"it's not a slippery slope" my left foot

[Pedersen]

I'm totally surprised with you Pedersen.

--SNIP--

....oh...sorry.. you were being sarcastic....

I know. My sarcasm tends towards the subtle side. It can be hard to detect. I'm working on making it more visible

How about... claw hammers, chainsaws, garbage disposal units... and machetes, grapefruit spoons etc... have a time and place for them. Carrying them into a nightclub is not one of them.

According to the laws that crazylegs mentioned, I'm a criminal. You see, I carry a leatherman super tool, which has two separate blades, each of them 3.75in long. It also has a very small saw blade (surprisingly useful, never thought I'd use it, and yet it's very helpful).

Dangit, I'm not sure where the reference was, but those laws state 3in blades are the limit.

Anyway, back to my point: The leatherman is somewhere around the most useless weapon ever invented. It's less useful than a roll of quarters when it comes to being a weapon.

Hell, if I were attacked, and I tried to use this as a weapon, it'd be a skit worthy of any comedy show if the attackers stayed back while I got this blade out. And I'd still be more likely to harm myself, since there's no guard to keep my hand from sliding forward over the blade.

Now, back to my point. I carry this tool on my belt in a carrying case. I carry it all the time, everywhere I go. I don't even think about it, it's just there. But, with those laws, I'm a criminal because I'm carrying this blade.

Every single knife you want to mention can be justified as being either a useful tool or a work of art as well as a weapon. Every single one of them.

It's actually kind of funny to even have this debate, since this is exactly what gun advocates have warned would happen. Here it is, in all its glory. This is the slippery slope.

And we will wind up being completely defenseless in front of any who would choose to attack us. The next step would be to outlaw any form of martial arts, since that can be used to kill, too. Even though it can be an excellent fitness regime, it can be lethal to anybody who is attacked with it.

This just means that I have to ask you two questions: Why do you want us defenseless against those who do not care about the law? Why is the criminal's life so much more valuable than the law abiding person's life?

(oh.. you forgot fresh fruit. Being attacked by a criminal armed with a banana is pretty serious!....)

The banana doesn't frighten me. Not yet ripe apple in a sock? Yeah, that would be serious.

[crazylegs]

According to the laws that crazylegs mentioned, I'm a criminal. You see, I carry a leatherman super tool, which has two separate blades, each of them 3.75in long. It also has a very small saw blade (surprisingly useful, never thought I'd use it, and yet it's very helpful).

The laws do state that you may carry them for a useful purpose, so if you're a mechanic and have a multi tool then you can justify it under UK law. I'm sure you can think of other professions but that was the first to come to me

[Slytovhand]

Slippery Slopes...


I don't know the exact law they were after, but as I said, there should be an element of 'appropriateness'... otherwise chefs and butchers are going to have a bit of a problem with their jobs.....

I didn't recall the 3" rule, though... seems a bit small... unless you are referring to those small blades that fit through your fingers...????


Anyway... your 2 questions...

1. No - but I do believe in deterrence, and also the restriction on damage being done. The problem ... or really, the entire debate, basically comes down to... personal safety Vs responsibility. Certainly with guns, it's a very big call on the responsibility side. On the knives, less so, but I'm inclined to think that some should be on the 'watched very carefully' list - particularly if you see some of them in the photos... I mean... who needs to be walking around the streets late at night with a machete???

2. Good question... new thread?




The Loganberry.... The loganberry-wielding attacker.......


Slyt

[Pedersen]

I'm sure you can think of other professions but that was the first to come to me

That still leaves me in a bind. I'm a computer programmer, some time systems administrator. I don't have to have it on an hour to hour basis. However, I do carry for a useful purpose. It seems to find use at least a few times a week.

And yet, still a criminal if I carry it in the UK. For now, since I'm in the US, I'm safe (well, on that count anyway).

Slippery Slopes...

Simply because it is listed as a fallacious argument on someone's web page does not make it a fallacious argument. After all, I can find web pages where people claim to enjoy eating feces (for an extreme example). Does that mean that feces is now gourmet food?

Yes, I know that it can be. This time, though, we have a very clear cut case of this not being a slipper slope. The UK has outlawed gun ownership except in specific circumstances. It is now looking to do the same with knives (or has already done so). This is exactly the same situation that gun advocates here in the USA are warning about.

