Re: [OTR] http://www.dictionary.com/ is a good thing, people

[misc@miscelena.com]

I said:

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

And Dan helpfully quoted dictionary.com:

>   viable /adj/: capable of success or continuing
>       effectiveness; practicable.

And added:
> Guns as self-defense are "viable."

In what way, given your statement that "defense" doesn't mean "killing"?


I'm well aware of what "viable" means, and it's quite precisely the word
and meaning I intended.

It is, IMO, not reasonable to consider waving a gun at someone
a method of 'continuing effectiveness'
nor a 'practicable' method of self-defense.

It is also, IMO, not reasonable to consider bludgeoning someone with a gun
a method of 'continuing effectiveness'
nor a 'practicable' method of self-defense.

And as far as *firing* a gun in self-defense,
(which is, after all, how it's designed to be used...)

well, respectfully... you've ignored my qualifier:

"... if killing is to be avoided."

My point was (and continues to be) that *firing* a gun as self-defense
is NOT a method of 'continuing effectiveness'
nor a 'practicable' method
(given the average gun-owner's marksmanship skills...)
... IF YOU REALLY WANT TO AVOID KILLING IN THE PROCESS.

Guns are designed to be lethal.  I believe that if you don't intend to
kill someone with a gun, you shouldn't fire it at them at all.

I believe guns are a 'viable' means of self-defense
ONLY IF
you're ok with killing.

We still agree.

*smile*
Anita


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