Happy endings
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 03:39
Here's to bad situations that end up okay.
Like this:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/010505_nw_serialrapists.html
Slain Robbery Suspect Linked to Rapes
January 5, 2005 — A man who was killed while attempting to rob a store last week was the man who raped three women in Camden over the last two months of 2004, authorities said Wednesday.
Camden County Prosecutor Vincent P. Sarubbi said the state police DNA lab confirmed that Antonio Diaz Reyes, 32, was the rapist.
Three women were raped in the relatively safe downtown Camden area in November and December. Authorities said they were unable to figure out who had committed the brazen daylight attacks.
Reyes' death was captured on a store surveillance video. Authorities said he entered the Camden City Wireless and Fishing Supply store in East Camden on Friday afternoon and held the store owner's wife at knifepoint.
Store owner Ngoc Le, 28, saw what was happening, grabbed his gun, which was legally registered, and told Reyes he would let him live if he released his wife. Reyes then threatened to kill her and Le fired once, hitting Reyes in the head. Reyes died at the scene.
<Applause>
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 03:52
... and one more:
http://tennessean.com/local/archives/04/07/54597688.shtml?Element_ID=54597688
Man with long rap sheet killed during break-in
A Nashville man with a long record of arrests was shot and killed early yesterday morning when he broke into a Nashville woman's Madison apartment, police said.
Maurice Wilson Jr., 21, was fatally wounded shortly after he and at least one other person kicked in the apartment's back door at the Heritage House apartments on Heritage Drive, police spokesman Don Aaron said.
He added that the woman, 18, and her cousin, 21, had responded to a knock on the door about 1:30 a.m. and saw two masked men.
''The two women retreated to an upstairs bedroom as the suspects kicked in the back door,'' Aaron said. ''As one of them came to the doorway of the bedroom where the two women were hiding, the older cousin, who had retrieved a pistol from a nightstand, fired one time. The intruder was hit and died at the scene from a gunshot wound to the head.''
Police did not release the names of the women.
The second intruder fired twice before fleeing, but neither woman was injured, Aaron said.
Wilson was wearing a nylon stocking and blue bandanna over his face. Over the past three years he had been charged with 38 offenses including unlawful weapon possession, domestic assault and drug possession, Aaron said.
He had 38 offenses in 3 years? And he was still walking around free?
<sarcasm>The police and courts are real good at protecting you. You don't need to defend yourself.</sarcasm>
Myrmidonisia
12-01-2005, 03:52
Here's to bad situations that end up okay.
Like this:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/010505_nw_serialrapists.html
<Applause>
What's wrong? They couldn't work "Camden" into the last paragraph, too?
It's nice to see that gene pool thinned a little!
Katganistan
12-01-2005, 03:53
Ugh.
I'm sure the store owner and his wife are delighted.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 04:00
Ugh.
I'm sure the store owner and his wife are delighted.
Katganistan, do you mean that as sarcasm or literally?
Yes, I imagine they are *very* happy, in a narrowly-escaped-death kind of way.
Are you trying to imply they should feel bad on account of dispatching Mr Scumbag?
Fugee-La
12-01-2005, 04:02
From what I've heard Camden isn't exactly the safest area around..
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 04:50
http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13176155&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=6
Police: Woman shot armed intruder
COATESVILLE -- A woman sitting on her couch watching television shot and critically injured an armed intruder who kicked through her door late Monday night, police said.
Nakie Thomas, 29, shot Elliot Thompson, 30, as he and another man broke into her home in the 500 block of Walnut Street around 11:30 p.m., police said.
Thomas shot at Thompson four or five times, hitting a window once, the television once and him twice in the chest, police said.
"She was in her home either seated on or near the couch," said Bellizzie. "As they kicked the door in, she proceeds to unload on them with her weapon."
Thompson was listed in critical condition at Crozer-Chester Medical Center Tuesday evening, a hospital spokesperson said.
Okay, so maybe her aim could have been better, but there was nothing wrong with her reaction time.
BlatantSillyness
12-01-2005, 04:53
Here's to bad situations that end up okay.
Like this:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/010505_nw_serialrapists.html
<Applause>
Jesus, Imagine what woulda happened to the store owners wife if he didnt have a gun?
