From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.120226.18553@brtph560.bnr.ca> jcmarx@bnr.ca writes:
>In addition to what DC has already said, handguns are not normally as
>accessable as a small container of mace.

That depends on how they're carried.  Both can be carried usefully,
and both can be inaccessible.  (People who don't know how to carry
guns usefully aren't all that authoritative when it comes to
discussing how to carry guns usefully.)

>Mace is legal

Not necessarily.

>Women don't normally have this thirst for blood and simply wish to escape the
>attacker, which frankly, makes much more sense.

Not the assumption that using force to stop an attack is a "thirst for
blood".  It isn't.  Maybe it would be for Marx, but that's an
individual thing and tells us only about someone who's not willing to
carry; people who are happen to be different.

Escape isn't necessarily possible.  Sometimes one has to make that
option available.  That requires force.

Everyone agrees that escape is better, even if some people won't admit
that other people also believe that because said others point out that
some options must be created.  One wonders about a position that
requires such an argument.

>In addition to the above, one must be trained to use a handgun effectively - 

It doesn't take much.

>no training required for mace.

Wrong.

>Mace goes in the face (an easy target in most
>instances), however, a bullet must be aimed with precision.

Huh?  If the face is a big enough target for mace, why isn't it a big
enough target for a gun?  We're talking about the same range
(otherwise I'm going to point out that guns can be used at a greater
distance, which is an advantage).  Plus, there are other useful
targets for gun use, targets which are bigger.  Remember, guns are
designed to shoot where they're pointed.  (We can argue about whether
or not mace cans are so designed.)

>If the woman
>hesitates, even for a second, her own gun could be turned against her.

While that's possible, there don't seem to be any examples in the rape
literature.  In any event, it is irrelevant.  A male attacker can kill
a female without a gun, so giving him her gun doesn't give him any
options he didn't have before.

>She is more likely to make that deadly hesitation while aiming a handgun.

Why?  It isn't like she didn't know what she was carrying.  While Marx
might well hesitate, that's irrelevant because Marx isn't willing to
carry.  The behavior of people who are willing to carry is relevant.

>Lastly, a small container of mace is several times cheaper than a handgun.

And several times less effective.  If the extra expense is really an
issue, maybe one should weigh those factors, but there are lots of
other typical expenses that are far less cost-effective (given the
risk of attack and the costs associated with successful attacks) so
there are very few people who really are rationally priced out of the
market.  If it isn't, then Marx is suggesting false economy.

Note that Marx assumes that women are incapable of using guns
appropriately.  What else can't women do, and why?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu