I have been on a life long campaign to get everyone to buy, own and carry pepper spray. I've advocated for people to carry pepper spray in multiple different threads, but it is time to create it's own thread.
When I say everyone, I mean...most everyone. Small children generally shouldn't be given pepper spray. Teenagers generally should (maybe not). Some parental discretion should be taken in this matter as not all children have the same maturity level.
First off let's go with some definitions here...
quote:Pepper spray, also known as OC spray (from "Oleoresin Capsicum"), OC gas, and capsicum spray, is a lachrymatory agent (a chemical compound that irritates the eyes to cause tears, pain, and even temporary blindness) that is used in riot control, crowd control, and personal self-defence, including defence against dogs and bears.[1] Its inflammatory effects cause the eyes to close, taking away vision. This temporary blindness allows officers to more easily restrain subjects and permits persons using pepper spray for self-defense an opportunity to escape.
...or to put it simply, the chemical in peppers which makes them spicy, in an aerosol.
There is a difference between tear gas and pepper spray. Suffice to say, tear gas doesn't work the same way, takes time to kick in and is more heavily regulated (for more info on the differences check out (http://www.guardian-self-defense.com/peppersprayfacts.htm). What you want is pepper spray. How about a tazer or a stun gun? Again, these are much more highly regulated, more expensive, can cause more permanent damage and are often harder to use. "Mace" is a brand name of pepper spray.
Pepper spray can come with a "marker" or bright colored die which lets the authorities know quite easily who just got shot in the face with a pepper spray. Pepper spray also comes in "stream" or "fogger"...I personally recommend the "stream" variety, as it gives you the ability to "reach out and touch someone" and does not have the same concern with the wind blowing back the OC into your own face.
Pepper spray can expire, but most can's will be clearly labeled with an expiration date. Considering that A) different accelerants are used, which break down differently, B) the capsicum losses some potency with time and C) the relatively low cost of getting a new one, when the date is reached, just get a new one!
Okay, legal stuff: Canadians, you are boned...sorry.
quote:In Canada all products with a label containing the words pepper spray, mace, etc., or otherwise originally produced for use on humans are classified as a prohibited weapon.[31] Only law enforcement officers may legally carry or possess pepper spray. Any similar canister with the labels reading "dog spray" and/or "bear spray" is regulated under the Pest Control Products Act - while legal to be carried by anyone, it is against the law if its use causes 'a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person' or harming the environment and carries a penalty up to a fine of $500,000 and jail time of maximum 3 years.[32]
For us Americans, carrying pepper spray by an adult non-felon is 100% legal in every single state, however there are a few restrictions by state.
quote:In California, the container holding the defense spray must contain no more than 2.5 ounces (71 g) net weight of aerosol spray.[34]
In the state of Maine, criminal usage of pepper spray or similar products is a violation of law[citation needed], but usage of said products for self-defense as well as possession are legal.[35]
In Massachusetts, residents may purchase defense sprays only from licensed Firearms Dealers in that state, and must hold a valid Firearms Identification Card (FID) or License to Carry Firearms (LTC).[36][37]
The state of Michigan allows "reasonable use" of spray containing not more than 10% oleoresin capsicum to protect "a person or property under circumstances that would justify the person's use of physical force".[38]
In the state of New York, pepper spray may be legally possessed by any person age 18 or over; however, it must be purchased in person (i.e. cannot be purchased by mail-order or internet sale) either at a pharmacy or from a licensed firearm retailer (NY Penal Law 265.20 14 (a)), and the seller must keep a record of purchases. The use of pepper spray to prevent a public official from performing his/her official duties is a class-E felony.
New Jersey allows non-felons over the age of 18 to possess a small amount of pepper spray, with no more than three quarters of an ounce of chemical substance.[39]
In the State of Washington, persons over 18 may carry personal-protection spray devices. Persons over age 14 may carry personal-protection spray devices with their legal guardian's consent.[40]
In Wisconsin, tear gas is not permissible. By regulation, OC products with a maximum OC concentration of 10% and weight range of oleoresin of capsicum and inert ingredients of 15-60 grams are authorized. This is 1⁄2 and 2 oz (14 and 57 g). spray. Further, the product cannot be camouflaged, and must have a safety feature designed to prevent accidental discharge. The units may not have an effective range of over 20 feet and must have an effective range of six feet. In addition there are certain labeling and packaging requirements: must state cannot sell to anyone under 18 and the phone number of the manufacturer has to be on the label. The units must also be sold in sealed tamper-proof packages.[36]
In many (but not all) other states, pepper spray can be purchased at various stores and carried legally by anyone over 18. However, many states do not say anything about age.
There is also state laws about shipping pepper spray.
quote:The first state is New York. It is illegal for online self defense dealers to send pepper spray to New York. The only way you can buy pepper spray is NY is by going to a licensed Firearms dealers or Pharmacists within the state.
The next state is Massachusetts. The laws there are pretty much the same has New York with the exception of one thing. In Mass you are still only able to purchase pepper spray from licensed firearms dealers but not form Pharmacists. In NY you can buy it from Pharmacists that sell it but not in Mass.
Those are the two states that we cannot shit to at all. The next two states I’m going to tell you about have specific regulations on pepper spray formulas. This means you can have certain types sent to these states.
The first of these two states is Michigan. If you live in Michigan than there are some pretty specific pepper spray regulations you need to know about. The only pepper spray you will be able to purchase is spray that has less than a 2% concentrated. Sometimes it is hard to tell what the exact percentage is so it is a good rule of thumb to look for Michigan Approved Pepper Spray. Many sites sell specific types of pepper spray made for residents in Michigan.
Another thing to note is that you are not able to purchase combination sprays. There are several types of pepper spray that combine both pepper spray as well as tear gas. It is illegal to have this type of defense spray in Michigan.
The last state that has regulations with pepper spray is Wisconsin. If you live in Wisconsin pepper spray cannot be more than 10% concentration with a weight range of oleoresin of capsicum and inert ingredients of 15-60 grams. This will limit you to our canisters that are 2oz or less. On top of that you are not able to purchase pepper spray that is camouflaged such as our lipstick pepper spray and it must have a safety to prevent it from going off by mistake. Along with that it must be able to spray at least 6 feet but no more than 20 feet and need to have a warning stating that no one under 18 can purchase it. Finally, the last piece to know about is that each container of pepper spray needs to be sold in sealed tamer proof packages.
There is also one last law I want to tell you about that is not related to any particular state. When ordering pepper spray you only have the option to send it with ground shipping. It is illegal to have pepper spray shipped via air. So this will limit you to normal shipping times such as UPS ground.
Okay, so, what pepper spray to buy. First off, you should have two, one that you carry on your person at all times, for this, you want something small and easy to carry. For one to carry, I highly recommend a key chain model. Being on your keys, you will have it with you, in an easy to get to place which you won't have to dig for it at the bottom of a purse or pocket. The second one I recommend is a big ol' canister pepper spray, sticky velcroed next to your front door. Home invasions are rare, but having the ability to disable anyone at your door is A Good Thing™. This and you often do not have your keys handy when at home.
So, how to use pepper spray: Some pepper sprays will have a safety which will need to be disengaged before you can use them. These can a flip top, a slide lever or something else. Regardless, if your pepper spray has one, practice disengaging it a bit until you feel comfortable being able to do it in a high stress situation. While all pepper sprays are a little different, basically, there is a nozzle in the front that you aim at your attacker's face, you then depress the button on the top of the canister and out shoots the OC. To be most effective, make a "Z" moving the stream over both eyes, down across the nose and across the mouth. This should be done before they get within arm's length of you, but only after you have clearly told them not to come any closer to you. You should know the maximum range of the spray, and not try and spray people outside of that range.
**Caution** If someone tries to rob you of your personal belongings at gun point, you should probably not attempt to pepper spray them, especially if they are ten or more feet away. Guns have a very long range, and your personal belongings are not worth the chance of being shot.
I want to note that pepper spray is not lethal in most cases, but if someone has a severe reaction, and it goes in their throat, it is possible, but not likely to cause them to not be able to breath. There is also a possibility of causing permanent harm to people's eyes, amongst other things. The phrase "non lethal" speaks more to the designed intent then the actual outcome, and is a better term is actually "less lethal" then say a bullet to the chest.
There is a reason that police carry a gun AND pepper spray, it gives them the option of getting people who are out of control back under control (and easier to arrest) without having to shoot them.
So, pepper spray comes in different concentrations, but since the capsicum comes in different strengths from different sources, this number can be misleading. The number you want to pay attention to is SHU...which is what the following quote basically says (emphasis mine):
quote:Many people mistakenly believe that the percentage concentration determines how effective a pepper spray product is. However, this is not true. Pepper sprays with a higher percentage concentration (>10%) may take longer to be effective, and are also illegal in certain states. It’s usually best to purchase a pepper spray product that has from a 2% to 5% OC concentration.
The main factor that affects how well a pepper spray product works as a self-defense measure is the SHU units of the spray. SHU stands for ‘Scoville Heat Units’, and is a rating of how potent the OC concentration in the spray is. You should usually try to purchase a pepper spray product that has at least a 3 million SHU rating.
Effective against dogs, legal to carry, effective, non-lethal, inexpensive and easy to use. Buy one for yourself, buy one for your loved ones, buy one for your friends. Carry pepper spray with you and you might never need it, but you will be able to walk at night with confidence that you will be able to defend yourself should you need to!
Pepper spray, yay!
**Edited for clarity and some additions**
[ June 24, 2014, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Hatrack River ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Out of curiosity, have you ever been sprayed, or, have you have had cause to spray someone?
How'd it go?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I haven't started a fight in my life, and been in one since jr high school...so, thank FSM, I have not had to use pepper spray on anyone...nor have I been sprayed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Personally, I prefer having taken self-defense classes, carrying my keyring defensively, and paying attention to my surroundings. Much less likely to get turned against me.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I sprayed bear spray once (not the wimpy, personal defense stuff ). My family went to Alaska and obviously couldn't take that (pressurized) stuff with us on the plane, not even baggage. So we bought some there and despite seeing quite a few grizzlies never had to use it. So, since we'd have to junk it before we returned anyways, we each took a turn spraying it to see what it was like. The other members of my family each took quarter second sprays and called it good. Being a male teenager I blasted the thing for about 2 seconds, or just under. Despite being careful to check the wind and spray with it, the minimal blow-back from that was enough to send all of sprinting the other way, crying and blinking for a solid 5 minutes. That's real stuff.
Yet I would never carry any out of bear country. SW, you provided some good info on getting the right stuff but why are you so insistent on everyone carrying? I recognize anytime I leave the house (or even in it for that matter) there's a chance someone attacks me but it's not worth it to me to carry a weapon (pepper spray or other) nor constantly worrying about it. Did something happen to you? Is there some stats that convince you that every single person should be armed?
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I recognize anytime I leave the house (or even in it for that matter) there's a chance someone attacks me but it's not worth it to me to carry a weapon (pepper spray or other) nor constantly worrying about it. Did something happen to you? Is there some stats that convince you that every single person should be armed?
As to "worth it to carry a weapon"...what is the cost of having a small (think roll of life savers) pepper spray attached to your key chain? And as to worrying about it, if you have the pepper spray, you don't have to worry because you are prepared.
Nothing happened to me, I just think that we good citizens can change our country for the better by standing up to the criminals and being prepared.
I will look for stats, but just think about this...how many rapes, assaults and killings could be prevented if everyone spent $8 and carried pepper spray?
It's such a little thing to do which has such a huge impact if you need it, and nearly zero impact if you don't.
To rivka: Good for you (seriously)...that does work to a certain extent, but regardless of your training, someone like myself who is physically larger/stronger, with more training would not be instantly incapacitated by your keys reliably, where as if you used pepper spray, we would be (and dogs too).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well for one it's annoying, I hate carrying anything in my pocket and normally either just carry the key itself or not even that if I have a work-around for it. And two, if I have to grab the pepper spray then I have to think about the fact that I'm taking it because I'm afraid of being assaulted in some way. At some point, at some level of danger, I'll change my life so as to reduce the chance of assault. Being a male helps a lot, even if I'm not particularly strong (though I am tall so that helps too, at least from a distance) but where I am now, and where I've lived in the past that level of danger hasn't even been approached.
My point being if you want to convince everyone to carry pepper spray you need to convince them that the cost in total (monetary, mental, annoyance, etc...) is small enough and the danger large enough, as well as the chance of removing the danger with the pepper spray (not %100 I'm guessing) that it's worth it. Harder to do for males I'd imagine, less risk certainly and at least stereotypically less inclined to worry about physical danger.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To rivka: Good for you (seriously)...that does work to a certain extent, but regardless of your training, someone like myself who is physically larger/stronger, with more training would not be instantly incapacitated by your keys reliably, where as if you used pepper spray, we would be (and dogs too).
You actually have no idea if you are larger or stronger than I am. But anyone who is larger and/or stronger, is capable of taking the spray from me and using it on me. What good does it do me then?
Also, my kids frequently use my keys. (To get into the apartment, get the mail, use the laundry room, get stuff from the car, etc.) What if one of them managed to accidentally spray themselves?
I'll stick with NOT having harmful stuff on my keychain, thanks all the same.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'All teenagers carrying pepper spray' would lead to district-wide zero tolerance bannings of pepper spray so fast that it's not even funny. It would just take a handful of idiot incidences (which teenagers would readily and easily provide) to lead to state bans as well.
Anyplace that's already scary enough to compel any sort of personal defensive weaponization like this is already too dangerous to warrant a guess that people carrying pepper spray is going to make enough of a positive difference.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hobbes: It is a personal choice, but the idea, I'd rather be less safe then have to think about the possibility of violence is...um...silly?
rivka: I've heard you described as a little orthidox Jewish woman, but I guess it's possible you are over 6'2" 275 and stronger than I, although I doubt it highly. About having the pepper spray taken away from you, I advocated in the OP that you do not let anyone get with in arms reach of you which is exactly one of the reasons pepper spray is better then trying to punch someone with a fist full of keys, that and the effectiveness level of the respective attacks. As to not putting it on your keys, that's fine...that was just a suggestion.
Samp: I hadn't considered how schools would react to lots of teens with pepper spray, but I can see that that particular aspect (pepper spray in school) might need to be addressed separately. I still think it wise to give children the ability to defend themselves as soon as they can handle the responsibility.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I've been sprayed. It's a requirement for me to be able to carry it at work.
It's no fun. But I was still able to fend off my "attacker" during the drill. I know two people at work who weren't affected by the spray at all. It's a genetic thing. Pepper spray, even if used correctly, is no guarantee of safety. It may dissuade someone who just wants some money, or it could piss off an aggressive, violent attacker.
Pepper spray is a useful tool for some circumstances. But it is no cure-all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Do you know what the scoville heat units were for the spray used on you and your coworkers?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Samp: I hadn't considered how schools would react to lots of teens with pepper spray, but I can see that that particular aspect (pepper spray in school) might need to be addressed separately. I still think it wise to give children the ability to defend themselves as soon as they can handle the responsibility.
Then that's a campaign for "everyone who is reasonably responsible enough" as opposed to just "everyone."
Under that qualification, I wouldn't even recommend most adults to carry pepper spray.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I don't know the specs for the spray. It's the same stuff we carry, though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp, did you read the OP (or even the first few lines of it?) because it seems like you are responding to the title without having read it...I said:
quote:When I say everyone, I mean...most everyone. Small children generally shouldn't be given pepper spray. Teenagers generally should. Some parental discretion should be taken in this matter as not all children have the same maturity level.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well Miro, you have an advantage over me there, having been sprayed in the face where I have not (I could...but don't think I will spray myself in the face just to know for sure).
You think that if someone who was intent on harming someone was sprayed it would greatly increase chance of the victim being able to get away?
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I prefer to carry a big stick. And walk softly, of course.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I got sprayed once, and it sucked.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You think that if someone who was intent on harming someone was sprayed it would greatly increase chance of the victim being able to get away?
Maybe in some circumstances. And I bet that in some circumstances it would greatly increase the chance of the victim being harmed more or even murdered.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Kwea: Could you please elaborate on "sucked"?
RRR: Have you been sprayed? I was asking Miro (not that your opinion is unwelcome) specifically because he had.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
(She)
Stone Wolf, there's no way that I can make that determination without any other details. When I was sprayed, it definitely reduced my ability to act, mainly by making it hard for me to see. But I was not incapacitated. If I was intent on harming someone, getting sprayed would put me at a disadvantage but it would not stop me. And as I stated before, not everyone is affected by it.
Pepper spray is a great tool in that (in most cases) it does not cause lasting injury or death. That does not mean it is not dangerous. Sprayed too closely into someone's eyes, it can do lasting damage when the force of the spray literally injects the OC into the eyeball. Sprayed into the mouth, it can cause the throat to swell, shrinking or closing the airway.
I carry pepper spray at work as a less-than-lethal option of force. But I also carry other tools in case the pepper spray is ineffective or inappropriate for the situation. I have no experience with its use outside of work, but I don't like the idea of handing it out like candy to everyone on the off chance of them being mugged by an unmotivated attacker.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sorry about the gender confusion...
You make a good point that pepper spray can cause permanent damage. In my advocacy I should make it a point to mention that.
There are few ideas that I hold which prompted this thread. One being that if we rely on the police to protect us, we set our selves up for failure. Not that the police don't do a good job, more that it is impossible for them to be everywhere at all times. The police show up after the crime has been committed and draw a white line around the victim and try and capture the person responsible. Again, not bashing the coppers, just the reality of the situation.
Another core idea is freedom through strength. If you are prepared for possible violence, you don't have to worry about it, it's taken care of. Not that you should just wander blindly into the worst neighborhoods whistling at midnight, but more like "luck favors the well prepared".
I don't think of pepper spray as an ultimate solution, but I do think of it as a distinct advantage when it comes to self protection.
