HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:01:09 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <1992Aug15.150901.9480@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>In article <0095F210.3CB54940@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>, uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>> I had a longish discussion about this with a woman about six weeks ago.  She
>> was, in fact, a rape victim and refuses to carry and handgun (but does carry
>> a spray can of mace).  
>> 
>> 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.  
>> 
>> Please educate me on this subject (or flame if you must by Email).  Thanks.

>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.

    The same, of course, is true of Mace and similar substances, in many
states.  In California, for instance, any noxious substance not
specifically approved is forbidden.  CapStun, one of the more effective
mace-like (yes, I know it works differently) substances, is therefore
outlawed.  But in Massachusetts, it's legal, because it hasn't been
specifically banned.  But Mace has.

-Josh.

--
Josh Alden:  Joshua.Alden@dartmouth.edu
EMT Instructor, DMS Health Education And Rescue Training
Ownership of a weapon is a victimless crime.  (Where it's a crime at all.)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:17:49 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <Bsvp63.Eq3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert) writes:
> 
> 	DC,
> 	
> 		I understand your position, however I am trying to point
> 	out that it is practically impossible for a woman in this socieity
> 	to avoid a "high risk" situation. ANY situation where in she is
> 	alone with a man (generally speaking...) can be a "high risk"
> 	situation for that woman. The point is that the "way the world
> 	is" a woman can be sexually assulted by her husband, her brother,
> 	her clegyman, her doctor, her teacher, her boss..etc.  
> 		A woman has to learn to appraise every situation and every
> 	person. DC do you ever worry that your placing yourself at risk 
> 	when you talk with a Professor alone? Do you ever wonder if you
> 	shouldn't have some one with you when the maintenance man comes
> 	by to fix something? Do you ever set up a little  emergency "code" 
> 	system with your friends when you go out on a first date?
>
> (etc... deleted)

From what you have said, it looks like a prudent person is constantly
evaluating her circumtances for indicators that this is not a good situation to
be in. To use military jargon, when enough red flags go up, you should be
moving out of there.

You will PLEASE NOTE I have never advocated going up to rape victims who
stayed when they should have gone and telling them, "Boy, were you ever stupid!
Most people could have seen that attack from miles away."

I do however, strongly advocate that in an effort to shock a little reality
into younger femalesby telling them in no uncertain terms, just like we do with
AIDS and drugs, that if your brain tells you not to be doing something, it is
stupid to ignore that warning.

Maybe you feel rape victims will be upset becuase they backwards apply a future
warning to their past actions, and conclude that the message is calling them
stupid for having been victimized. I can see where that could be a concern.

I, however, am more concerned with lowering the number of victims than with
watching out for the feelings of those who have already been attacked.

Jugment calls.

If you can find a happy median, that still send out a very clear and strong
message to immature females, I am sure most of us would appreciate it.

DC
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:28:35 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <0095F210.3CB54940@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>Just curious, but I notice a lot of discussion (not necessarily on talk.rape)
>regarding self defense techniques "for women".  Generally, that includes 
>things like marital arts, hat pins, car keys, mace, etc., but rarely are
>handguns brought up.  Practical question;  wouldn't there be less ambiguity
>when faced with a rapist (i.e. potential rapist) to just use a handgun
>(as opposed to mace or some equally "cute" but questionable technique)?
>
>I had a longish discussion about this with a woman about six weeks ago.  She
>was, in fact, a rape victim and refuses to carry and handgun (but does carry
>a spray can of mace).  
>
>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.  
>
>Please educate me on this subject (or flame if you must by Email).  Thanks.


The ome unfortunate aspect of this, at least here in Massachusetts, is that
the woman would be arrested and charged with a homicide.  If she shot the
rapist before he left some evidence of an attack on her, she would then have
to convince the jury and the judge, through the strength of her character,
that he was a rapist, and not some guy who just wanted to know what time it
was.  

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: walking someone to their car
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:46:34 GMT

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>How is his risk of violent physical attack not similar to hers? The fact
>she'll get it vaginally where as he'll get it anally?

No, the fact that (in certain situations) the probability that he'll be
attacked is several orders of magnitude lower than the probability that she'll
be attacked.
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:44:16 GMT


What is all this jibber-jabber about? Do some of you out there actually think
that when a woman is being attacked she should:
1) "Oh my, this man is attacking me. I don't think it's appropriate to use
   deadly force (the gun in her purse), so I'll just run away."
2) "Goodness, but this attacker is persistent. I guess I should get out my gun
   and see what happens."
3) "He doesn't seem too want to run away from my gun. Oh, no! He's coming at
   me with a knife! I guess I'll have to wound him." --- BANG!!
4) "Well, he doesn't seem to be moving, I guess I can get away now."
5) "Oh heavens me, he's getting up even after I shot him in the leg. I have
  no other choice now but to use deadly force..."

I think the actual scenario is more like:
1) Woman notices a man stalking her through the parking lot.
2) From her peripheral vision, she sees him running towards her and knows now
  that she cannot make it to her car in time.
3) She runs from the attacker, drawing her revolver from her purse at the
  same time.
4) She stops and turns around, pointing the gun at the man's chest (he is still
  running towards her) - shoot or don't shoot, it's that simple. If she shoots,
  she stands more than a good chance of killing him, missing him, or hitting
  someone else...

Lastly,
1) The attacker is getting closer.
2) The woman continues walking at a fast pace towards her car.
3) The attacker catches her from behind.
4) The woman spins around, spraying the attacker in the face with mace.
5) The attacker falls to the ground screaming. The woman runs to her car and
   gets away.

Assuming it is legal in the given state, I think mace is a pretty good
decision.

One man's opinion,
JC
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:09:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <0095F210.3CB54940@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>, uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
> Just curious, but I notice a lot of discussion (not necessarily on talk.rape)
> regarding self defense techniques "for women".  Generally, that includes 
> things like marital arts, hat pins, car keys, mace, etc., but rarely are
> handguns brought up.  Practical question;  wouldn't there be less ambiguity
> when faced with a rapist (i.e. potential rapist) to just use a handgun
> (as opposed to mace or some equally "cute" but questionable technique)?
> 
> I had a longish discussion about this with a woman about six weeks ago.  She
> was, in fact, a rape victim and refuses to carry and handgun (but does carry
> a spray can of mace).  
> 
> 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.  
> 
> Please educate me on this subject (or flame if you must by Email).  Thanks.

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.

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

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.

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

DC
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:49:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.083246.18166@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>	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.  

Looks like someone has been spending too much time reading gun magazines.

To begin with, the only legal use of a gun, or any other form of
deadly force (including a stick) in self-defense is to stop the
attack.  If that happens to include killing the attacker, that's the
way things go, but it does not include any "killing" after the attack
has stopped.  It also doesn't include killing that can't stop the
attack.  (Thus, slow-poison can't be used in self-defense, no matter
how you administer it.)  There doesn't happen to be any useful targets
for "disable" that do not include a significant risk of death, but
that doesn't change things; self-defense is to stop.

That being said, handguns are not particularly lethal.  The survival
rate is quite high.  Attackers who insist on being shot multiple times
because they refuse to stop do have a lower survival rate.  (That's an
argument FOR hollowpoints if you want attackers to survive; it takes
fewer to shut them down quickly, while total lethality is affected
more by the number of holes.  It's also an argument for them if you
want victims to survive as well.)

>	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)

The military can play "shoot to maim" games because it has different
legal responsibilities.  Such games are not particularly useful for
stopping people, but the military also has different goals.

>	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.

The statement shouldn't be changed to something so obviously wrong.

The goal isn't to kill, but to stop.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: handguns (?)
Reply-To: uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:45:08 GMT

Just curious, but I notice a lot of discussion (not necessarily on talk.rape)
regarding self defense techniques "for women".  Generally, that includes 
things like marital arts, hat pins, car keys, mace, etc., but rarely are
handguns brought up.  Practical question;  wouldn't there be less ambiguity
when faced with a rapist (i.e. potential rapist) to just use a handgun
(as opposed to mace or some equally "cute" but questionable technique)?

I had a longish discussion about this with a woman about six weeks ago.  She
was, in fact, a rape victim and refuses to carry and handgun (but does carry
a spray can of mace).  

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.  

Please educate me on this subject (or flame if you must by Email).  Thanks.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: lioness method
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:03:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.201544.17053@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>In <1992Aug10.193208.91631@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug10.165152.18662@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>#In article <1992Aug7.222313.19298@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:

>>##[about rape] When it ends, you will be dead; or alive, but physically
>>##and emotionally shattered, probably permanently.
>>#
>>#    I'm not entirely sure this is what we want to say to young women
>>I agree.  The last time someone posted this particular article, I
>
>You both seem to be missing the point, "RAPE IS A BAD THING!"
>and one should do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

    There is a quote floating around in the comp.security type groups
about that the only secure system is one that is turned off, unplugged,
locked in a vault, etc etc. The analogy is exact. To avoid rape, that is,
To Avoid Rape, you must amputate your genitals, wear a chastity belt,
lock yourself in a vault with no doors or windows, and remain in an iron
body cast. Even then I wouldn't bet my life on it.
    The point is that you can never be completely safe from rape. As I said
in my article, I support efforts at self defense, but I do not support
any effort to _define_ rape as necessarily the worst experience of your
life.
    The lioness article said "When it ends, you will be dead [semicolon]"
If somhow you escape death, it tells us, your life will almost certainly
be ruined permanently. You will definately be emotionally destroyed.
   What do you say to a person who is unfourtunately raped, but isn't badly
hurt, and isn't emotionally devestated? Do you tell them that they are a slut
and probably wanted it?

>
>Would the line in question be more accurate if it said
>"When it ends,.... emotionally shattered, possibly permanently"?
>                                          ^^^^^^^^

    First, you would have to remove the dead part. Very few rape victims
are murdered. I would then say that when it is over, you can begin to
heal emotionally and physically. It may take a long time.

   Did you _read_ the lioness article? It was paranoid drivel dressed up
like a self-help book.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
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 23:59:54 GMT

Alan J Rosenthal (flaps@dgp.toronto.edu) wrote:
: 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

but then, its a lot easier to point a spray can at yourself by mistake than it
is to mistakently point a handgun at 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.)

