From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:56:12 GMT

Andy Freeman writes:

>In article <g0d3a_q@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>Simply not pointing the weapon deliberately at a
>>person is insufficient to prevent injuring that person.
>
>Who said anything about "deliberately".  If you can't figure out how
>to be responsible for where your gun is pointing, then no safety in
>the world will help you.  If you can, no safety in the world help
>either.  What is that safety doing again?

Andy, I'm disappointed.  You seem to have ignored my request that you
explain to me just how you can *guarantee* that your gun is always
pointed in a safe direction when you carry it (the reason I used the
word "deliberately" above).  You keep telling me that if I can't
figure it out, I shouldn't carry.  As I've said before, your "two
simple rules of gun safety" just don't make it.
     For simplicity, let's stick to holstered handguns.  Now let's
consider a few cases, three to be exact.  The holster can point the
gun up in the air.  Is up in the air a safe direction?  I say no.  Now
you're going to have to bear with me on this one, since I've never
studied your Andy Fizzicks (not IMnsHO to be confused with classical
Newtonian fizzicks, which they taught to old timers like me).  You've
implied quite strongly in this thread that bullets only go where the
gun is pointed.  Could you give me the full version of how this works?
Consider yourself to be educating me.  I'd love to learn this.  Start
with the case of the handgun firing straight up in the air.  Don't bog
yourself down with wind or anything like that, I don't want it to be
too rigorous a calculation.  You might want to throw in a calculation
of how long it would take the bullet to hit the moon, if the moon is
in line with the barrel (don't worry about the astronauts that might
be walking up there, this is just a paper calculation).  Or you could
always agree with me that up is not safe, and try the remaining two
cases. 
     Second case, is to point the gun at the ground.  Here in New
York State, most of the sidewalks are concrete (or some other hard
substance).  It strikes me that it's not absolutely safe to aim a gun
at hard objects, especially those in close proximity.  I guess the
Andy Fizzicks for this one is that all bullets stick to concrete,
which is the only way it would be safe.  Could you either derive this
one from basic principles, or tell me your test setup so that I can
duplicate this result in my lab?  It just doesn't make sense to me.
Of course, you could say that down is unsafe, but that only leaves one
more case...
     Ok, there's only one case left, and that's to point the gun
"somewhere in between", i.e., horizontally.  Assuming the person
carrying is free to move in any direction, then walking in a tight
circle means the gun sweeps the horizon.  Doesn't sound too safe to me
-- I wouldn't do this in a crowd, folks.  So let me take a guess at
why you might think that this is a safe direction.  Err, um, because
the leather stops the bullets, right?  Actually, if they stick to
concrete, this is probably true as well.  More Andy Fizzicks.

     All kidding aside, Andy, would you mind explaining this "safe
direction" stuff to me, in detail?  And in case you don't remember
from the last time I asked the question, only loading the gun when
it's sandbagged and pointing at a target won't even get you a tenth of
a point for cleverness, I'm afraid.  I'd still say there's a few more
rules of safe gun handling (e.g., don't put your finger on the trigger
until you are ready to shoot) that come to bear, than just your happy
two.  Or is it that there is some other magical direction (in Andy
Space) that I've missed in the above three cases?  I'm still waiting
patiently for you to clear this all up for me...

[rest of article deleted, lest we stray from the topic above :-)]


John

P.S.-- Andy, I noticed in one of your other posts which I haven't
       gotten to yet (sorry, I've been swamped with work) that you
       seem to think it bothers me when you call me Van Etten instead
       of John.  Perish the thought; whatever makes you feel better is
       fine by me. :-)

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--