So, one side of the scales you have the real possibility of saving your life and peace of mind and the other, $8 and the inconvenience of having to carry one more thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Samp, did you read the OP (or even the first few lines of it?) because it seems like you are responding to the title without having read it...I said:
quote:When I say everyone, I mean...most everyone. Small children generally shouldn't be given pepper spray. Teenagers generally should. Some parental discretion should be taken in this matter as not all children have the same maturity level.
Yes, I read that. I'm responding to this based on what I expect would happen were that, quote, "teenagers generally should" become the way things work.
my expectation: you wouldn't have safer teens. You would have a rash (heh) of dumbass pepper spray abuses sparking discussion on district, county, and state levels asking pretty straightforwardly if this is a good idea or a good trend.
This is not something that should be recommended even 'generally.' It's a piece of advice and potential preparedness that parents should offer to educate their teens in if they really seem to be at risk in a way that warrants the bother (and seem competent enough to be trusted with them), but not have the ultimately strange goal of saying "I'm going to make it so that you are always carrying around pepper spray."
I'd pass over this initiative anyday in favor of self-defense classes, at any rate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: rivka: I've heard you described as a little orthidox Jewish woman
Xavier certainly didn't say "little". In fact, I don't believe that adjective has been used to describe me since I was about 12. Maybe 14.
He was trying to explain why I wasn't likely to attack anyone. Not imply that I could not -- or would not -- defend myself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
DON'T YOU WORRY THERE LITTLE MISSY
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: I'm totally willing to back down my "everyone" to adults and a few select teens...and I would too be very much in favor of universal self-defense classes.
Part of why I advocate pepper spray is the very little effort it takes ($8 and clipping it on) and how instantly it provides a measure of protection. Self defense classes require a lot more commitment and effort to be effective.
rivka: *shrug* Okay, it's entirely possible that I remembered that detail wrong. Regardless, at my size it is a safe bet 95% (at a guess) that I am bigger and stronger then any female I might run into. Also a safe bet I have more martial arts training, although that one isn't as high.
I think you are missing my point though. But that's okay too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm *extremely* wary of talking about rivka's stature, it sufficeth me to say she would not be my top choice for a woman who is easily pushed around.
Also you forget she designed Krav Maga. True story!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
LOL! You'll have people believing that nonsense!
And it's all right, BB. No need to be delicate on my account, although I appreciate the thought. I am what is sometimes referred to as a woman of size. I'm also not short.
But as I said before, that's not the point. There certainly are men (and women, for that matter), who could physically overpower me. And anyone who fit that bill would likely be able to get the spray away from me. A weapon that can all too easily be turned against its owner is not much of a defense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:A weapon that can all too easily be turned against its owner is not much of a defense.
So, pepper spray that you can use to keep an attacker 6-20 feet away from you is more likely in your mind to be taken away from you and used against you then a handful of keys which you have to be with in 3-4 feet and physical contact with your assailant to use?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm *extremely* wary of talking about rivka's stature, it sufficeth me to say she would not be my top choice for a woman who is easily pushed around.
Also you forget she designed Krav Maga. True story!
The name "rivka" is totally synonymous with "badass" in my brain. It's hardwired that way after years of interacting with her. If I were looking to mess with someone, I wouldn't touch rivka with a ten foot pole. I'm seriously worried about what she'd do with the pole once she wrested it away from me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, pepper spray that you can use to keep an attacker 6-20 feet away from you is more likely in your mind to be taken away from you and used against you then a handful of keys which you have to be with in 3-4 feet and physical contact with your assailant to use?
That's a reasonable question. But the keys, as I was taught, are not so much an actual weapon (although they can be). They're more something that my holding in that way influences my body language. I know that I can defend myself, I am aware of my surroundings -- and thus I don't give off "easy victim" vibes.
If I frequently walked through Watts at night, I might need something more. But I live and work in pretty safe neighborhoods. The crime rate's not zero, but neither is it all that high.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As I was saying to Samp, I am 100% on board for self defense, and I was really serious before when I said "good for you"...if you feel that your training is sufficient, then who am I to argue (not knowing your exact circumstances and all).
My goal with the pepper spray crusade is to get people to take steps for their own safety and self defense.
Clearly you do this, so...all is good. Perhaps one day you might see one for sale and think of me and buy it just cause, and throw it in your purse and forget about and actually need it and have it...maybe not. I hope you need neither the spray nor your skills, but I'm glad you are prepared either way.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:What strength of pepper spray do the police use? The police actually find wear-off time to be a problem, because they have to baby sit the receiver while the effects are present. You will find that it is for this reason that for law enforcement uses police pepper spray, they use the lower percentage pepper sprays.
rivka: One thing that you might consider is animal attacks. Pepper spray works even more effectivly on dogs then it does humans, because of their sensitive sense of smell. Perhaps your neighborhood is decent, but even decent people can have a dog who get the wrong idea in it's head and attacks someone. Just a thought.
Oh, and for those who find the info handy, I've been updating the OP with more data.
Despite some effort I have yet to be able to find any statistics on the civilian use of pepper spray. I found some stats where police use caused lower injury to police and suspects, but that's not really related to this thread.
I'll keep looking.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are very few dogs in my neighborhood, and very strict leash laws.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It was worth a shot... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You do realize this is not the first time I've considered this issue?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As I said before, my main goal is for people to take an active hand in self defense, so that fact that you are trained accomplishes that goal.
I carry pepper spray, even though I have confidence in my training, and a knife on me (and a tactical pen), because I like having options.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
SW, I wonder if you should make it a prerequisite to know how often people abuse pepper spray or accidentally injure themselves or someone else with it, before you advocate something like this. Then that would need to be compared somehow with estimates of reduced harm or crime deterrence.
If a would-be attacker is pretty sure that he's going to encounter a pepper spray defense, does he: a) get a real job b) just shoot with a real gun from 20 feet away c) arm himself with a better pepper spray gun and shoot first
I'm guessing you feel (a) is the most likely? But are you sure?
Also what Samprimary said.
This might be an effective tactic in some few situations but as a general
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
bum...I'm less interested in robberies as I am rapes and assaults/murders. It seems to me that most robbers don't actually want to hurt people, just the minimum fuss for maximum gain (and to commit the lessor crime). To be honest I don't really care that much about people's wallets, watches and cell phones.
I do care when people are hurt and killed though. Perhaps arming everyone with pepper spray would cause there to be an escalation in force used by the bad guys. But I think it would also stop a lot of the less committed ones and help with the overall problem. Of course I am having difficulty finding statistics which would show that...to be clear, it's not that I'm finding stats, and they just say thew wrong thing, I'm just not really finding much.
As to robbers, I suggested in OP that if they just want your stuff, and have a gun, and are far away, that you just give it to them. Pepper spay is not a personal shield which deflects bullets, it should be used to stop people from getting in range of touching you. In this way, it is -very- effective. Even should someone not have as strong an effect as others, their eyes will be watering, they will have trouble seeing and probably be coughing, which is a great opportunity to run away.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro: It's no fun. But I was still able to fend off my "attacker" during the drill. I know two people at work who weren't affected by the spray at all. It's a genetic thing. Pepper spray, even if used correctly, is no guarantee of safety. It may dissuade someone who just wants some money, or it could piss off an aggressive, violent attacker.
My response to capsaicin is also very low. I enjoy the flavor of tabasco sauce very much, for instance, but find it to be only very mildly spicy; and in most commercial brands of salsa, I am not able to detect any spiciness at all. When in California, I sometimes look for and buy specialty sauces that have more capsaicin in them, to add to whatever I'm cooking. This tends to bother people when I cook for them, because I have more than once made dishes that seemed perfectly palatable to me, and which others were unable to eat- so I've learned to cook milder, then add flavor to my own plate. It does still piss my mom off when I add habenero sauce to my servings of the spaghetti she makes, because "there's chili powder, and 5 drops of Tabasco in it already!" Sorry mom, can't taste it. I imagine the spray wouldn't be that effective against somebody like me- and I have met people who are even more tolerant of capsaicin.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Don't be so certain. I eat a great deal of hot pepper and I love it. The idea that 5 drops of Tobasco would make a sauce spicy is kind of laughable to me. (Although it is general insulting to the chief to add any spice to food before tasting it).
But despite that, getting hot pepper in my eyes was an entirely different experience from eating.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Arming everyone is a dangerous idea no matter what the weapon. We teach our children that hitting isn't an appropriate way to solve problems. Violence is something we should all be seeking to avoid rather than preparing for. While I know that carrying a weapon doesn't mean you will use it, in virtual every instance studied, carrying a weapon lowers the threshold for violence. It makes people more likely to take risks, like walking through Watts. It makes people more likely to fight than flee. It makes people less likely to negotiate and more likely to act on their anger.
That said, there are people who can't avoid dangerous situations like walking through Watts. If you are one of those people who has to be in dangerous situations, I think pepper spray is a good choice of weapons. It's effective in many situations. It doesn't require much skill or strength to use it effectively. It's not lethal and very rarely results in any permanent harm -- so if its taken from you by an attacker, its much less serious than if it were a gun or a knife. It's what I carry when I'm in Grizzly country.
Trinidad currently has a very serious crime problem. People are regularly brutally killed by burglars. Our house has been burglarized once, while we were sleeping. A few weeks ago, we had another attempted break in. If I could buy a large can of pepper spray in Trinidad, I would and I would sleep with it next me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was able to repair a carseat once under the full effects of pepper spray. That was a story where a girlfriend had managed to mace me from across state lines, too, so
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Don't be so certain. I eat a great deal of hot pepper and I love it. The idea that 5 drops of Tobasco would make a sauce spicy is kind of laughable to me. (Although it is general insulting to the chief to add any spice to food before tasting it).
But despite that, getting hot pepper in my eyes was an entirely different experience from eating.
Well, it's my mom's spaghetti, so I know exactly how it tastes at this point. She gets no complaints from me on any of her other great dishes- and since probably 50% of her repertoire is Mexican anyway, adding spice is usually expected... though of course not spaghetti. Who knows what she was expecting though? You can't raise kids on mexican food and then expect them to have a taste for midwestern cooking (her spaghetti being the last holdout from her childhood).
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think Pepper Spray is great for those that feel safer with it.
Luckily in Nevada we have open carry laws. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Arming everyone is a dangerous idea no matter what the weapon. We teach our children that hitting isn't an appropriate way to solve problems. Violence is something we should all be seeking to avoid rather than preparing for.
This idea that we should try and avoid violence instead of prepare for it is one that mystifys me. I honestly do not get it. If you do not prepare for something, then you won't be ready for it if it happens.
Yes, I teach my children not to hit, but as soon as they are old enough I'm gong to send them to self defense class. It's like not wanting a flat tire, so you don't carry a jack or a spare. It just doesn't make sense to me.
quote:While I know that carrying a weapon doesn't mean you will use it, in virtual every instance studied, carrying a weapon lowers the threshold for violence. It makes people more likely to take risks, like walking through Watts. It makes people more likely to fight than flee. It makes people less likely to negotiate and more likely to act on their anger.
What are you basing this on? As a person who regularly caries a weapon, and who has shooting/guns as a hobby and therefor talks to people who are armed, I'd say it is the exact opposite. When you have a weapon you carry greater responsibility, and therefore try and avoid a fight, as you do not want to have to hurt anyone.
I understand that people want to live without violence in their life, I do as well. But I live more by "Let him who desires peace prepare for war." as I think that it is our duty to be strong and good and not rely on others or fate or luck to keep us and our loved ones safe.
The protections that society afford us are only in place as long as everyone agrees to them. Criminals do not. And all it would take to turn this country on it's ear is for the power to go out for a month.
We do our best to plan ahead for possible unfortunate circumstances, like car/home owner/life insurance, and a spare tire and AAA. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When it comes to well, let's not bandy words here, the worst thing that could happen to you I want people to be prepared.
The cost benefit analysis alone would convince me: Cost: minor inconvenience (carrying a small cylinder) and very small monetary expense ($4-$50 depending on what you get) Benefit: the ability to save your life, the confidence of not being worried about your well being.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Benefit: the ability to save your life, the confidence of not being worried about your well being.
I'm not sure that any weapon that can be bought on the public market grants that sort of confidence.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, nothing is for certain, but...how about: "the confidence of having a plan and drastically increasing your chances of avoiding being harmed."
As to weapons which are off the public market...I'm not sure what you are saying. I mean, I could walk around with M60 machine gun and a bandoleer of hand grenades and still not be safe. Like said, nothing is for certain.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Stone Wolf, I think you've got some misconceptions about crime. One big one is that the types of crime you're talking about (violent personal crimes committed by a single stranger) is actually quite rare. These cases make up a pretty tiny percentage of crimes.
The way crime actually happens decreases the odds that a carried weapon will be useful. What if you're at a friend's house, and you put your keys down somewhere? What if there are multiple attackers? What if they jump you? What if it's your "friend" who's attacking you?
You're far better off, I think, learning to plan ahead, be aware of your surroundings, read a situation, deescalate tension, and pick good companions.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Benefit: the ability to save your life, the confidence of not being worried about your well being.
I'm not sure that any weapon that can be bought on the public market grants that sort of confidence.
Oh I think having that confidence is by far the main reason people purchase weapons. I just don't think that confidence is always (or even usually) deeply rooted in fact.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Juxtapose...I fully understand that random violent crime is rare, that doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare for it.
quote:You're far better off, I think, learning to plan ahead, be aware of your surroundings, read a situation, deescalate tension, and pick good companions.
These things are good suggestions, but in no way shape or form are they mutually exclusive with not carrying pepper spray.
And in every single scenario (other then putting down your keys) you would be better off with pepper spray, then with out it.
Very rare doesn't mean it won't happen to you. Spend the 8 bucks, get the insurance policy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Did something happen to you?
I've advocated carrying pepper spray before this, but one of my loved ones was raped by multiple strangers.
Had she had some, she would have likely gotten away.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm sorry for your loved one SW. That's awful.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
She fought, and no doubt pissed them off royally. She simply didn't do enough damage unarmed to make a difference.
They ambushed her in a woman's bathroom, all she would have had to do was make it out the door and she would have been home free.
If people here won't listen for themselves, listen for your daughters, for your mothers, wives and girlfriends. Just because it's rare, doesn't mean it can't happen to you.
$8.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your original message didn't offend me...just fyi Juxt.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
My apologies, SW. It was pretty poor form of me to use you loved one's experience as a discussion point. I thought better of it after posting, but it seems I didn't delete it quick enough.
EDIT - glad to hear it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I appreciate your sentiment, but it was I who introduced it into the discussion, and if I was unwilling to have it discussed I wouldn't have done so.
Although I cried a bit reading over the post for errors.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Even if I owned pepper spray, the chance of having it easily accessible in a restroom is pretty much nil. Remember that a lot of women's clothing doesn't have pockets, which means it would be carried in a purse. Walking across a deserted parking lot at night, the purse might be unzipped and the hand close to the pepper spray. Walking into a public restroom it would be unlikely. And I suspect once an attack started I'd have more urgent things to do with my hands than unzipping my purse and digging through it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps you might consider buying pepper spray and keeping it with-in hand's reach when going into a public bathroom dkw.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I kind of think that's the heart of the matter though. It's not the $8. If everyone could spend $8 and then be safe, we would all do that.
But for the pepper spray to actually be useful, you basically need to live your life as though you're always about to be attacked. That's what I'm not willing to do. The pepper spray itself isn't a huge issue.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A little situational awareness and a handily available self defense tool are not the same as "living your life as though you are always about to be attacked".
Most bathrooms are not a problem, as a good scream will let someone know something is wrong, but when you have to go and are in a secluded section of earth, have your keys handy. No big.
Villains rely on our peaceable ways, and our assumption of our own safety to do the evils they do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps you might consider buying pepper spray and keeping it with-in hand's reach when going into a public bathroom dkw.
If you have to live your life constantly on alert like this even just trying to use a public restroom, there's a problem that goes well beyond (and won't be solved by) constantly brandishing pepper spray.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I guess I'm the Madeye Moody of Hatrack...
quote:Constant vigilance!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The issue with this is the jump from personalized advice to making this an issue of overall social policy. To engage the idea of making pepper spray armament commonplace or nearly universal, you would have to have a convincing and pressing need. You would have to have some demonstrativeness in terms of showing that ubiquitous pepper spray armament of the general population is not more trouble than it is worth, and that this can be established enough to keep the large majority of the population invested in the strategy. Otherwise, it's not going to (and shouldn't) happen. There's nothing convincingly demonstrating that a social policy of everyone arming themselves and keeping their finger on the mace holster is the appropriate response to the levels of danger and threat of violence and/or sexual assault that are presently existent. There are too many potential complications, and it seems like a misplaced use of attention, advocacy, and energy.
It can still be perfectly valid advice for individuals. As a dad, you could certainly make it a policy for your children. You could advise it and buy it for a daughter if you felt they should take a few extra steps against the likelihood of rape. But there's not enough present to make a compelling argument in favor of overarching social change, or say that this is the best approach to an issue, that it is worth advocating that it become the norm.
Gun nuts like to do this all the time. They can point to plenty of examples where they personally extrapolate 'if there had been more guns here, it would have turned out way better' and use this to conclude things like An Armed Society Is A Polite Society or that making gun armament commonplace is the way to end issues like assault and rape. They really, sincerely believe this. And it really, sincerely wouldn't work. The laws of unintended consequences are always at play, as are the laws of statistical human idiocy. If only one in one hundred people misuses their pepper spray, the idea is already in over its head.
That said, carrying pepper spray is usually a good idea for individuals to pursue, if they feel it is warranted. And it's something that many people should look at, especially if they live in an urban region with a trend of assaults.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I appreciate where you are coming from Samp, and thank you for taking the time to make your opinions known.
I am what you would qualify as a "gun nut" just for future reference.
Personally I see this discussion and my advocacy as individual advice, on a larger scale, and not social policy. I imagine that if the government did step in and just ship everyone a can of pepper spray that indeed it would likely cause as many problems as it solved.
