hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) (09/17/86)
In article <121@sri-unix.ARPA> maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) writes: . . . > Do the people who advocate self-defense for women >as a cure for the rape epidemic think that shopkeepers who don't own >shotguns are asking to be robbed? Yes. Here's a dogmatic idea: Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their own defense have less violence and less crime than societies (like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities. Remember, kiddies, the cops can't be everywhere! 8-{)} --------------------------------------------------^ (Obligatory smiley for those with knee-jerk reactions) Comments? Flames? Intelligent, thought-out counter arguments? All are equally welcome. Kirk
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/17/86)
> Yes. A rapist that spends a few days in the hospital after attacking a > woman willing (and able) to fight back is likely to think twice in the > future -- and at least he's out of circulation while he's in the hospital. > ... > In some cities, running a liquor store at night without a gun under the > counter is JUST PLAIN STUPID! Do they deserve to be robbed? No. Is > it going to happen? Almost certainly. > > Rapists shot dead cease to be a societal problem. > > Clayton E. Cramer Likewise murderers executed, etc. This is an unfortunate but simple fact that people who gather data about the deterrent effects of this kind of punishment in the law or that kind or punishment in the law seem to ignore. Note ``seem to''. I haven't read any studies. (Freely admitted ...) But a rapist shot dead in the act, or an armed robber shot dead with a gun in his hand is not going to further menace society. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) (09/22/86)
> > Rapists shot dead cease to be a societal problem. > > Likewise murderers executed, etc. Likewise robbers, drug pushers, extortionists, shoplifters, illegal parkers, jaywalkers, and politicians. You might also point out that accused (but innocent) people also cease to be a societal problem if shot dead. Just think of all your tax dollars that this would save! No more courts with highly-paid judges (and lowly-paid stenographers) getting a ride on your taxes! No more expensive jails to keep up! As a 6'1", 200-lb male who has often heard women say how intimidating it is when a man looks at them from across the street, I somehow feel very unsafe right now. Maybe I should just shoot myself, before one of you decides to do the job and prevent me from committing a crime. After all, if I commit suicide, I won't be a societal problem, either. (Well, someone would have to bury me; maybe I should find a way that leaves no body.) Jeez.... -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{cthulhu,inmet,harvax,mit-eddie,mot[bos],rclex}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Telex: 922-443 CODEX A MNSF !fortune -o
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (09/23/86)
In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes: > >Yes. Here's a dogmatic idea: > > Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their > own defense have less violence and less crime than societies > (like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities. > This suggestion would be more plausible if the United States had much lower rates of crime and violence than the other western countries, all of which expect the authorities, rather than the individual, to be responsible for defence and control. In fact, its rates are by far higher than those in (to take the example where I happen to live) Canada, where it would be virtually unthinkable for a homeowner to have a handgun.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/27/86)
> In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes: > > > >Yes. Here's a dogmatic idea: > > > > Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their > > own defense have less violence and less crime than societies > > (like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities. > > > > This suggestion would be more plausible if the United States had > much lower rates of crime and violence than the other western countries, > all of which expect the authorities, rather than the individual, > to be responsible for defence and control. In fact, its rates are > by far higher than those in (to take the example where I happen to > live) Canada, where it would be virtually unthinkable for a homeowner > to have a handgun. Groan! For the hundredth time, "You are comparing apples & oranges when you compare the U.S. and Canada, or the U.S. and any European country." There are substantial differences in ethnic makeup, legal systems (Canada actually sends violent criminals to jail, for example), weather, and population densities. And the last set of murder comparisions I saw for Canada and the U.S. make the difference smaller than you think. 9.1 murders/100,000 in the U.S., 6.1 in Canada. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (09/28/86)
> > > Rapists shot dead cease to be a societal problem. > > > > Likewise murderers executed, etc. > > Likewise robbers, drug pushers, extortionists, shoplifters, > illegal parkers, jaywalkers, and politicians. > > You might also point out that accused (but innocent) people > also cease to be a societal problem if shot dead. Just think > of all your tax dollars that this would save! No more courts > with highly-paid judges (and lowly-paid stenographers) getting > a ride on your taxes! No more expensive jails to keep up! > > As a 6'1", 200-lb male who has often heard women say how > intimidating it is when a man looks at them from across > the street, I somehow feel very unsafe right now. Maybe > I should just shoot myself, before one of you decides to > do the job and prevent me from committing a crime. After > all, if I commit suicide, I won't be a societal problem, > either. (Well, someone would have to bury me; maybe I > should find a way that leaves no body.) > > John M Chambers Unfortunately, the level of irrationality that John is concerned about is a problem AFTER someone has been victimized. Would I encourage a woman (or for that matter, a man) who had been victimized on the street to carry a gun? No, not until they had recovered from the trauma enough to NOT consider everyone a potential attacker. But most people, until they have been victimized, do not consider ANY form of self-defense, armed or unarmed. And thus, the people most likely to make rational decisions about whether they are in danger of great bodily harm are the ones least likely to be armed. But if John doesn't realize that MOST people (probably 99%) can tell the difference between immediate danger, and feeling uncomfortable, I'm inclined to think this problem is mostly John's. Clayton E. Cramer
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (09/30/86)
>Unfortunately, the level of irrationality that John is concerned about is >a problem AFTER someone has been victimized. Would I encourage a woman >(or for that matter, a man) who had been victimized on the street to carry >a gun? No, not until they had recovered from the trauma enough to NOT >consider everyone a potential attacker. But most people, until they have >been victimized, do not consider ANY form of self-defense, armed or unarmed. >And thus, the people most likely to make rational decisions about whether >they are in danger of great bodily harm are the ones least likely to be >armed. > >But if John doesn't realize that MOST people (probably 99%) can tell the >difference between immediate danger, and feeling uncomfortable, I'm >inclined to think this problem is mostly John's. > Great. That means only 1 per cent of the population is out there ready to shoot me for no particular reason. I hope only a small percentage of that 1 per cent lives in states and countries where they can buy guns for "self-defence". I wouldn't want to be nearby when they suddenly felt defensive.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/02/86)
> >Unfortunately, the level of irrationality that John is concerned about is > >a problem AFTER someone has been victimized. Would I encourage a woman > >(or for that matter, a man) who had been victimized on the street to carry > >a gun? No, not until they had recovered from the trauma enough to NOT > >consider everyone a potential attacker. But most people, until they have > >been victimized, do not consider ANY form of self-defense, armed or unarmed. > >And thus, the people most likely to make rational decisions about whether > >they are in danger of great bodily harm are the ones least likely to be > >armed. > > > >But if John doesn't realize that MOST people (probably 99%) can tell the > >difference between immediate danger, and feeling uncomfortable, I'm > >inclined to think this problem is mostly John's. > > > > Great. That means only 1 per cent of the population is out there > ready to shoot me for no particular reason. > It's probably not even 1% of the population -- and many of them are quite willing to use knives, blunt instruments, and bare hands to achieve the same end. > > I hope only a small percentage of that 1 per cent lives in states and > countries where they can buy guns for "self-defence". I wouldn't want > to be nearby when they suddenly felt defensive. Do you mean, "can buy guns" or do you mean, "can buy guns LEGALLY". I ask the question because I've known people who had guns pulled on them on the street in Canada -- where they certainly don't have the guns legally. By the way, what's happened to the Canadian murder rate since handgun restrictions were imposed in 1974? I can only find current murder rates, and raw numbers for 1974-1980. But the raw numbers went up 30% during that interval. Clayton E. Cramer
apak@oddjob.UUCP (apak) (10/02/86)
