Yours is not a fair statement. She’s been contributing to the Linux kernel for (as far as I can tell after a quick Google) 5 years or more. She’s not ‘attempting to join [the] community’; she’s already part of the community.
And she’s attempting to change it from within. Nothing, ipso facto, wrong with that.
30 Linux Kernel Developers in 30 Weeks: Sarah Sharp <<-- describes her involvement with kernel in 2007.
Warning shot? No. If you think you can fire a warning shot and "scare someone away," then you've still got other less-lethal methods of handling the situation.
Like what? Presumably before actually firing your warning shot, you’d point the thing at them and tell them to back off. If you can keep a cool head.
(And if nothing else, it wastes ammunition.)
Oh, well, that’s a great argument! Good point! If I’m going to discharge a weapon in a situation of threat (and I really hope I don’t ever have to), better just go ahead and shoot to maim or kill rather than be wasting bullets on warning shots!
Drawing a firearm is the very last resort.
Wouldn’t you say that shooting someone dead was the very last resort? Drawing a firearm is nothing if not penultimate.
What I don’t get about this argument is that in this case the warning shot was completely effective: it scared off the attacker and nobody died.
Yours may be the first articulation of the ‘protect us from tyranny’ gun defence I’ve read which actually makes any kind of logical sense!
The argument previously struck me as very silly for two reasons:
I’m still not persuaded by the argument (because I think that by the time you get to defending yourself against government-backed thugs, things have already gone too far, the democratic checks and balances have failed, and the cost of widespread gun ownership is too high to justify keeping guns for that small eventuality) —but at least it’s a coherent point.
"The algorithm to do that is extremely nasty. You might want to mug someone with it." -- M. Devine, Computer Science 340