TexasCHLforum.com

Embalmo wrote:I think what you're missing here is that that driving during rush hour and leaving one's house is not a foolish, unnecessary act.

It certainly is; I've managed to avoid driving in rush hour traffic for years while still maintaining gainful employment.

Kevinf2349 wrote:But would you let your wife do it? (unarmed)

Whether it is PC or not men and women are different, the dangers and the type of predators are different, If you think that it is wise and safe to let your wife drive a convertable to a drive-thru at 02:30 in the monring, that is your choice. I am not denying you that choice, all I am saying is that the danger level of doing that is high.

You obviously see on harm any of your family female members taking higher risk situations, I do for my family. I have total trust in my family, but it is the other people I am weary of.

My wife does it at least 14 days a month, she gets off shift at 3:30am 7 days a month and goes to work at 3:30 7 days a month, she often stops for coffee. She is always in the rag top. She can not legally carry into the gate at work in her car so she is always unarmed to and from work. While I agree she may be at a higher risk than I am, I do not consider this behaviour irresponsable or negligent.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:So, what may be construed as irresponsible behaviour for a young female may be rational behaviour for a young male?

Unfortunately we live in a world where that is correct. Because women are much more likely to be attacked and perceived as easy prey, women must be more careful; that is why I believe that every eligible women should concealed carry to even out the playing field. And I don't want to hear any liberal idealism about in a perfect world women and men should be allowed to equally walk alone in a park at night or jog in a secluded area-None of us live in that perfect world.

Now if someone wants to show me that men and women are equally vulnerable to predators, I welcome that; but please no more childish attacks. I would love to hear a woman's opinion here.

Embalmo

Kevinf2349 wrote:But would you let your wife do it? (unarmed)

Whether it is PC or not men and women are different, the dangers and the type of predators are different, If you think that it is wise and safe to let your wife drive a convertable to a drive-thru at 02:30 in the monring, that is your choice. I am not denying you that choice, all I am saying is that the danger level of doing that is high.

You obviously see on harm any of your family female members taking higher risk situations, I do for my family. I have total trust in my family, but it is the other people I am weary of.

Mind your words-You might be labeled as the next sexist radical Muslim on this thread.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:

Kevinf2349 wrote:But would you let your wife do it? (unarmed)

Whether it is PC or not men and women are different, the dangers and the type of predators are different, If you think that it is wise and safe to let your wife drive a convertable to a drive-thru at 02:30 in the monring, that is your choice. I am not denying you that choice, all I am saying is that the danger level of doing that is high.

You obviously see on harm any of your family female members taking higher risk situations, I do for my family. I have total trust in my family, but it is the other people I am weary of.

My wife does it at least 14 days a month, she gets off shift at 3:30am 7 days a month and goes to work at 3:30 7 days a month, she often stops for coffee. She is always in the rag top. She can not legally carry into the gate at work in her car so she is always unarmed to and from work. While I agree she may be at a higher risk than I am, I do not consider this behaviour irresponsable or negligent.

Yep, and soldiers get in front of bullets because they have to. The point is that it's irresponsible to put oneself at risk unnecessarily.

Embalmo wrote:Yep, and soldiers get in front of bullets because they have to.

Not since the last draft, they don't.

KD5NRH wrote:

Embalmo wrote:Yep, and soldiers get in front of bullets because they have to.

Not since the last draft, they don't.

Embalmo wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

Embalmo wrote:Yep, and soldiers get in front of bullets because they have to.

Not since the last draft, they don't.

Reminds me of General Patton and his statement to the effect that one should let the other guy (the enemy) die for his country, not you. I always tried to avoid putting myself in front of bullets. It is a safety issue.

There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.

bdickens wrote:There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.

Hmm. 2 women in their 20s driving around in a bad neighborhood at 2:30 AM. Can't think of any additional information that would turn that scenario into a good idea. Frankly I'm surprised that such a sentiment would stir any controversy.

Embalmo

bdickens wrote:There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.

AFAIK, The Fed hasn't outlawed the free movement of an individual in our country, however; rape and kidnapping have been outlawed for a long, long time. For some reason though, the two victims are continually accused of the wrong doing here.

Embalmo wrote:

bdickens wrote:There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.

Hmm. 2 women in their 20s driving around in a bad neighborhood at 2:30 AM. Can't think of any additional information that would turn that scenario into a good idea. Frankly I'm surprised that such a sentiment would stir any controversy.

Embalmo

There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:

bdickens wrote:There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.

AFAIK, The Fed hasn't outlawed the free movement of an individual in our country, however; rape and kidnapping have been outlawed for a long, long time. For some reason though, the two victims are continually accused of the wrong doing here.

If you think it's wise behavior, encourage the women, men, and children in your life to BEHAVE this way. I'm gonna' discourage such practice in my household. Unsubscribing.

It might not be as easy for some as it is for you to avoid driving in a "bad neighborhood" at 2:30 AM.

And it isn't as easy for some as it is for others to impugne some young lady's character and motives with no information.

bdickens wrote:It might not be as easy for some as it is for you to avoid driving in a "bad neighborhood" at 2:30 AM.

And it isn't as easy for some as it is for others to impugne some young lady's character and motives with no information.

I can think of a million (well maybe a thousand) jobs where a woman works legitimately in the middle of the night. When I worked at the CFS in San Diego for the post office my shift didn't start until the late evening, and I usually got home just before dawn depending on the frequent overtime we pulled. As I am sure you all know, many women work for the USPS.