My goal is to get people aware of how little it takes to take a very large step towards self defense.
I heard it said somewhere (don't remember where) "It's not the tragedy when evil men do evil deeds, but instead when good men do nothing to stop them." I'm trying to up the awareness, and hopefully help to give people a chance to stand up to those who would make them victims and say, "No thanks, I'm good.".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ostensibly an edmond burke quote, albiet disputed: 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'
It speaks more to the response to evil acts than the preparedness of individuals against predation, though.
quote:I am what you would qualify as a "gun nut" just for future reference.
In how I have yet qualified it? Would that mean that you think that making gun armament commonplace is the solution to issues like assault and rape?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Let's not derail too much here...I have guns, I like guns, I used to teach people how to shoot professionally, I believe guns are not evil, just powerful and morality is only involved when people are...and I prefer to keep the upstanding, law abiding citizens the option of having reasonable access to reasonable guns (no full automatic, no high explosive).
I think mandatory safety training being paid for by those who are seeking weapons is reasonable as well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think having that confidence is by far the main reason people purchase weapons.
I'd be interested in reading what leads you to this conclusion.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I didn't qualify that nearly well enough to communicate what I was thinking, sorry.
Since we were talking about individual civilians purchasing weapons for the purpose of self-defense, that was the category of buyers I was thinking about. What I meant was that I think a weapon in the hands of the average person on the street lends more peace of mind than actual safety.
I wasn't talking about, say, people who enjoy target shooting as a sport. I'd be one of those people, although I don't own any firearms.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps you might consider buying pepper spray and keeping it with-in hand's reach when going into a public bathroom dkw.
Not a chance. The massive nuisance that would entail would not be worth it weighed against the minuscule chance of being attacked.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QB] What are you basing this on? As a person who regularly caries a weapon, and who has shooting/guns as a hobby and therefor talks to people who are armed, I'd say it is the exact opposite.]
Yes, you would. Because your perception magically (read: mildly sarcastic) justifies your viewpoint, because you choose, consciously or not, to frame your opinions of the people you associate with in this way. The ones who *are* violent, the ones who do seek out or hope for dangerous situations in which they can release their aggression, or maybe act out their fantasies of violence are aberrations to you, because you are not like them. And if you are not like them, then of course those such as yourself, who advocate being armed defensively, are also naturally not like them either.
Whereas I, a person who is very aware of the fantasies of violence and aggression that I have entertained through my life, and who therefore chooses to avoid possible situations of conflict and dangerous places, and chooses to go unarmed, see those who arm themselves as being like me, plus weapons. You see them as people like you, plus weapons. If I carried a weapon, I'd likely find a way to use it. I control my aggression carefully, because I am aware of how aggressive I am capable of being.
The truth is that neither of our perceptions are accurate in any broadly meaningful way. I know people who arm themselves, and also tend to look for danger and get themselves into fights. I could base my opinion on that, and it would suit what *I need* to be true. I can think of these people first. If I press myself, there are many I have met, such as most of the marines I know, who do not fit that profile at all. And you yourself needn't go far to collect a few violent gun death statistics to convince yourself that there are gun owners who don't share your levelheadedness either.
What you need to understand, chiefly, as an advocate of guns, is that your perception of those around you, who you choose to associate with, where you choose to go and what you choose to do form a small part of the picture when it comes to violence in an entire nation. Gun advocates (as well as gun control proponents, though in different ways) consistently muddle and confuse the difference between a subculture of responsible gun ownership, and the actual causal effects of guns as a part of society. This is a natural thing, but is something you need to make yourself aware of and deal with, if you want to understand how others feel.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Juxtapose...I fully understand that random violent crime is rare, that doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare for it.
quote:You're far better off, I think, learning to plan ahead, be aware of your surroundings, read a situation, deescalate tension, and pick good companions.
These things are good suggestions, but in no way shape or form are they mutually exclusive with not carrying pepper spray.
Logically, they are not, but in practice they generally are. That's the way the human mind works. The more confident and secure we feel, the less cautious we become, the less aware we are of our surroundings and the more risks we take. All that generally happens at a sub-conscious level so peoples opinion of how carrying a weapon affects there behavior is rarely accurate. Statistically, if you are carrying a weapon you are more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation -- that's true pretty much across the board even when you control for all the other factors. If you are prepared to fight, then when something triggers the fight or flight response you are much more likely to fight and less likely to do things that will diffuse the situation.
The old adage, if you want peace prepare for war is a piece of crock. The more a country spends on the military, the more likely it is to become involved in armed conflict.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not a chance. The massive nuisance that would entail would not be worth it weighed against the minuscule chance of being attacked.
Well, I honestly hope you never have to regret that choice. Among my deepest held beliefs is freedom, so, you choose convenience over preparedness, and that is of course your choice to make. Personally I don't agree with your assessment of the level of nuisance nor your minuscule chances either.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, you would. Because your perception magically (read: mildly sarcastic) justifies your viewpoint, because you choose, consciously or not, to frame your opinions of the people you associate with in this way. The ones who *are* violent, the ones who do seek out or hope for dangerous situations in which they can release their aggression, or maybe act out their fantasies of violence are aberrations to you, because you are not like them. And if you are not like them, then of course those such as yourself, who advocate being armed defensively, are also naturally not like them either.
I find your presumptions here annoying. Of course to a certain extent people must extrapolate from their own experiences, but I have a lot of first hand experience dealing with people who choose to arm themselves, including quite a few conversations where they stated in no certain terms that to them, being armed has caused them to walk away from fights that they would have participated in if they hadn't been carrying.
quote:If I carried a weapon, I'd likely find a way to use it. I control my aggression carefully, because I am aware of how aggressive I am capable of being.
I am thankful that you hold yourself in check, but imagine that you might instead of carefully controlling your violent tendencies you might perhaps put some of that energy into understanding why you have them, and getting help to stop them.
quote: And you yourself needn't go far to collect a few violent gun death statistics to convince yourself that there are gun owners who don't share your levelheadedness either.
Who do you imagine I am advocating people carry pepper spray to protect themselves from?
quote:What you need to understand, chiefly, as an advocate of guns...
I am advocating that everyone considers carrying pepper spray. My views of guns are separate from this issue and I wouldn't consider myself as a gun advocate (in the way that I am for pepper spray, i.e. most people should carry pepper spray, where as guns should remain available, but in no way do I think (let alone advocate) that carrying a fire arm should be universal).
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The more confident and secure we feel, the less cautious we become, the less aware we are of our surroundings and the more risks we take. All that generally happens at a sub-conscious level so peoples opinion of how carrying a weapon affects there behavior is rarely accurate.
Let me make myself clear, I am advocating carrying pepper spray, and using situational awareness to determine if you need it. This generality that if you have a weapon you will be lax in your awareness is something I do not agree with. Sure, it can happen, but you can can fall asleep at the wheel, it doesn't mean you should never drive at night.
quote:Statistically, if you are carrying a weapon you are more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation -- that's true pretty much across the board even when you control for all the other factors.
Let's see the numbers. If you are gong to say that statistics back you up instead of just making a logical argument, then you should bloody well supply them.
quote:The old adage, if you want peace prepare for war is a piece of crock. The more a country spends on the military, the more likely it is to become involved in armed conflict.
I'm hardly discussing military spending here. If you want to live with peace in your life, you should be prepared to deal with violence.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Stone Wolf, if you are seriously interested in helping people be prepared for violence, try recommending something like Gavin de Becker's book The Gift of Fear, which has been recommended here many times. It makes an important point, which you seem to either have missed or be ignoring, that there is no one right response or one right device that will work in every situation. Situational awareness and learning to trust one's instincts are much more effective than pepper spray, which is one tool that may help in certain situations. It's not a panacea, and a lot of the negative reaction that you're getting here is because you're treating it like one.
And your patronizing attitude toward the women on thread, most of whom have likely put a lot more thought into their safety than you want to acknowledge, is annoying.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Stone Wolf, I think the issue that some people have with your premise is that you are using personal anecdotes to trump reality.
Look at it this way, being struck by lightning is quite rare, but it happens (and is in fact more common than winning the lottery, for instance). I think you would agree it would be rather silly for a person to recommend that everyone should walk in a crouch (as well as generally being aware of one's surroundings/weather), even if that person had a close family member who was struck by lightning, which could have been avoided by crouching.
As others mention, I understand if you want to have your family members carry pepper spray, but extending that to society at large ought to have plenty of proof that it will be a net positive. Otherwise you are committing the same sin that you (rightly, IMO) accuse Rabbit of.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
dkw: I appreciate your suggestion. I do not wish to annoy nor patronize anyone. And while I agree that pepper spray is not a magical cure all, the difference in the average person's ability to defend themselves without vs with pepper spray is hugely different. Pepper spray is a game changer.
I have zero problem acknowledging that people have concern for their safety and have put considerable thought into it. I'm glad of it. I merely wish to be informative of the distinct advantage that pepper spray offers.
That being said, I also will not simply back down from my opinions because someone says, "I thought about it." Women specifically have a height, weight, strength disadvantage and are way more likely then (non incarcerated, adult) men to be sexually assaulted.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:I'm hardly discussing military spending here. If you want to live with peace in your life, you should be prepared to deal with violence.
I will add that I vehemently disagree with this point. IMO (and really, that's all it is) living peace is a more productive way to have peace, than to anticipate violence. That said, I am not a pacifist, and am willing to allow for some amount of self-defense, I just err on the side of "as little as I need". My philosophy is informed by the writings of Orson Scott Card, Kurt Vonnegut, and the writings about Jesus Christ.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Bokonon, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. One hand you are vehemently disagreeing and saying that you think that the way to have peace is to live with peace. And on the other you say self defense is okay, just as long as it is the minimum needed.
So, don't worry about violence until it is upon you? And then only do what you have to, and no more? Because if that is it, I find problems with it. I imagine that someone who is going to initiate violence (for pleasure or profit) upon you will be much more familiar with it, let alone prepared for it. So, how are you, a peaceful, non-prepared person, going to be able to defend yourself successfully against someone well versed and armed for violence?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would think that the more that people carry pepper spray, the less effective it would become, because the more that criminals expect their victim to be carrying pepper spray, the more likely they will plan their attack in such a way as to avoid it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That being said, I also will not simply back down from my opinions because someone says, "I thought about it." Women specifically have a height, weight, strength disadvantage and are way more likely then (non incarcerated, adult) men to be sexually assaulted.
And that is precisely why many women have put a hell of a lot of thought into it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I would think that the more that people carry pepper spray, the less effective it would become, because the more that criminals expect their victim to be carrying pepper spray, the more likely they will plan their attack in such a way as to avoid it.
This is true. But, first off, as we have not achieved that level of universal preparedness, we are still in a time when that hasn't happened yet, so when it does we will adapt as they do.
Second, when/if this comes to pass, it might have an effect on preplanned violent criminals, it would not have an effect on circumstantial violence, that is, when things just get out of hand, and no premeditated crime is planned.
Either way, it is not a good reason to forgo your personal safety right now.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That being said, I also will not simply back down from my opinions because someone says, "I thought about it." Women specifically have a height, weight, strength disadvantage and are way more likely then (non incarcerated, adult) men to be sexually assaulted.
And that is precisely why many women have put a hell of a lot of thought into it.
Oh, so because women do put a hell of a lot of thought into it, us men folk should just shut up our presumptuous pie holes and not "worry our pretty little heads" about it? Do forgive me for caring.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No one is criticizing you for caring. The problem is your assumptions. First, that women in general have not thought about their safety and, second, that you know what is best for them.
Also, your Heinlein is showing.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If you're trying to imitate an emotionally manipulative male, you're doing a fine job. If your goal is productive discussion, you might want to reconsider your tactics.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
boots: I don't think I did assume that people didn't think about their safety, but as to "knowing what is best", I don't know about that either. I am merely trying to inform people of an option they *might not be aware of* and the facts about that option.
p.s. I do like me some Heinlein (not the old creepy man who wants to sleep with his mom ones though).
dkw: Perhaps I missed your point. I was trying to show you that (my perception) of your attitude mirrors the difficulties women folk have been trying to overcome.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I generally find that posting an attitude or position that is not one's own in order to make a point is a bad idea. It tends to obstruct, rather than enhance, mutual understanding.
If I had gone with my first inclination and responded to your post as if I didn't know you were putting on a show to make a point things could have degenerated fairly quickly.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm all for not degenerating and for having a productive conversation. That being said, I do not understand what your point was when you posted this, if it wasn't that I should button it.
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That being said, I also will not simply back down from my opinions because someone says, "I thought about it." Women specifically have a height, weight, strength disadvantage and are way more likely then (non incarcerated, adult) men to be sexually assaulted.
And that is precisely why many women have put a hell of a lot of thought into it.
Would you be so kind as to clarify please?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And that is precisely why many women have put a hell of a lot of thought into it.
Wait ... I seem to recall something about blithering women stumbling around running into the walls, and needing men to ninja-rappel off the cliff faces?
Good times, good times. Excuse me while I go wander into traffic. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Would you be so kind as to clarify please?
I'll answer for myself, not dkw.
Stone_Wolf, I do not hear footsteps behind me without my skin and hindbrain alerting to danger on some level. Even in broad daylight, a sunny park, with the ice cream truck going past. When I walk down the street, I know who is on the opposite side, how fast they are walking, and if they have looked in my direction.
This is baseline. This is standard for most of the women I know. To get lectured on this (despite how well-meaning) is like a very friendly guy giving me a powerpoint presentation on the need to and the proper means by which to wipe my own butt if I ever get diarrhea. It's ... well, I stare at you, aghast. And I don't know what to say that isn't offensive, because you have in effect just told me that you don't think I know how to clean myself, and that you can help me do it better.
So, thanks for the thought. I appreciate the concern. I'm doing just fine.
---
Added: That reads as rather flinty. Picture this from a gray-haired lady with a twinkling eye, wry grin, and tongue fairly firmly in cheek. And I punch you in the shoulder and buy you a Coke, and we go on to talk about the weather and how 'bout them Canucks?
---
Second Addition (again, for me not for dkw):
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That being said, I do not understand what your point was when you posted this, if it wasn't that I should button it.
My point wouldn't be "button it," but "please find a way to introduce the topic and convey the information that doesn't assume you know more about it than I do. You might; you might not. When you assume the former, even if true, that assumption doesn't add anythin of benefit to the occasion and is likely to be counterproductive."
So, for example, you might well start a thread which is about the topic of pepper spray in general. You might talk about thinking it is a good idea and then ask for feedback on your ideas in a way that is more based on shared interests than on one person laying out how it is (because that one person doesn't flat out own "how it is" on his or her own).
[ July 06, 2011, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow, CT, I never expected this kind of reaction, especially from you.
I want everyone to know about the distinct advantages of pepper spray, so I take my time and put energy into finding facts and posting them so people can make an informed decision and get accused of...saying women don't know how to protect themselves (or is it being able to wipe their butts?).
I'm forced to say...take it however you like, I can't stop you from jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I have, do and will continue to advocate that everyone (men and women) carries pepper spray as it dramatically changes your ability to defend yourself against people and animals.
You want to look at me like I have three heads and think less of me for it, that's entirely up to you.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Bokonon, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. One hand you are vehemently disagreeing and saying that you think that the way to have peace is to live with peace. And on the other you say self defense is okay, just as long as it is the minimum needed.
So, don't worry about violence until it is upon you? And then only do what you have to, and no more? Because if that is it, I find problems with it. I imagine that someone who is going to initiate violence (for pleasure or profit) upon you will be much more familiar with it, let alone prepared for it. So, how are you, a peaceful, non-prepared person, going to be able to defend yourself successfully against someone well versed and armed for violence?
Basically preparing for violence is at times a necessary evil, but still evil, and when provided unsupported exhortations to make myself more readily capable to cause violence, even in self-defense. Give me proof and I may be willing to take on the inconvenience.
I think the more you prepare for violence, the less you can live in peace.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Stone Wolf, you give facts on how, but not WHY. "How" is probably the least interesting category of facts.
EDIT: BTW, I like having you around, I think you are a great Jatraquero, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what you say Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Look. I don't dislike you. I am trying to explain why you are getting a reaction from women here that you don't seem to understand. It is the reaction I would have predicted given how the information was presented, and I am trying help answer the questions you have about it.
Note that I didn't jump in and lay out a critique until you asked for feedback.(not specifically to me, but it seemed a general issue of confusion)
I added a second addendum above about how I think the presentation of the information could have been done in a manner less likely to lead to the response which surprised you (and surprised you again, from me). Again, it isn't that posting simple information about pepper spray is a problem. That likely wouldn't have sparked an unexpected response. It is how it was presented, and it is certainly your perogative to take that feedback and do with it whatever you will.
I won't chap your hide for it again. Promise.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:My point wouldn't be "button it," but "please find a way to introduce the topic and convey the information that doesn't assume you know more about it than I do. You might; you might not. When you assume the former, even if true, that assumption doesn't add anythign of benefit to the occasion and is likely to be counterproductive."
My OP is simply facts about pepper spray. The only thing in it which is anything remotely like the assumptions you are crediting me is the title. Perhaps I missed something here. Could you point out specifically where I made these presumptions you seem to find so upsetting?
If I did indeed put my foot in my mouth (as I have a habit of doing) I'll happily apologize and rephrase, as this is not my goal.
Sharing information is not in my mind presumptuous at all. Believing that on average a peaceful random person might have problems fending off an attacker (human or beast) is an assumption, but hardly a damning one. And advocating that people prepare themselves for worst case scenarios is again, not to my thinking presumptuous.
But perhaps I really did mean to say that women are ninny headed weaklings who need men to, what was it, ninja rappel off of cliff faces to keep them from wondering into traffic. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I wouldn't have had any significant objection to your OP on its own. My preference in public threads is to acknowledge that "I advise/recommend/think" (which you do in large part) rather than tell people "do this" or "this is what you want" or "this is what you should do"(which you also do), but that's more a matter of style.
I think threads of lecturing and paternalism emerged more clearly later in the conversation, and I think that's when I saw some people start to bristle rather than just idly disagree. But I am not interested in quoting you line by line with flagged points, and I doubt you would find it terribly useful in the long run. Maybe someone else will, if you want to pursue it further.
I'm just saying that there are better and worse ways of approaching the transfer of knowledge with adult learners, and I think it was the presentation (not content) which evoked the unexpected response for you. I hope the thread doesn't poison the well of Hatrack for you, and I hope I haven't made it an unpalatable place, either. I can tell you that it is hard to figure out how to respond from a position that is subjectively like what I described, and it was frankly what I was feeling.
I get that this may not make sense. I think it is true for more than one reader, and I think that's probably worth knowing. The subject means a lot to you, and you are passionate about the cause -- I don't want to see that content get unintentionally subverted by the delivery, if the delivery is something worth working on to you.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But perhaps I really did mean to say that women are ninny headed weaklings who need men to, what was it, ninja rappel off of cliff faces to keep them from wondering into traffic.
Not you! Heavens!
That was an entirely different conversation we had here, and this one just very faintly reminded me of it. In fact, I wonder if the recentness of it may have primed your readers to be extra-bristly.
I'll see if I can find it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think I know to which topic you are pointing at...and if I'm right, then it was me...hehe.
I had said that women have worse situational awareness then men, but then detracted the statement after acknowledging that women act differently when alone then when in the presence of adult size sons/boyfriends/husbands, and that any comparison between such large groups of people would be unfair to large amounts of people, with apologies.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Oh, my heavens. I am so sorry. If I had realized your connection to that topic, I would have avoided bringing it up, because that's awfully rude.
May I say you handled it in a very classy manner? As I recall, you certainly did.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks CT...I will try to continue this thread with a more approachable manner.
I am honestly a bit frustrated that people see putting out less then ten bucks and clipping a small cylinder to their keys as a major inconvenience which outweighs the fact that it might keep them from being raped or killed.
It seems like such a no brainer to me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Providing information is fine. It's the way you've been responding to people who tell you that they've come to a different conclusion than you about when and where (and who) to carry pepper spray that's the issue, for me anyway.
Let's try an analogy, since you seem to like them. Suppose I were to tell you that riding in the middle back seat of a car is much safer than in the front passenger seat (which it is) and that therefore anytime you are riding with another adult the one of you who is not driving should sit in the back middle seat. And then you said that you'd thought about it, but the chance of being in an accident where the difference in position would make a difference is low enough that it doesn't outweigh the extra leg room and the greater ease of conversing with the driver. And then I suggested that you cared more about leg room than your life, or the life of your wife if you were driving.
And then, when you said you still weren't going to sit in the back or ask your wife to do so, I said "Well, I honestly hope you never have to regret that choice. Among my deepest held beliefs is freedom, so, you choose comfort over your life and the life of your wife, and that is of course your choice to make. Personally I don't agree with your assessment of the level of added protection nor your minuscule chances either."
Would you find that somewhat presumptuous and annoying?
Particularly if you were aware of safety issues and always wore seatbelts, chose your car based on it's crash rating, etc. Not choosing pepper spray is not necessarily choosing convenience over preparedness (although I grant it might be, you don't have enough information to make that assumption about me or anyone else here).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And just for the record, I am still searching for statistics to support my views and all I can seem to find is FAQs from sites trying to sell pepper spray.
It is kinda hard to know how many crimes were prevented...as they were...prevented and all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Stone Wolf, you give facts on how, but not WHY. "How" is probably the least interesting category of facts.
EDIT: BTW, I like having you around, I think you are a great Jatraquero, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what you say
I had to look up Jatraquero...(we are in the urban dictionary, yay Hatrack)...thanks Boko...I'm still looking for facts.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Would you find that somewhat presumptuous and annoying?
-I- wouldn't. I think agreeing to disagree (although against the user agreement here) is a civilized and grown up way to approach things. And stating one's own opinion is again, not an issue. But if you took it negatively, I apologize, that was not my intent.
quote: Not choosing pepper spray is not necessarily choosing convenience over preparedness (although I grant it might be, you don't have enough information to make that assumption about me or anyone else here).
I was only basing that on your own words, and only for you: (emphasis mine)
quote:The massive nuisance that would entail would not be worth it weighed against the minuscule chance of being attacked.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I had to look up Jatraquero...(we are in the urban dictionary, yay Hatrack)...
(No way!)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And here I've been thinking Jatraquero was pseudo-Portuguese.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A few statistics:
quote:In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide...
...that were reported to the authorities.
quote:There were an estimated 429.4 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009.
Or, about one in every 233 people were victims of violent crime.
quote:Aggravated assaults accounted for the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement at 61.2 percent. Robbery comprised 31.0 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.7 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2009.
quote:Pepper spray may have saved the life of one Norfolk woman Wednesday night. The 26-year-old was almost abducted as she headed to her car on Maury Ave. A knife was put to her back and she was told to get in and drive, by her attacker. She escaped by spraying the man with mace.
Video of an (long and boring) interview with Jack Hanna about how pepper spray saved his life from a bear attack while hiking.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm pretty sure David Bowles came up with it as pseudo-Spanish. I think there may have been a pseudo-Portuguese version, too, but I can't remember what it was.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Stone Wolf, those stats are kinda irrelevant to the thrust of your argument. You show that violent crime exists, and then post 2 anecdotes.
Jon Boy: That's my recollection too.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boko...I agree...but it's the best I could come up with so far.
I thought that 1 in 233 people might be a bit persuasive though.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
There's also a case (IIRC) of a woman in trouble being sprayed with mace and then dying because she couldn't be intubated on the scene -- too many secretions, and the EMTs couldn't see. And several cases of escalated violence when it was thought that just handing over the purse or whatever would have ended the confrontation.
Not that these anecdotes establish much, either. I think you'd have to look for a general analysis.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Persuasive of what, exactly? I'd still say a self-defense course is better than pepper spray, for general application.
That crime happens, even frequently, doesn't imply any one course of action, without additional info. And even if pepper spray is a net benefit, it may be a smaller benefit than several other courses of action.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I thought that 1 in 233 people might be a bit persuasive though.
That's from national numbers, right?
I don't think you can extrapolate from national numbers straight to individual's expected experience, though. Inner city New York is likely to be very very very very different from the small town where I grew up. In the greater metro area of where I grew up, including the nearby "city," there were a few hundred thousand people scattered out through the towns and farms. We all were still talking about the murder that happened 40 years ago, because can you believe???? He killed his wife. She done dead and gone.
[Joey found her, you know Joey, he work out at the gas station and them been having something on the side. He like to died himself when he saw her laying there. Had to go dunk his head in the well to revive his wits.]
My risk for violent crime while living there wasn't 1 in 233. It wasn't "0," but it must've been a lot closer to 1 in 5000, easy.
[More like 1 in 10,000. While living there, I didn't know anyone myself who had ever had a run in with violent crime. The only one I heard about was 40 years before I was born. Ah, let's see, there were a couple of knife fights at one of the bars in the 70s, too, or at least that's what people said.]
For different reasons, someone living in the projects of NYC would only dream of having a 1 in 233 chance of violent crime.
Do you see why the context matters? Ignoring this sort of context for the individual is part of what makes it hard to justify that one knows more than another what *that* person should do. If I lived in the projects, I might well carry pepper spray. If I move back to podunk Midwest where I know all the dogs, there aren't any wild boars, and my folks *still* haven't bothered to replace the front door locks since 1974 when they lost their keys -- well, I'd be more likely to accidentally puncture it and injure myself than to use it on another.
[ July 06, 2011, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, and a random anecdote off the web when searching "pepper spray backfire" was a woman who saw a pack of dogs in the distance while jogging, so she took out and tested her pepper spray. She ended getting it on herself, while the dogs were harmless.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boko: As I said on page one, I am pro self defense class. It requires a lot more time and effort and has arguably less reliable results (depending on circumstances). What other courses of action are you referring to? In general terms, I am saying pepper spray is WAY better then nothing, and arguably better then most other options, for various reasons.
CT: Of course national number don't apply to everyone, but since these numbers are only partially relevant in the first place, I wasn't going to dig and get all specific.
Boko again: Hardly relevant...stupid people need love too.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: CT: Of course national number don't apply to everyone, but since these numbers are only partially relevant in the first place, I wasn't going to dig and get all specific.
But they don't really apply to anyone. At the least, you have to separate out urban and rural.
The rate cited is meaningless as is. [That isn't a small or picky point -- when your range is from something like 1 in 2 to something like 1 in 1000 or more, to cite "1 in 233" implies a specificity that just isn't there.]
I wonder whether national law enforcement officer organizations have come out either for or against routine civilian arming with pepper spray? I honestly don't know, but I'd be curious to find out.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boko...I agree...but it's the best I could come up with so far.
I thought that 1 in 233 people might be a bit persuasive though.
Why? That's an impressively low figure. How many of those do you actually think are random or completely unexpected acts of violence? You've been trying through this whole discussion to convey the impression that that one attack out of hundreds of people is a middle aged woman being hit over the head in a parking lot by a random stranger. But no, most violent crimes are not random acts of violence. Most violent crime is perpetrated by family members and friends- people you know. I don't think you'll find statistics on this, but I'd bet less than one in 100 violent crimes occurs in a place and time that is actually surprising, in that "omg I can't believe this happened" kind of way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The only random "violence" I have come across in my life (much of which has been in a fairly urban environment) so far would only have been escalated by pepper spray. For example, other people fighting on the el where my wading in with pepper spray would have been a supremely bad idea.
In your random purse snatching, I would guess that the best idea would be to hand over the bag rather than try to pepper spray the culprit.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I'm finding this discussion on the straight Dope boards interesting. People are weighing in from many sides, both for and against routinely carrying pepper spray. Some concerns that stood out to me:
quote:I've seen pepper spray used pretty regularly over the course of the last 4 years or so, inside a maximum-security prison.
I think it's a useful tool for a cell-entry team to use to incapacitate an inmate while reducing the risk to themselves.
However, first they flood the room with pepper spray. Then once the inmate appears incapacitated (and it can take a bit), they go in as a team, wear body armor, wield shields and batons, goggles, etc etc etc. Even so, I've seen some of them gasping and red-eyed because the spray went in unexpected directions.
I saw a video of one of my own patients, being extracted this way. He took a few direct hits in the face with the pepper spray, and his reaction was "hoo-ah! I love it hot! That's good!. Then he slammed a chair up against the walls and the door for a minute or two.
So, pepper spray will not necessarily immediately incapacitate someone. But it will often piss them off. This could result in more actual violence directed at the sprayer, not less.
quote: I used to study at a dojo/self defense school (multi-art, based more on a practical application of Kenpo/Wang Chun/Jujitso/boxing than ring sparing; think more Krav Maga than Tae Kwon Do) where we did volunteer assertiveness/self-defense classes for women's shelters and defense groups. One of the demos was on the effectiveness of OC spray. The instructor would give a large size 10% cannister (the kind with a pistol grip) to a woman with instructions to spray at his face and charge her from 30 feet. Only once out of about a dozen times I witnessed this was he not able to get the woman in a bear hug, and then only because the woman clubbed him on the temple with the can and dodged out of the way.
Now, you can argue this wasn't a realistic scenerio--that the attacker was prepared and knowledgable about the effects of the spray--but on the other hand the woman was far more prepared and had a larger, easy-to-use spray can rather than the small, hard to orient minicans most people carry. On the whole, I think it illustrates the point that OC can be effective in some situations, but you'd better be prepared to back it up with something stronger.
I don't think those anecdotes establish that one shouldn't carry pepper spray, either. I just think it's a complicated question, and it depends on context (place, time, person).
On the other hand, I could get behind a general call to take a well-run self defense class that goes over how to recognize danger signs, why to trust your gut, how to avoid escalations, and specifically practices what to do if assaulted. That's a lot easier to make a general case for, in my mind.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:You've been trying through this whole discussion to convey the impression that that one attack out of hundreds of people is a middle aged woman being hit over the head in a parking lot by a random stranger.
That's news to me...I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts you can't find anything to support this in any of my posts.
Boots: Yes, that would have been a very very bad idea.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: CT: Here is a chart: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_17.html Which, unless I'm reading it wrong, says that rural violent crime is more common. I'm not sure I'm reading this right.
I don't see "rural" there, just "suburban city" and "nonsuburban city."(?)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Suburban cities include law enforcement agencies in cities with less than 50,000 inhabitants that are within a Metropolitan Statistical Area. Suburban cities exclude all metropolitan agencies associated with a principal city. Nonsuburban cities include law enforcement agencies in cities with less than 50,000 inhabitants that are not associated with a Metropolitan Statistical Area.
In the nonsuburban city side they are subdivided by population size into 50-25k, 25-10k and >10k. I take it to mean a nonsuburban city with less then ten thousand people is rural...although I could have that wrong.
It's government...it's confusing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and CT, I looked on the LAPD and FBI websites for any info on if they recommend for or against civilians carrying pepper spray and couldn't find anything...FBI head quarters said (yes I called the FBI headquarters in Washing DC) it's a matter of personal preference and they do not recommend either way.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I take it to mean a nonsuburban city with less then ten thousand people is rural...although I could have that wrong.
Ah, no, that would be a town or "small city," but by definition rural areas don't include cities of any size. They are non-urbanized areas, often mostly farmland.
quote:It's government...it's confusing.
Yup, agreed. *grin
There are problems with interpreting data like this, because when you have smaller overall numbers (like in the less-populated areas), a single event skews the rate much more. So typically an analysis would be averaged out over years with outliers removed, for example.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and CT, I looked on the LAPD and FBI websites for any info on if they recommend for or against civilians carrying pepper spray and couldn't find anything...FBI head quarters said (yes I called the FBI headquarters in Washing DC) it's a matter of personal preference and they do not recommend either way.
Thanks for doing the work! I'm checking into some national federations of police officers, etc. I think there is probably a reason why those you checked do not advocate for (or against) routine carry of pepper spray, but we likely cannot draw conclusions from that. It may just be an issue of needing to avoid institutional liability.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: Not choosing pepper spray is not necessarily choosing convenience over preparedness (although I grant it might be, you don't have enough information to make that assumption about me or anyone else here).
I was only basing that on your own words, and only for you: (emphasis mine)
quote:The massive nuisance that would entail would not be worth it weighed against the minuscule chance of being attacked.
Let me remind you that the context of that quote was your suggestion that I make sure I had pepper spray to hand every time I enter a public restroom. Massive nuisance. Minuscule chance of attack.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry if I took what you said out of context.
The vast majority of public bathrooms are likely safe, but there are some which pose as a likely place for ambush, and should be treated as such.
Perhaps in the future you might be a bit more sensitive about posting in such a terse manor when people are discussing loved one who have been harmed.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I am sorry about your loved one. What happened to her was hideous, and horrible. But the specifics of it are very, very unlikely. It's tempting to want to defend against a particular scenario, because it happened to someone you know. But I worry that too much energy is spent worrying about unlikely scenarios and not enough attention paid to statistically much more dangerous situations.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thank you. It is exactly because it is impossible to know when you are or are not walking into a dangerous situation that I advocate having a means of protecting yourself easily at hand at all times. The vast majority of the time it will likely be a giant waste of time (although a good habit to form none the less) but that one time in a billion it might just save your life, and for me, it is worth it.
[ July 06, 2011, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You can avoid chances higher than one in a billion of getting cancer by never eating lettuce, or carrots. Red meat. Chicken. Barbecue. Never drinking. Never having coffee. Never using a microwave. Never having an x-ray, never flying in a plane, never taking an over the counter cold medication, never visiting a large city, etc.
You don't know when you'll be hit by a drunk driver, so wear a helmet while driving. That is the quality of this logic. The thing that people are pointing out is that "plan for the worst," taken as a lifestyle choice, is impossible in modern society. You are advocating planning for one situation in particular, when there are myriad equally plausible and equally dangerous situations for which people do not plan. The point being that while it may be a small thing to take this one added precaution, it constitutes one of thousands of added small precautions which, if people actually did take them, would cause them to be unable to carry on with their daily lives. As anathema as it is to your own feelings, it may actually be better for society, and the people in it, if your advice was ignored- even as it may be better for certain individuals, in certain courses of certain events, to have taken your advice.
It's like: you get on a plane, and it crashes. If you refused to fly, this would never have happened to you. But if you fly, even once, then there is a chance. But society benefits from the ability to fly, have nuclear reactors, drive cars, use public bathrooms, and etc. If you spend your life planning for the one time in a billion in which something may save your life, you will not be actually living.
So while people rejecting and mocking even the *small* gesture of a can of pepper spray as a part of their daily lives seems rather churlish to you, it is an expression of an attitude that allows all people to survive and thrive in society, with all of its dangers. It is the rejection of a *million* small gestures that people cannot afford to make in their lives, if they wish to accomplish their goals- mainly just living a normal life (and yes, while you *can* lead a normal life and still carry pepper spray, you *cannot* lead a normal life and still find the logic that you have been using to advocate it compelling).
And maybe you'll say: "yeah but still! Pepper spray could save your life!" Yes it could. But that alone is not a compelling reason to carry it- not to anyone with a decently healthy sense of perspective. Just think of all the other things that could save your life.
ETA: This reminds me of this British anarchist I met in Prague maybe a year ago. He went on and on about how we are "trapped" and "not free" in modern society. He didn't like what I had to say about that- mainly that nearly everything that makes you feel "trapped" and "not free" in modern society was built to free you from ignorance, poverty, and constant fear of death. That your freedom from the rules of law is also your condemnation to the will of anyone stronger than you are. As I said, he didn't appreciate these points.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This logic, by the way, applies to anyone who thinks we should all be carrying concealed firearms around to make ourselves safer.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That's a good post Orincoro.
