Re: 8 & 9 year old girls riding bicycles

On 12/28/2024 12:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/28/2024 9:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

 
But even the 100,000 defensive uses of a gun do not prove the gun was
necessary. Example: On two occasions I had angry motorists get out of
their cars and attempt to scare me by aggressively moving toward me.
If Mr. Tricycle had been in my place (and able to stand and pedal a
two wheeler) he probably would have pulled his gun out of its holster
and later said "See?? My gun saved my life!" of some such nonsense.
He'd count it as a defensive use of a gun.
>
I didn't do that. I didn't need to. I just stood there and glared at
each of the guys. When they saw I wasn't afraid, they stopped.
>
And for the more fearful, it doesn't have to be a gun. I know two
women whose key chains contain tiny Mace spray cans. But neither has
ever needed to use theirs.
>
Many people are excessively fearful, and our society is getting more
fearful all the time.
>

 
"two women whose key chains contain tiny Mace spray
  cans. But neither has ever needed to use theirs."
 
And yet they went out of their way to buy the product and carry it
habitually.
 
You're agreeing with me about preparedness and contingency.

>
It seems logical that there should be a different standard for carrying
"protection" that is designed to be lethal, compared to "protection"
that is designed to sting an attacker's eyes.
>
Yet again, we should consider societal and other advantages vs.
disadvantages. Why not carry the spray? I can't think of a reason. Why
not carry a gun? Because it's a target for theft, because it's a
frequent cause of serious accidents, because its misuse even by the
owner can lead to serious criminal charges, etc.
>
I'm aware of no murders, and certainly no mass murders, using stolen
pepper spray.
>

And we probably agree that a woman carrying self defense spray is still
highly vulnerable depending on the specific attacker, situation, timing
etc. Better than no spray but hardly a guarantee of successful defense.

>
The "highly vulnerable" bit sounds like fear mongering to me. What does
it mean, numerically? That 10% of the women in that situation would be
attacked? 5%? 1%? 0.01%? Neither of the women I'm discussing has ever
been attacked. Both used to work in the center of big cities, and one
still does. And BTW, both ride bikes and/or run very frequently, almost
always solo. Neither has been attacked while doing that, or anything
else. Neither would ever think of carrying a gun.
>
Perhaps they're just braver than some folks.