So, this time, we are not talking conjecture, nor are are we talking fallacious arguments. We are talking about a specific slippery slope situation.

I don't know the exact law they were after, but as I said, there should be an element of 'appropriateness'... otherwise chefs and butchers are going to have a bit of a problem with their jobs.....

Unfortunately, that will be irrelevant with the next bit of the slope. After all, kitchens everywhere have 10" chef's knives (of varying qualities). That's a big blade. Very useful in assault. Which will mean that, unless we prevent the ride down this slope, people will eventually have to give up those knives in the name of protecting society.

After all, guns have appropriate uses, too (especially for hunters).

1. No - but I do believe in deterrence, and also the restriction on damage being done. The problem ... or really, the entire debate, basically comes down to... personal safety Vs responsibility. Certainly with guns, it's a very big call on the responsibility side. On the knives, less so, but I'm inclined to think that some should be on the 'watched very carefully' list - particularly if you see some of them in the photos... I mean... who needs to be walking around the streets late at night with a machete???

Except the debate is not just talking about banning people walking around with these items. It's about banning them wholesale. These are tools that can be used for good or ill.

A couple weeks ago I got myself a nice little scare (related, I promise). I stay up late, like 2am late. My wife goes to bed by 10pm. My sexist pig side speaking here: I feel I have an obligation to protect her to the best of my ability.

Anyway, 1am (roughly), I hear a very loud bang from downstairs. I have a couple of swords, so I grabbed one and started looking through the house. Turns out it was nothing (a child gate had fallen over). While doing this patrol, though, I was scared out of my mind.

I'm not a physical fighter. If someone had been in the house, and I had been completely unarmed, I would not have been able to protect my wife, and I know it. At least with that sword, I stood something of a chance. Going by the arguments I see here, I could easily see myself being deprived of one of the few means of self-defense I possess on the grounds that somebody else might use it to commit a crime.

I have never understood the mentality that says it is okay to punish the majority for the actions of a very small minority. And even less do I understand it when it comes to potential actions of that minority.

2. Good question... new thread?

Yeah, I started to debate whether it should be, and then realized that, if it takes me more than a paragraph to justify, then it's going too far off.

[aniwahya]

In the US blade length laws vary. Commonly, anything more than 3 inches is illegal to carry. There are exceptions to this, like in Chicago where a blade larger than 2.5 inches is illegal. Whereas other cities in Illinois consider anything larger than 3 inches illegal.

Oh, more people are killed by kitchen knives than any other single type of knife*. Oh and for people who are afraid of knife wielding maniacs, you might want to be aware that the most common weapon of opportunity are common household scissors.

*http://www.housewareslive.net/news/n...st+knife+crime
and
http://www.silobreaker.com/DocumentR...em=5_863083530

[Rapscallion]

The laws do state that you may carry them for a useful purpose, so if you're a mechanic and have a multi tool then you can justify it under UK law. I'm sure you can think of other professions but that was the first to come to me

I've got a small knife I use in the warehouse. It folds into itself and has a blade perhaps an inch long or so. A clip inside holds it in place when out. I usually leave it in my back pocket and it came in very useful last night when trying to open one of those packets of salad cream.

How legal is that?

Rapscallion

[Difdi]

You are aware that this argument actually justifies the ban? If said criminal wasn't able to get their hands on a gun, and now they can't get their hands on a knife, then they'll have to try using some other less lethal weapon... one which potential victims or witnesses in the area will be more capable of removing and overpowering the attacker...

Using nothing more than found objects around the average house (using the places I and my relatives have lived in to produce the average, YMMV), I could produce a single shot firearm in about a day of work. And that includes the bullet and the gunpowder. It wouldn't be a very fancy gun (black powder zip gun ) but it would propel a chunk of metal hard enough to kill people with. And that's just bare hands and improvised tools, mind you. Drop me in the mountains, with the items and gear I go camping with, give me a year, and I'll hand you a flintlock musket at the end of it.

Given access to the sort of tools I have at home, I could do the same in an hour for a gun, and about 3-4 for the powder (much faster for a grenade, which doesn't have to survive the first bang). With access to my tools at work, I could turn out a zipgun in about 10 minutes, or a actual revolver in about 8 hours. The revolver would be pathetically underpowered by modern standards, but would fit in just fine in the 1880s.

I am not a gunsmith.