Realistically we are going to always nibble away at the margins - try to reduce or eliminate remaining dangers in our (historically very safe) lives. But the more we can do this with technology that DOESN'T require increased vigilance, and doesn't reduce our perception of freedom and relaxation, the better.
There may be some baseline level of anxiety or vigilance that we can't eliminate just by being ridiculously safe, but that's an issue for technology to address once nobody dies in car accidents or of cancer anymore (if people want to, that is).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What you are not taking into consideration is that 1 in 233 is per year. Over an average lifetime of say 75 years old, it's more like 1 in 3. Of course as CT pointed out, this changes wildly by what area you live in.
The actual numbers I'll look into later, and are not the point. The point is that you don't have to live your whole life by the ideals that you must prepare for every possibility. But stacking deck in your favor when it comes to being raped, or hurt or killed by doing something simple and effective is a good idea.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You know, despite the fundamental, all-encompassing differences of opinion, this has been largely too informative and good-natured a discussion, what's wrong with everyone
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Woah, you're right. Kudos to everyone involved.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Clearly in violation of the user agreement.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The first stats I quoted are from the FBI, and are reported violent crime.
quote:In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide...
The other major statistical keeper of crimes in America is the Bureau of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, which attempts to track all violent crime.
quote:An estimated 4.3 million violent crimes...were committed against U.S. residents age 12 or older in 2009.
310 mil (U.S. population) divided by 4.3 mil violent crimes = 72. One in seventy two people per year will be victims of violent crime. Over an average life span of, let's say, 72 years, that is one out of one people in this country who will be victims of violent crime.
Food for thought.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Over an average life span of, let's say, 72 years, that is one out of one people in this country who will be victims of violent crime.
Statistics don't work like that. With an average lifespan of 72 years, if all people were equally likely (they aren't, by far) to experience violent crime and each year's likelihood were independent (that isn't true, also by far), a given person would have a somewhat under 2/3 chance of experiencing violent crime in his or her lifetime. That's 1 - (1 - 1/72)^72.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Clearly in violation of the user agreement.
Wow, this is the first time in a long time that I have actually laughed out loud while reading Hatrack. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
fugu...I don't follow your math, but I was rather unclear in my above post, that:
A) I am not a statistician. B) 4.3 mil is a national total, which means, as CT pointed out, depending on where you live, this number might affect you more or less. C) 4.3 mil is the total for 2009, so different years will have different totals (2009 is quite a bit down from previous years). D) I'm not suggesting that you will be a victim of violent crime, just that it is very common.
quote:82% of society will be the victims of a violent crime during their lifetimes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There have been some question about when and where to use pepper spray...here is some good intel:
quote:90% of violent attacks occur in key-related situations. You are in a key-related situation anytime you are traveling to or from common everyday destinations. You are considered to be in a key-related situation until you have been inside your own home for 2.5 minutes.
Businesses such as post offices, hospitals or health care institutions, schools, banks, grocery stores, the mall, health spas, or possibly your own place of employment, are all considered to be key-related situations. These places are categorized this way because they are like big revolving doors, people are always coming in and going out.
Traveling to and from your home, car, grocery store or mall, bank, to and from work, walking or jogging, using an ATM, and picking kids up from school are excellent examples of key-related situations.
quote:If the attacker wants your money, give it to them!
If it's a carjacker, give them the car!
If the attacker tries to move or transport you, they are trying to take you to a second crime scene. It is now time to fight for your life!
Some people ask, "If they're pointing a gun at me and demanding that I get in the car with them or they'll shoot, what should I do?" If the attacker would shoot you in a parking lot or similar location before they had what they wanted, do you think they would have any hesitation or reservation about shooting you 10 miles outside of the city when it's just you, them, and the gun? It is now time to fight for your life!
The biggest one I mentioned in the OP...spray the person in the face before they can get within arm's reach of you. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Over an average life span of, let's say, 72 years, that is one out of one people in this country who will be victims of violent crime.
Food for thought.
It is food for thought, but more for thinking about how to compile numbers. There are some very basic assumptions in this that make the conclusion unreliable.
For example, over and above the problems with treating socioeconomic status and geographic location as irrelevant, there is a hidden assumption that one's likelihood of being a victim of violent crime is the same regardless of age (that is, there is no weighting with reference to age -- so you assign the same likelihood to a wealthy white baby in the Hamptons during his first month of life as you do to a homeless crack-user in Harlem during his twenty-seond year of life).
You also assume that the incidence of violent crime can be appropriately partitioned out equally amongst lives. It can't. Violent crimes differentially affect those of lower socioeconomic status, those in certain locations, and those with other particular characteristics (such as illegal drug-dealing). In real life, there are some people that are very likely to experience violent crime monthly, and there are others that are very unlikely to experience violent crime ever.
It is food for thought. A lot more thought, a lot of careful parsing through confounding factors, and a studious avoidance of oversimplifying the numbers that makes the conclusions worth than irrelevant -- they become actively misleading.
This is hard stuff. It's worth doing.
[ July 07, 2011, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thought: It's worth noting that when the statistic is "An estimated 4.3 million violent crimes...were committed against U.S. residents age 12 or older in 2009," not only can you not assume that each year's likelihood is independent, I'm not even sure you can assume that 4.3 million violent crimes were committed against 4.3 million distinct people.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Thought: It's worth noting that when the statistic is "An estimated 4.3 million violent crimes...were committed against U.S. residents age 12 or older in 2009," not only can you not assume that each year's likelihood is independent, I'm not even sure you can assume that 4.3 million violent crimes were committed against 4.3 million distinct people.
In fact, it is almost certain that they weren't all distinct people. They likely were not even distinct events -- one physical altercation on the street can lead to charges of physical assault, sexual assault, mugging, attempted manslaughter, etc., and those can be counted as separate crimes.
Stone_Wolf_, you've been citing the Protection Against Crime website for numbers. It's worth noting that it is a commercial website that is set up to sell personal defense items (see the "OMEGA" link in sidebar), and they don't specify how those numbers are calculated. Whoever did the analysis may well have made the same assumptions as noted above, and those are serious errors.
Or they may not -- I can't tell, though the conclusions don't seem to fit.
---
Added: assuming that one can take national crime rates for one year, divide that by the population, and multiply by an average lifespan is assuming a spherical cow.
[ July 07, 2011, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You guys are right on the money...this is the problem with statistics, they are never exactly right for any of the individuals in the group that generated them.
I will try continue to try and get more numbers from different sources.
I just want to get people to understand that the possibility of violent crime in their own lives is not nearly as small as it might seem, so taking a simple, inexpensive and effective step to keep safe makes sense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Here is a good source that is very old...so also not that relevant...(my summation of a chart, not an actual quote)
quote:Lifetime likelihood of victimization of violent crime is 83%
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You guys are right on the money...this is the problem with statistics, they are never exactly right for any of the individuals in the group that generated them.
You know they old saw, right? "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
quote:I will try continue to try and get more numbers from different sources.
You don't have to. It's okay to continue the discusison without spending time trying to dig up more.
quote:I just want to get people to understand that the possibility of violent crime in their own lives is not nearly as small as it might seem, so taking a simple, inexpensive and effective step to keep safe makes sense.
It may be that the possibility of a given person experiencing violent crime in their own lifetime is higher than they may expect but also lower than you yourself might estimate. That's okay, too -- we're all dealing with imperfect knowledge. But if the numbers that strike a chord with you aren't accurate ones, then it may (may!) well be that the chord needs retuning.
I think there is a general sense for some that if something is good, why not do it? Can't hurt, right? But the thing is, it can, even if it seems to you it shouldn't. That is the problem with unintended consequences (as someone raised earlier).
There might be a good way to illustrate this. I think I may have talked about it here on Hatrack before, but anyone is welcome to help suss it out. (Stone_Wolf_, I'd love to have you in the discussion, but you may not want to join in, as it's a bit of an artificial situation. I know the answers, and there's an element of unfairness to that. Just so's you know, it's fine by me if you want to continue other parts of the conversation, and not this.)
----------------------------------
Unintended Consequences
For many years, there has been standard newborn screening for various disorders, and new tests keep getting added. Ideally, the tests should be for diseases that have a significant impact on lives, for which there is early treatment that makes a difference, and which is hard to detect just by physical exam (e.g., if the disease came with bright blue skin, there would be no added benefit to a blood test -- you'd just look at the baby and know).
Some years back, there were only a few states that did the newborn blood test for cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a disease that stems from a defect in a certain salt channel in body cells. The mucus gets really thick, and so it can't be cleared and infections arise. The pancreas often gets clogged up, and people with this problem may not be able to digest many foods.
It used to be disgnosed by noticing children that had frequent recurrnt lung infections, bad diarrhea, and failure to grow. If caught early, you could give kids nutritional supplementation that would help their bodies and brains to grow normally, could try to prevent the infections, and hopefully improve their lifespans and quality of life.
So ... there were a lot of people advocating that all US states should routinely test newborns for cystic fibrosis. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Why or why not? Would it have been worth testing whether that was a good idea first(and why or why not)?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Here is a good source that is very old...so also not that relevant...(my summation of a chart, not an actual quote)
quote:Lifetime likelihood of victimization of violent crime is 83%
1. When you read the pdf linked, does it reference likelihood of being a "victim of a violent crime" or just "victim of a crime"?
2. How much have both violent and non-violent crime rates dropped since this 1987 report? (Hint: it's a lot. [e.g., see this for the 1990s)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
1. Violent crime.
2. This is exactly why I said it was not that relevant.
As to your question: It would depend on several factors for me:
A. What is the cost of the test?
B. Are there side effects to the test?
C. Is the disease vastly more common in one area of the country then another?
D. There are more questions, but I have crying babies, and must go right now.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: A. What is the cost of the test?
It could be added on as part of the regular newborn screening for about $5 per baby. If this test was implemented on a large scale, bulk purchasing could drop the price to about $1 each.
The regular newborn screen is a heel prick done on the second day of life, and the drop of blood is put on a card that is sent to the state health department. Deending on the given state, somewhere from 10-40 diseases can be tested for just from that one drop of blood.
quote:B. Are there side effects to the test?
You are just adding on another lab test to the sample that would already be drawn.You don't even need to take extra blood.
quote:C. Is the disease vastly more common in one area of the country then another?
It doesn't seem to vary much by geography.
quote:D. There are more questions, but I have crying babies, and must go right now.
No worries. When you have time, and only so long as it proves interesting for you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:So ... there were a lot of people advocating that all US states should routinely test newborns for cystic fibrosis. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Why or why not? Would it have been worth testing whether that was a good idea first(and why or why not)?
I say yes, the blood test is already being done, the cost is low, you said the disease if caught early can be affected for the positive. I can only imagine that that was what happened and there will be some kind of twist ending where it is a bad thing.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Dun - dun - dunnnnhh!!!
No really, it has been adopted across the US as a screening test. It's generally a good thing.
However, there were unintended consequences, and thankfully those were picked up -- but only because one of the states delayed implementation long enough to do an assessment, and they were (at least initially) rounded critized for the delay. Everyone else said "why not? Can't hurt!"
(Foreshadowing, a sign of quality literature.)
I'll be back to write up more in a bit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: (Foreshadowing, a sign of quality literature.)
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
So at the time, there were less than a half-dozen states that did routine cystic fibrosis screening. This state set up a pilot program whereby (IIRC) newborns were all screened with the same heel prick as before. The difference was that once the blood sample arrived at the state public health lab, it was randomly assigned to either the known test or the control group.
Blood from both groups was tested, but in the control group, the results were sealed without being revealed. In the known test group, the results were released to the child's physician and, through them, the family.
At that point, most screening for cystic fibrosis (as in this state) was done by clinical assessment. If a newborn had trouble passing his or her meconium (first poop) in the first 24 hours, or developed a rectal prolapse, or recurrent pulmonary infections, or diarrhea and failure to thrive -- well, then is when the test usually would have been done.
During this study, if a physician had a clinical suspicion of cystic fibrosis and the patient's newborn screen results were not yet known (i.e., he or she was in the control group), then the envelope would be opened. So there wouldn't even be an extra blood draw.
Note that this means patients weren't getting worse care than before -- it's just that the care changed only for some of them. When it hit the media, though, there was an uproar. Many parents were angry that their child might have this disease and the information was being kept from them. There were arguments in the letters to the editor, even legal challenges. Why not tell us if our kids are sick, so they can get treated? This is insane!
Why not, indeed. The reasons why was because those involved were trying to test for unintended consequences. And they found them. You know what the main difference between the groups was, when they were analyzed?
One of the groups was dying younger.
And it was the group who had been diagnosed earlier, by that very same newborn screen.They didn't live as long.
Of course the big question was "Why?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Is this an interactive game? May I make an educated guess?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Sure! Have at it. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
False positives leading to unnecessary treatment?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Not just false positives but ambiguous results.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: Stone_Wolf_, you've been citing the Protection Against Crime website for numbers. It's worth noting that it is a commercial website that is set up to sell personal defense items (see the "OMEGA" link in sidebar), and they don't specify how those numbers are calculated. Whoever did the analysis may well have made the same assumptions as noted above, and those are serious errors.
I've been recruited as a writer for similar sites, and from what I learned about that type of work, it's all aimed at harvesting ad-clicks anyway. The person writing it is probably a) writing to increase exposure to search engines and b) increase ad-clicks. I never took any of that kind of work because of how horrible it sounded.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Not just false positives but ambiguous results.
One more problem that might arise is false negatives. It's likely that the inexpensive screening tests are less accurate than the diagnostic tests that would be given to a child that is showing symptoms of the disease. But a negative in the screening test will mean that doctors will be less likely to suspect Cystic Fibrosis when the child begins to exhibit symptoms. As a result, diagnosis could be significantly delayed for children who get a false negative on the screening test.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
There was a problem with false positives, but that was a separate and less severe issue.
When the data analysis was combed through, they found that it was a subgroup of the known test group which had the shorter lifespan: namely, the ones who were sent to the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic.
So what happened was that most kids diagnosed with CF were sent if possible to the CF Clinic, a multidisciplinary clinic where they would see a pediatric pulmonologist, nutritionist, social worker, infectious disease specialist if needed, you name it. They also were able to meet other kids with CF, and the parents could network for peer support. It was the same model as Diabetes Clinic.
The kids at CF Clinic did have much improved early intervention for nutrition and growth, which did improve their ability to fight infection. Their medications were tweaked as per the latest protocols. But the really rural kids, the ones who were getting managed through outlying offices, were living longer (the expected lifespan at that time was (IIRC) into the twenties, whereas it is now into the thirties).
So what was happening?
This was the study that first established the primary determinant of lifespan was colonization with a particular bacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which concentrates in the throat and lungs of patients with tracheostomies and those with altered immune systems. It can cause serious infections, but it mainly sits there and irritates the lungs, predisposing to infection with other agents. Kids at CF clinic would sit in the waiting room together, walk in groups, and share breathing space. The young ones who weren't yet colonized were more likely to become so, and then the clock started ticking.
The knowledge that they had CF was putting them more at risk than not knowing. That means the problem with early diagnosis was that the benefits of knowing you had it -- though real -- were outweighed by another factor, which was person-to-person exposure. And so Wisconsin kept the screening but restructured its CF Clinic with staggered appointments, and kids didn't congregate together in groups.
And the test that "couldn't hurt" ... finally didn't. It helps. It also means that the way CF Clinics are generally run has changed forever, and for the better.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
False positives and false negatives would be a great follow-up discussion, if people are interested.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Interesting CT. Evening knowing that colonization with P. aeruginosa is a critical issue in CF, I would never have guessed that. It does suggest that people with CF should avoid associating with other people with CF.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think the real lesson here is, hang back and let others be the front runners, and then analyze what they did and improve on it.
It's easier to avoid the bear pits when they are filled with bodies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Interesting CT. Evening knowing that colonization with P. aeruginosa is a critical issue in CF, I would never have guessed that. It does suggest that people with CF should avoid associating with other people with CF.
Wasn't there some medical show episode recently with that as a story line? Two CF patients who fell in love but had to break up. I don't recall which show.
Stone_Wolf, I think the lesson is that what seems like an easy fix and simple safeguard is often not as easy as it seems and may, in fact, cause worse problems than it solves.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Interesting CT. Evening knowing that colonization with P. aeruginosa is a critical issue in CF, I would never have guessed that. It does suggest that people with CF should avoid associating with other people with CF.
Wasn't there some medical show episode recently with that as a story line? Two CF patients who fell in love but had to break up. I don't recall which show.
It was Grey's Anatomy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought it probably was that or Private Practice. Too lazy to check.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Yeah--I have a young friend who has CF, and when she was going to summer camp several years ago, another kid who went to the same camp also had CF. The camp worked pretty hard to stagger their sessions and activities so they weren't there--or at least weren't at the same place--at the same time.
(and wow, this is pretty epic thread drift!)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I thought it probably was that or Private Practice. Too lazy to check.
Heh. Definitely Grey's -- featured arguments between the two sisters, and Alex about what to do with the patient, as I recall.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: Sorry, I missed putting up a smiley there.
ambyr: Thread drift to the tenth power.
How can I change the thread label to show that each individual person should consider carrying pepper spray, and not *everyone should* carry it, like the government mass shipping it to all citizens?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
You could say "Why I think..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Why I love pepper spray"
"I really recommend pepper spray. Here's why."
"Hurry for Pepper Spray"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Here's what I went with:
Why I think everyone should consider owning/carrying pepper spray.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If everyone is carrying, that means whoever wanted to do me harm is also carrying. So it's the status quo, only with more pain and coughing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Except whoever wanted to do you harm was presumably already capable of dominating the situation (quite possibly through an even more potent weapon), whereas if you get off a shot of pepper spray, even if he has one, you'll quite possibly get away.
I'm hardly a proponent of general carrying, but the "everyone carrying doesn't change things" argument is wrong.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Are you seriously suggesting that I (posting here on this board) add "this doesn't mean you violent criminals" to the thread title? Really kat?
I'm sure all the violent criminals who frequent this board would take my advice and exclude themselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Who do you think "everyone" pertains to? And yes, I really do think you need to think carefully about suggesting that EVERYONE arm themselves, because it isn't like if that turns into a thing that criminals won't catch on.
You might as well suggest everyone learn how to trip people, because falling down HURTS, even if you're a criminal, and that would give you time to get away.
That's part of the implications of actions - you can't suggest an action and then not take into account how that suggestion will change the world. And if EVERYONE started carrying pepper spray, then the world in general is a more dangerous place, because everyone would include those who know that their first action if they want anything should be to immediately spray pepper spray into the eyes of their victims.
That's absolutely basic, fundamental strategy. No such thing as a magic weapon, because the other side can use it, too.
Advocating for the universal carrying of a weapon must include the warning that this means it will be used against victims more frequently as well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As another side note, the world isn't divided into "violent criminals" and "everyone else." From what I know of statistics (and young people), I have no doubt that there are people posting on and/or reading this board who have committed or will commit violent crimes. I KNOW there are people posting on and/or reading this board who have been convicted of personal (as opposed to property) crimes, period.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As fugi pointed out, just because the other guy has pepper spray, doesn't change the advantage you have by carrying it.
Further, if criminals (and they are to some extent) adapt pepper spray over, say, guns, knifes, bombs, fists or baseball bats, then I personally say, good.
I'd rather have a few hours of burning eyes, nose, mouth and throat then be stabbed, punched, shot, clubbed or blown up.
As to the rest of your arguments...well, most of them are pretty silly...tripping people, really?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I understand the point you are trying to make kat, that the world isn't just us and them, you have to take into consideration that even if my advocacy for pepper spray and self defense were to be read by a violent criminal, that's not a good reason for me to be silent. I am not responsible for the crimes and wrong doings of others, and like any powerful thing, information can be used to hurt people. This fact in and of itself is and should not be given weight when deciding to try and spread useful information. If only benign and harmless info was passed out in fear of negative use, we would not know of fire, how to drive a car, use a kitchen knife, etc, ad nausium.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not chastising you for talking about pepper spray. I think it's a bad idea for everyone to carry it. If you meant "everyone but bad guys", then I don't think it works that way.
However, I suspect that it won't make the slightest difference either way, so it doesn't matter to me. No need to defend yourself - I was not confused about your motives and so the explanation doesn nothing for me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, I'm glad I could "doesn nothing" for you. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm pointing out that pepper spray is an absolutely terrible weapon for direct attacks, unlike a knife, gun, or bat. You can pepper spray someone running away from you in the back all you want...it's unlikely to harm them. It's quite possible to stab, club, or shoot someone in the back VERY effectively.
Pepper spray is mainly just a defensive weapon. The people who should be worried about it are mainly muggers, rapists, and the like.
I still don't think everyone carrying it will make the world better. I don't think it would really make it worse. I imagine it would have all kinds of unintended consequences, good, bad, and neutral.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Did anyone here get pepper spray because of this thread? Or change their mind about it at all? Or seriously consider it?
Just wondering.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And now, I am sad.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
This guy is glad he had pepper spray, just not for the reasons put forward here.
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've said many a time that it's good on animals.
Thanks for trying to cheer me up...I'm still sad though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're sad because people don't see things your way on this issue with clearly stated reasoning delivered convincingly and with respect for your views? I should be chronically depressed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not sad because I couldn't get people to think like I do...what a boring world if everyone thought like me.
I'm sad because I genuinely care about people's safety and do not want to see them suffer. I put forth some effort to try and get people (not just random people, but a community I belong to and enjoy) to increase their ability to stay safe, and failed to even get anyone to even give the possibility a serious consideration.
Perhaps the lesson here is not to take things I care deeply about to an internet disagreement board.
[ July 16, 2011, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, the lesson is that you care deeply about something that others do not. And that their reasons for not caring are actually pretty good. I've explained to you why I think people are ignoring your advice, and it has everything to do with your advice not being very good. We understand that you care and that it matters to you, but if we based our daily decisions on those kinds of considerations, rather than what matters to *us* we would be living rather stressful sorts of lives, spending our time accounting for the concerns of other people.
Frankly I'm a lrttle disappointed in your whining. You didnt accomplish what you wanted, but you ought to have learned something in the process. You'd give that up to spare yourself the hurt of not being heeded in your advice?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Stating my dissatisfaction at the outcome is not whining.
I disagree with the "lesson" you think I should learn.
I'm not "hurt" that I'm not being "heeded"...I'm saddened that people feel so safe that even taking small preventative measures which can have such positive effect are seen as too much of a nuisance to bother with.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm sad because I genuinely care about people's safety and do not want to see them suffer. I put forth some effort to try and get people (not just random people, but a community I belong to and enjoy) to increase their ability to stay safe, and failed to even get anyone to even give the possibility a serious consideration.
I think more than their fair share gave it serious consideration. I even got into a discussion with it because I was intrigued by what we could guess would be the risk homeostasis response to common mace carrying habits. Would it make people safer in high-crime areas? Probably not. Most likely it would just draft in a compensatory more aggressive and more armed behavioral structure in aggressors and predators. Would it be easy to maintain in low-crime areas? Definitely not. With practically no payoff for the level of inconvenience entailed, adherence to the strategy would level off back to, well, where it is now.
I'll tell you right now that on its face, it doesn't seem like the problem is people not considering it; it's people coming unanimously to a decision that they're not persuaded to change their habits; that a critical point of merit is not present to affect such change.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I appreciate what you are saying Samp...but when I asked if anyone had considered it and no one answered, I took that to mean no.
I'm sure the information I presented will in some form or other be helpful at some point, even if it simply becomes a google search result, and I do not regret having invested my time in it.
I had hoped going into it that some here might see the merit in the suggestion and take action toward their self defense.
If history teaches us anything, the stability and safety that is currently the norm will melt down into anarchy and violence, given enough time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I appreciate what you are saying Samp...but when I asked if anyone had considered it and no one answered, I took that to mean no.
Yet, there's ample evidence of consideration here in the thread. But if you don't regret your investment, that's all that matters!
quote:If history teaches us anything, the stability and safety that is currently the norm will melt down into anarchy and violence, given enough time.
I'll tell you this much; if our social stability melts down into violent anarchy, pepper spray won't even be worth carrying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I'll tell you this much; if our social stability melts down into violent anarchy, pepper spray won't even be worth carrying.
Maybe not when we have hit "melted", but might be quite nice to have for the "melting".
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
From my point of view, Stone_Wolf_, I had already seriously considered the question of whether to carry pepper spray more than once, and this conversation did not change that decision. So there were no "yes"s for me in response to the above post.
However, I'm still happy to have had the conversation with you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks CT...likewise.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not "hurt" that I'm not being "heeded"...I'm saddened that people feel so safe that even taking small preventative measures which can have such positive effect are seen as too much of a nuisance to bother with.
I would accept you disagreeing with my points on this score. I don't accept you ignoring them entirely. This demonstrates that you either ignored them or do not understand them. We do not ignore these considerations because they are a "nuisance." the issue has more nuance.
You're sad that people feel safe? Okay. I'm really not. I'd say many people have reason to feel safe, because in relative terms, they are.
As for whining: "I state my dissatisfaction" is not whining. However stating ones dissatisfaction in other ways is *often* whining.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your point is that my advice is "not very good". How exactly would you expect me to address that other then disagreeing?
And while stating dissatisfaction might *often* be whining, pointing out that someone is whining (if they are or not) is *always* rude.
All and all I think I've handled your "comments" with a large dollop of decorum.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I explained before, in much More detail, why I thought your advice was not good. You ignored me then, and I'm not going to suffer the trial of repeating myself in less detail, only to have you respond to those points as if they were all I have had to say. I don't actually require a response at all, I'm just annoyed that you've been told several times why "this one little action" doesn't exist in isolation, and why people ignoring your advice is not a refusal to believe that it can possibly save your life, and you have completely failed to even acknowledge that you understand or have tried to understand that mode of reasoning. You even excused yourself from even trying to do so by claiming a personal emotional stake in the outcome. Well, that'll make a lot of people see things the way you do: "if you don't agree with me, I may become upset". Which is of a rather different degree from just a strongly held belief. Once you crossed into that kind of territory, you effectively announced that you would dismiss any reasoning against your view, and moreover, be hurt by any attempt to actually change your mind.
So you wanna talk about decorum? Yeah, you managed to make sure everybody would be super nice to you and disagree very politely, and then had the temerity to whine when they didn't enthusiastically agree. Then you go so far as to sarcastically dismiss my very carefully measured contributions as quoits and unquote "comments", while lecturing me on politeness. You've impolitely imposed your emotional needs on other s in this discussion already, and begged them for even more ego stroking after the fact. Top notch on decorum. Really. This is why I rarely get all huffy about manners. People are rarely aware of themselves enough to know when theirs have failed, but they're always ready to point out my breaches even when they are quite intentional, and effective.
So then you griping that your advice was ignored is, well, a bit much for me. Particularly as I had taken some effort to explain why I felt many people would ignore it.
[ July 17, 2011, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I have been considering personal protection a lot recently, not for me, but for my girlfriend. I considered pepper spray but ultimately decided to just get her a small, but powerful flashlight (after talking with several female friends, researching online, and talking with an ex-army friend who works in security now). So I appreciated your views on pepper spray, but it's not the best choice for us at this point, simply because she wouldn't be comfortable using it if it were necessary. Thus defeating any purpose it could serve.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Orincoro: I don't always know when I'm stepping on people's toes, but I do try to avoid it, and when people here have told me that I have stepped on their toes, I have apologized and tried to keep things civil. You seem to be trying to stomp harder. I've done my best to speak to each point brought up, as I don't want people to agree because it's my opinion, I want the discussion to bring good points and flesh out the topic to make a full view. If I missed some point, I'll happily address it, even if I have to say that you are right and I am wrong. But the way to bring it up is not saying "your advice is not very good.", it's saying "You don't seem to be addressing this point." Which you did not do.
I just took a moment to look over these past points you seem to feel I ignored what you said...and I feel fully justified in my responses to you. Unless of course you are referring to your side stories about your mother's spaghetti...to which I really didn't think a response from me was needed.
El JT de Spang: Thanks...of course if she isn't comfortable using it, the rest doesn't matter, and I'm glad you were able to find something she is comfortable with.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A harvard prof proposes the brilliant idea to put Capsaicin in drugs to prevent abuse via snorting or whatever.
I don't know if I believe the whole 'no adverse effects if taken whole' thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Two things there SW, one, I stand by my assessment, your advice is not worth following in this matter for many people. Second, I was annoyed that you were not acknowledging some of the clearly stated reasons why that may be so. You said you were sad that people were ignoring your advice, as if they had simply done so out of laziness, or diffidence, and not out of well reasoned and rational disagreement with your suppositions. You concluded this by openly polling the community to see who actually considered your advice. Well, considered how? Thought about the consequences of taking it, and decided not to? Instantly recognized the notion as foolish, in their view? Or entertained the notion favorably, and then simply failed to act? You talk as if people don't do what you suggest because they're lazy. You have yet, in my view, to pay any consideration to the idea that they do it because your advice is not appropriate for them. This despite having it pointed out to you, and not just by me, that your view of things was simply not as compelling ad you believed it to be.
I don't think you did pay due consideration to that point. I don't even see you acknowledging that you understand it. I have reservations about believing yet that you do understand it as it has been put to you. And that isn't surprising, because you came into this, as all crusaders, with the sure knowledge that you were going to save the world. No perspective need be applied, no reasoned and careful consideration of the actual facts bears weight here. Well, that approach is easy to recognize, and easy to ignore. It's just almost impossible to convince the perpetrator of true-believerism that his raison d'etre is not as significant or unique as he thinks. you can't believe others don't value what you value. It is beyond your understanding. Trust me, I know, I experience this on a constant basis myself.
Thus your response to the point: " it's not a matter of how small an action it is" is: "but it's such a small action!"
The sad thing is that you're correct. It's a small, barely significant act. and that fools you into believing that your argument somehow exempts itself from the same sniff test that eliminates an oxygen canister, a satellite phone, three days of emergency rations, a Cantonese English dictionary, and a vile of tamaflu from the typical person's daily walking around kit. Each of those items, significantly, could save your life tomorrow. Hell, if you were to just crunch the numbers, you'd likely find more lives would be saved in an average day if people just carried epinephrine pens. But we don't, most of us.
[ July 17, 2011, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: The sad thing is that you're correct. It's a small, barely significant act. and that fools you into believing that your argument somehow exempts itself from the same sniff test that eliminates an oxygen canister, a satellite phone, three days of emergency rations, a Cantonese English dictionary, and a vile of tamaflu from the typical person's daily walking around kit.
You stay OUT of my fanny pack! This is the last time I'm gonna say it!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For the last time Orincoro...if there is something I missed and you would like me to address, just bring it up. This has long been my stance. Others do not seem to share your feelings nor the need to engage in these damning (and IMO false) incitements.
As before, I find your assumptions to my motivations annoying and wrong.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I completely share Orincoro's feelings, I haven't bothered to speak up because it didn't look like it was worth doing so.
I also think Orincoro is going out of his way to be pretty charitable compared to the glib sarcasm I would have expected at this point, and I notice and approve.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Time for another title change...
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Maybe you should just call this thread "Pepper spray" and leave it at that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I now understand now that advocating for universal carrying completely and utterly derails the conversation and places the focus on "everyone" and away from "pepper spray"...I still have an agenda here, and I'm not going to hide that.
ETA: Plus it also states my opinion without there being any pressure of unwanted advice.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
That's like the Fox News of thread titles.
Also, it's minuscule.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How's that? And thank you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure that you, Stone wolf, are in any position to complain about people not giving due consideration to your arguments. You have clearly disregarded the arguments of everyone else.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow, boots, I don't know what to say.
Okay, I do. I'm not complaining, and further, never said anyone didn't give me due consideration. I was wondering if my arguments had any impact...not complaining.
As to "clearly disregarding the arguments of EVERYONE else"...by saying I'm happy to discuss anything that anyone felt got missed and doing my best to answer all points that come up?
Its one thing having people disagreeing and not finding what I find important important themselves...this is part of life.
What I do not understand is this accusation that I have simply ignored people's arguments.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That was a pretty funny topic name change.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Funny ha ha or funny strange?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Last title change, I promise.
Just give some pompoms and some bumpin' music and I'll do flips and spell out stuff!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you think that the disadvantages of carrying pepper spray are "miniscule" you haven't been paying attention to what people have been writing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Honestly, I must of not been then, as that is what I think...what did I miss boots?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You missed people telling you that carrying pepper spray was not a minuscule thing.
[ July 18, 2011, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your argument is insurmountable, with all the evidence and logic, and in now way resembles simply your opinion. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What on Earth has that got to do with it? Obviously it's an opinion. That wasn't her point. The point was that you weren't addressing, repeatedly, people giving pretty reasonable (that's not to say decisive, but sound reasoning) why what you're suggesting isn't so minuscule after all. And then complaining that people weren't giving your argument fair shakes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I specifically request that anyone who feels that their argument was not addressed, or not addressed to their satisfaction to restate it, and I will directly comment on it, even if I have to admit that it is a good point which harms my overall view/goal.
I also specifically request that people do not make useless generalities like "You have clearly disregarded the arguments of everyone else." which are clearly false and rather annoying.
You want to talk about, let's talk about, complaining without attempting to rectify the situation doesn't actually accomplish anything.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I looked over the thread and spotted some questions that didn't get answered...so here goes:
"If you pepper spray your attacker, they will become more angry and escalate the violence."
This is possible, but any kind of resistance or attempt at self defense is possibly going to cause this reaction. On one hand you have the option of not even attempting to defend yourself, but of course the lack of resistance might cause an attacker to be emboldened, or they might simply only rape or kill you as was their initial intention. Compliance has just as much chance of being dangerous (even more I would imagine, depending on the circumstance) then trying to defend yourself. At least if you attempt to defend yourself you have a -chance- of success. And that chance of success seems like it would be much much higher if you had pepper spray, as it is very effective in causing blinding, coughing, burning, vomiting, etc. What a great chance to RUN AWAY! I searched for a news piece of an attacker being angered by being pepper sprayed, and stopped looking after 5 pages. If it happens, it's very rare.
"I don't want to have to live my life in fear of attack and be constantly worried about it."
Situational awareness is a choice, and an instinct. Most people pay more attention when they feel they are entering a less safe environment. On a bright sunny day with lots of people around, the likelihood of an attack is tiny, where as alone, at night, in a bad neighborhood the chances are much higher. Why deprive yourself the option of being able to defend yourself? When you find yourself in one of those bad situations and your fear gears up your eyes and ears, wouldn't it be nice to have a "go to" plan? Knowing that you have an additional option at your disposal seems like it would be reassuring to me, not worrisome.
"I live in an area of nearly zero crime."
Most violent crimes are perpetrated by someone you know, not a random stranger. Having added ability to defend yourself, say, on your key chain where it is relatively easy to get to could be the difference you need.
"I don't want another thing on my key ring." "I lend out my keys to my children."
Pepper spray comes in a variety of containers, some which look like pens or lipstick, some with belt holsters or are incorporated into a dog leash. If this concern holds you back from getting pepper spray, just know that there are options as to shape and size and this can be overcome.
"I have a high tolerance for spicy things." "Pepper spray is not as effective on some as others."
This is no doubt true. But "not as effective" is a relative term. Pepper spray is not the Vulcan nerve pinch where no matter who you do it to is simply fall over unconscious. But the question is, will it aid you in getting away from an attacker...I still think it will. Even if it only causes severe tearing and a coughing fit, you are better off then when that person was fully able and not in a bit of pain. I was watching a documentary on a prison riot...the officers used a "sting grenade" which was basically many rubber bbs in a explosive canister to subdue the riot. The group mentality of being unstoppable and of strength was instantly shattered when pain was inflicted, reminding each person of their own mortality. (This was the documentary's conclusion, not my own.) Even with "lessor effects" on resistant people, it still hurts! It still can cause this same kind of reaction where instead of thinking about causing harm they are thinking about being harmed.
"Any weapon that can be taken away is no weapon at all." "Why couldn't an attacker just take the pepper spray and use it on me."
Of course the preferable action would be to not let them get that close. But let's say someone had a can in a side pocket of their purse, and didn't recognize the danger until it was too late to be ready in advance, and someone is already grabbing you. Simple, don't go for the pepper spray, stomp on their feet, aim for the groin, eyes, neck, ears, and nose. Get a couple of steps away, and then if you feel you have the time and it is necessary, go for the spray. The spray sitting idly in your purse might not have been helpful in this case, but it wasn't harmful either.
"What if there are multiple attackers."
Keep spraying...your situation is sucky, but hardly is it -more- sucky because you have an increased chance of fighting off some if not all attackers. But if I pepper spray two out of four won't the other two really really hurt me now because they are mad, you ask. Hey, it's possible, but it is equally possible that you spray everyone, including yourself after filling the whole area with spray and you stagger away crying and vomiting as your attackers do the same and loose all interest in prey that is going to fight back. As in question one, submitting to violent attack is equally (if not more) risky.
Sorry to those who got missed the first time...and the second...if I still missed your concern, please let me know.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The argument you seem to me to be continually not hearing is "I have weighed the risks/benefits/costs and have come to the conclusion that carrying pepper spray is not an appropriate action for me at this time." Rather than being "sad" that people who have said this aren't doing what you think they should be doing or trying to convince them that they're wrong you could acknowledge that they know their own situation better than you do and that their decision might be right for them at this time.
Also, you didn't really address the "kid" argument in your list. Different sizes or shapes of canisters doesn't change the fact that anything accessible enough to be useful will be accessible to kids, especially if one has inquisitive and mechanically inclined preschoolers.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thank you for the clarification...I was saddened by the understanding that no one seriously considered it...which was one of my questions. If indeed people did give it serious consideration that makes me feel much better.
As to inquisitive and mechanically inclined preschoolers...lots of pepper sprays come with a "safety" which would be helpful for adding time before they blasted themselves in the face...but mostly it is a simple matter of keeping out of their reach. I am a parent of an inquisitive mechanically inclined preschooler, and there are many many things I don't want him getting into, and I am 99% successful by simply keeping them out of his agile little fingers.
My wife has her pepper spray in a side pouch of her purse, and he has gotten into her purse once ever...and thankfully ignored the side pouch. We stopped him before he got into everything, but he still had access to make up, keys, pens, etc for a minute or two.
This pepper spray lists "child resistant" as one of it's features.
quote:The Safest to Carry. Only Spitfire has a firing button connected to a tempered copper-bryllium spring that returns to Safe automatically from any position. Spitfire is child resistant for pre-schoolers. Spitfire is safe in your pocket. It will not go off unless you want it to
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I looked over the thread and spotted some questions that didn't get answered...so here goes:
"I don't want to have to live my life in fear of attack and be constantly worried about it."
Situational awareness is a choice, and an instinct. Most people pay more attention when they feel they are entering a less safe environment. On a bright sunny day with lots of people around, the likelihood of an attack is tiny, where as alone, at night, in a bad neighborhood the chances are much higher. Why deprive yourself the option of being able to defend yourself? When you find yourself in one of those bad situations and your fear gears up your eyes and ears, wouldn't it be nice to have a "go to" plan? Knowing that you have an additional option at your disposal seems like it would be reassuring to me, not worrisome.
"I live in an area of nearly zero crime."
Most violent crimes are perpetrated by someone you know, not a random stranger. Having added ability to defend yourself, say, on your key chain where it is relatively easy to get to could be the difference you need.
These points either contradict each other, or they they are reconcilable. Either way, it certainly reduces the effectiveness of this justification.
In any event, violent crime is at some of the lowest levels in recorded US history... Without everyone purchasing pepper spray. I'd be much more interested on why that is, and attempt to popularize those methods, as well as figuring out why they don't always succeed and figure out new ways that can be effective in those outlier situations (which may, admittedly, include pepper spray).
On the third-hand, we may find that we are at an equilibrium point, such that any new, generic method to reduce violent crime may not be worth the cost, personally, financially, ethically.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm amused at the revolving door thread titles.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boko: I'm not sure I understand your first point.
Your suggestions are fascinating, but hugely unrealistic, I mean, how are we as average citizens going to go about finding out why crime for the country is down, then popularize those methods etc etc. What you suggest is a huge statistical and interpretational endeavor which would require large amounts of money and man hours and many statisticians and other long named scientists.
It's not that I'm against your suggestion, but I don't think it is a good replacement for the suggestion of popping on to amazon.com and spending ten bucks for a key chain pepper spray.
As to your last point...you have three hands?!? That right there is enough to convince me we need pepper spray to defend against the coming apocalypse of freaks! I don't really understand the personal cost...the financial cost is very low and the ethical cost is one I also do not really get (as a negative).
Ethically, carrying pepper spray is like purchasing home/renter's insurance (except way way cheaper). One hopes that you will never need it, but if something bad happens, then you have a plan of action on how to avoid permanent loss.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
SW, you continually downplay the costs. I don't think you have heard when people have told you that the costs are not negligable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm convinced! I will now carry pepper spray in all situations where I am legally able to.
Thread victory for Stone_Wolf_ declared!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I don't really understand the personal cost...the financial cost is very low and the ethical cost is one I also do not really get (as a negative).
Personal cost can come in values of convenience and practicality. A person can weigh the issue of the bulk of their keyring the exact same way. Or whether they want to carry a cellphone or a pocket camera in their jeans. Or, hypothetically, if they want to save room in their front pants pocket for a dinky little pepper spray bottle that stands an extraordinarily larger chance of accidental discharge than of actually being used successfully in defense over its lifetime of personal carrying.
That's a bad ethical comparison. Pepper spray isn't a plan of action. It's not insurance. It's a defensive measure. It is not the means by which you can have a 'plan of action' to avoid permanent loss. You can have a plan of action which involves not being armed at all, natch.
Also, if I were at all inclined to carry around pepper spray, I'd sure as anything avoid the child resistant models, which I wouldn't want to futz with in any hypothetical window of opportunity to use the device in a situation of, well, personally being assaulted.
Anyway.
quote:Your suggestions are fascinating, but hugely unrealistic
The bottom line for the thread is that your own suggestions can be described this way. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aerin: Perhaps I do, but it is a combination of not understanding them and disagreeing with them.
Mucus: Thanks! Okay, everyone immediately cease discussion, I have been declared thread victor! Nothing to see here, move along.
Samp: I really don't get the whole key ring argument...yes it takes up room...so does the little flashlight on my key ring, and I'm happy to have both. If someone chooses that it is "too inconvenient" that is a personal choice, but I don't think it disqualifies key ring pepper spray as a tiny amount of hassle...especially when viewed vs the possibility of saving your life. As to going off in your pocket...well, that I can see as being very inconvenient and a big problem, but that particular argument is overcome with simple solutions of which pepper spray to carry and how to carry it, or to put it another way, in no way at all insurmountable.
Sure you can have a plan of action that doesn't involve carrying any kind of weapon, but to be as successful with hand to hand combat requires lots of training and even with supreme training is much less reliable then pepper spray when you have a size and strength disadvantage or an armed attacker or multiple attackers. This is exactly why I am such a proponent of pepper spray, it is a game changer, a force multiplier, one that doesn't require years of training or superior physicality to be effective.
I don't understand the ethical aspect of the discussion. Carrying a defensive measure is by definition only used for...defense. So, ethically, one isn't the aggressor, one is defending one self and morally and legally in the green. If this isn't the hinge point of the ethical aspect then I really really don't get it.
People seem to be getting angry at me for not accepting that there are major drawbacks to carrying pepper spray...but there are not. I think people are getting angry that I don't seem to accept that people don't choose to carry pepper spray for whatever reason. I do accept that it is everyone's right and privilege to make their own choices, but simply because people reject the idea doesn't mean that there is an inherent drawback to carrying it.
If people would like to point out those inherent drawbacks for discussion, then great. But their personal choice, or the end result, does not in anyway reflect on the considerations that went into it.
Oh, and Samp, carrying pepper spray is not hugely unrealistic. Myself, my wife and many many other people do it and have done it on a day to day basis for decades. Disagreeing about it being necessary and saying that the act itself is unrealistic are not the same thing by a long shot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp: I really don't get the whole key ring argument..
Sigh. That much is .. evident, and I think many of us here are about hitting the wall of any expectation that we can clarify important considerations like this to you.
quote:Oh, and Samp, carrying pepper spray is not hugely unrealistic
Like so. I don't know what else I can say.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boko: I'm not sure I understand your first point.
Your suggestions are fascinating, but hugely unrealistic, I mean, how are we as average citizens going to go about finding out why crime for the country is down, then popularize those methods etc etc. What you suggest is a huge statistical and interpretational endeavor which would require large amounts of money and man hours and many statisticians and other long named scientists.
It's not that I'm against your suggestion, but I don't think it is a good replacement for the suggestion of popping on to amazon.com and spending ten bucks for a key chain pepper spray.
As to your last point...you have three hands?!? That right there is enough to convince me we need pepper spray to defend against the coming apocalypse of freaks! I don't really understand the personal cost...the financial cost is very low and the ethical cost is one I also do not really get (as a negative).
Ethically, carrying pepper spray is like purchasing home/renter's insurance (except way way cheaper). One hopes that you will never need it, but if something bad happens, then you have a plan of action on how to avoid permanent loss.
Well, on the one hand, you say that nights in bad neighborhoods the chances are higher, but then you say most violent crimes are perpetrated by someone you know. The simple solution? Don't go into bad neighborhoods at night with people you know!
Obviously (to me), the issue is that you live in a bad neighborhood, there is a lot of neighbor-on-neighbor crime. I don't know if everyone living in a bad neighborhood packing pepper spray would reduce the crime. Maybe it would, I'd like to see it studied.
That said, most of us don't live in bad neighborhoods, so according to my theory, our chances of being a victim of violent crime is much, much lower than the national average. Which raise the bar on the necessity of having pepper spray on my person, since it isn't a perfect defense, and has drawbacks.
As far as how we can find out why crime rates are lower, there's this body most of us here on Hatrack are all members of, which has as part of its mission statement to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility[...]". I think that organization might be a perfect vehicle. Or even better, state or municipal governments.
BTW, you should see my twelfth toe!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: People seem to be getting angry at me for not accepting that there are major drawbacks to carrying pepper spray...but there are not.
Yes. There are. To you those drawbacks do not seem significant. To other people, who prioritize their lives differently or who disagree with you on the efficacy and necessity of pepper spray, they are significant drawbacks. This is what you are not getting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Flying to the moon by flapping your arms is hugely unrealistic...think that if you play your children's birthdays you will win the lotto is hugely unrealistic.
How exactly is the act of carrying pepper spray hugely unrealistic? Explain this to me. I've done it for years. How is something I've actually done hugely unrealistic?
I'm no longer calling for *everyone* or even nearly everyone to carry it. That just confuses the issue hugely.
I am making general statements...carrying pepper spray is a Good Thing™. So is wearing a seat belt, or a condom when not in a exclusive relationship or putting on a helmet while riding a bike or motorcycle. Inconvenience (even a small amount) is just the cost of doing things better and safer.
People can disagree about the benefits of pepper spray and the benefits of all these things. People can choose not do them. But I just don't see a large downside to any of them when compared to their benefits.
Wearing a helmet on a motorcycle cuts off much of your vision and dampens your hearing and depending on how one crashes, can cause neck injury.
Pepper spray, if mishandled or improperly carried can have big draw backs. So can kitchen knifes. So can automobiles.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: People seem to be getting angry at me for not accepting that there are major drawbacks to carrying pepper spray...but there are not.
Yes. There are. To you those drawbacks do not seem significant. To other people, who prioritize their lives differently or who disagree with you on the efficacy and necessity of pepper spray, they are significant drawbacks. This is what you are not getting.
This is a point that seems not to stick home...
That these drawbacks are "not worth it to them personally" does not make them "big drawbacks". Personal choice does not mean that there is a large demonstrable logical drawback.
I'm okay with people deciding against my suggestion. I'm not okay with people saying that a tiny inconvenience is a huge drawback.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not okay with people saying that a tiny inconvenience is a huge drawback.
Get over yourself.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Well, on the one hand, you say that nights in bad neighborhoods the chances are higher, but then you say most violent crimes are perpetrated by someone you know.
Higher and most are relative terms...
Statistically you may have a higher chance of being struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark then winning the MegaMillions lotto, but the former is so insanely rare that I feel comfortable saying it likely never happened ever while the former happens all the time.
You do indeed have a higher chance of being attacked at night, alone, in a bad neighbor hood then in daylight surrounded by people. (a comparison)
AND
Most attacks are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. (a factual statement)
(both true) I'm sure you knew that part...I'm just not sure how this detracts from my suggestion.
So your suggestion is that U.S. of A. government studies those things you suggested above...where as my suggestion is for Joe Shmoe citizen. I don't see why our two suggestions can't live in harmony. (unlike me and your 12th toe...ewww!)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not okay with people saying that a tiny inconvenience is a huge drawback.
Get over yourself.
Don't be angry that ours is a forbidden love! With the theories floating around in quantum physics about multiple realities I'm sure we had our chance in one of them! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I just don't see a large downside to any of them when compared to their benefits.
Yes. You don't. That does not mean that other people do not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes Tom...but all the other precautions in that list are either laws or just common sense. Why is pepper spray so different?
And pointing out that I don't get it is not helpful...lots of other people have done it before you and it still hasn't changed the situation. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, you don't get to choose what counts as a "tiny inconvenience" for other people.
For example, I donate blood. For me, this is a good thing to do and a minor inconvenience. How can giving up an evening every few weeks and being stuck with a needle possibly outweigh saving lives? Yet, I understand that, for some people, the drawbacks (which to me are insignificant) make donating blood something that is just not worth it for them. They contribute in other ways that make more sense for them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I get you that it is relative boots...but everything is...
If we do not delineate between opinion and fact then all declarative statements would be worthless.
Clipping something the size of a roll of life savers onto ones keys is a minor inconvenience...that some people do not find worth the positives which pepper spray bring to the table.
I get that some people (everyone here apparently) sees it as not being worth it...but I think its not because the negatives are so big, but because they think the positives are so small. Of course there may be people who view having a small cylinder on their keys as a huge inconvenience...but I doubt that most people would think that theirs was a rational assessment.
I can understand the attitude of "I have small children and don't want to have pepper spray around because I worry that they would get into it." I can understand the attitude of "I'm more likely to spray myself or someone else by accident then ever successfully defend myself with pepper spray." I can understand that this is a personal choice and people will weigh the cost and benefit relative to themselves and make a decision based on their personal needs. And I don't have a problem with it, even if I tend to disagree with the outcome.
If it were all simply a matter of opinion, should everyone else accept that I speaking my own opinion in the title and each post and they should accept mine as I have been getting so much guff for accepting theirs?
I think that some things can be generalized into a mostly true state and that under that understanding, clipping pepper spray to your keys is not a huge drawback.
Of all the possible drawbacks which influence this discussion, I truly do not understand why this one in particular is such a hot topic of argument.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
SW, how about you argue the other side. I am not convinced that you DO even understand what the drawbacks might be, and therefore your dismassal of them is not meaningful.
What do you see as the drawbacks to buying and carrying pepper spray?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Okay, you did some of it.
You left off "I can't carry it onto an airplane, and therefore I would either have to remember to take it off my key ring before I left for the airport and then put it back on when I got home, over and over again, or else continually buy new ones to replace the ones the TSA agents throw away." (this is not insignificant. I don't have a pocketknife on my keychain anymore for exactly this reason. A pocketknife could also be used for self-defense, plus it can be dead handy for a pile of uses besides. Pepper spray has one use only.)
Also: "My keys are bulky as it is. Clipping a container holding a cylinder to it means I can't put them in my pocket it anymore, thereby making the "convenient" bottle not only inconvenient itself, but making my keys a hassle instead of an easy part of routine."
Then there are all of the "it can be turned on me or loved ones" arguments that you are blithely dismissing. It's the blithe dismissal of that one that I really don't understand you doing - if the whole point is to avoid harm, carrying around an indiscriminate weapon isn't helping towards that end.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, it takes me at least two minutes to find my keys when I get home. Pepper spray attached to my key ring would not be of any use at all. Not everyone has a large key ring or pockets. Gentlemen often do not carry key rings; they carry key cases. A pepper spray canister (I have yet to see one that is as small as a roll of lifesavers but let's say they are out there) would be awkward.
No one is giving you guff for deciding that carrying pepper spray is a good thing for you. You are getting guff because you insist on applying what works for you to everyone else.
I carry an umbrella, rain poncho, first aid kit, sewing supplied and multi tool in my purse. I don't expect you to do so nor harangue you about how a rain poncho folds up into a tiny little square so why don't you carry one? You could catch pneumonia getting wet after all!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not okay with people saying that a tiny inconvenience is a huge drawback.
Get over yourself.
Don't be angry that ours is a forbidden love! With the theories floating around in quantum physics about multiple realities I'm sure we had our chance in one of them!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For example, I donate blood. For me, this is a good thing to do and a minor inconvenience. How can giving up an evening every few weeks and being stuck with a needle possibly outweigh saving lives? Yet, I understand that, for some people, the drawbacks (which to me are insignificant) make donating blood something that is just not worth it for them. They contribute in other ways that make more sense for them.
I got dizzy and had to sit down just reading that post.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aerin: Those are good points I will add to the OP...that you should remove your pepper spray before getting on a plane...and leave it at home, do not put it in your luggage.
