It’s ‘Unrealistic and Offensive’ to Let Women Carry Pepper Spray

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I'm sorry for embarrassing you yet again.

I wonder if you will be a dick your whole life. I don't spend a lot of time on it, because I'm pretty sure it's a foregone conclusion, but in the spirit of the season I hold out hope.

Call me an enthusiast.

 

[Cannuck]

I wonder if you will be a dick your whole life.

You're just mad because I've embarrassed you as well....well actually you embarass yourself. I just point out how you do it. Stop embarrassing yourself and you'll see that I'm not really a dick.

 

[MHz]

How totally absurd. Of course it makes sense to allow women to carry pepper spray. Would they rather they carry guns? How stupid is that?


JMHO

Open carry would solve a lot of the attacks. This is also better than a spray.

 

[DaSleeper]

I wonder if you will be a dick your whole life. I don't spend a lot of time on it, because I'm pretty sure it's a foregone conclusion, but in the spirit of the season I hold out hope.

Call me an enthusiast.

You must believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.... :lol:
The problem is he tries to be a dick and a c unt at the same time

 

[taxslave]

I doubt you embarrass anyone other than yourself.

Hehehehehe. Thilly gooth.

most likely his mother.

 

[Remington1]

I have no issue whatsoever with woman carrying bear stay or whatever the fu$k might protect them from a rapist. Too bad no one cared enough to have made it legal already.

 

[personal touch]

Carry axe spray ,very effective for disabling whatever

 

[MHz]

When carried as a self-defense device it should have a fire on button. Take a whole group out with a big can of the 'silly string' material.

 

[Ludlow]

They should carry whatever the fook they want. Ball bat, bazooka, pepper spray whatever.

 

[MHz]

Shouldn't they have to wear a stripe for each attacker they beat up?? The ones with zero stripes just do it for the fun of it.

 

[JamesBondo]

The problem lies in our laws. They make no distinguishing difference between a weapon carried for self defense and a weapon carried to harm others. In short, we are allowed to defend ourselves but we aren't allowed to carry anything around for that purpose. The logic is truly twisted.

 

[personal touch]

Crazy you are! Lol!

 

[Curious Cdn]

The problem lies in our laws. They make no distinguishing difference between a weapon carried for self defense and a weapon carried to harm others. In short, we are allowed to defend ourselves but we aren't allowed to carry anything around for that purpose. The logic is truly twisted.

Yeah. Developing your own nuclear weapons elicits that sort of reaction, too. Iran just wants to defend itsself, just like North Korea does.

 

[damngrumpy]

It always amazes me how governments embark down complicated roads
without solving the problems from the complicated roads we've already
been down.
I am safe to bet there will be sexual assault cases whether pepper spray is
legal or not. I think we are going to see it legalized therefore we must now
concentrate of what are the rules surrounding its use and what are the
consequences for improper use?
Personally I don't see a problem unless its used against people in a manner where
it wasn't warranted. Remember if a woman says no she could in fact spray her
spouse legally See when have determined our first problem.
How is it we can change a law regarding pepper spray as s weapon in a few months
to a year, Yet we have wrestled with changing a marijuana law for forty years.
see what i mean about embarkiing down complicated roads?

 

[bobnoorduyn]

pepper spray is listed as a Prohibited Weapon. Something can not be a Prohibited Weapon unless it is a weapon. When you look of the definition of a weapon, it is based largely on 'intent' .

Hence, if you buy mace or pepper spray, you have the intent to use it against another human being....it is a weapon.

If you buy bear spray, there is no intent to use it against another human so long as it is reasonable that you bought it for bear defense. IMO, is a bad idea to pack around in a purse because there aren't very many bears in a shopping mall parking lot.

This is why I would recommend buying Dog Spray.