Give me just found household objects and I can make a knife in about an hour, or a sword in a day. They won't be very good, but they'll work. Drop me in the mountains as in the above example, and I'll give you a broadsword in 4-6 months.

I am not a blacksmith.

Want poison gas or high explosives? Give me five minutes in the average cleaning closet for the former, and about half an hour for the latter.

I am not a chemist.

Given time and access to a junkyard, a second hand store and a machine shop, I could, with a little luck, build an atomic bomb. Radiological dispersion bombs are easy, by comparison.

I am not a nuclear physicist.

I know how to make the rocket motors you find in model rocketry kits. There is absolutely no reason you can't build one large enough to launch a car into the air. Would take access to a high school chemistry lab and about a month to tool up.

I am not a rocket scientist.

What I am, is a well-educated adult, who tinkers with technology as a hobby. I have no formal training in any of the above examples. You want to ban weapons, so that criminals can't get ahold of them? Good luck, you will DEFINITELY need it. Given a little formal training, any of the above examples become vastly easier. You can't ban technology, even the stone age had weapons. And as long as technology exists and people are educated to use it, someone will decide that black market money is just too good to resist, and make weapons for the people who want them, regardless of what the law says.

[Slytovhand]

Simply because it is listed as a fallacious argument on someone's web page does not make it a fallacious argument. After all, I can find web pages where people claim to enjoy eating feces (for an extreme example). Does that mean that feces is now gourmet food?

Yes, I know that it can be. This time, though, we have a very clear cut case of this not being a slipper slope. The UK has outlawed gun ownership except in specific circumstances. It is now looking to do the same with knives (or has already done so). This is exactly the same situation that gun advocates here in the USA are warning about.

So, this time, we are not talking conjecture, nor are are we talking fallacious arguments. We are talking about a specific slippery slope situation.

Unfortunately, that will be irrelevant with the next bit of the slope. After all, kitchens everywhere have 10" chef's knives (of varying qualities). That's a big blade. Very useful in assault. Which will mean that, unless we prevent the ride down this slope, people will eventually have to give up those knives in the name of protecting society.

After all, guns have appropriate uses, too (especially for hunters).

Except the debate is not just talking about banning people walking around with these items. It's about banning them wholesale. These are tools that can be used for good or ill.

No... no they aren't going to ban all knives..wholesale. THAT'S the Slippery Slopre fallacy! The presumption (or argument) that because 15" knives in public will be banned, then, eventually, so will all knives in all situations...including the kitchen. Slippery Slope argument presented here is that next, sticks and rocks will be banned. Also, that the only reason for such bans is because the one previous was. In this case, there is a valid reason for the ban (albeit - debatable)... it's a lethal weapon.

(yes... it is a post on a website... it's because I happened to have done a search for Logical Fallacies through google, and that was a good page. I have the same or similar list in my Logic textbook for philosophy. Feces isn't going to show up in a cordon bleu cookbook).

Yeah, I started to debate whether it should be, and then realized that, if it takes me more than a paragraph to justify, then it's going too far off.

I do my posting at work, and I was going to start one, but my time was up. But I was going to call it "What rights to criminals have?"

That's my reply to this bit...

Now for my reply to the debate itself...

[Slytovhand]

Slyt's 'acceptable' self-defence options

Knives, as a form of 'self-defence' is bloody pointless!

Firstly, you have to get close enough to someone to use it... and that's way too close for being smart!

Secondly, unless you actually know how to use it, it's a waste of time, and pulling one out to someone who has already decided to do you serious damage isn't going to help all that much (further argument about this in a tick...). At the very least, the assailant already has decided that by carrying a knife themselves, they've got the guts, if not the experience, to use their knife better. So by pulling your knife, you're only going to escalate the situation, and if you escalate a simple 'Give me your iPod', then it turns into 'you bastard, you wanted to stab me...'.

Thirdly, pulling a knife doesn't stop an attacker, your willingness to fight does....


Thus.... what's a good way to defend yourself, without making matters worse (such as killing someone) according to me....?

Attitude and Awareness. This Link is specifically about rapist, but much of the information relates to general self-defence. Here is a small, but relevant, paragraph...

Several defense mechanisms he taught us are: If someone is following behind you on a street or in a garage or with you in an elevator or stairwell, look them in the face and ask them aquestion, like what time is it, or make general small talk, I can't believe it is so cold out here, we're in for a bad winter. Now you've seen their face and could identify them in a line-up, you lose appeal as a target.

Criminals don't want to get caught. By increasing their chances of getting caught, they are less likely to do something stupid (or violent)... or criminal. Too many times I walk around and see women (in particular) with their heads down. That's victim mode. If you walk around with your head up and looking around, that's taking control of your area, and you are far less likely to be a target. Also, your willingness to defend yourself has far more 'threat' value that how you choose to defend yourself. Any criminal wants their crime to be over and done with as soon as possible, and as painless as possible. If you're going to fight (however that may be), you prolong the crime (increasing the chance of someone else coming along) and increase the chances of the assailant getting hurt as well (not to mention easier to catch later).

Tazers... nice, quick, effective. The ones with the 2 wires that shoot out give you range. They hurt and immobilise in 1 hit. Only real disadvantage is that you only get 1 shot at it... multi-shot tazers would be good

Retractable batons. Again, will hurt like hell when you get hit, takes minimal training to use, and even the sound of one will make an assailant think twice. Again, non-lethal!

Mace/pepperspray etc. Hopefully, enough said! Cops use it, so it can't be that bad.

If you carry pepper spray (this instructor was a huge advocate of it and carries it with him wherever he goes), yelling I HAVE PEPPER SPRAY and holding it out will be a deterrent.

Martial Arts... obvious!

There's a small device you can get that emits really high-pitch siren type thing (can't find a link )... doesn't do a lot of damage and all, but is also a good deterrent... because it could attract people to come... not what the criminal wants.


So... I'm not against defending yourself. I am against putting yourself into a situation where the chances of killing someone (which may easily include yourself) is greatly increased.

Those kids (200) who were searched and found to be carrying knives, and also those few hundred who were killed by knives, weren't chefs on their way home from work. They weren't you and I carrying a small multi-purpose blade. They also weren't law-abiding citizens carrying a self-defence mechanism. They were carrying a weapon with the express purpose of doing greivous bodily harm to somebody. As I said, carrying a 12" kitchen knife under your hoody at 2am down the street isn't for personal protection (unless you are intending to get into a fight).

You don't need a 12" bowie knife to be safe. And pulling a switchblade against a 12" bowie knife isn't going to help you much anyway...


Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

IOh and for people who are afraid of knife wielding maniacs, you might want to be aware that the most common weapon of opportunity are common household scissors.

Yet the fear-mongering media claims guns are-interesting that

Tazers... nice, quick, effective. The ones with the 2 wires that shoot out give you range. They hurt and immobilise in 1 hit. Only real disadvantage is that you only get 1 shot at it... multi-shot tazers would be good

Retractable batons. Again, will hurt like hell when you get hit, takes minimal training to use, and even the sound of one will make an assailant think twice. Again, non-lethal!

Mace/pepperspray etc. Hopefully, enough said! Cops use it, so it can't be that bad.

Nice thought but all three of these are illegal in my state(unless you are a police officer)-and as a law-abiding citizen I can't obtain them. The police here(in a midwestern city of around 200,000-mainly college students, businesspersons, and hippies) take 30 minutes to an hour to respond to an attempted break in call-and won't leave their cars unless you're outside waving to them that it's safe-yes I'm dead serious. They won't respond to burglar alarms unless the property owner has searched the premises first(unarmed of course).


We recently had a murder where the victim called 911 from her cell phone, the attacker knocked the phone from her hand(you can hear screams on the 911 tape)-and the girl was found dead from multiple stab wounds over 10 hours later by her fiance-the police here did NOT RESPOND TO A 911 CALL FOR A MURDER.

[Slytovhand]

Oww.. suckies BlaqueKatt...

I think they are illegal over here too... but I was just pointing out that there are 'better' options that either guns or knives... and since the arguments on here are about what the law 'should' and 'shouldn't' allow, I was putting in that the law could do with a change (and that you are allowed to defend yourself) - just not with the first option being with lethal force.

As for your story...that totally sucks! why oh why did that happen?? (that they didn't respond??) - except that the cell phone may not have been traced, and an address not given?? I'm just hoping there was some really good reason for it!


Slyt

[aniwahya]

There are a couple of things I want to comment on, but I didn't want to post the Slyts whole post and add it to what will most likely be a long post of my own. Slyt if you feel that the quote is misrepresenting your post somehow let me know and I willl put the whole thing in, er, somehow.

