HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 08:32:46 GMT

	I would say that a handgun is a last resort weapon.  I mean just
carrying one for self defense. 
	First off, in many states they are illegal, except for use on a
range (recreation).  If they are not illegal, then you have to go through
getting the concealed carry permit, and that is almost impossible in most
states (and I think universally in urban areas, where they would be useful)
	Second, a gun is a killing weapon.  There can be no doubt about it.
If a gun does not kill it's target, it was a bad shot.  Only carry a gun if
you intend to kill your target, because, unless you are an *unbelievable*
shot, you run a high risk of killing someone evenwhen aiming to wound, and
not kill.  
	In the military, there was a lot of difference in policy, as we
were encouraged to aim to disable, not kill (for the most part, certain
circumstances changed that)
	So, I guess the question remains:  If you are attacked, are you
willing to kill (not just risk killing, but outright kill) your attacker?  
	The saying about dont draw a gun unless you intend to use it should
be changed to "Dont draw a gun unless you are going to kill someone
immediately thereafter".  This is an issue that you cannot take too
seriously.
	Sam
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: tv domestic violence
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:01:34 GMT

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>Gee Paul, Not only is domestic violence not funny, neither is:

First off, just because something else is bad doesn't mean that this new tv
show isn't bad.  I don't watch TV much, but I can comment on a few of the shows
you mention:

>Killing of endangered animals (Married, With Children)
>Adultery (Cheers)
>Retardation (L.A. Law)

I think that these three shows are extremely offensive.  I have seen 1, 2, and
2 (respectively) ten-minute (or so) segments of them.  I could not keep
watching them because they were so extremely offensive.  I have no objection to
you putting them in a similar category to this new offensive show being
discussed.

>Being handicapped (Happy Days)
>War (M*A*S*H)
>Stuttering (Looney Tunes)

I agree that these kinds of humour are not very nice, but I think that you have
to realize that in these cases, people were insensitive to these problems.
Perhaps with additional education they would not have presented these views of
these subjects.  Whereas Married With Children is a reaction to feminism and
purposefully touches upon feminism-related subjects to make anti-feminist
points, the implicit pro-war sentiment in MASH is presumably due to blind
U.S.-centrism of a kind which would not be portrayed by more enlightened
people.  I guess what I'm saying is that in the first category, I think we need
an all-out fight to remedy the problem, but in this second category, education
is what's needed.

>Armed Robbery (Barney Miller)

Now THIS example is more to the point.  I wonder how many of your other
examples (of shows I have never seen) fall into this category.  Barney Miller
is quite different from the above references because on Barney Miller, armed
robbery is bad.  That seems strange to say, but the point is, in Looney Tunes
cartoons, making fun of stuttering is good.  In Cheers, hurting people is
good.  In Barney Miller, the "good guys" OPPOSE robbers.  You can't just look
at the subject matter, nor even at what's deemed to be funny; you have to look
at whether or not the offensive behaviour is treated as good or bad.  (If the
behaviour is sufficiently offensive, treating it indifferently may be
offensive.)

>Unruliness in children (The Simpsons)

Now this one seems right out in left field.  I don't know why it's bad for
children to rebel against their parents.

ajr, number one Simpsons fan.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Forget it? I wish you'd let us!
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:52:40 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug20.102647.9742@apricot.co.uk>, nickyg@apricot.co.uk (Nicky Glover) writes:


(repeat or repeats deleted)
> 
>  
> dc - another chance for you to argue.  You are a complete a***h***

Yeah, well the issue was quiet for two days until you had to kick in your two
cents worth--and you say I am the one who wants to argue?

DC

PS--regarding your 'a***h***' post, what word were your TRYING to spell?
ASSSHOLE? Why use the stars? And while I would gladly admit you are an expert
on the subject, I must state your expertiese has fallen a bit flat here.

Perhaps you were projecting a bit too much?
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:06:23 GMT

	I was not specifically discussing the lega ramifications to using a
handgun for self defense.  I was expressing that the peorson using a gun
had DAMN well better make sure that killing an attacker is acceptable.
	If I were in a situation where I was attacked, and I pulled out a
gun to defend myself (which I would not do, even if I were carring a gun at
the time.  I'm not willing to kill someone if I believe that I can disarm
them without deadly force.) I would not shoot if the attacker immediately
fled.  I am merely saying that if you carry a gun, and you intend to use it
in your defense, it is best not to even think about what you will do if the
attacker runs, but to think about how to respond if they do not flee.
	The point I was trying to make was this:  
	You had best decide, before carrying a gun, if you CAN AZND WILL
kill an attacker.  If you draw a gun on someone, then you had damn well
better mean business.  You had damned well better be able to live with any
consequences of your actions.  You had damned welll be ready to kill.
Think of it as this:  You have a gun to kill, and only by good luck will it
not be used.  
	Guns are death, if used for anything other than recreation (range,
competetion shooting, etc and yes, I know, if you don't practice safety,
they can be death in precreation too, but, thats a different matter).
	A gun is classified as "Deadly Force" by both the military and the
police.  Military aims for guns being different than polices use, lets
ignore them.
	Deadly force...  That force which is used to cause death or great
bodily harm.  Such force is only to be used as a last resort, when all
other means have failed.
	You don't exactly have a lot of leeway there...  all other means
have failed means essentially, that you cannot run, you cannot use another,
less deadly means of defense, or the attacker has a weapon classified in
the deadly force group.  Essentially, what this says to me is that a gun is
only to be used for purposes of dealing death.
	
	Finally, on handgun fatality statistics, they are only that:
Statistics.  Don't even consider the odds that you might only wound your
attacker, because they are irrelevant.  Consider only this fact:  Your
using a gun for defense HAS to signify your willingness to kill your
attacker.  Period.
	Sorry to rant, but, there are a lot of people out there that wave
guns around and do not understand that a gun was designed to kill, not
disarm, not injure, not permanantly maim, but to KILL. 
	Again, you cannot take the issue too seriously.
	Sam

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN)
Subject: Mace vs. Handguns
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:25:05 GMT

I think both are good options for preventing attacks of just about any kind.
I believe carrying one or both increases your relative safety.

I also think it's a personal decision: mace or a handgun.  Out here in Oklahoma
I've heard tell that you can get away with murder (pun intended).  We're a
bloodthirsty, backwater lot of people -- NOT!   Sorry, my writer's flair was
acting up on me again.  Happens from time to time.

Given the choice, I'd opt for the handgun.  Although I don't remember any
incident (other than ones in the movies) where an attacker pulled out their gun
and started firing on the "victim" and the victim whipped out their weapon to
return fire, a handgun would be the weapon of choice in that situation. 

I dunno.  Like I said, I think it's a matter of opinion.

Personally, I prefer the handgun.  It can be more effective and have a greater
range.  Course then again, it might also have heavier consequences when you
use it (or in the event that it's taken away from you).

(sigh)  I dunno.  But I still prefer the handgun to mace.  I think it a better
deterrent, and if it comes to that, better stopping power.


-- 
Grant Boggs
boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: Z57N000 <Z57N@UNB.CA>
Subject: Anon-service: Waiter Has A Fake Accent posts
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:49:55 GMT

Suggesting that either background be given for this thread or the name
of the article be altered to accomodate the talk.rape setting.

************************************************************************
DARELLA CASSANDRA PIERSON ("RELKIE"; "Aileen Quinn")

"DA na na na na."

RHYTHM AND NEWS
************************************************************************

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: walking someone to their car
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:44:15 GMT

>flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>>But even if there is an increased risk, if it's
>>substantially less than the decrease to the woman's risk, it makes sense for
>>the man to accompany her.

silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) writes:
>Why? This assumes some sort of social utilitarian view, that decreasing someone
>elses risk by assuming more risk to myself is good...

>Your argument implies that if there is a 1% chance of the woman being attacked
>if alone, a .1% chance of us being attacked if together, and a .3% chance
>of me being attacked alone, that I should escort her, since that results
>in a net of about .2% of one or both of us being attacked, substantially
>lowering her risk.

I was thinking of completely different orders of magnitude.  Suppose there's a
1% chance of the woman being attacked if alone, a .0001% chance of them being
attacked if together, and a .0005% chance of the man being attacked if alone.
With your figures I agree it's dicey.  But I think that often it's more clear-
cut.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:24:21 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug22.015529.4582@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.085329.9621@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a 
>>49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
>>
>>Plus, it would be difficult to be prosecuted for.
> 
> Not really.  The DA merely establishes WHY it was being carried and
> then various weapons laws come into play.  The DA makes a deal with
> the attacker (assuming best case, you're found out AFTER a justifiable
> use) for no time or maybe even conviction, who then happily helps send
> the WD-bandit up the river.
> 
> A justifiable use does not imply justifiable carry.
> 
> -andy

From the legal expert himself. How, pray tell, are you, Mr. Prosecutor,
going to PROVE why someone was carrying a canister of WD-40??? 

"Well, it is obvious to me, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that she
was carrying it to spray in the face of an attacker."

Defense stands up, "Objection your honor. This line of speculation is NOT
relevant as it is not a crime to carry said item as a weapon of self-defense."

Seriously andy, not only is your speculation impossible to prove (prosector
proving reason why WD-40 was carried), but it is unlikely she would be
proescuted for it as the DA would face a SCANDAL like no tomorrow, further, and
DAs YOU know willing to cut a deal wiith a rapist to prosecute his victim for
defending herself, but it is NOT A CRIME FOR HER TO CARRY ANYTHING FOR
SELF-DEFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE!

You know, I can understand when people like you shoot off your mouth because
you expect to get away with it, but this one was totally off-base, and you KNOW
I am going to correct you on legal matters.

Unless, of course, you care to show examples of what you have said the DA could
do ever having been done, AND shown me a statute which prhibits a woman from
carrying WD-40.

Please, think AND do some research before spreading dis-information.

DC



> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Men--expendible?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:01:07 GMT

In article <10292@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:

>Most nights, sometimes until one or two in the morning, I have to
>walk home from work.  There is no "good" route to walk home, and the
>best route takes me past a parking lot where a man was
>force-ass-fucked one night about a year ago.  The only reason I know
>is that I read page 4 of the newspaper, where such minor trivialities
>appear.  It was in a ha-ha column, oh those silly happenings when the
>moon is full at the end of the semester.  How do you think I should
>feel about this?  Bend over, smile, and squeal like a pig?  Use extra
>sheets if you like.

A couple of remarks about this.  Is there any way you can walk/ride
home with a fellow coworker?  Arrange to be in a carpool with people
keeping similar hours?  Ride a bicycle (not that people on bikes can't
be attacked, but they seem to be less likely targets than pedestrians)
back and forth from work?  Or maybe even start carrying a weapon of
some sort?  I think you're right to be apprehensive.

That a rape would be put in a "ha-ha" column is absolutely disgusting.
I hope you wrote that newspaper about it.  It's outrageous that a rape
on a man would be treated like that.

_The Advocate_ did an article about a year ago on rape of men.  (I can
drag out my copy and post some excerpts if anyone is interested.)  The
article suggested that by talking with men in support groups, men
calling to rape crisis centers, etc. that the number of men being
raped is about 10% the number of women being raped.  That's a lot of
rapes and very few of them are ever reported.
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: genetics (was Re: Walking her to the car.)
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:31:23 GMT
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <1992Aug14.122558.8576@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
|> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
|> >It is pretty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
|> >ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.
|> 
|> There is no evidence that the difference in women and men's strength in our
|> society is genetic.  It could be entirely cultural.
|> 
|> *NOTE* I said NO EVIDENCE.  Responding with "come on, surely it's genetic" is
|> not a valid counterargument (though it's the one I usually get).

What difference does it make? Women have some advantage over men in certain
sports. Women also have certain mental (and emotional) capabilities that men
do not. But no matter what their culture, women do not, have not, and (probably)
will not ever equal men in upper body strength. Genetic, cultural - it makes no
difference - women (average) are physically inferior to men (average).

It has NOTHING to do with culture. No matter how hard a woman works out, she
will NEVER be able to achieve the same physical strength of a man who works out
just as hard - never. Genetic? Of course. That's the same reason not all men can
build up like Schwarzenegger - they are not genetically equipped - and that's
a well documented fact (pick up any muscle magazine).

It disgusts me that some men choose to abuse their physical superiority over
women by raping them. It's too bad their such wimps that they feel they have
to control another human in that way - why don't they pick on someone their
own size? ---- Oh, sorry, I got a little sidetracked...

JC
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:32:24 GMT

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu wrote:
: In article <0095F210.3CB54940@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>, uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:

	(why not use a handgun?  deleted...)
: 
: The LEGAL problem is one of concealed weapon and carrying a handgun without a
: permit in most states. You blow him away, and then you go to jail, where you
: are raped in prison by a bunch of dykes on a regular basis. Seems
: counter-productive.
: 
in some states, it is actually possible to get a concealed carry permit...
and in some states (ie, New Mexico), it is only a misdemeanor to carry a
concealed weapon.  also, in some states, that which constitutes a weapon, or
a concealed weapon, varies (ie, in nm, if it's a semi auto with an empty 
chamber or a revolver with an empty chamber up next, its not a weapon :).
finally, in some states (again, ie New Mexico, and also, I believe, Arizona,)
it is fully legal to carry a gun openly... as long as you stay out of banks,
bars, liquor stores, hoplophobic businesses, and the like.

