Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Arguing with lawyers

I found a new cool Emeryville spot, spending the evening at a wine tasting at my local winery (walking distance!).  Met a guy there and we chatted, debated, argued.  I found out early on that he's a lawyer, so I debated with him the way it happens with my lawyer friends.  He thought I was really neat.  Sigh.  I know because he called me a lot of names (socialist, naive), believing I could take it.  I could, but now I'm really tired and don't want to be called names.  I want to watch "Gilmore Girls." I think he doesn't understand that the first half hour of such discussion is fun because it's playful, but beyond that it's just taking things too seriously (45 minutes of discussion of how it's important to be able to defend yourself with a gun if someone breaks into your home?).   Laughter is good, too, and it's just as impressive as intelligence.


MVL said...

Lawyers who argue? Yes. Name calling? No. Why is it that people with right wing ideas always call lefties "naive." Isn't it naive to think having a gun at home doesn't lead to more harm to gun owners and their families than to help? That is what stats say. But maybe he spends 10 hours at the range each week actually staying proficient enough to make the argument valid.

Anyway, next time, point out that a good crossbow makes an excellent home defense weapon. It is really hard to hurt yourself with it, and no one is going to keep coming with a bolt sticking out of them. This one looks good:

I miss Oaktown.

Lisa F. said...

Oh, we definitely covered gun-use proficiency -- his assumption is that everyone is as proficient as he is. I love the crossbow argument!
My moment of laughter was when he and another guy started talking about which guns result in the least damage to your wall after you shoot someone. The argument was that a shotgun takes too much spackling afterward. He didn't laugh.