From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 05:36:31 GMT

osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>>
>>>	If someone in a mask, or a police uniform for that matter, busts into 
>>>	my house, they will probably not leave the premises vertically.
>>
>>	Is that because you don't think they can arrest you in your house,
>>or just that you think anybody busting into your house needs to be shot as
>>a matter of course?  Really, this seem too rigid a theory, especially given
>>that death is not reversable.

NOTE: I seem to have not parsed that "probably" in his last sentence as he
was intending I do.  Thus, I withdraw the point -- he allows some lattitude.

> [...] unless I feel sufficiently warm and fuzzy about the 
>	identity of the persons or persons busting through my front door,
>	I may well give `em what for.  As has been mentioned before, a
>	uniform proves nothing since anyone can go to a uniform supply and
>	get clothing that is, even upon close inspection, hard to tell from
>	that worn by the real thing.

	So what does it take to make you feel warm and fuzzy?  That uniform
is a form of identification, though I've heard of rulings that limit the kind
of action they can expect from citizens due to spotting the uniform.  What
will you do?  Remember, if they've just busted in they're carrying and ready
to fire.  You probably aren't.  If it's worth a break-in by police, they
most likely have evidence that you're a serious threat to somebody, and must
be stopped immediately (I assume the intel people actually do their job).
The stage is set for you to be taken by suprise by superior numbers who are
in a greater state of readiness.  Escape and evade, or create a stand-off in
a secure position, seems like better alternatives than holding a weapon
at ready and demanding to see the warrant and inspect badges.  

>	They [the police tactics] work great for situations where
>	the objective is to go in and kill the enemy, but not for arresting
>	people.  You might do well to study a bit more about this before you
>	go labeling me as some sort of violence mongering shoot-em-up
>	madman.  You apparently do not know of what you speak.

	I don't think of you that way.  On the other hand, you note nothing
on how you would identify your targets, what it would take to make you hold
fire, or even what actions you would take other than giving them what for.
As every firearms owner should know, there are times when it's right to open
fire, times when it's better to run, and times when it's a toss-up.  In the
case you give above, the tactics the police use are said to be for killing
people and not so good for arresting them.  Perhaps this is because police
are just as concerned with their own lives as you are of yours?  If nobody
opens fire, nobody is hurt and things proceed.  If somebody does, you can
be assurred that you will not be the one leaving vertically.  Naturally, you
probably aren't Public Enemy #1 with potential hostages.  There's a guy in
Idaho who is pretty close.  Likely he feels the same way you do about the
sanctity of his home.  The no-knock may or may not have been warranted, but
if we assume it was, look at what happens.  Police and homeowners need to
address this and learn from it.  Leave yourself a way out.

>	As for rigidity, my words imply that I might shoot someone, not that
>	it is automatically the case.

	Something I didn't parse the first time through, and for which I've
retracted that point on this topic.

>>	You never miss, eh?  

>	Nope.

>You're human, right?  Have you ever made a
>>mistake, or not achieved a particular goal?  In other words, have you
>>ever screwed up?  If not, I'll accept the above statement.  If you have,
>>I suggest you talk to a life insurance agent at your earliest convenience.
>>Your widow might quite possibly appreciate it.
>>
>	What on EARTH are you talking about?

	Given that you were going to take on these intruders, and given
that you never miss, I'd say your confidence in your skill is admirable but
misplaced.  "I've nine shots, there's eight of them, no problems!"  If you
miss twice with your one-shot-stop shots, you're in trouble.  I know, I know,
"I carry two magazines."  That makes it a bit more likely you'll take out
eight men.  What about fifteen?  Plan on the possibility that you'll miss
and you'll have another action to fall back upon.  Gun jams?  Plan on it.
Leeway, as I've said.  A rigid plan is doomed to failure as events unfold.

>>>	If they cannot or will not do the job in
>>>	a correct manner, then let them die, one by one.  To hell with them
>>>	and their miserable, corrupt lives.
>>
>>	My goodness, and I was seen as irrational!??!!?!  Will you extend
>>that judgement (do it in the correct manner or die) to your present job?
>>

>	Don't be silly.  If you cannot see the difference between
>	software development (my occupation) and a potential life and death
>	situation, then I must regretfully submit that you are not worthy of
>	such discussion.    [...]    Trying to imply that I am 
>	some sort of loonie simply because you may not agree with something I 
>	may have said certainly seems like it should be well beneath you.  

	I'm not implying mental imbalance, just an irrational argument.  Even
if we were <twitch> insane, it's hardly a claim I'd make about another I've
never met nor have a fixed net.personality formed of.  I merely point out that
you allow no room for mistakes, and the penalty is death.  Cop has an AD and
the end table is shot, is that worth a death penalty?  "Miserable, corrupt
lives?"  Now there's a great blanket statement sure to be true in some
cases, but sure to be false in many more.  Software development, I note, can
sometimes be life-or-death on doing it correctly.  The control systems on
the space shuttle and military systems, for example.  I don't see where
killing the guy who wrote the software for the Aegis radar on the USS Stark
needs to be killed, even if it would have been his error.

>>	I don't mean to flame you, but you've left nothing to allow the
>>situation to be defused here, and I find that somewhat alarming.  

>	I am talking about a situation where strange persons are running into
>	my house, disguised and unannounced with guns.  In the case of real
>	criminal assault, how do you suppose I diffuse the situation?  Shall
>	I tell them "here, fuck my little girl?"  Please, for heavens sake, try
>	to be a bit more circumspect about these things.

	I don't expect to go after any intruders I hear.  My first line of
duty is to survive the encounter and protect myself and April.  If I'm
downstairs and she's upstairs, I exit through a basement window and go to
the neighbors house.  There I phone the police, then arm myself and try to
return by the same route.  Once returned, I'm in opportunist mode.  I'll
try to determine what's going on, where they are, and if I can I'll try
to take some out.  I won't overly expose myself doing so, though.  April
is either already caught, in which case I can't do much, or else she's
hiding and my presence will draw attention away from her.  I'm no hero.
If I'm upstairs and she's downstairs, same scenario except I exit armed.
If we're both in the bedroom, the door is locked and we're both armed.
If it looks like we can escape, we do.  If not, we call the police from
there and wait it out.  Can't wait?  We give it our best shot.

	You've not said a thing about any of these options, and really
sound more like you think there's only surrender and fight to the end.
There are other means.  Burgulars can keep whatever they can cart away
while April and I are holed up.  It can be replaced.  She and I can't.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns