🚀 go-pugleaf

Colin R. Leech (ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

: Orion (orion@unix.infoserve.net) writes:
: > Holly Irving (ae326@ccn.cs.dal.ca) wrote:
: > 
: > : As a former battered wife I can only tell you this. I would rather be 
: > : beaten up than be shot . 
: > 
: >   I see.  So....you'd rather be beaten *to death* than shot, would you?  
: > Or stabbed to death? 

: She stands a much better chance of still being alive after a beating than
: a shooting. Why do such simple concepts elude you, Orion?


  You mean such simpLISTIC concepts?

  That's easy: because since I base my assessment of any situation, 
scenario or argument on logic and reasoning rather than the rhetoric, 
emotionalism, fear or prejudice that characterize *your* responses, it is 
immediately obvious *me* that if here husband had really wanted her dead 
he would simply have grabbed your everyday average KITCHEN KNIFE to do 
the job (unless he was so enjoying beating here that he just decided to 
finish here off that way...or by strangulation.  He didn't...therefore 
murder was obviously *not* his intention.

  (simple enough?)



: > If so, you're in luck...since over 60% of all 
: > domestic homicides involve either beatings or stabbings (note that this 
: > figure includes both male *and* female domestic homicide victims).  

: Yes, and that number is so high partly *because* we don't have guns
: readily available in every house to be used.


  I see.  So...being beaten, strangled or stabbed to death is "okay" as 
long as one of those icky nasty guns wasn't used, then?  Hmmm...kinda 
flies right in the face of your "guns as a weapon of split-second 
opportunity" rationale, doesn't it?  I wonder how all the people beaten 
to a pulp or suffering *multiple* stab wounds as a cause of death would 
react to such a theory (if they still could)?  ;) 



: >   You're one of the lucky ones, apparently.  But perhaps if you yourself 
: > had been armed you might not have suffered *any* beatings at all; a gun 
: > is a great equalizer no matter how large your attacker is.

: And she is more likely to have been on the receiving end of the bullet.


  According to?...


  (oh, please...don't tell me you're parroting that tired old "they'll 
just take it away and use it against *you*" mantra?  heh...)



: Your arguments don't even get out of the starting gate.


  Keep telling yourself that, if it helps.  But don't continue to delude 
yourself that everyone else is buying it; it's become quite clear whose 
side the FACTS are on, sorry.