"Thirdly, pulling a knife doesn't stop an attacker, your willingness to fight does"
Slytovhand

Before I get into the specifics I think it is important for me to clarify where I come from in terms of self defense and weapons. Most people don't sit and think through what " willingness to fight" means to them. If you can't handle hurting and/or killing someone in self defense, then it is probably a good idea to reevaluate what you need a weapon for. Intimidation is a best case scenario, and a great many criminals will run when challenged at all. Then of course there are also a great many criminals who at any sign of resistance will just get pissed off, kill you, and do whatever the hell it was they wanted to do. So if you can't use a weapon in your own self defense, don't try using one to scare people.

First. I agree that knives are not a great choice of self defense weapon. Knife fighting, even trained knife fighting, is messy and dangerous. I love knives, and I carry them for utility, but they are not the first thing I reach for as a weapon when threatened since a knife is more of a "well I am gonna get hurt anyways so I might as well do as much damage as I can in a small period of time and hey, I may get lucky" kind of weapon.

"Thus.... what's a good way to defend yourself, without making matters worse (such as killing someone) according to me....?" Slytovhand

"Tazers... nice, quick, effective. The ones with the 2 wires that shoot out give you range. They hurt and immobilise in 1 hit. Only real disadvantage is that you only get 1 shot at it... multi-shot tazers would be good" Slytovhand

Tazers are a great self defense weapon, however there seems to be a lot of misinformation being spread about them. People see cops use them and they feel that makes them safe (which is ironic because a lot of cops use them incorrectly*). A tazer is by no means harmless to people with certain medical problems, medical problems that you don't find out about until the person is dead. Now I have zero compunction about killing another human being in defense of myself, so I have no problem with tazers as a self defense weapon. I just get really sick of the being told that tazers are perfectly safe; it is a dangerous weapon just like any other dangerous weapon.

"Retractable batons. Again, will hurt like hell when you get hit, takes minimal training to use, and even the sound of one will make an assailant think twice. Again, non-lethal!" Slytovhand

This just isn't true. Retractable batons, in addition to being illegal for civilians in the majority, if not all of the states in the US (pay no attention to this is you are not a US citizen ), are as lethal as using a lead pipe to beat someone. Truly, this sentence would work if you replace "retractable baton" with "kubaton". Retractable batons, while what I consider the easiest of self-defense weapons for a novice, are extremely likely to break bones and with an untrained person wielding one, kill someone. When law enforcement wield batons, they are limited to hitting well muscled areas (like the upper thigh)*, as opposed to areas that would take someone down more effectively and efficiently. Again, using a retractable baton is akin to using a lead pipe to defend yourself, and in the US you will be held accountable for using an illegal weapon.

"Mace/pepperspray etc. Hopefully, enough said! Cops use it, so it can't be that bad." Slytovhand

Argh, I actually lost brain cells on this one!
Mace, and mace-like defense items are not a bad choice, but awareness is key. One, it will not stop every attacker, and those it doesn't stop it most likely won't even slow. Also, what most people don't get is that depending on where you use it, or how close the assailant is to you, you will end up being hit too. It is of vital importance that you make sure that you can use pepper spray without incapacitating yourself.

The second part of this probably wasn't meant as badly as it sounds, but still comment I must. Assuming something is safe because you see cops use it, is going to cause you all kinds of trouble. For one, cops are people doing a job, regulated by the same morons in management as everyone else. Second, cops are trained in when it is appropriate to use force and what type of force is least likely to kill someone. Thirdly, weapons used by cops, and how they use them, can change based on the information compiled by people who try to find more effective weapons. They follow strict guidelines on when force is appropriate, and how much force is appropriate.

"Martial Arts... obvious!" Slytovhand

Taking a class at the YMCA is not going to make you a lethal weapon. Nor will studying at a dojo, depending on who is teaching you. It is important to keep in mind that physical combat is sudden, messy, unstructured and people fight dirty. Common practice among martial arts classes is to teach that the methods you are learning can maim or kill people. This often leads martial arts students to hesitate, over estimating their ability to harm an attacker and underestimating the attackers ability to hurt them.
I am not saying martial arts are useless. What I am saying is learning a martial art and practicing a martial art are different things. Someone who has been in full force, fighting for your life confrontations is going to be infinitely more prepared than someone who has merely studied something (unless the person who has studied has sparred with real combat specifically in mind). Note, I am not talking about the kids who get a gun and think they are teh shit. Rather who I am referring to are people who have done hard time, veterans who spent actual time in war zones or other dangerous areas . There is simply no way in hell to simulate those experiences. All of the above information also applies to the classes that advertise teaching women how to defend against rapists and murderers.