In article <1086@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes: >> >Yes. Here's a dogmatic idea: >> > Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their >> > own defense have less violence and less crime than societies >> > (like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities. >> This suggestion would be more plausible if the United States had >> much lower rates of crime and violence than the other western countries, >> all of which expect the authorities, rather than the individual, >> to be responsible for defence and control. In fact, its rates are >> by far higher than those in (to take the example where I happen to >> live) Canada, where it would be virtually unthinkable for a homeowner >> to have a handgun. >Groan! For the hundredth time, "You are comparing apples & oranges >when you compare the U.S. and Canada, or the U.S. and any European >country." There are substantial differences in ethnic makeup, legal >systems (Canada actually sends violent criminals to jail, for example), >weather, and population densities. You are - as you so vehemently assert - a free individual. You don't *have* to spend your life posting second-hand non sequiturs courtesy of the N.R.A.. Try some independent rational thought for once. You list some factors which could conceivably affect the crime rates in different countries. They vary not only from country to country but (for example) from state to state within the U.S.. If they really are significant you ought to be able to demonstrate this simply by comparing U.S. states. If they explain the difference in murder rates between the U.S. and civilised countries, you ought to be able to show this statistically (a crude method would be to try and pair U.S. states and foreign countries with similar ethnicity/legal system/weather/pop. density; best would be a proper factor analysis). On the other hand, if you just want to use irrelevancies to prevent rational debate, you're doing just fine. -- ihnp4!oddjob!apak | oddjob!apak@lbl-csam.arpa oddjob!apak@UChicago.bitnet This is not a pipe apak%uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix@ucl-cs.arpa
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/03/86)
> In article <1086@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes: > >> >Yes. Here's a dogmatic idea: > >> > Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their > >> > own defense have less violence and less crime than societies > >> > (like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities. > >> This suggestion would be more plausible if the United States had > >> much lower rates of crime and violence than the other western countries, > >> all of which expect the authorities, rather than the individual, > >> to be responsible for defence and control. In fact, its rates are > >> by far higher than those in (to take the example where I happen to > >> live) Canada, where it would be virtually unthinkable for a homeowner > >> to have a handgun. > >Groan! For the hundredth time, "You are comparing apples & oranges > >when you compare the U.S. and Canada, or the U.S. and any European > >country." There are substantial differences in ethnic makeup, legal > >systems (Canada actually sends violent criminals to jail, for example), > >weather, and population densities. > You are - as you so vehemently assert - a free individual. You don't > *have* to spend your life posting second-hand non sequiturs courtesy of the > N.R.A.. Try some independent rational thought for once. You list some factors > which could conceivably affect the crime rates in different countries. They > vary not only from country to country but (for example) from state to state > within the U.S.. If they really are significant you ought to be able to > demonstrate this simply by comparing U.S. states. If they explain the > difference in murder rates between the U.S. and civilised countries, you > ought to be able to show this statistically (a crude method would be to > try and pair U.S. states and foreign countries with similar ethnicity/legal > system/weather/pop. density; best would be a proper factor analysis). > On the other hand, if you just want to use irrelevancies to prevent > rational debate, you're doing just fine. > > ihnp4!oddjob!apak There is considerable argument about the relative importance of the different factors -- the lack of controllable experimental subjects is the major reason. I should point out, however, that there are many states in the U.S. that have dramatically lower murder rates than Canada, with much higher availability of firearms. (South Dakota, for example, last time I looked up murder rates, had .6 murders/100,000 -- as opposed to Canada, 6.1/100,000.) I notice that the forces for gun control NEVER show the sort of figures you ask for -- maybe they've tried to build such statistics and find the results...unimpressive? Clayton E. Cramer
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/09/86)
In article <1109@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >There is considerable argument about the relative importance of the >different factors -- the lack of controllable experimental subjects is >the major reason. I should point out, however, that there are many states >in the U.S. that have dramatically lower murder rates than Canada, with >much higher availability of firearms. (South Dakota, for example, last >time I looked up murder rates, had .6 murders/100,000 -- as opposed to >Canada, 6.1/100,000.) Once again apples and oranges are being compared. Comparing the murder rate in South Dakota to that of Canada (which includes large cities such as Toronto, Montreal, and the murder capital of the country, Vancouver) makes little sense. A more reasonable comparison would involve S.D. and either Manitoba or perhaps Saskatchewan (both of which are provinces for those ignorant of North American geography). J.B. Robinson