns available on the US market for someone who claims to be from
>Croatia.

:)) You mean, the peaceful Croatia, the Croatia that was invaded by
the Serbs in '91 and kicked the shit out of them in '95? :) Oh nooo,
we here shouldn't know a thing about guns, it's reserved for the
Americans. ;)
As I said, I hate the damn things, but I sure know my way around them.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Ben C

Ben C wrote:
>I'd like to see this guy demonstrate that for us all....we could broadcast
>it live on the internet too.....might be worthwhile.....hey, I'll even let
>you shoot me with the pepper spray as long as you take the bullet.

You would probably only shoot yourself; have you ever inhaled tabasco
sauce, or had it rubbed into your eyes? Well, this spray is several
times more concentrated. You would immediately drop the gun and reach
for your eyes, and I'd be the last thing on your mind. Or, you would
keep the gun in your hand and instinctively shoot yourself, trying to
reach for the face. You guys really underestimate the chemicals, as if
none of you ever tried to eat extremely hot chilli peppers. You talk
as if this was lemonade spray. Buy a can and spray yourself with it,
if you're such a tough macho guy, and then write to tell me how it
was.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Jeffrey C. Dege

jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:

>When the factions supporting a government manage to muzzle dissent,
>when they keep opposing voices from being heard, they will use the
>government to impose tools that are destructive to the factions that
>have been marginalized. And the result _will_ be civil war.
>
>And you it's a good idea to be unarmed when that happens?

Yes. When that actually happens, the important thing will be to know
how to use it, and not to have it with me. And I do know how to use
it. But, until then, I don't need the damn thing, I don't even want to
be near one.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>>>He has a website? What's the URL?
>>
>> It's in my sig.
>>
>
>It certainly does explain a lot.
>
>Can you fly?

Nope. Can you write argumented messages?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: [NOYB]

"[NOYB]" wrote:
>Do you know what a Ruger Blackhawk is?

44 Magnum, single action. I'd prefer Colt Anaconda. What, you mean
that not wanting guns in the civilian population means that I don't
know what a gun is? I already wrote that I can disassemble and
assemble a rifle blindfolded. Never handled handguns, tho.

>If it won't stop a bear, including
>Grizzly and Polar, why do you think she was wearing it? As a fashion
>statment?

Maybe for the same reason why people usually wear those: appearance of
safety.

I would prefer a good semi-automatic rifle, Heckler&Koch 7.62 NATO,
for instance. Compared to what I'd take with me, Blackhawk is indeed a
fashion statement; and, since my hand is not heavy, the .44 would be
too jumpy to be useful. But we are off-topic: it's not whether guns
are the evil minions of Satan or not, but whether civilians should own
them. As far as I'm concerned, if I go to the States I wouldn't object
a little exercise at the range with you gun freaks, under a condition
that I leave the piece there, where it belongs.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: kamerynn

(Hi, allow me to drop in :)

kamerynn wrote:
>*your* definition of responsibility is as irrelevant as *mine*.
>What matters, here, is the term's various uses.
>1) the moisture is responsible for the rust.
>2) the man is responsible for his rational choice.
>The term "responsible" is being used differently in 1 and 2;
>both 1 and 2 are correct. My point was: responsiblility,
>constued in manner #2, implies free will. (this is what I
>meant by "responsibility, properly construed, [implies
>free will]")

To me, free will means that we choose the form of our existence. Each
choice has its consequences and forms us in the chosen direction.

>> Interestingly enough, the above definition of punishment shows the
>> foolishness of Hell actually existing. Do you see how? If not, I will
>> share my thoughts on that.
>
>Because the *punishment* is not "behavior changing" since one
>does not have the chance to return to reality and act in
>a rehabilitated way. Hell, of course, is not meant as a
>retroactive punishment for the puposes of rehabilitation. It is
>meant as a deterrent with the force of carrying out it's threat.

Actually, hell is a logical consequence of some choices - for hatred,
ignorance of reality, opposition to truth... these choices have the
quality of hell, and people who choose those qualities of existence
during life, might likely end up in a place where they are
characteristic to the external environment. The same thing applies for
heaven - those who choose the heavenly qualities in life, like love,
knowledge, compassion, truth etc, will have an external environment
that has such qualities.

>Thus, while the punishment is not behavior changing, the threat
>of it is (you call this indirect punishment). Correct me if I'm
>wrong, but Hell likely causes people to act differently and
>is, therefore, not foolish in the manner you expect.

There is no punishment, or reward, not in that sense. Every act is its
own reward or punishment, because by acting you determine your
reality. Actions based on truth and reality have good results, at
least in the spiritual sphere, while the actions based on ignorance
and hatred result in separation of one's own essence from God, which
is by definition hell.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: [NOYB]

"[NOYB]" wrote:
>| Read Danijel's website.
>| It's VERY informative!
>
>He has a website? What's the URL?

It's in my sig.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman

"Bert Hyman" wrote:
>>>Puts a bullet in her assailant's chest. What else?
>>
>> While he, of course, scratches his nuts, what else?
>>
>I'm afraid I don't understand what you're talking about.
>
>You're not one of those people who believes that unless a defense is 100%
>certain, there's no use in attempting it at all, are you?

I don't think that way. I would say that there is no point in using a
method of defense that is likely to either backfire or prove
ineffective. So, it's better to find alternative methods. The pepper
spray has a greater stopping power than a powerful gun (except in a
case of a headshot, which is here argued to be unlikely) - in fact,
you could hardly stop a grizzly bear with a .44 magnum, but you would
have no problem with this thing, and you don't even have to kill
anyone. The solution is perfect, except for long distance combat, in
which case a handgun would be almost equally useless.

>You think that just because some particular 80-year old might not get off
>an effective shot, no 80-year old should ever try?

Yes. Instead, a 80-year old should use a wide angle pepper spray. The
probability of success seems to be much better, in fact this is such a
good method that I would buy one such gadget if I lived in an unsafe
environment. However, the intimidation factor is zero, so I'd have to
use it immediately, not wave it around, making threats.

However, there is no 100% effective method of self-defense, nothing
can guarantee you safety. An unskilled person could hardly pull off a
good defensive maneuver, not with a gun, not with a spray. And even a
skilled person can get into a no-win situation.

>Evil is potent and efficacious in your universe, while good people are
>always doomed to fail? So, our 80-year old, and by extension, all
>victims, should just submit to the inevitable?

I don't know where you learned logic, but you're not good at it.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org