From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 23:04:21 GMT

george@cs.purdue.EDU (Michael J. George) writes:

>In article <susan.702534881@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>> 
>> 	I've never claimed that "running away" is ALWAYS an option.
>> Just that it is an option which is all too often ignored in this news
>> group.  All too often its a case of someone "picking a fight" with someone
>> else and that person (who's usually T(w)ermie) saying they'd use their gun
>> to defend themselves.  I wonder why they have to stand there in the first
>> place when it would be so much easier to withdraw before the situation
>> got out of hand?

>I suppose one reason that I would fail to mention it is that I would feel any
>rational person *would* try to avoid having the conflict degenerate to the
>point of having to use deadly force.  

	Doesn't seem to be too much of the norm here though....

>					I also think that when there is the use
>of deadly force, the case is usually scruitinized very closely.  As a result
>of that, I am *very* careful to find any other way out.  It's also ben mentioned
>here before that in general (in the US), ppl. with concealed carry permits are
>exptected to be more responsible (legally) than the unarmed person.

	They might be "expected to be more responsible" but I'm asking are
they?  You can expect people to be good drivers on the road but don't be
too surprised if they get pulled over for dangerous driving by the police.
I think the pro-gun crowd here assume far too much about their "law abiding
citizens" than I do.  Tell me, when you purchase your gun, do they hand
out an extra ration of maturity? 

>> 	As for your example, it is indeed a relavent example for a different
>> situation.  I wonder though, just how useful a gun is in such a situation?
>> Are you proposing that wymmin should shoot their husbands?  Don't you find
>> it interesting that the majority of victims in Australia who are killed with
>> guns are in fact wives?

>If a woman (why do you misspell it?  I'm afraid I've never seen this done
>before (sheltered me...) ) 

	I think this newsgroup has been through all this before.  Its obvious
that its the correct spelling of the word, after all we are wymmin not
woMEN, now aren't we?

>				is being assaulted to this point, then she *is*
>justified in shooting him.

	Yep, lets solve all our social and marital problems with guns.  Don't
you think it would be better if some of you beastly men pulled your fingers
out and started to realise that wymmin are not another one of your possessions?
	It appears that the only solution you can produce to this sort of 
problem is a gun.  Not surprising really.

>> 	I think rather that you have made an excellent case for why NOBODY
>> should be allowed a gun Geoff.  We are all subject to our emotions and unable
>> to think clearly under stress.  Hence guns should be barred from everybody
>> in that case.

>You can also become subject to your emotions and attack me with a knife and 
>try to kill me.  Hence knives should be barred from everybody.

	However knives can't kill you from 20 feet away, whereas a gun can.

>I'm sorry but your logic doesn't hold.  by that logic, we can bar almost every-
>thing from everybody.

	Only if you carry it to the extremes which the pro-gun crowd want to.
If we carried your argument to its "logical conclusion" then you couldn't
bar anything from anybody, now could you?  Why aren't I then allowed to go
down to the corner Milk Bar and purchase an Atomic Bomb?  Could it be because
society believes such weapons are dangerous?  Well, let us then extend that
premise to include guns as well shall we?

>> 	Indeed it is.  However, its the reverse here.  As I said above,
>> the majority of victims of gun homocides are wymmin in Australia Geoff.
>							     ^^^^^^-what's wrong with "women"

	Could it be the suffix?

>> They are the victims of these "equalisers", not the men, which is one
>> reason why so many feminists in Australia are in favour of gun control
>> as they see it as one more way in which the security of wymmin can be
>> assurred.

>How about if the women are allowed access to their own guns?  Then the gun would
>be the equalizer.  If they are really feminists, then they should want equality
>for women, so rather than forbid men from having guns (restricting men's rights)
>they should fight to allow women to have them (expand the women's rights).

	Wanting equality does not mean that we want to become the _same_ as
men.  We don't want the male (violent) solution to our problems because all
it causes in the long run is just more grief and suffering.  Wymmin seek an
alternative _peaceful_ solution.  Don't you think its time you lived up
to your reputation as a "rational thinking human being"?  Or is it the case
that was simply another male lie propagated by a man?


--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stantoni___________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns