StarDestroyer.Net BBS

That part of Michigan/Indiana is also known as the "Bible Belt" and bears a striking resemblance to the south.

RogueIce wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:I have a problem with the idea of a bra holster. Women do not publicly display their bras on their body (barring Madonna and others who intend to titillate those who see them), meaning Bond will be wearing a shirt over her bra- and by consequence, the holster- meaning she cannot easily reach the gun if someone launches a surprise attack- the very situation for which one would carry a gun for self-defense!

Go read Broomstick's post about all the other things women tend to carry in their bras, and are still able to access them. If the handle points up (which seems like the safest way to do it) a woman could theoretically reach into the top of her shirt and draw, just like with a wallet, cell phone, cigarette pack, and God knows what else they have tucked away in there.

That's fine when the weather is warm, and you're wearing T-shirts and other loose clothing. But what happens when inclement weather forces you to button up your shirt collar and tuck your shirt into your pants/skirt, because it is FUCKING COLD? How do you reach a bra holster without first unbuttoning or tearing open your shirt, which will telegraph your moves to anyone with two working brain cells, and likely provoke a desperate "kill her before she kills me!" type of reaction?

Again - most women's clothing is NOT designed to enable concealed carry. It's just not. Hence the hazardous work-arounds like bra-holsters (which strike me as particularly hazardous for all the reasons noted in this thread), conceal-carry purses (marginally more sensible IF you can keep your two-year-old away from it, which we recently saw was not always a certainty), and tiny "ladies's guns" that hold one or two bullets and can fit in a clutch or make-up kit. Not that I advise slotting a gun amongst the lipsticks but there ya go.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I've never liked the idea that acting dumb means you deserve to die. Does one dumb choice invalidate the worth of a human life? That seems terribly callous and misanthropic to me.

There's "deserves to die" and there's "deserves my sympathy."

Suppose a thief tries to steal a huge heavy thing, and they slip and fall and are crushed to death by the heavy thing. Did they deserve to die for stealing (and mishandling) the heavy thing? No, they did not- theft should not be punished by death.

But do they deserve my sympathy? No, they did not, because their death was in NO sense 'not their own fault.' It was a direct result of their own choices, choices no one forced them to make, and that any informed person would have told them were unwise choices.

On some level, every person is ultimately the person responsible for their own safety and welfare.

Simon_Jester wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:I've never liked the idea that acting dumb means you deserve to die. Does one dumb choice invalidate the worth of a human life? That seems terribly callous and misanthropic to me.

There's "deserves to die" and there's "deserves my sympathy."

Suppose a thief tries to steal a huge heavy thing, and they slip and fall and are crushed to death by the heavy thing. Did they deserve to die for stealing (and mishandling) the heavy thing? No, they did not- theft should not be punished by death.

But do they deserve my sympathy? No, they did not, because their death was in NO sense 'not their own fault.' It was a direct result of their own choices, choices no one forced them to make, and that any informed person would have told them were unwise choices.

On some level, every person is ultimately the person responsible for their own safety and welfare.

I think you're missing something here. There's a huge gap between being killed through unforeseen consequences, and being killed through consequences that could have easily been avoided if you weren't willfully ignoring safety guidelines.

I agree.

And the line I draw between "deserves my sympathy" and "doesn't deserve my sympathy" lies somewhere within that huge gap.

Sidewinder wrote:

RogueIce wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:I have a problem with the idea of a bra holster. Women do not publicly display their bras on their body (barring Madonna and others who intend to titillate those who see them), meaning Bond will be wearing a shirt over her bra- and by consequence, the holster- meaning she cannot easily reach the gun if someone launches a surprise attack- the very situation for which one would carry a gun for self-defense!

Go read Broomstick's post about all the other things women tend to carry in their bras, and are still able to access them. If the handle points up (which seems like the safest way to do it) a woman could theoretically reach into the top of her shirt and draw, just like with a wallet, cell phone, cigarette pack, and God knows what else they have tucked away in there.

That's fine when the weather is warm, and you're wearing T-shirts and other loose clothing. But what happens when inclement weather forces you to button up your shirt collar and tuck your shirt into your pants/skirt, because it is FUCKING COLD? How do you reach a bra holster without first unbuttoning or tearing open your shirt, which will telegraph your moves to anyone with two working brain cells, and likely provoke a desperate "kill her before she kills me!" type of reaction?

Sure, thing. Now tell me the place you can holster your gun that will let you outdraw someone who's already holding a gun or knife on you while not provoking that same reaction?

Simon_Jester wrote:I agree.

And the line I draw between "deserves my sympathy" and "doesn't deserve my sympathy" lies somewhere within that huge gap.

I think a better analogy would be playing with poisonous snakes. It's in a snake's nature to bite people and if you're playing with one because you think you won't be harmed . . .well, I'd have a hard time saying you didn't deserve getting bit.

Well, in my case I'm failing to sympathize with a thief because not only did they carelessly handle a heavy object, it wasn't their object. All they had to do, to be safe, was obey basic laws and not try to steal something.

If a person who was supposed to be moving the object had slipped and gotten crushed, they would have my sympathy.

Your analogy about the poisonous snake is also good, because again, the first commonsense rule of handling poisonous snakes is "don't handle poisonous snakes." I guess that in general I just lack sympathy for people who get themselves hurt by totally disregarding basic, normal rules about how to avoid coming to harm.