As long as you know what you're doing with a gun and how to safely and legally use it, I have no problem with you having it. The only reason I don't have one is because my college won't allow it, which makes perfectly good sense.
Keruvalia
12-01-2005, 04:57
I thought this thread was going to be about private massage parlours.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 05:36
Don't mess with grandma...
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=64931
Woman Fires Gun During Break In Attempt
Police are questioning three juveniles suspected of trying to break into an East St. Louis home. If they are the culprits, they got more than they bargained for when the homeowner used her gun.
Nina Sloan, 87, may have trouble walking because of her arthritis, but she has no problems wielding a gun. Wednesday around 10:00 p.m., intruders tried to break into Sloan's home, "They broke this down to unlatch the door, that's what they were going to do, see. I wasn't going to let them do that."
Sloan fired two shots with her .38 special but missed her target, "See if I had been right over here, I would've gotten him in the right in the belly."
East St. Louis Police Deputy Chief Rudy McIntosh happened to be in the neighborhood when he responded to the 911 call, "I got there within a minute or so and she still had the weapon in her hand ready to shoot again and I had to holler out, 'police, police.'"
The very next day, police caught three juveniles burglarizing another home just down the block. They believe those three are the same ones who tried to break into Sloan's home.
Deputy Chief McIntosh said, "I've been in law enforcement for 10 years now, I've seen scenarios where people have preyed on the elderly and burglarized their home and left them dead, so she did the right thing."
Neighbors are now trying to help fix the damage and remove the weeds surrounding the home. A neighbor told Sloan, "What we'll do is clear that out and at least it will give them less of a hiding place. I've also got to find a carpenter to come in and repair this door."
When asked if she was afraid, Sloan answered, "Uh-uh. Ain't afraid of nothing. I don't fear nobody but God." And she's not afraid of the intruders coming back. Sloan said, "I ain't looking for trouble, but when they come in here they got a lot of trouble."
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 07:06
The reason for this post is that, unlike successful criminals, successful defenders do not get a lot of airtime. Since there's been so many discussions about the subject, I thought I'd introduce some real-life examples.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 07:08
Jesus, Imagine what woulda happened to the store owners wife if he didnt have a gun?
Right. Now imagine *your* wife or anyone else close to you in the same situation... what do you do?
Goed Twee
12-01-2005, 07:19
So...the point of this thread is to circle jerk over the idea of people having guns?
Karitopia
12-01-2005, 07:20
Me being the crazy pascifist I am, I don't see anyone dying as a truly happy ending, the crazy rapist had family too. But, however, if my lover was being held at knife point, I'd probably pull the trigger to.
BlatantSillyness
12-01-2005, 07:24
Right. Now imagine *your* wife or anyone else close to you in the same situation... what do you do?
I am British we dont have guns, so if my wife had a rapists knife at her throat I guess shes (no pun intended) screwed.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 07:26
So...the point of this thread is to circle jerk over the idea of people having guns?
Ah, such language... did it touch a nerve?
The idea is to acknowledge people who had the courage to stand and fight - and win - and who also had the foresight to have the tools for that would let them win.
Keruvalia
12-01-2005, 07:30
Just so you know ....
Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/).
Nothing important, I suppose ... only mentioning it in passing.
Kiwicrog
12-01-2005, 07:34
Me being the crazy pascifist I am, I don't see anyone dying as a truly happy ending, the crazy rapist had family too.
Whereas I would like anyone who rapes another person thrown in a burning pit for a few days before they died...
But I'm a more vengeful person.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 07:41
Me being the crazy pascifist I am, I don't see anyone dying as a truly happy ending, the crazy rapist had family too. But, however, if my lover was being held at knife point, I'd probably pull the trigger to.
Indeed. The hundred-and-fifty dollar question: do you have something handy that has a trigger to pull, if the situation arose?
"don't see anyone dying as a happy ending"... I agree. However to think that at such a moment will probably cause you to hesitate, and get you or people around you killed. Much better to picture you are facing a wolf on two legs. Time for compassion later.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 07:46
I am British we dont have guns, so if my wife had a rapists knife at her throat I guess shes (no pun intended) screwed.
Yes, that is very sad. I feel for you Brits. Even so, about one in a hundred people does have a (legal) gun in the UK, so they are not impossible to get ;) most of those are shotguns which are easiest.