As to not putting them on your keys...I have mentioned that that is only one option of many when it comes to carrying...even specifically mentioning that my wife carries hers in an external pocket of her purse.
I don't think I have blithely dismissed that point...even in the OP I mention that if it is turned on you, it is less then deadly. I specifically mention twice that not resisting is a bad option, and that any resistance could possibly cause escalation. I mean, we are talking about being attacked...and what you can do in case you are attacked...so some risk is involved just in the set up...I think my response of either use pepper spray to make sure that your attacker can not get close enough to touch you, or do not attempt to use it until you are outside of arm's reach is a pretty decent answer.
Also, I couldn't agree more about carrying a blade. I've carried one (even in school, yes there are some advantages to living in a rural community, although I'll never go back) every single day since the age of 14.
Boots: I too carry a multi tool...nearly as long as I've carried a knife...super handy! I don't think I am insisting that. I am suggesting...advocating. If you were to do the same about a poncho, I would not mind, although I wouldn't do it either...but I wouldn't be angry at you for trying to prevent illness for me and mine. I do carry hats and coats in my car for all family members. But I also live in an area where rain is relatively rare. (The hats and coats are for sun and cold respectively.)
I also give blood...although not as regularly.
rivka: If you are trying to get a specific change in thinking from me, being rude and angry about it are not going to achieve your goals. If all your goals are are to let me know you are angry and annoyed...then forgive me for not joining in, but I did get that loud and clear. Even if you are angry and annoyed with me, I still love you!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, telling someone who hasn't met you that you love them can be a little creepy. It would annoy the heck out of me.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
So taking it off and putting it back on your keys is something you'll have to do on a regulary basis.
That all adds to the cost. If you're selling it on conveinece, it is clearly not nearly as convenient as it needs to be for the argument to work. If I'm going to spend that much time thinking about a personal defense device, there are better things to spend my time and thought on.
Your whole argument hinges on it being convenient, cheap, safe and effective. It is not convenient, it is not safe, and unless the circumstances are pefect, it is not effective. So...it's just an inconvenient, unreliable, unsafe, but cheap option. People would be better served carrying a bottle opener.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Taking it off to fly is a pretty flimsy reason not to use pepper spray, is all I'll say. If that's your cornerstone argument you're better served by saying you can't afford to buy it. This coming from someone who flies constantly, and has no interest in carrying pepper spray. So I have no horse in this race.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I think my response of either use pepper spray to make sure that your attacker can not get close enough to touch you, or do not attempt to use it until you are outside of arm's reach is a pretty decent answer.
This a general question to all that has occurred to me: How do you determine that someone is attacking you (especially for the purposes of deciding to use pepper spray) before they are close enough to touch you?
This is a serious question: I've never been attacked nor seen anyone attacked. I don't know how I would make this determination.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
boots: rivka and I have joked about our forbidden love previously.
Aerin: Regular basis for people who travel by air regularly...I don't think that is the norm.
Lets look at your other assumptions here one by one:
Inconvenient: You say that having to remove before boarding an airplane makes it inconvenient. I say, that's rare, how many flights do you take per week? Others say, having it on my keys is annoying. I say, then don't put it on your keys. There are ways to make it more convenient, and for some it simply won't be...like Hobbes who only likes to carry his car key by itself. This is an arguable point either way. You can make it pretty darn convenient if one chooses to. Heck, you know what's inconvenient...carrying keys at all. Why not just leave everything unlocked?
Cheap: No argument there as far as I've seen...pepper spray is monetarily inexpensive.
Unsafe: I don't understand exactly why you are saying it is unsafe. With childproof and safety lockable models available, there is very little chance of accidental spray. The spray itself has a very low chance of causing permanent damage and even lower chance of causing death. Relative to other weapons available, pepper spray is darn safe. Relative to carrying zero weapons, pepper spray is still darn tootin' safe.
Unreliable: Again, I don't see exactly where you are getting this. You don't have to have "the prefect circumstance" for it to be useful. If you have it, and start to feel unsafe, take it out. If you are attacked and don't have it in your hand, then yes, it is probably not the best idea to instantly go for it, as you are probably busy, but you are no worse either, and if you can buy yourself a few seconds, you can use it pretty easily and it is durn effective in giving you time to get away.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: boots: rivka and I have joked about our forbidden love previously.
Yeah. It was funny the first time.
And I'm not angry. I do think it is sad that you are so entrenched in your worldview that you find it necessary to put down, belittle, and otherwise dismiss all views you disagree with. I've given up on engaging you with reasoned posts -- it's a waste of my time.
I'll stick to emoticons. Way more fun. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: This a general question to all that has occurred to me: How do you determine that someone is attacking you (especially for the purposes of deciding to use pepper spray) before they are close enough to touch you?
This is a serious question: I've never been attacked nor seen anyone attacked. I don't know how I would make this determination.
(Not the exact answer to your exact question...) Someone approaches you and makes you uncomfortable, so you get out your spray and say, "Do not come any closer or I will spray you." At this point you could have it wrong, and they might just be walking near you or trying to get at something behind you, and if that is the case, they will likely back away and say so. If they were going to attack you, then they will likely at this point leave you alone or attack...which if they continue to advance on you after you have demanded they halt is the right time to spray spray spray.
So, more directly...the way you know if someone is going to attack you is...intuition/perception. Probably not the perfect answer, but *shrug* we are not prefect beings.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
rivka: I am sorry you feel that way. I sure hope that you are alone in feeling that I have put down, belittled and otherwise dismissed all views I disagree with. I've put considerable time and effort into addressing points I disagree with, so, I really don't know why you think that. But if anyone does feel that I've put them down or belittled them then please let me know so I can apologize as that was not my intent.
As to you having giving up engaging me with reasoned posts...do you consider ordering me to "Get over myself." reasoned? Or was that a put down, belittling and otherwise dismissive?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: do you consider ordering me to "Get over myself." reasoned?
Nope.
You had just ignored/dismissed several reasoned posts from people with far more patience than I.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I am sorry you feel that way.
This line is sort of reflective of a lot of the language you use. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is not an apology, it's an attempt to passive-aggressively assert control.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm just about done myself here. I have offered again and again to go over any particular argument that got skipped, poured over the thread and answered what I could tell got missed even without prompting, offer to apologize if people feel mistreated continually being friendly and admitting when people have good points and I get generalized statements with no backing about how I ignore, belittle and passively aggressive control people.
That you guys disagree with my assessment of the importance and ease of carrying pepper spray is apparent.
What isn't is that nearly every question that I posed went unanswered. What isn't apparent is how everyone demands that I take into consideration their opinion and nearly no one gives me the same consideration.
I am stating my opinion, and have gone out of my way to make the title of this thread as neutral and friendly as possible. You don't want to accept my advice, fine, but when you start just ganging up with pacific negative comments it makes me feel bullied.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I am sorry you feel that way.
This line is sort of reflective of a lot of the language you use. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is not an apology, it's an attempt to passive-aggressively assert control.
Agreed. Same with "I sure hope that you are alone in feeling . . ." in contrast with "I sure hope that I haven't . . ."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What isn't is that nearly every question that I posed went unanswered. What isn't apparent is how everyone demands that I take into consideration their opinion and nearly no one gives me the same consideration.
sdfkgdfs.
Okay, here. Can you understand, near the conclusion of this thread, how a wise person can read every part of this thread, and wisely conclude "I do not feel it worthwhile to carry around pepper spray on my person."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am the kind of person who carries both an umbrella and rain poncho in her purse. After this thread I am less likely to carry pepper spray.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: I have said so multiple times in this thread. From rivka to the poster (sorry I forget which) who said they got a flashlight for their gf because she was uncomfortable with pepper spray to giving two examples today.
Even good solutions are not good for everyone.
Thanks boots...that means a lot.
I realize that at this very moment a small angry, petty part of me hopes that someone here gets assaulted just so they can think back on this discussion...which is very very bad...and a really good indicator that I am no longer emotionally neutral to the issue, and need to take a very long break from this thread.
I really do not like wishing people harm...considering that I started this thread with the exact opposite goal...well...let's just say I need a long break to just cool my head.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What isn't apparent is how everyone demands that I take into consideration their opinion and nearly no one gives me the same consideration.
Well, here's my opinion. Some of my close friends carry pepper spray with them. One of them has mentioned to me that sometimes when she is walking home late at night and the situation is making her feel uncomfortable, she will grab the pepper spray and be prepared to spray it if necessary. So for her it works out well. For myself, I've found that simply wearing shoes that I can run in has been more effective in getting out of bad situations than pepper spray would have been (which happened to me a couple months ago). I also try to avoid carrying my key chain with me whenever possible, and when I do carry it, I try to keep the things attached to it at a minimum (I also do not carry a typical wallet and when I get to work I empty most of the contents of my pockets into my desk drawer - I try to carry as few things as possible). So for me, a can of pepper spray is more of a nuisance with very little, if any, practical benefit.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
There aren't any good places to clip a cannister of pepper spray onto my powered battle armor, so I don't bother with it.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I fly a LOT. The chances of the perfect attack situation where I am certain enough I am being attacked that spraying someone with pepper spray is self defense while still being far enough away that I do not harm myself or have it taken away and used against me are absolutely MINISCULE compared to certainty that removing and reattaching an useless bottle to my keychain that will slow down the airport experience and have a TSA agent threaten me with criminal charges (as happened when I tried to carry my knife onto a plane) if I forget is going to be a gigantic pain in the neck.
I have explained why it is unsafe (not a targeted device, easily used against a person) and unreliable (close enough to spray, doesn't incapacitate, but far enough away to get away after you've made someone angry is a very specialized circumstance).
At this point, I would only use the pepper spray against whomever forced such a stupid object upon me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: There aren't any good places to clip a cannister of pepper spray onto my powered battle armor, so I don't bother with it.
at the picture in my mind of you as Robocop.
ETA: Not that you wouldn't be an awesome Robocop. You would just be such a genial, pleasant one.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
StoneWolf, at this point I honestly don't recall - do you personally know people who *successfully used Pepper Spray* in circumstances where it mattered?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: There aren't any good places to clip a cannister of pepper spray onto my powered battle armor, so I don't bother with it.
at the picture in my mind of you as Robocop.
ETA: Not that you wouldn't be an awesome Robocop. You would just be such a genial, pleasant one.
Very true.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: There aren't any good places to clip a cannister of pepper spray onto my powered battle armor, so I don't bother with it.
at the picture in my mind of you as Robocop.
ETA: Not that you wouldn't be an awesome Robocop. You would just be such a genial, pleasant one.
Well, I'm mostly in Robo community-outreach.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Honestly, telling someone who hasn't met you that you love them can be a little creepy. It would annoy the heck out of me.
LOL when I opened this thread today, this was the first post I saw. I have no idea to what it is a reference, but it seems a lovely non sequiter, and sage advice. I wanna try!
Don't even try to solve two rubics cubes at the same time. It makes you look pompous, and no one will invite you to dinner parties. I'm talking to you, Jason. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: StoneWolf, at this point I honestly don't recall - do you personally know people who *successfully used Pepper Spray* in circumstances where it mattered?
Nope.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh good. Well, god forbid you should even have anecdotal evidence that it's worth carrying.
You don't seem capable of convincing me it's worth it to carry a jar of Tabasco sauce of the same size on my keyring. And I LOVE Tabasco sauce. That's an item I would use if I carried it. But I don't. It's not worth it to me.
In fact, I'm gonna start advocating that. Tabasco sauce on your keyring!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I prefer Cholula.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Savage.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's me!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have a call into the local PD watch commander...left a msg on his voice mail asking for a non-official police point of view on the topic...I'll let you guys know what he says.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that's not necessarily very relevant to this discussion. Elsewhere when established authorities were invoked, you plainly said, "Well, they're wrong." So what will happen if the cop says, "By all means, people should carry pepper spray as a general rule." Well then you're vindicated. If, however, the cop replies with, "Actually everyone carrying pepper spray in general is a bad idea for thus and so reasons..:" or some shade thereof, well...similar discussions indicate that that won't actually have any bearing on your argument.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not for argument sake, but because I really would like to know, under what circumstances would people actually start carrying pepper spray?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
As soon as someone installs a clip on my battle armor, I'm there.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I haven't been a part of this conversation, but I'd carry it if I were routinely walking through an unsafe neighborhood.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Oh and now that I think of it, it might be smart to have if I were to see adult psychotic clients at a private office.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If I had specific risk factors aside from just living, I might seriously consider it, depending on what those circumstances were. However, "I might be attacked and if that happens, there's a good chance pepper spray will help," doesn't rise to that level. My chances of being attacked are so low (ordinarily) and so preventable (often) that it doesn't seem necessary to me.
Of course, I say that as a dude. Less risk. The kinds of crime I'm likeliest to be subject to (and those are all quite unlikely) are of the 'gimme your stuff' variety. There's a case to be made that the smart thing to do in such cases is to, well, fork over your stuff from a safety standpoint.
If, however, I were attacked I probably would start carrying it. Might even get a concealed weapons permit. Far from a given that either of those things would actually make me safer, though.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Oh and now that I think of it, it might be smart to have if I were to see adult psychotic clients at a private office.
That seems dangerous to me. Firing one of those in an enclosed space like that seems like a recipe for getting it in your own eyes as well.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Yeah I dunno, Jake. I'd have to decide on some sort of protection, whether it be a police alarm or a defensive item. But it's unlikely that I will have that kind of client.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That seems dangerous to me. Firing one of those in an enclosed space like that seems like a recipe for getting it in your own eyes as well.
There's that, and also that it relies on being better and faster than...well, a psychotic adult. Police alarm sounds pretty good, though.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: StoneWolf, at this point I honestly don't recall - do you personally know people who *successfully used Pepper Spray* in circumstances where it mattered?
I do.
I have also seen it used effectively, well, sort of. I got to watch the police swarm an apartment, one of them was at a window blasting the wanted man with a paint ball gun loaded with capsaicin rounds. The dude gave up pretty quick after that. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I worked in a locked down forensic psych unit as a medical student. We carried piercing loud alarms -- all you had to do was pull the plug, and any staff in earshot would drop everything and come running. It worked well.
I think I'd probably carry pepper spray if I were in a place where I judged the risk of threatening wild (nonhuman) animal encounters to be sufficiently high.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I carry it camping.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks for the replies everyone...I have yet to hear back from the local PD...no doubt they have much much more important matters to deal with.
Considering how many negative responses this thread and my posts in this thread have generated, I'd like to apologize in general if I stepped on anyone's toes. It was not what I wanted to do, and I'm awful sorry that in an attempt to increase the safety and longevity of this community I alienated some of its members instead.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So watching Penn And Teller's skepticism show on HBO they had an episode on self defense/martial arts.
-1 The rate of injury among martial artists in violent crime is 100% -2 If you are not fully aware of self defense laws you are likely to face significant legal issues if you "go too far". (Though this one is arguably solveable) -3 Learning Martial Arts is a business, the dan belt system is relatively recent invention and a business designed to keep you spending money, you'll spend probably 2000$ in a given year for lessons and your generally better off giving the criminal your wallet. (I'm not to sure about this one) -4 Some styles encourage you to use lethal force, Penn's suggestion was that if you are willing to use lethal force you are better off using a gun as at least you won't have an injured hand when your arrested.
Interesting episode.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's definitely true for some martial arts. I've considered getting back into martial arts here in Seattle, and the only dojos I'm considering are very traditional, and not money making endeavors. For instance, one judo dojo costs $20 a month (but only $15 if you're 16 or under), has a one time $20 fee to start with, black belts don't pay at all, you have to have a judo federation membership which is $50 a year, and you need a gi, which is around $50 one time (plus occasional replacements).
So, that's around $70 one time-ish costs, $50 annually, and $20 a month, for first year costs of all of $360, for three hours of time a week in two sessions (and you can do another three hours, helping out the juniors, if you want, or if you're a junior you can stay for the senior class), or ~150 hours a year for less than $2.50 an hour. Then when you become a black belt your costs drop to just $50 annually.
Did I mention this was the oldest judo dojo in the united states with a highly respected instructor, who is 8th dan and former US champion?
Another place I'm considering is a kendo dojo, which has higher equipment costs, but is otherwise fairly comparable when you break it down by hours of instruction.
And any martial artist who injures their hand vs an untrained opponent wasn't at a high enough skill level to even begin to consider striking first. Every instructor I've ever had, no matter how skilled, has said that if someone was mugging them, they'd hand over their valuables without a second thought.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm vaguely interesting in Iado or Kenjutsu.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I took a tiny bit of iaido (taught by a non-professional who had had several years of iaido). It was cool. Very hard to find a local iaido instructor, as far as I could tell.
Iaido as I was taught, though, was somewhat limited. There's a set of forms that you learn, but nothing beyond that. No sparring.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: d I'm awful sorry that in an attempt to increase the safety and longevity of this community I alienated some of its members instead.
I'm awfully sorry that in my heroic work as a high school English teacher, I sometimes put off other teachers who fail to achieve at my very high level.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: I took a tiny bit of iaido (taught by a non-professional who had had several years of iaido). It was cool. Very hard to find a local iaido instructor, as far as I could tell.
Iaido as I was taught, though, was somewhat limited. There's a set of forms that you learn, but nothing beyond that. No sparring.
I'ld figure, that, in theory if I learned BOTH I could combine them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). My family went to Alaska and obviously couldn't take that (pressurized) stuff with us on the plane, not even baggage. So we bought some there and despite seeing quite a few grizzlies never had to use it. So, since we'd have to junk it before we returned anyways, we each took a turn spraying it to see what it was like. The other members of my family each took quarter second sprays and called it good. Being a male teenager I blasted the thing for about 2 seconds, or just under. Despite being careful to check the wind and spray with it, the minimal blow-back from that was enough to send all of sprinting the other way, crying and blinking for a solid 5 minutes. That's real stuff.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
at the picture in my mind of you as Robocop.