From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Time to put in my 2cents worth
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:40:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.012139.12326@gagme.chi.il.us> phantom@gagme.chi.il.us (Leif Ericksen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.215800.16771@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov8.081428.2621@gagme.chi.il.us> phantom@gagme.chi.il.us (Leif Ericksen) writes:
>>>OK the marker die was a special type that needed a special light, I belive
>>>a black light to be seen.
>>
>>In other words, it's useless.  ("Useless" is an improvement on visible
>>dyes, which are a bad idea.)  Police don't carry black lights, so
>>there's no excuse to drag the suspect in.  (If there is an excuse, the
>>
>	The thought is that after a cop sprays the guy he is caught and has
>the die on him

I know what the idea is.  I'm pointing out that it doesn't work.

"Caught" is ambiguous.  Suppose the cop stops the perp.  Either said
cop has a reason to take him in or he doesn't.  Invisible dye doesn't
provide a reason.

If the cop has a reason, the perp can be ID'd by the victim.  (If the
perp can't be ID'd by the victim, dye can't make a difference.)

>>Oh, no.  They're going against the true meaning of MA.  That doesn't
>>seem to make them less effective.
>
>	SAD :(

Moreover, it points out that MA can't provide the promised benefit....

>>I don't know what discipline they like the most - they study a number
>>of them.  They have the time because training to beat people up is
>>time well spent for someone who makes a living beating people up.
>>People who have other interests don't stand a chance.
>
>	SAD :(

It's only sad for people who expected something from MA that it simply
can't deliver.  Those of us who are interested in defense can just
consider other options even if MA people are SOL.

>>>situation se should go FOR THE BALLS, THROAT, EYES!
>>>	ALL VERY WEAK TARGETS.... OR EVEN THE KNEES..
>>
>>So much for meaningful training.  (BTW - The targets listed aren't
>>useful opening targets because most people understand that they're
>>weak.)
>
>	Well then every women self defense course is useless because they
>all teach to hit those targets as far as I have seen as well as yelling.

And to think that Ericksen was telling us how useful MA was; now he's
telling us that they're useless.

The MAs are good for something, they're just not all that useful for
self-defense.

>>And the stats say that with-gun defense is the smart bet.  In certain
>>cases, other things might work, but that's on a case-by-case basis,
>>not the blanket recommendation that Ericksen offered.
>>
>	TRUE, guns and other items can be useful but tell me about it
>more I have heard more about women not knowing how to use the gun, being
>afraid to use the gun, being unable to get to the gun,

Ericksen confuses propaganda intended to scare people with accounts of
things actually happening.  Sure, those things are possible, and
they've probably even happened a couple of times, but they don't
happen often enough to worry about.

I realize that a big tough guy like Ericksen knows that he was born
knowing how to use a gun, but it turns out that women can learn.  (It
turns out that he's wrong - women learn this stuff faster than men.
It takes women much less than an afternoon.)

>after all are you going to leave the office with the gun in hand until
>you get to your 'SAFE destination?  like the movie 'I dont think so!'

I wonder if Ericksen has ever seen someone walk by with her hand in
her purse.  We know that that he never considered what might be in her
hand....

Blitz attacks are fairly rare so even people who carry stupidly have
time to make up for the mistake that Ericksen insists that everyone
has to make.  Moreover, it turns out that one can carry intelligently.

>	I have ever heard in reports was that the majority of the time
>when a weapon knife/gun is used it ends up being used against the victim.

Bill Gray has posted the stats wrt gun-use for self-defense.  I don't
know about knives, but Ericksen is completely wrong about with-gun
self-defense.

>	I am not against Guns when I get some money I am buying one for
>myself to use at local indoor ranges for Fun and sport.  BUT IF used
>for defense I tell use this much IT WILL NOT WORK if the person is say
>50 feet away or closer and you have to pull it out, of a purse
>or shoulder hoster, or if you are crazy enough to place it down the
>front of your pants the attacker will see that and be on you before you can
>fire a shot... ( MOST LIKELY )

Yet, police carry and use them for self-defense, so it can't
be all that hard.

I know a number of people who carry.  None uses a purse, shoulder
holster, or carries in his/her pants.  Ericksen doesn't know any other
ways to carry concealed, but people who carry do.  I know these people
carry, and I even know HOW they carry.  Yet, I can't spot the gun.

BTW - Research shows that criminals prefer UNARMED victims, so even if
they do spot the gun, they don't act as Ericksen insists. (See
Wright/Rossi's "Armed and Considered Dangerous".)

>	NOW andy I do not know about your state I think it is Cali, but
>ass it stands in my area of Illinois if you are able to walk outside
>with a gun in your hand for more than 10 mins without somebody seeing
>you, calling the cops and tehn having three squads suround you with their
>guns pointing at your head you are lucky!

Yup, that's how police behave; things would be better if they did
something useful instead.  Then again, maybe they do silly things like
that because there's nothing useful that they can do.

We can change police behavior.  We can change laws.

>ALSO if you get pulled over,
>and do have an FOI card the cops will know it shows up on their computer,
>so they maybe antsy.  Then if they decide to search your car and your items
>and they find it you go to JAIL here.

So, they're jailing people who've done nothing more than legally own a
gun.  What a deal.

Let's see if sensi Ericksen knows something useful about reaction times
and their effect on defense strategy.

1) Suppose someone is 10 feet away and has a knife.  They charge -
what can he do before they get to him?

2) Suppose we have a crook holding someone at gunpoint.  Said person
happens to be carrying cleverly.  The victim decides that the best
move is to go for her\his gun.  How many times can s\he shoot the
crook before the crook can react enough to pull the trigger?  (The
number is bigger than zero.)  Remember, the "victim" has to draw and
aim.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu