Re: Not always joking, it seems

"David McMillan" <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:ofCdnTta6t5YMFnanZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> pullo wrote:
>>
>> "David McMillan" <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:I4SdnRvz9L6lUV3anZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Another is Yet Another School shooting, maybe three years ago (I can't

>>> dig up the reference, alas), which did not make the news very big b/c 
>>> the body count was so low.  The *reason* that the body count was so
low 
>>> was that the shooter missed with most of the shots he got off, and
when 
>>> he was reloading a couple of classmates with lots of hands-on gun 
>>> experience saw their window of op****tunity and jumped him.
>>
>> Why is the characteristic of having 'lot's of hands-on gun experience' 
>> connected to the idea of being able to understand that while reloading 
>> there was a window of op****tunity?
>>
>> Was that specifically a part of the account you remember or is it what 
>> you assume?
>
> It's what I remember hearing at the time of the re****t, but obviously my

> memory may be faulty.  Add NaCl as required.
>
> It rings true to me, in that someone with a fair amount of hands-on 
> experience with firearms is likely to recognize the reloading window of 
> op****tunity faster, *understand* it at a gut level faster, and have a 
> better instinctive estimate of just how long that window of op****tunity 
> will last.  Also, someone with hands-on experience is probably less
likely 
> to fall prey to the "rabbit staring at a rattles****" paralysis effect.
> None of which is by any means decisive.  But, all other things being 
> equal, I would find it reasonable that a person or persons with a lot of

> hands-on experience (as opposed to someone who just plays with a gun
once 
> in a while) would be better-equipped mentally to react in such a 
> situation.

 Fair enough. I would allow that some degree of training may have the 
marginal effect you describe.