Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:52:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote:
>
> I don't have a real problem with your overall assertion, but you attempt a few
> points that really don't benefit your argument:
>
> You're suggesting that your wife should have brandished her pepperspray (or,
> presumably, a gun) to fend off a bum who'd done nothing more than talk to her.
> Sure, she might have found him unpalatable, but so what? Did he actively
> threaten her? Did she perceive him to be an active threat? Would she have
> sprayed him if she'd had the pepperspray in hand? Would she have accepted his
> resultant lawsuit against her for assaulting him? Would she have accepted his
> similarly aggressive physical response when he perceived her to be a threat?
> From your anecdote we are unable to determine anything about the man except
> that he asked your wife for a few loonies. If he engaged in no threatening
> action, then why did your wife feel threatened?
You are very correct that my anecedotal examples might not always be the best.
You are also correct that this bum was not a threat, he actually was pretty
nice, giving me directions after I tossed him some coins (although with my
ignorance of Canadian money I may have given him $50). I agree that my wifes
apprehension was unwarranted, but we were in a rougher part of Vancover, and her
the pepper spray had always made her feel safer, now it was gone, hidden away in
the trunk. No, she wouldn't have sprayed him simply for pan handeling, but she
problably wouldn't have freaked out, who can say, I don't claim to understand
the psyche of women.
> > A few doors down from my grandmother a man
> > broke into an elderly womans home, in the middle of the day, while she was
> > home, and beat her and robbed her. How does my grandmother ensure that she is
> > protected against such? Better locks?
>
> Yes. Why does that seem odd to you? If you can keep the intruder out of the
> house, then there's basically no danger[1]. You seem to think it preferable
> that the intruder be allowed entry, as long as the resident is armed.
> Again, this anecdote lacks sufficient information to form a conclusion. If
> the victim had a gun in the houlse, would she have been able to retrieve it,
> load it, cock it, and aim it? Or do you propose that she walk around her house
> with a shoulder holster? The point is that you have not proposed how the
> ownership of a gun, in her case, would have helped her at all.
Again agreed that all my assertions here are hypothetical, heck this old lady
might have been so arthritic she couldn't hold any weapon, I don't know. All I
know for sure was that she was helpless against him, he had no weapon, just his
size and strength. She did have good locks on her doors, he forced his way in
anyway. True her locks could have been better, she could have cemented all her
windows over too, but who wants to live in Ft. Knox? Either way I doubt the
cowardly attacker would have struck if he believed the elderly woman could have
defended herself.
Scott C.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
