Re: Not always joking, it seems

"Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:47c612cb$0$6476$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 26-Feb-2008, "pullo" <pullo004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>  Apologies. I misread the intent WRT to reload time. I still fail to
see
>> what effect knowing exactly how long it takes to reload, even assuming
>> that
>> impossibility due to the vagaries of the individual, would effect the
>> actions of an intervener.
>
> If you believe what you see on TV, nobody takes longer that about three
> seconds to reload.  So you're not going to try to leap over the seat and
> close on him in three seconds.  If you have range time, hunting,
plinking,
> etc, you know people fumble with the magazine catch, drop the magazine,
> fumble getting the mag in, etc and you've got a chance to reach him. 
And 
> if
> he's better than that, then maybe at least your flying body will knock
him
> off his feet and others can take him.

 Which brings me back to the original trouble I had with the comment. It
was 
put forth that said knowledge was the reason the interveners _did_ rush
the 
shooter.

[And the OP explained his reasoning with suitable modification so that we 
both could see the others' position as reasonable. Unusual on the
internet.]

You seem to be arguing the opposite; that such knowledge would dissuade a 
person from ru****ng. This is  not a rebuttal to the contention that this 
knowledge was the reason for the interveners ru****ng the shooter.