From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Blame the victim (Was Re: UK court approves use of shotgun)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:49:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr13.013952.3240@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> In article <1992Apr12.200549.28690@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
> >>> ...  At least two Australians have taken
> >>>the position that if an innocent person (victim) is attacked and
> >>>uses force in a defense that the victim is to be blamed, and that
> >>>the attacker is not to be blamed.  It was also stated that the
> >>
> >>These two are saying it depends upon the type of attack. You
> >>are oversimplifying and you know it Henry. Nobody has said
> >>that the original attacker is not at fault. What we are
> >>saying is that the attack may not warrant force.
> >
> >  If all you were saying is that some attacks don't warrant a
> >forceful defense then there would be little argument.  The argument
> >was that the Australians were saying that an attack never warrants
> >force (which could harm/injure/kill an attacker) as a defense and if
> >an attacker was ever harmed at all by a defense then the victim
> >should be blamed.  Then this line of argument was further "supported"
> >by the Australian argument that it wasn't even necessary for a victim
> >to try any sort of defense since the Australian police were "required"
> >to "prevent a crime" if they were notified.
> 
> I don't know who said this Henry. I have been reading Susan's
> and Brian's postings and they have said nothing like this
> as far as I have seen and neither have I. Of course some sort

You know very well that this is untrue.  In fact I believe that I have quoted
back to you Susan's black and white statement that gays and minorities attacked
by fascist gangs should NOT resist, but should instead "pity" their murderers.
If necessary, I can retype that portion of her statement.  I may even have it
on disk.  I'm calling your bluff Dave.  

> should not be resorted to just because someone's pride may
> be hurt. Personally, I believe that killing is always wrong.
> This does not mean it can never be justified, but when killing occurs, it
> means that something has gone seriously wrong and we have failed
> as human beings. This is not to say that the victim hasfailed, but
> that something is amiss in our society.

Since Susan imposed a duty NOT to resist on gays, are their very LIVES merely
a question of "honor"?  Is their ability to travel the public thoroughfares
without being murdered, MERELY a point of "honor"?  Are you going to hold THEM
responsible for the failings of society?  Will the penalty be DEATH?  That is
undeniably what SHE has done.  Do you concur?

> >  Essentially all of the RKBA posters have agreed that one should use
> >restraint in defense, and that defense with such weapons as firearms
> >should be reserved for situations in which it is reasonably required
> >to prevent death or severe bodily harm resulting from the attack.
> 
> I have read otherwise. I have been ridiculed for not punching the
> guy who tipped beer on me. Admittedly, the people doing the ridiculing didn't
> suggest a gun should have been used, but their maccho attitude
> makes me wonder about their integrity and togetherness. They seem
> insecure people who regard somone tipping beer as an affront to their
> masculinity.

Do you consider resistance to attempted murder a sign of "insecurity"?  If a
gay or minority resists being beaten to death, is that a sign of a "macho"
attitude?  Does a gay who doesn't want to be murdered lack "integrity"?  Must
integrity be earned through violent death?

> Quite frankly I find the tactics of some of the gunners (not
> you) quite despicable. There is some guy asking me if I am a cleaning
> lady or a woman. Why can't people accept people with differing views
> and not try to make out their opponents in argument are people
> they obviously despise. What is so bad about being a cleaner anyway?
> Can't cleaners hold views? I digress a bit, but I think it is
> important to point out to you my side of the picture.

Personally, I find somebody who'd impose a duty to be murdered on somebody ELSE
dispicable.  By the way, do cleaners have a right to defend themselves from
murder?  How about a Black lesbian cleaner?  I know that somewhere in this
world, there has to be ONE.  Does she have to die to protect here "honor and
integrity"?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------