Of course, there is about one *illegal* gun for every twenty people or so... figures.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 07:51
Just so you know ....
Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/).
Nothing important, I suppose ... only mentioning it in passing.
Yeah, I know... it has nothing to do with anything. Japan and lots of other countries have much higher suicide rates, and they don't have guns. Incidentally, people of Japanese descent in the US have a *lower* violent crime rate than the Japanese average, as well as a lower suicide rate, and yet they have a relatively high rate of weapons ownership. Nothing important, I suppose ... only mentioning it in passing.
Keruvalia
12-01-2005, 07:58
Japan and lots of other countries
The mantra of the gun-advocate is to cite other nations. I'm not sure why.
Again, I only mention this in passing, different cultures react differently to similar situations. What works for Japan won't necessarily work for America.
I am on the fence on this issue, myself. I believe in the 2nd amendment and hold it to the same high standards as the rest of the US Constitution. However, just as the US has put limitations on "Freedom of Speech" (a very cherished freedom) to disallow speech that is intended to harm, incite criminal activity, or other such forms of speech, why then can it not place limitations on the 2nd amendment?
What is so sacred about the 2nd amendment that it should never be hindered in any way? They're called "amendments" because, well, they amend! If the Founding Fathers wanted them carved in stone, they'd have carved them in stone.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 08:12
The mantra of the gun-advocate is to cite other nations. I'm not sure why.
That would be self-defense-advocate ;) Citing other nations just illustrates that there is no strong correlation between guns and any of the things that are claimed to have a correlation with guns. All possible combinations exist: guns/peaceful, guns/violent, no guns/peaceful, no guns/violent. Ditto for suicides.
Again, I only mention this in passing, different cultures react differently to similar situations. What works for Japan won't necessarily work for America.
If you followed what I said, and if you assume that Japanese people in the USA are culturally similar to those in Japan, then being around guns does not seem to be detrimental.
However, just as the US has put limitations on "Freedom of Speech" (a very cherished freedom) to disallow speech that is intended to harm, incite criminal activity, or other such forms of speech, why then can it not place limitations on the 2nd amendment?
"Intented to harm" is not illegal (in the US, it is in the UK), only "factually incorrect and causing harm". Just to be clear.
Yes, we do have limitations: namely, mentally incompetent people, people under age, violent felons, etc. Also, certain types of weapons which cannot reasonably be considered "arms" (grenades for one).
The debate is about self-defense, not the second ammendment. A lot of the present/proposed "control" legislation makes/would make armed self-defense effectively impossible.
What is so sacred about the 2nd amendment that it should never be hindered in any way? They're called "amendments" because, well, they amend! If the Founding Fathers wanted them carved in stone, they'd have carved them in stone.
Curiously enough, they were pretty much carved in stone. Many key states (Georgia and Virginia, I think) would not have ratified the Constitution without them... they actually had that as a condition up front, and so the version first ratified had them in.
Keruvalia
12-01-2005, 08:21
Yes, we do have limitations: namely, mentally incompetent people, people under age, violent felons, etc. Also, certain types of weapons which cannot reasonably be considered "arms" (grenades for one).
The debate is about self-defense, not the second ammendment. A lot of the present/proposed "control" legislation makes/would make armed self-defense effectively impossible.
Well ... so .... what would allow, say, a "mentally incompetent" woman self defense? If a person has committed a crime in the past and paid his debt to society, does that make it more acceptable to allow his wife to be a easier target for rape?
Is there a federal definition of "well regulated militia"? (Not saying there isn't, I'm just asking)
It's a complex issue. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not have, say, assault weapons or armor piercing bullets in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment - which, again, is why it wasn't carved in stone - because they were men ... imperfect men.
Interestingly enough, the Constitution does not in any way guarantee freedom of self-defense. It guarantees the right to bear arms in defense of the State, but that's it. Self-defense is a state issue. In many states, if you shoot an assailant, you go to prison.
Happy endings aren't always so happy.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 08:57
Well ... so .... what would allow, say, a "mentally incompetent" woman self defense? If a person has committed a crime in the past and paid his debt to society, does that make it more acceptable to allow his wife to be a easier target for rape?
These are not easy issues, but in the balance I believe those are the correct decisions. Incidentally, the restriction only applies to violent felons (and a few other violent criminals), mainly because they have a *very* high frequency of repeat offences; and then it doesn't last indefinitely either.
Is there a federal definition of "well regulated militia"? (Not saying there isn't, I'm just asking)
"Regulated" as it was used there means more like "regularized" or "drilled" rather than "restricted". For example if they all had the same caliber guns, and could quickly muster out with those and a standard ammo load, they'd be well-regulated.
Yes, there is a definition of militia, it is basically all able-bodied men 18 to 65 (although some interpretations cross-reference a newer paragraph so it becomes men and women).
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not have, say, assault weapons or armor piercing bullets in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment
No, but they did apparently have in mind cannon, which were commonly owned by groups of townsfolk or by people organizing caravans through dangerous territory. Also, there were plenty of private warships with government-granted letters of marque. I'd say private warships, even wood-and-sail ones, is a *little* more permissive than anything we have today.
By the way, since you mentioned "assault weapons" - can you define what that means, exactly? It is all too common for people to use it as a synonym for "scary guns".
which, again, is why it wasn't carved in stone - because they were men ... imperfect men.
Okay, that's why the constitution can be amended. Let's amend it instead of trying to go around it, or pretend it doesn't say what it says, shall we?
Interestingly enough, the Constitution does not in any way guarantee freedom of self-defense. It guarantees the right to bear arms in defense of the State, but that's it. Self-defense is a state issue. In many states, if you shoot an assailant, you go to prison.
The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms period. Under both the original-meaning and original-intent interpretations, and there's plenty of documents from the debate that led to the Constitution that say so rather explicitly.
Self-defense is a natural right, it is not a state issue. The right trumps *any* statute, whatever it might say, it would not be worth the paper it is printed on.
As for going to prison if you shoot an assailant - there is not *one* state in which you would, *if* there was a good reason for you to fear for your life. Some states have broader rules, but that is sufficient everywhere. I'd say knife-to-the-throat definitely qualifies in any state as good reason.
Vittos Ordination
12-01-2005, 09:08
Three women got raped and some store owner and his wife went through that horror, and since the guys dead there's a happy ending?
I'm guessing that all those involved are never going have a happy ending to that story. The guy who got shot probably got off the easiest.
Keruvalia
12-01-2005, 09:09
Points well made! I have absorbed the information and added it to the pile.
Like I said, I'm a fence rider on this issue. Neither for nor against it. I figure I'll eventually make up my mind, but for now, I am still internally debating it. I have owned guns and have lived without them. I feel no different either way.
I am a strong advocate of civic responsibility (something I believe to be the price of civil liberties), but am also a hefty believer in self regulation. I believe gun ownership should come with a test and a public safety course (yes, even to just have one in the home) and I believe gun ownership should be based on need.
Does a person living in a crowded, multi-story apartment complex really need a weapon that can rip through walls? Civic responsibility says no. A simple mishap and said person may kill a kid in the next apartment whose only crime was eating his Cheerios.
We need strong regulation on defining "mental illness". For example, I know alcoholics who are proud gun-owners. It is a well known and well documented fact that guns and booze are a dangerous combination.
So it's a tough one. Complex. I may have to be content to sit back and let smarter men than I figure it out.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 11:03
Points well made! I have absorbed the information and added it to the pile.
Thank you! Obviously I have strong beliefs on this, but I always like to test my beliefs through a good debate.
I have owned guns and have lived without them. I feel no different either way.
I definitely feel different: more responsible. I think anybody feels the weight of potential life-and-death, no-second-chances decisions every time they pick up a weapon. Actually it was the realization that I do have responsibilities for others that came first and led me to look into weapons. Here are some interesting thoughts about the moral implications of guns: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
I am a strong advocate of civic responsibility (something I believe to be the price of civil liberties), but am also a hefty believer in self regulation.
This is sort of a parallel thought: with every right comes a duty. The first-amendment duty is to speak the truth, loud, regardless of the consequences. The second-amendment duty is to be ready and willing to fight back if attacked, in order to protect yourself and others - oh, and to be armed at all times, and a decent shot ;)
I believe gun ownership should come with a test and a public safety course (yes, even to just have one in the home)
Hmm. Nothing wrong in principle, but having attended both the state course (I live in a state that has such requirements) and a private course, I can tell you that in some areas the state course was worse than useless... they actually taught us a couple of very stupid practices as good safety. (memo: do not try to decock by holding the hammer back while pulling the trigger *with a round in the chamber*...) I can teach anyone basic safe handling in about 15 minutes, and I have, it is not hard.
A minimum safe handling test at the time of the sale - okay, but the better stores have been doing that since forever.
and I believe gun ownership should be based on need.
Whoa there. Explain "need". Is that need as in "death threats", or need as in "dangerous neighborhood" or need as in "I'm female" or need as in "I feel like it"?
Does a person living in a crowded, multi-story apartment complex really need a weapon that can rip through walls? Civic responsibility says no. A simple mishap and said person may kill a kid in the next apartment whose only crime was eating his Cheerios.
Obviously in an apartment you can only ever use frangible rounds or fine birdshot. It's just common sense.
With standard ammo almost any gun will be dangerous through several typical apartment walls. What kind of gun do you consider "safe" for such a situation?
Anyway accidents like that are extremely rare. While gun ownership increased considerably over the past decade, accidents are down to almost their lowest level ever, ~600 fatal and that includes hunting accidents. That is miniscule for a country the size of the US with maybe 100 million gun owners.
We need strong regulation on defining "mental illness". For example, I know alcoholics who are proud gun-owners. It is a well known and well documented fact that guns and booze are a dangerous combination.
Given what I know of the mental health profession, shrinks and guns is also a dangerous combination. All of the ones I know would love to ban guns outright. I don't want to give them power to disqualify people, only to find more and more people get disqualified until there are none left. Also I do not believe that there is any way to predict future behaviour, or that people without a history of violence would suddenly turn violent in the future. I say if people haven't done anything wrong that is good enough for me.
Stormforge
12-01-2005, 11:20
Yeah, I know... it has nothing to do with anything. Japan and lots of other countries have much higher suicide rates, and they don't have guns. Incidentally, people of Japanese descent in the US have a *lower* violent crime rate than the Japanese average, as well as a lower suicide rate, and yet they have a relatively high rate of weapons ownership. Nothing important, I suppose ... only mentioning it in passing.
Somewhat along these lines, I have heard that the homicide rate in Europe and other places is the same as in the US, it's just that more crimes are committed with a gun in the US. Is this correct?
And your Japan analogy is a bad one. Immigrants from industrialized countries (where there are strict immigration quotas) tend to be educated and middle-class, so the violent crime rate would be lower by default. Additionally, any Japanese person who willingly leaves Japan is already different from the rest of Japanese society, and so they're less likely to follow their "outdated" social norms (for example, suicide).
Myrmidonisia
12-01-2005, 12:58
Yes, that is very sad. I feel for you Brits. Even so, about one in a hundred people does have a (legal) gun in the UK, so they are not impossible to get ;) most of those are shotguns which are easiest.
Of course, there is about one *illegal* gun for every twenty people or so... figures.
But if one of those gun owners shoots a bad guy, look out. The criminal ends up with a short prison sentence and the original victim(gun owner) ends up behind bars because he is a danger to burglars. Boy does that sound weird, but I swear I'm not making it up.
There's another really sad story I read about a woman in South Africa. She was being raped. She found a gun and killed her attacker. The state/province/whatever charged her with murder.
Talk about misguided.
Karitopia
12-01-2005, 23:16
Indeed. The hundred-and-fifty dollar question: do you have something handy that has a trigger to pull, if the situation arose?
"don't see anyone dying as a happy ending"... I agree. However to think that at such a moment will probably cause you to hesitate, and get you or people around you killed. Much better to picture you are facing a wolf on two legs. Time for compassion later.
Well seeing how I am a self-proclaimed pascifist, I would most likely not have a gun on me. Therefore, I would either have to fight off the agressor with a conveniently placed broom, or, have to haggle with the man. "I'll give you all the money in the store if you let my lover go," sort of action. After all, if he did come into the store to rob it, he'd probably go for that, take down some details of the purp, and hand it all over to the proper authorities. ;)
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 23:40
Somewhat along these lines, I have heard that the homicide rate in Europe and other places is the same as in the US, it's just that more crimes are committed with a gun in the US. Is this correct?
Almost true. The murder rate in the US is 4.9 per 100,000 (most recent numbers, 2003). Most of Western Europe has a rate around 1.5-2 (UK 1.75, France 1.8, Scotland 2.5, Spain and Finland 3). Other parts of the world have much higher rates (Russia 21, Mexico 17, Brazil 23, South Africa 50). So the US is somewhat more dangerous than Western Europe in that regard, but not hugely so, and a lot safer than most places.
However, the US average rate does not tell the whole story. Most of the US has a rate around 1.5-2 as well, it's just that a few places in the US have rates over 40 and sometimes even over 80 (holy crap!) which brings up the averages. There is nothing similar in Europe. Those places are always within cities, but even then they're not the whole city, they tend to be just a small part of the city that has been taken over by gangs (http://www.streetgangs.com/homicides/laplot.pdf, http://www.streetgangs.com/18thstreet.html). Some big cities do not have those areas, and they have rates around 2 throughout (Portland, San Diego).
What are the exact demographics of this? Well, the group that has the highest rate of committing murders is males, age 18-24, with a rate of 27 per 100,000. Among black males age 18-24, the rate is 200, among white males it is 15. Black males age 18-24 are also far more likely to be the victims, at a rate of 100, compared to white males, 13. Now I don't think this has anything to do with skin color, it has entirely to do with a very dysfunctional culture that glorifies gangs and criminal behavior and doesn't acknowledge any other career paths... stuff like this http://www.raplyricssearch.com/Songs/1011/, http://www.raplyricssearch.com/Songs/2194/, http://www.raplyricssearch.com/Songs/2745/. Quote: "I'll pop you punk niggas like I pop my colla". Do I need to say anything more?
And your Japan analogy is a bad one. Immigrants from industrialized countries (where there are strict immigration quotas) tend to be educated and middle-class, so the violent crime rate would be lower by default. Additionally, any Japanese person who willingly leaves Japan is already different from the rest of Japanese society, and so they're less likely to follow their "outdated" social norms (for example, suicide).
Agreed, on all counts. It still illustrates that even though they took to guns, they didn't become crazed murderers as a result.
The Cassini Belt
12-01-2005, 23:52
Therefore, I would either have to fight off the agressor with a conveniently placed broom, or, have to haggle with the man. "I'll give you all the money in the store if you let my lover go," sort of action. After all, if he did come into the store to rob it, he'd probably go for that, take down some details of the purp, and hand it all over to the proper authorities. ;)
And what is to prevent him from raping and killing (or vice versa) both of you and *then* taking all your money?
If you are willing to fight with a broom, why not get something more effective ahead of time?
Often, people like that are addicted to a feeling of power that comes from having others fear them and grovel before them and beg for mercy. That is why they would do really dumb stuff like rob liquor stores - very little money in that considering the risks, but it's an opportunity to have people terrified of you. It's not about the money or the sex, it's about power.
Your plan consists, essentially, of hoping for the best. Hope is not a plan.
EDIT: I said hundred-and-fifty dollar question because that's how much it would cost to get a basic gun... such as a Maverick 88 12ga or a Makarov 9mm pistol for example.
Karitopia
30-01-2005, 00:36
And what is to prevent him from raping and killing (or vice versa) both of you and *then* taking all your money?
If you are willing to fight with a broom, why not get something more effective ahead of time?
Often, people like that are addicted to a feeling of power that comes from having others fear them and grovel before them and beg for mercy. That is why they would do really dumb stuff like rob liquor stores - very little money in that considering the risks, but it's an opportunity to have people terrified of you. It's not about the money or the sex, it's about power.
Your plan consists, essentially, of hoping for the best. Hope is not a plan.
EDIT: I said hundred-and-fifty dollar question because that's how much it would cost to get a basic gun... such as a Maverick 88 12ga or a Makarov 9mm pistol for example.
Hey, I'm a pascifist, and essentially, that's just what I would do. Guess we can disagree on this one. I like your point about planning, however, a pascifist would never plan to have a gun, now would they? So, I guess I'd be dead and out of luck, oh well, hope I never own a store, or have a lover.