I am not aware of the effectiveness of the noise makers, having never used one. I would definitely be prepared for it to not work, or not work well. Testing it on a friend/family member (or having them test it on you, which is much easier to find volunteers for ).


"So... I'm not against defending yourself. I am against putting yourself into a situation where the chances of killing someone (which may easily include yourself) is greatly increased." Slytovhand

Slyt, I am not attacking you, I just can't not try and refute some of the things you've said, because if you approach a confrontation using the things that you have said, then the most likely result is that you will get seriously hurt.

Defending yourself from an attack, goes beyond brandishing a weapon and hoping your attacker will go away. There is always the risk that they are going to call your bluff, and if you have everything riding on them being scared off, what are you going to do then? Or, suppose you are confronted by a hooded attacker wielding a knife. After tasering them you find out they are a 14 year old with a heart defect who is now dead. You may not feel remorse in the sense of being sorry someone attacked you died, but chances are you will now be charged with premeditated murder, since bringing a dangerous (illegal in most of the US) weapon is considered premeditation (at least in every state i have looked up the law in). How would the situation end up differently if they would have had a partner just out of sight? Or if the taser malfunctioned, or you fumbled with it in panic and missed? All of the reasons you listed for not using knives apply to every other self defense weapon you listed.

I have more to say but it is probably better that I either add it later or post again.

*I do not agree with the current legislature regulating when a cop can and cannot use a taser. So when I say incorrectly I am not talking about the fault of the cop, but rather the laws regarding when they should and should not use them. Though I have seen an occasional case where it was the cop's fault, that hardly reflects the competency of law enforcement in general.

Oh, and where do <anyone who posts here> you live that you can *legally* carry bowie knives? It IS illegal (again in the US) here for people to carry any knife with a blade larger than 3", and oftentimes cities and counties have legislation prohibiting anything larger than 2".

[Slytovhand]

Aniwahya... no - what you said is cool.

My post is mostly about viable alternatives to a defence that a knife (or gun) is always a good, if not the best, form of defence. So, no issues with what you've said when it relates to that. At the very least, there are non-lethal options available that are (or at least, can be) effective... And also, though they may be illegal, they were still options I was just exploring... not considering whether they were legal or not (although, I suppose that should have been an obvious thought... but if we're talking about what should or shouldn't be legal, it fits in nicely).

So - no, you're not 'misrepresenting' what I said, just pulling out a lot of specifics that I left out... that works for me!

And also... when it all boils down...NOTHING is 'safe'. They're just options that may work...which may or may not help you out - depending on the situation.

Yep - training with all of the above would be a basic requirement (should almost have been a caveat to all of what I wrote...).

Tazers... yeah - true... but then, why are you in a position to have to use one anyway? It falls into the 'tough luck to the assailant' category for me...

Batons... ok.. shouldn't have put the 'Non-lethal' tag at the end. Perhaps, 'less likely to be lethal compared to a gun or knife'? If you decide to beat them to death, or are fairly unlucky when you hit (like a bad head blow), then it'll damage, but not likely kill. An arm hit with a knife can rupture an artery... Realistically, anything can be lethal...

Mace etc... yeah - bad on my part with the "Cops use it"... sort of line I normally cringe with As for the first bit... just buying and putting in your bag isn't enough... training!!!!

Martial Arts... most definitely agree with your points!

And also with your end statements... which is very true... the problem with the whole discussion is that nothing works all the time, and we can't really generalise situations.

The only real reason I went with what I posted was what I said above... here are some options which are less likely to take someone's life...

Bowie knives?? Dunno... but that's the slippery slope that apparently we're on...:P


Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm just hoping there was some really good reason for it!

the dispatcher "didn't feel like calling back to check" she thought "it was probably a prank"---and yes she still has a job.

[Slytovhand]

the dispatcher "didn't feel like calling back to check" she thought "it was probably a prank"---and yes she still has a job.

Ah shit... what can you say? That's bad....

I sort of hope that there's serious problems with funding in the emergency services areas.... otherwise I can't imagine any other 'real' reason why that should be an acceptable response....