Re: In defense of "defense"

[misc@miscelena.com]

> Anita wrote:
>  > IMO, if the average citizen, with average marksmanship
>  > skills, fires a gun successfully in self-defense, it
>  > seems likely that death is a damned good possibility;
>  > enough so that yes, it should be assumed that defense
>  > here *will* equal killing.

and Dan replied:
> "self-defense by gun" doesn't mean pointing and shooting
> a gun at a vital organ.  it truly doesn't.
>
> shooting a leg, an arm, whacking on the noggin'... all
> viable solutions to the self-defense by gun situation.

My point was that I think that expecting the average person in a panic
situation to aim well enough to hit or not hit a vital organ is
ludicrious.

Aiming for an arm or leg (a small target, and presumably moving more than
the vital organs as well) and missing could well be more dangerous than
not shooting at all.

Whacking on the noggin is better accomplished with your baseball bat, not
a gun.

I'm still not convinced that a gun is a viable means of self-defense if
killing is to be avoided.

:)
Anita
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/