: Then, when you are relased, you have a felony record.

only if it was a felony offense.  and you get convicted.
: 
: And if you should happen to be searched pursuant to a traffic offense, and 
: they find the gun, you go downtown with even having used it to defend yourself.
in New Mexico and Colorado (the law varies GREATLY from state to state), it
is perfectly legal to carry a loaded firearm, concealed, within reach of the
driver, while in your car, home, or place of business.  check your local laws.
: 
: Now, I am not making this up, it has happened to women who have defended
: hemselves. (The being raped by dykes is an extrapolation of what COULD happen
: while a woman is in prison, as women in prison are no kinder to 'fresh meat'
: than men in prison are.)
: 
I imagine that getting raped/abused or even just going to prison would 
truly be a low point in one's life... however, i maintain that it is better
to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  :)

: I imagine that there are other reasons women have as well, but I know this
: alone would stop me if I were a woman.
: 
: DC
: 

--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu
SMASH THE STATE.  Carry, be willing and able... and be safe.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Criticizing the victim?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:18:17 GMT

In article <10294@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.054641.10769@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>Aaaah, herein lies the confusion.  I was referring to the situation where 
>someone at a social gathering who doesn't want to leave gets asked by someone
>to walk her to her car.  
>
>In my experience this happens quite frequently, and I assumed that was the
>reference.  I don't recall a woman's ever offering to drive me back to the
>party who has asked me to walk her to her car.  Of course, I should.  However,
>doesn't the fact that she didn't even consider it important enough to ask 
>convey useful information?

Ah, I see.  I must not party as much as you do.  :)

I strongly suggest that you ask the woman to drive you back to the
party.  I think that you'll be pleasantly surprised at the results.
You certainly have the right to have your safety considered.

As far as conveying useful info...  Yes, it does.  I think many women
see men being very careless by women's standards, so they assume men
are much less at risk than women.  This isn't true.  Of course, I'm
sure some women just don't care if men are at risk by helping them,
too.

>>I think any person, male or female, has the right to refuse such a
>>request from a person s/he just met.
>
>I don't understand this.  How can whether s/he has just met and individual
>affect the reasonableness or right to fear assault from a third party?

I was thinking that the person doing the requesting may turn out to be
an attacker or setting a person up to be attacked.  That's what I
meant.

>>I've been sexually assaulted.  I still walk my friends to their cars
>>when they're alone.
>
>Well, I've been sexually assaulted, and I still walk people to their cars
>when they're alone.  I consider it a Nice Thing to Do.  I do it, and walk 
>alone by myself, in spite of the fact that it scares me shitless.  Are you 
>and I in some sort of competition?  To what end?  What are the rules?

I understand since I've been scared to death walking a friend to
her/his car (parking garages especially scare me).  But, if the friend
doesn't offer to drive me back, I always ask.  I've never been turned
down.

Don't walk a woman to her car and then walk back scared by yourself.
Don't be too nice or polite to ask.  You owe it to yourself (as much
as the woman does) to protect yourself.

I don't think we are in competition, just that even though scared, men
and women should protect each other.
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:23:25 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug18.174105.1087@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.075004.411@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>>4)  NOT use deadly force, but, instead use less than deadly force to stop
>>them.  I don't think it is illegal in any state to kick the shit oput of
>>them to get them out of your house if they begin to rob you (and, in your
>>scenario, you made their stated intendt pretty clear.
> 
> Bzzt - "kicking shit" out of someone is the use of deadly force.
> 
> While using some things is "automatically" using deadly force, doing
> other things can be.  "Kicking shit" out of someone is, no matter how
> you do it.  Attempting to smother someone by stuffing cotton in their
> nose and mouth is "assault with a deadly weapon", even though we
> usually don't think of cotton balls as "deadly weapons".
> 
> -andy
> --

Hey--someone aware of legal thinking who is talking about the law!

Andy, you are right. Most people equate deadly force as "commonly used as
deadly force", which is not the legal definition--which is closer to "force
which, as used, could have been deadly."

Most people don't realize "criminal tools" not only apples to lockpicks and
such, but every item used in the comission of a crime. You open a door with a
credit card, the credit card is a criminal tools. Break a window with a golf
club so you can get in, and that 9-iron is a criminal tool.

DC
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:55:44 GMT

uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>What's wrong with a good, sturdy .38 or 9mm?  It's more effective than a can
>of mace or trying to gouge an eye w/ a set of car keys.  

If you point your can of mace the wrong way, you're not going to kill yourself.

As others have noted in followups, guns are serious things that shouldn't be
used improperly.  But I don't think that anyone has brought this back around to
your question; the answer to your question is that if you don't want to devote
a substantial amount of time to learning how to use a gun, it's quite foolish
to carry one.  (This is of course only one of the many, many circumstances in
which it is foolish to carry a gun.)
Newsgroups: talk.rape