Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 05:17:26PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: I'd rather have the perp easily arrestable, if possible. How about, zip ties and *then* run? I'll bet a lot of people would have trouble getting zip ties securely on a twitching, big, scary intruder in a highly stressful situation. Heck, I have trouble threading the zip ties sometimes in a calm situation. If you MUST bind the intruder, I'd think duct tape would be a bit more forgiving in a stressful situation. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 05:17:26PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: I'd rather have the perp easily arrestable, if possible. How about, zip ties and *then* run? I'll bet a lot of people would have trouble getting zip ties securely on a twitching, big, scary intruder in a highly stressful situation. Heck, I have trouble threading the zip ties sometimes in a calm situation. If you MUST bind the intruder, I'd think duct tape would be a bit more forgiving in a stressful situation. And duct tape is even easier to come by than zip ties. Check. In a situation where there were several people available to tie an offender down, zip ties might be a better bet, but for emergency home use, the duct tape probably *is* better. Julia who knows where the duct tape is, but not the zip ties ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 03:28 AM 6/7/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 05:17:26PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: I'd rather have the perp easily arrestable, if possible. How about, zip ties and *then* run? I'll bet a lot of people would have trouble getting zip ties securely on a twitching, big, scary intruder in a highly stressful situation. Heck, I have trouble threading the zip ties sometimes in a calm situation. If you MUST bind the intruder, I'd think duct tape would be a bit more forgiving in a stressful situation. It worked perfectly well for the people who held up the chair and assistant chair of the chemistry department in the chemistry storeroom a few years ago . . . I Doubt They Could Make Much Drugs With The Tiny Amount Of Ether They Got Maru -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
From: Andrew Crystall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isn't that the (potential) problem? You might be coherent enough to grab your gun and move. But would you be coherent enough to recognize that this wasn't a fight or flight situation? I'm using a blade, remember. And I keep it OUT of reach when there are prople I don't know in the house. I can still reach it inside a second, but I have to THINK about it, and hence wake up a lot more. byt to be honest, it's not really applied to that. I was refering there to threatening with weapon versus USING weapon. OK. I'll buy that. However, I wasn't really replying only to you. I was replying to everyone (onlist and off) who says they can wake up and use a weapon to defend themselves without accidentally killing a family member... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br?n: Br?n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
The Top 10 includes New York, Maryland, Illinois, and Michigan. Maryland is especially notable since its gun control laws are quite strict. Of course, bordering DC - with the toughest gun laws and the highest murder rate doesn't help. Boy, imagine what it would be if it did have liberal gun laws duck!! Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one here has mentioned non-lethal weapons. That's becouse if someone invades you home and you taze them they can bring civil suits against you for decades. Depends on the state. If I tazed someone in my house, I could probably bring civil suits against *them*, depending on what they'd done before I tazed them. If you kill them, end of story. In some jurisdictions, that's just not a good thing to do. And I'd just as soon have the perp alive to be prosecuted and rot in Huntsville for awhile, but maybe that's just me. But if I had to kill to protect myself and family members, and had the wherewithal to do so, I would. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Bryon Daly wrote: I wonder if 15 minutes is long enough in all cases 2 words: Zip ties. 1 word: Run! You don't have to stay in the house. You can go to a neighbor's, drive away in your car, or just take off running. From what I gather, you have to leave the taser behind after you zap the guy, so that it continues to apply the juice: While the target is disabled, the user can place the device on the ground and escape. ... I just get the scenario in my head of fleeing to a neighbor's house, calling the cops, and by the time the cops get there, the guy is gone, and so is your $500 taser... (Until he returns with it to get revenge, on some future night. Yikes!) Note I'm not trying to say the taser's a bad idea. It certainly would be better than nothing, and also be safer to own with kids around. But it doesn't seem like a fully adequate replacement for a gun in terms of home security. Hopefully perhaps with advancing technology that will change... -Bryon _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Bryon Daly wrote: I wonder if 15 minutes is long enough in all cases 2 words: Zip ties. 1 word: Run! You don't have to stay in the house. You can go to a neighbor's, drive away in your car, or just take off running. I'd rather have the perp easily arrestable, if possible. How about, zip ties and *then* run? And I wouldn't use a weapon of any sort unless the option of running were denied me one way or another. If someone shoots out tires on all the vehicles before killing the dogs and busting into the house, I'm going to hide with a weapon and a phone -- and if they find me before the sheriff's deputies get them, they're not going to be happy about it. I think the stun-gun scenario where you've got the stun gun handy for the case of the intruder waking you in your bedroom falls under the can't really run category -- the thing to do is get to where you *can* run, and the stun gun could give you that. A properly used blade could, as well, but then there's the bleeding factor. (I'd rather not have someone bleed to death in my house.) Using the tazer to ambush someone you know is breaking in, and just lying in wait for it to be legal to use force against him is another thing entirely. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
From: Andrew Crystall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I was working on pure reflex. ACT. When shit happens enough times you pick that one up. Not something I'm especially proud of... Isn't that the (potential) problem? You might be coherent enough to grab your gun and move. But would you be coherent enough to recognize that this wasn't a fight or flight situation? By your own admmission you are acting purely on instinct. Will that instince recognize a situation that, on the surface, looks like a break-in, but perhaps isn't? What if it was your kid or your spouse who made all that noise for some reason? Perhaps they forgot their key or something? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 4 Jun 2003 at 14:52, Horn, John wrote: From: Andrew Crystall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I was working on pure reflex. ACT. When shit happens enough times you pick that one up. Not something I'm especially proud of... Isn't that the (potential) problem? You might be coherent enough to grab your gun and move. But would you be coherent enough to recognize that this wasn't a fight or flight situation? By your own admmission you are acting purely on instinct. Will that instince recognize a situation that, on the surface, looks like a break-in, but perhaps isn't? What if it was your kid or your spouse who made all that noise for some reason? Perhaps they forgot their key or something? I'm using a blade, remember. And I keep it OUT of reach when there are prople I don't know in the house. I can still reach it inside a second, but I have to THINK about it, and hence wake up a lot more. byt to be honest, it's not really applied to that. I was refering there to threatening with weapon versus USING weapon. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Andrew Crystall wrote: A gun is the wrong weapon in any case then. If you shoot someone with a handgun, you are VERY unlikely to take them down before then can fire back if THEY have a gun pointed at you. The RIGHT weapon to have handy, and I do, is a blade. You'll cause much greater immediate trauma and thus are far LESS likely to be shot when they have a blade rather than a bullet through their gun arm. If I'm going to keep a weapon within reach of my bed, it's going to be a blade. I think I could use some good training in the use of blades, though. (I'd have to be pretty desperate to actually *use* it, and the dogs would likely be dead at that point.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 04:00:18PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: who is still coming to terms with the whole thing, pun intended? No, but nice it worked out that way. :) Thanks for pointing it out, I totally missed it. Julia Missed that, along with half my brain, or so it seems ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 1 Jun 2003 at 14:40, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone facing me pulls out a knife, unless they're trained with it, it's more dangerous to them than to me. A gun is a different story - any idiot can be dangerous with a gun. That isn't the same for all. A 100 pound woman when confronted by a 150 pound man with a knife is in quite a lot of danger...unless she is packing. I didn't say that. I said ME. I've been trained to use a knife against an incompetent wielder. I'm all in favour of compulsory self- defence training. The idiots can still get knives unless you want to take those away as well, and some big lug of an idiot (not making any association between large stature people and idiots) will rape and murder with nail clippers, or bare hands. Yep. Having a gun just makes it a LOT easier. I would prefer to know that every citizen had a gun than to be certain that the criminals were the only ones with them. I'd prefer that my life not be on the line all the time. If UK guns laws were the same as US, I'd be dead now. In 1997. NO question at all about it. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br¡n: Br¡n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 09:41 PM 5/31/03 +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: d.brin wrote: He said the oversight was a lesson about unforeseen tools being used. No. The lesson is to let all passenger KEEP their pocket knives. thanks for showing this. I don't think this is what is likely to happen. There are strong calls for all passengers to be frisked before boarding planes. Even better would be to shackle passengers to their seats after a shot of anaesthetic. And the airlines could make more money by stacking the unconscious passengers like cordwood. (Wait. How would that be different from flying today? Oh, yeah: the unconscious part.) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