The Firearms Act defines all firearms as weapons, regardless of their intended use. Pepper spray could be, and probably already is deemed a "prohibited device", the list includes replica firearms, (really??), sound suppressors, centre fire pistol magazines exceeding 10 rounds, C/F rifle mags exceeding 5 rounds, (the M-1 Garand is exempt), knuckle dusters, and anything else that may offend snowflake liberals' sensitivities.

 

[Machjo]

"Unrealistic and offensive". That's what the Canadian Federal Minister for the Status of Women says about a proposal to allow women to have some tools for self-defense, specifically pepper spray. First of all, what in the Sam Hill is a "Minister for the Status of Women" and second of all, this individual must be a real gem to suggest that women having tools with which to defend themselves, their bodies and their loved ones is "unrealistic and offensive"!

Here's the story from Heatstreet:

A proposal to allow Canadian women to defend themselves with pepper spray or mace is “unrealistic and offensive,” said the federal minister for the status of women.

Since 1995, Canada has prohibited the use of mace and pepper spray—a law that Conservative MP Kellie Leitch, who is a candidate for party leadership, wants to change if she becomes prime minister.

Allowing mace and pepper spray, Leitch said, would “give women a greater measure of protection against would-be attackers.”
​

So, what is the reasoning of this "Minister for the Status of Women" and her rather antiquated notion that allowing women to defend themselves as "unrealistic and offensive"?

Brace yourself.

But Leitch’s proposal met opposition from Patty Hadju, the status of women minister, who claimed that letting women carry pepper spray would actually further gender inequality.

“Her misguided approach places the onus on women to defend themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing gender-based violence,” Hadju said in a statement.
​

That's like saying that allowing people to drink water contributes to dehydration! Here, let me re-phrase Hadju's statement: "Your misguided approach places the onus on people to drink water to hydrate themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing activities that lead to dehydration!"

It looks as though the Obama regime isn't the only place in North America where liberal lunatics are running the asylum.



OFFENSIVE INDEED! Canadian Official: It’s “Offensive” to allow women self-defense | GunsSaveLife.com


Canadian Official: It's 'Unrealistic and Offensive' to Let Women Carry Pepper Spray

According to the same logic, it's stupid and offensive to allow people to put locks on things, whether doors or security boxes. I'll revise the minister's statement to make my point clearer:

“Machjo's misguided approach places the onus on owners to secure their belongings rather than focusing on addressing and preventing theft."

You see, my friends, it's misguided and offensive to think that the onus should be on you to lock your doors, lockers, security boxes, etc., because people are not supposed to steal even if you do not secure your possessions. So stand up to those evil thieves and unlock your belongings people. Don't let thieves force you to take responsibility for securing your things.

And men, statistics show that female-on-male sexual coercion is almost as prevalent as male-on-female sexual coercion. So men, drink to your heart's content, wear what you want, and do what you want, because at the end of the day, it's up to the woman to not sexually exploit you without your consent, and it's not up to you to take reasonable precautions.

A Muslim tradition attributed to the Prophet Muhammad states: "Trust in God, but tie your camel first." How misguided is that! The onus is on the camel to not walk away without your permission, and on the thief to not steal your camel. So don't listen to that advice! The idea that we should take responsibility for ourselves and our possessions is just another example of creeping sharia. To combat this creeping sharia, we must unlock our doors and security boxes, drink as we see fit to, dress as we want, leave our wallets on our car dashboards, leave our bicycles unlocked and unattended, and boycott martial arts schools. We shout stop using condoms too and just trust that people with HIV will tell us if they have it, and that people who sleep around will get themselves checked regularly. It's time we stopped looking out for ourselves and just trust that everyone else will do what they're supposed to do.

 

[personal touch]

The Firearms Act defines all firearms as weapons, regardless of their intended use. Pepper spray could be, and probably already is deemed a "prohibited device", the list includes replica firearms, (really??), sound suppressors, centre fire pistol magazines exceeding 10 rounds, C/F rifle mags exceeding 5 rounds, (the M-1 Garand is exempt), knuckle dusters, and anything else that may offend snowflake liberals' sensitivities.

Axe spray is legal and debilitating

According to the same logic, it's stupid and offensive to allow people to put locks on things, whether doors or security boxes. I'll revise the minister's statement to make my point clearer:

“Machjo's misguided approach places the onus on owners to secure their belongings rather than focusing on addressing and preventing theft."

You see, my friends, it's misguided and offensive to think that the onus should be on you to lock your doors, lockers, security boxes, etc., because people are not supposed to steal even if you do not secure your possessions. So stand up to those evil thieves and unlock your belongings people. Don't let thieves force you to take responsibility for securing your things.

And men, statistics show that female-on-male sexual coercion is almost as prevalent as male-on-female sexual coercion. So men, drink to your heart's content, wear what you want, and do what you want, because at the end of the day, it's up to the woman to not sexually exploit you without your consent, and it's not up to you to take reasonable precautions.

A Muslim tradition attributed to the Prophet Muhammad states: "Trust in God, but tie your camel first." How misguided is that! The onus is on the camel to not walk away without your permission, and on the thief to not steal your camel. So don't listen to that advice! The idea that we should take responsibility for ourselves and our possessions is just another example of creeping sharia. To combat this creeping sharia, we must unlock our doors and security boxes, drink as we see fit to, dress as we want, leave our wallets on our car dashboards, leave our bicycles unlocked and unattended, and boycott martial arts schools. We shout stop using condoms too and just trust that people with HIV will tell us if they have it, and that people who sleep around will get themselves checked regularly. It's time we stopped looking out for ourselves and just trust that everyone else will do what they're supposed to do.

Don't come to my home I have leg traps in the sheds,it will hurt

 

[Machjo]

Axe spray is legal and debilitating

But should we be allowed to lock our possessions or does that take responsibility away from thieves?

Should we be forced to dress immodestly and consume alcohol so as to ensure that the responsibility falls on sexual assailants to not take advantage of us?

How far should we go with this logic?

Axe spray is legal and debilitating


Don't come to my home I have leg traps in the sheds,it will hurt

But leg traps take the responsibilty away from me. I should not trespass into your house and steal from you because it's the right thing to do, not because I fear getting hurt by leg traps. You're taking responsibility away from me when you do that, making it as if you're responsible for my actions. So I'm telling you, unlock your doors and diffuse all of your defensive systems, get your daughter drunk and strip her naked... and just trust me.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Don't come to my home I have leg traps in the sheds,it will hurt

That's one way to get a date, I suppose.

 

[personal touch]

That's one way to get a date, I suppose.

Big laugh

But should we be allowed to lock our possessions or does that take responsibility away from thieves?

Should we be forced to dress immodestly and consume alcohol so as to ensure that the responsibility falls on sexual assailants to not take advantage of us?

How far should we go with this logic?



But leg traps take the responsibilty away from me. I should not trespass into your house and steal from you because it's the right thing to do, not because I fear getting hurt by leg traps. You're taking responsibility away from me when you do that, making it as if you're responsible for my actions. So I'm telling you, unlock your doors and diffuse all of your defensive systems, get your daughter drunk and strip her naked... and just trust me.

Leave my possessions alone,I worked hard got that shyte!
Keep your dirty fingers off my stuff,don't even look my way

It always amazes me how governments embark down complicated roads
without solving the problems from the complicated roads we've already
been down.
I am safe to bet there will be sexual assault cases whether pepper spray is
legal or not. I think we are going to see it legalized therefore we must now
concentrate of what are the rules surrounding its use and what are the
consequences for improper use?
Personally I don't see a problem unless its used against people in a manner where
it wasn't warranted. Remember if a woman says no she could in fact spray her
spouse legally See when have determined our first problem.
How is it we can change a law regarding pepper spray as s weapon in a few months
to a year, Yet we have wrestled with changing a marijuana law for forty years.
see what i mean about embarkiing down complicated roads?

Yes,Yes and more yes