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