There are certainly circumstances when it is... ill advised to carry a
handgun.  But as to the training necessary to become competent with a
weapon, Jeff Cooper has pretty much proved that six days of initial
training, followed by a little practice once a month or so, will make 
you well qualified with a sidearm.  Chapman and, I believe, Ayoob, cut
the initial training down to four days.  Well worth the investment,
IM(NSV)HO.  I guess it depends on what you call substantial.
--
"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
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Sam wishes it were so.
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:10:27 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <Bt3ssL.G48@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert) writes:
> DC,
> 
> 	Hate to burst your bubble,  but I for one am a woman who has 
> escorted a male to his car, house, etc... I also am a person who believes
> in putting myself on the line for another, even you, if need be.

Let me get this straight, you would be happy to escort a male through a
high-crime area to protect him, and then walk alone back through same area
yourself?


> 	I believe in helping other people, because it's this selfish attitude
> of all for one (one=me) that has gotten us the dangerous society in the
> first place. If I get killed or maimed, or raped because I've helped
> another, so be it. I was once in a situation where somebody didn't help
> me. I learned that I couldn't depend on someone else for help, however,
> I swore that I would do whatever it took to keep myself safe as well as
> help someone else keep safe. This viscious cycle of selfishness has 
> to stop some where. If you call me fool because of my alturism, fine.
> I've been called worse names by people worse than you. 	If you don't
> believe in alturism, well than I sincerely hope that your kids (should
> you have any now or in the furture) don't adopt that attitude.

Just remember, when you are walking back through that area, and you become a
victim again, you did it for someone else's benefit.


> 	It's a small world DC. If we don't all start learning to realize
> that humankind is one big family, than we deserve to go the way of the
> carrier pigeon and let the cockroaches take over.

We are NOT one big family, no matter what you wish. There are members of
your "family" out there who would enjoy killing you and raping your corpse.
There are others who would take no satisfaction in killing you, but would do it
for $1.28 in loose change. There are members of your family who would not even
think they were doing anything wrong by taking turns holding you down so their
buddies could "party" with you.

YOU show them a better way by offering up your flesh for their sacrifice. You
set te good example which will eventually teach them right from wrong.

And, while you are changing all of the bretheren, I will applaud your every
victory.

DC

PS. That is IF you change anything other than yourself.

> 
> -ems
> *************************************
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Store bought brew
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:53:29 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

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?

It's the same size as a mace canister, and is more effective.

Plus, it would be difficult to be prosecuted for.

DC
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:52:03 GMT

Samuel Green (query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: (argument for not using WD40 deleted)
: (counter argument and ego stroking deleted)
: 
:  NOT A CRIME FOR HER TO CARRY ANYTHING FOR
: >SELF-DEFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE!
: 
: 	
: 	I think that there are probably enough blanket laws out there that
: would cover a lot of home and store bought defenses.  Probably a state that
: restricts mace and capicum and the like would also make use of other
: chemicals for defense equally illegal.  I mean, it wouldn't make sense to
: make mace illegal, and allow, say, concentrated hydrochloric acid to be
: used...  Even though mace is a wee bit easier to carry and utilize for
: defense (Unless, of course, you rig something up...)
: 	Sam

now here's an optimistic person; one who seems to think that laws make sense...

--
"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
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:00:32 GMT

Oops, forgot to put this in my earlier message.
	I will ask ANYONE who is going out at night (if I am around, of
course) if they wwant an escort.  Men and women.  Usually, the men will
decline.  Occasionally, the women will too.  I was told by a 'liberated' (I
have no idea what, exacvtly, they are liberated from) woman that she
thought that it was macho bullshit for me to offer to escort her.  She made
it home safely that night, but, since she was so 'liberated', she went out
many other times.  Eventually, someone saw her as a victim, and she was
mugged and raped.  I don't think being 'liberated' is a very good reason
for wanting to go out alone.
	Since that has happened, I now usually INSIST on escorting a woman
to where she needs to go.  If she refuses, I will usually follow her from a
distance of about a block, and then run up to her if it seems like
something may happen.  Maybe thats wrong, if theyt said I should not go,
but, hell, I would rather be stubborn and called a jerk or worse, than let
someone get attacked.
	As far as following the guys who walk alone, I usually will do that
too, just in case.  Anyone can get jumped. I have been attacked a few
times, and in one case, I was lucky enough to have been spotted by a friend
and helped out.  
	Call me stupid, but, I am willing to take a risk that I have been
informed about and trained to deal with (as much as you can be prepared for
an attack, I guess) if it means that someone who may or may not have been
trained as well might be in danger.  I don't think this makes me a hero, or
anything like that, I just think that it gives someone else a better chance
of avoiding an attack.
	Sam
From: alan@ROS6.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Alan Smale)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Just testing ...
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:03:43 GMT

Sorry, I know test messages drive people crazy but I can't post directly
so I'm trying something devious ... just ignore this.

 - Alan.
Newsgroups: talk.rape