Posted on 02/24/2013 11:02:23 AM PST by Daffynition
“The key is to assert that you didn’t plan/intend to misuse the product, only in panic you grabbed the closest thing to hand...(And you only had it close by because you are deathly afraid of/allergic to wasps!)”
That’s the ticket and that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Thanks. :o)
The irony here is that should a victim of an attack, particularly in their own home, engage in self-defense by using “weapons of opportunity”, which may include bug spray, they are opening themselves up to legal liability of a dual nature, both from hip government attorneys keen on career-enhancement and opportunity-seeking (read “$$”) private defense attorneys representing the now-injured attacker who can also testify as a plaintiff against you, the defendant.
The solution involving some new carpet & paint seems much more sane & simple now, yes?
jeeees KCB would you mind doing this blog a favor? How about if you’d please please cease and desist with your infernal brandishing of unvarnished logic...? Thank You..
Great Post there....What’s the cost of the Kimber?
I think these women should just use (more) Pledge, Windex,Comet, etc.; just stay home out of the gun debate and maybe stay out of politics in general.
I think the Kimber was 45 or so and it comes with a second load. A pistol is hard for a gal to carry in bicycle clothes and you don’t want to leave it on an unattended bike. The wife’s thought was that a woman bicyclist might be as much a target for someone trying to acquire a pistol by driving up alongside with a vehicle. Anyway, that was the thought at the time.
Any weapon my wife wants to have handy is fine with me — handy usage is dictated by ready access.
The first time she sprays someone in the face and they go blind she will be sued.
Better to shoot them and remove the threat of a lawsuit.
Perhaps you refer to the following finding from an actual government study.
You can read more at this link:
Fred On Everything - Women In Combat
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993):"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength…
An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."
Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."
I can't and therefore don't, drive a car and talk on a cell phone at the same time. We all have our limitations.
Having served active duty as a combat medic from 1985-1993 I can honestly say that women in close proximity to mostly male combat units are nothing but a SEVERE distraction.Two sets of standards for the same position is the norm and a male has to walk on eggshells when near one,just as a womans word is taken overwhelmingly more often than a males in civilian life it is ten times worse in the service and no chance of redemption if your ever able to prove your innocence in any verbal altercation.They are a distraction both on the normal sexual thing that occurs anywhere both sexes congregate and they have a totally unfair advantage if they decide to be vengeful.....it can blow a good soldier out of the water.I saw this occur many times while active.no room for females within combat units,i know it may seem chauvanistic but things go MUCH smoother with no natural distractions.Just my educated observation.
Is America a great place or what?
It’ll probably kill the lice on their rapists....
I think the way it sprays has a lot of attraction for use as a weapon. You can get a pretty good shot in before someone gets within arms reach. “Squirt” is more accurate than “spray.” Of course, nothing beats a firearm if your goal is to keep the attacker as far away as possible. The choice between pistol or rifle is a matter of distance, too.
I see rifles becoming more useful for defensive purposes. If a flash mob of feral yutes entered my suburban neighborhood, I think I’d like to have a way to hit them from wayyy down the block. Different applications require different means, and as my Dad used to say, “Use the proper tool for the job!”
A German chemical company built Muammar Gaddafi an insecticide plant (in the desert) to produce bug poison for "farmers". Human nerve gas is just a tweak or so away from some of the more potent insecticides. Hmmm
Regards,
GtG
It’s all because of Facebook. For the past couple weeks, there are posts in my feed basically saying to use wasp spray instead of a gun for self-defense. Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, but apparently, some morons buy into it.
Face sheild. In case of blow back. (I’m assuming that is what the poster intended)
If she doesn’t feel comfortable with a firearm then that’s her perogative. Good to hear of a safe alternative, plus it will keep the bees away..........
Ah, makes sense. Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.