Why look at all the options before taking a big risk? I have my Elven monk sprint across the room trying to dropkick giant bat things, outrunning the rest of my party to do it. Why? Because it's FUN! Yes, I have an emotional investment in my character, but unless someone wants to make a plan, there's no point in waiting.
But those aren't odd big risk activities, those are skills that most monks are capable. You aren't doing something that is outside the normal abilities of a monk - fast movment, unarmed combat (kicking). Sure its fun, yet arent' even close to unnecessary risks - those are basic monk skills.
And the whole "get a bow" argument seems rather pointless at the moment because they are already in combat. It's not like she can call a timeout, wander over to the Weapons Depot and buy a bow. She has no bow, the barbarian obviously isn't using a ranged weapon, so that calls for a creative solution. I totally agree that this is a good use of resources.
We know that she didn't have a bow at the time and could not conjure one out of the air, the question was put as to 'why she didn't have one?' It was so obvious it seemed almost a mistake that she neglected to have one. Then the OP starting getting defensive with 'background' reasons as to not having a bow.
A choice of background story in no way removes a ranger's mechanical abilities built into the class. I can see an odd thing like, my character has been sleeping outdoors all his life, so I don't need a bedroll - the grass is my pillow. And though odd, this is fine. There are no mechanical detriments for not using a bedroll to sleep in. But just because your character has a thing for two daggers or kukri, does not mean than she would have a lack of using other weapons that are available to any ranger - as in a bow.
Would a background story negate a wizard's ability to cast spells? Of course not, so why is a ranger who specializes in 2 weapon style and have always fought 2 weapon style suddenly required to actually use a bow to be skilled in one - it doesn't, as using a bow is a standard proficiency, not some odd option, rather a core ability.
If you need to cut down a tree, having an ax, despite not being your primary weapon is not an out of context suggestion. Having the right tool for the instance is not a background story issue, its common sense - or in her case, not having one is the lack thereof.
In the end, the point to our 'counter discussion' is though it seemed obvious to us, she didn't have a bow - it could be that it wasn't obvious for her, so we were letting her know that she should for future flying attackers. This is Pathfinder afterall, and a good many encounters include aerial attackers. Be prepared, that's all we're saying.
