gmack@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (07/02/85)
Jeanette, in <185@ihlpl.UUCP> you write: > > Rape and other violent crimes are deterred almost daily in this country > > by the use of firearms; news accounts of such actions are quite common. > > There are also accounts in the news as often of people being wounded or > killed by their own weapons which were takenfrom them by their attacker > [and some other stuff]. This, along with your next comments, indicates that you do not approve of the use of firearms. Yet, you closed 184@ihlpl.UUCP with a little sign that says "To hell with the dog, watch out for the owner." This sign usually has a sketch on it which looks down the barrel of a large gun. Mine does, anyway. (The other one I have has the same sketch and says "There is nothing in here worth your life.) Just for the record, I believe that noone has any business carrying any weapons unless they are prepared to use them - mentally and physically. Not being mentally prepared nearly cost me my own life a few years ago. I was putting myself through school working in a restaurant on the opening shift. One morning before we opened, I was in the back, unaware that a robbery was taking place in the front. One of the robbers came into the back and we startled each other. He had a knife and my first reaction was to grab the butcher knife that was laying on the bench. I was going to run it through him, but I wasn't mentally prepared and I hesitated. When I did, he stabbed me in the stomach, knocked me down, and he and his buddy proceeded to kick me in the head and stomach. My ears rang for days. They talked briefly about shooting me but decided to just get the money and get out. They were never caught. All this over less than $500! The point is, if you carry a weapon, you'd better be prepared to actually kill someone with it. In your home, a scatter gun is best because you don't have to aim it, you just point it in the general direction of your target. Also, trying to just wound your assailant won't cut it. You have to kill him. I was bloody and beaten and was still able to get up and call the cops. > As nearly as I can determine in real-time conversations (face to face) > with many different people the general type of individual who makes the above > statements falls into one of two groups: > > 1) A devout member of the NRA complete with pro-firearms > bumper stickers. What's wrong with that? > 2) Someone who has not given thought to the "wild-west theory" > of social relationships. I apologize for my ignorance, but what's the "wild-west theory"? Gregg Mackenzie denelcor!gmack
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/09/85)
> > 1) A devout member of the NRA complete with pro-firearms > > bumper stickers. > > What's wrong with that? What most of these people advocate (actively or through implied consent of the activist statements) is unworkable for the average person who has never seen nor fired a hand weapon at another person. > > > 2) Someone who has not given thought to the "wild-west theory" > > of social relationships. > > I apologize for my ignorance, but what's the "wild-west theory"? > > Gregg Mackenzie > denelcor!gmack ie If - Everyone wore a gun on their hip THEN - people would be more polite in general. (This doesn't and can't work for obvious reasons but I have heard it voiced at parties and in discussions often enough -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/11/85)
In article <200@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >> >> > 2) Someone who has not given thought to the "wild-west theory" >> > of social relationships. >> I apologize for my ignorance, but what's the "wild-west theory"? >> Gregg Mackenzie >ie >If - Everyone wore a gun on their hip > THEN - people would be more polite in general. > >(This doesn't and can't work for obvious reasons but I have heard it >voiced at parties and in discussions often enough.) >Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie What are these "obvious" reasons? Before you flame right back, let me point you to an article that appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal some years ago, before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. It was a background, travelogue-style piece on Afghanistan, which at that time was seldom mentioned in world news and was considered exotic and unknown. (I'm sorry to not be able to give a more exact reference, but mayhap one of the library periodical references would do so.) This article explicitly and specifically stated that Afghan society was more polite in interpersonal relations, and that petty crime was practically unknown, due *precisely* to the Afghan habit of ALWAYS going armed, no matter where you went. This is exactly the "wild west theory" stated above, and I think this one reference is all that is needed to prove that it is correct! (This habit has also helped the Afghans resist the invasion, but that is another issue.) Will
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/16/85)
Another point that I should have added to the "Wild West Theory" discussion: The point about an armed society becoming a polite society is NOT due to everyone running about in fear of being shot by someone else. It is due to the changes in the armed people themselves. When you are armed, you become *LESS* free to indulge your angers, not *more* free! You cannot yell at incompetent drivers, casually insult strangers, etc., because *any* confrontation has the potential to escalate to a conflict with the element of deadly force involved. This is one of the basic principles taught by those all-too-few schools that instruct people in the use of guns for self-defense, like the Chapman or Ayoob academies. This desirable state *can* be reached without everyone going about armed; merely teach every person to act as if every other person was armed. (Of course, we can't even teach people to keep to the right side of sidewalks, so I hold no real hope of anything that depends on teaching and learning...) Will
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/16/85)
In article <11602@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: >to the changes in the armed people themselves. When you are armed, you >become *LESS* free to indulge your angers, not *more* free! You cannot >yell at incompetent drivers, casually insult strangers, etc., because >*any* confrontation has the potential to escalate to a conflict with the >element of deadly force involved. This is one of the basic principles >taught by those all-too-few schools that instruct people in the use of >guns for self-defense, like the Chapman or Ayoob academies. This is a neat idea. Too bad it doesn't work. Non-violent people, in general don't buy firearms ("I wouldn't use it anyway"). Too many second degree (ie in the heat of passion) murders are commited in this country because there was a firearm (usually a handgun) handy. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Don't get bogged down with details, just eat the stupid peice of paper." -Rev. Wang Zeep
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/17/85)
>This is a neat idea. Too bad it doesn't work. Non-violent people, in general >don't buy firearms ("I wouldn't use it anyway"). >Charles Forsythe Charlie, you better come up with some support for this claim if you don't want to be entirely discredited for the rest of your natural life. PLENTY of non-violent people purchase firearms, and for a variety of reasons. I am one. My father is one. My ex-boss is one. Shall I canvass everybody I know with respect to gun-purchase and records of violence? No, I'll leave the exercise to you, the claimant. Think you can handle it without blowing it? Adrienne Regard (p.s., re the actual topic of rape and firearms -- seems to me teargas is a slightly better idea. Non-lethal [in case it gets turned against you] but highly unpleasant [presuming you get the chance to use it against him] and works at close quarters, on all parts of the body, 'wicked' by clothing if necessary.)
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/18/85)
In article <568@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >(p.s., re the actual topic of rape and firearms -- seems to me teargas is >a slightly better idea. Non-lethal [in case it gets turned against you] but >highly unpleasant [presuming you get the chance to use it against him] and >works at close quarters, on all parts of the body, 'wicked' by clothing if >necessary.) According to my tear-gas licensing class it only works if you get the assailant in the face or genitals and may not work then if they've been drinking or are on drugs. It takes about 30 seconds to wick through clothing, during which time you can become very dead. Having once clumsily got some on me I can testify that it didn't bother my leg a bit, though it's _very_ nasty stuff to get up your nose (you had to be there (-: ). I leave the testing on the genitals to the masochists in the crowd. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/18/85)
> >This is a neat idea. Too bad it doesn't work. Non-violent people, in general > >don't buy firearms ("I wouldn't use it anyway"). > >Charles Forsythe > > Charlie, you better come up with some support for this claim if you don't > want to be entirely discredited for the rest of your natural life. Hey! He's Charles -- *I'm* Charlie (:->) > > PLENTY of non-violent people purchase firearms, and for a variety of reasons. > I am one. My father is one. My ex-boss is one. Shall I canvass everybody > I know with respect to gun-purchase and records of violence? No, I'll leave > the exercise to you, the claimant. Think you can handle it without blowing > it? I agree with you a hundred percent. (Of course, if one defines the owner of a firearm as a violent person, then I guess we are both wrong by definition.) There are plenty of non-violent uses for firearms. Surely target shooting cannot be considered violence. Frankly, I'm not convinced that self-defense should be considered violence; rather it is defense *against* violence -- a different thing entirely. There are some other things I would like to say in this matter but I don't think that they are germane to net.women so I'll refrain. > > Adrienne Regard > > (p.s., re the actual topic of rape and firearms -- seems to me teargas is > a slightly better idea. Non-lethal [in case it gets turned against you] but > highly unpleasant [presuming you get the chance to use it against him] and > works at close quarters, on all parts of the body, 'wicked' by clothing if > necessary.) Again, I agree. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/19/85)
In article <568@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >Charlie, you better come up with some support for this claim if you don't >want to be entirely discredited for the rest of your natural life. Ms. Regard (May I call you Adrienne?), I have lost all credibility at this point (especially with regard to firearms) so I really can't go wrong now. >PLENTY of non-violent people purchase firearms, and for a variety of reasons. >I am one. My father is one. My ex-boss is one. Shall I canvass everybody >I know with respect to gun-purchase and records of violence? No, I'll leave >the exercise to you, the claimant. Think you can handle it without blowing >it? Buying a firearm with the intent of shooting someone is NOT a pacifist act. I don't care what your dad says. Non-violent people, and I do not use the term as loosely as you, do not consider shooting other people, even if they're rapists. All right -- flame me to death. >(p.s., re the actual topic of rape and firearms -- seems to me teargas is >a slightly better idea. Non-lethal [in case it gets turned against you] but >highly unpleasant [presuming you get the chance to use it against him] and >works at close quarters, on all parts of the body, 'wicked' by clothing if >necessary.) Hear, hear! -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Don't get bogged down with details, just eat the stupid peice of paper." -Rev. Wang Zeep
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/23/85)
> >PLENTY of non-violent people purchase firearms, and for a variety of reasons. > >I am one. My father is one. My ex-boss is one. Shall I canvass everybody > >I know with respect to gun-purchase and records of violence? No, I'll leave > >the exercise to you, the claimant. Think you can handle it without blowing > >it? > > Buying a firearm with the intent of shooting someone is NOT a pacifist > act. I don't care what your dad says. Non-violent people, and I do not > use the term as loosely as you, do not consider shooting other people, > even if they're rapists. All right -- flame me to death. I guess I wouldn't consider pacificism to be synonymous with non-violent. Further, if I recall your original posting, Charles, it seems to me that *you* made some generalization equating purchase of a firearm with violence. I (and probably at least a few others) don't consider defending one's self from violence to be an act of violence. If you choose to turn the other cheek and accept an act of violence against you without trying to defend yourself against it other than by avoidance that is fine with me. I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO. I also think it would be nice if you respected the rights of others to defend themselves against acts of violence provided, of course, that they accept the responsibilities that are part of that defense. If I am misinterpreting your postings, I apologize, but I get the impression that you are one of those who think the criminals rights are more important than those of the victim. This attitude on the part of the government, the courts, etc. is a major reason, I believe, that more and more people *are* arming themselves for defense. And, of course, one is protected by the police only *after* the fact -- how can it be otherwise? Finally, as Adrienne pointed out, many people buy firearms for reasons that have nothing to do with violence even by your definition unless you consider shooting holes in paper targets or breaking clay targets to be acts of violence. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/24/85)
> According to my tear-gas licensing class it only works if you get the > assailant in the face or genitals and may not work then if they've been > drinking or are on drugs. It takes about 30 seconds to wick through > clothing, during which time you can become very dead. > > The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) There is a chemical used for control of animals which comes in a pressure can like mace but is legal in most states. Instead of emitting a spray it comes out as a stream which can hit a target up to 20 feet away and contact with the skin causes an immediate and painful burning feeling. It is available from many kennels and animal trainers in the southern Wisconsin area, I dont know about any where else, and requires no permits or liscences because it is intended for use on animals. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ These are my opinions! I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them. Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also. ================================================================================
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/25/85)
In article <28641@lanl.ARPA> crs@lanl.ARPA writes: >I guess I wouldn't consider pacificism to be synonymous with >non-violent. Further, if I recall your original posting, Charles, it >seems to me that *you* made some generalization equating purchase of a >firearm with violence. As someone who enjoys shooting target pistol, I honestly didn't mean to make a generalization. I was specifically addressing people who buy weapons to shoot other people with. >I (and probably at least a few others) don't consider defending one's >self from violence to be an act of violence. Not per se. Consider what webster says: Violence: to use force with the intent of injury or abuse. If you shoot a rapist, that's violent. Don't try to re-define the English language! It's violence. Now, shooting people is a particularly nasty form of violence because it makes a lot of noise and tends to induce death in the victim (not always, but often enough). I was trying to point out that some people don't want to deal with this so saying,"We'll fix rape, just give everyone guns," won't do shit because some people just won't carry guns. >If you choose to turn >the other cheek and accept an act of violence against you without >trying to defend yourself against it other than by avoidance that is >fine with me. Actually, the first thing I do is turn and run. If this is out of the question, I have to become violent. I don't need a gun to be violent, though; nobody does. >I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO. I also think it would >be nice if you respected the rights of others to defend themselves >against acts of violence provided, of course, that they accept the >responsibilities that are part of that defense. I do respect that right, but what has it got to do with carrying guns? In Massachusetts, it is very difficult to legally own a firearm, but a sword of any length, as long it is not double edged, can be carried legally. I admit swordplay gets a bit bloody, but so does a shooting and psyochological studies show that it's much easier for a person to whip out a pistol and pull the trigger without thinking than whip out a sword and start hacking without thinking. Since a lot of handgun violence is heat-of-the-moment anger, I'd feel safer in a room full of sword weilding people than gun weilding ones. Anyway, swords have much more style! >If I am misinterpreting your postings, I apologize, but I get the >impression that you are one of those who think the criminals rights >are more important than those of the victim. No, not at all. I just don't like handguns. I think they are too dangerous for the silly lack of forethought we americans give them. By all means, if a rapist attacks I hope the M*********ER dies painfully. >Finally, as Adrienne pointed out, many people buy firearms for reasons >that have nothing to do with violence even by your definition unless >you consider shooting holes in paper targets or breaking clay targets >to be acts of violence. Hey! I own a target pistol! It's not a terribly good one, a Mark I .22 caliber, but I have a great deal of fun shooting holes in paper. I do, however, feel that shooting clay targets is immoral :-). Anyway, as a person who has fired pistols, I would rather have other weapons available in a street crime situation. Television cop shows are exciting, but far too unrealistic. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/30/85)
In article <243@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >There is a chemical used for control of animals which comes in a pressure >can like mace but is legal in most states. Instead of emitting a spray >it comes out as a stream which can hit a target up to 20 feet away and >contact with the skin causes an immediate and painful burning feeling. >It is available from many kennels and animal trainers in the southern >Wisconsin area, I dont know about any where else, and requires no permits >or liscences because it is intended for use on animals. A few points: Mace is the trademark of a product of the Smith & Wesson corporation. Last I heard it's manufacture had been discontinued in favor of Mace II. Neither Mace nor Mace II is related to the CS or CN gas sold for self defense as tear gas. Mace was notoriously ineffective. Mace II is reportedly better. The CS, CN, and Mace II cannisters I've used have all projected a stream rather than a spray. In still air they could hit a target about 10' away. As with all projectiles, accuracy requires practice. In California possession of CS, CN, or Mace II without a license is a felony. None of these products is recommended for use on animals. I'm not aware of any such products intended solely for use on animals here, or what their licensing requirements would be, if any. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe