From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:52:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>I never said a no-firearms fight would be fair, but I would suggest
>>that it is somewhat less likely to end with somebody being dead.  You
>>could dispute that point, I suppose.
>
>This sounds like the reasoning of Rev. Brockway, of the United
>Methodist Church (May, 1977 _ENGAGE-SOCIAL ACTION FORUM_), who thinks
>that if an attacker is only going to rape (yes, I know your scenarios
>are not about rape but I think the reasoning has similarities), then it
>is the victim's duty to submit rather than do anything that might
>imperil her rapist's life.

Well, I was nice the first time, but you really seem to be a low-life.  

Once again, you delete the relevant part of my post, and then make me
sound like I'm saying that women should just "submit" to rape or
domestic violence.  *And* cross-post to soc.women to spread the slur.

Once again, and for the last time ever:  my original post was an
attempt to come up with a more plausible scenario than this one for
a domestic violence case.

Original scenario:

Your sister marries an abusive man, who gets thrown in jail, is paroled,
and comes back after her.  She is prevented from obtaining a gun by
some mandatory waiting period.

My objection:

This scenario is silly.  Your sister would buy the gun (if she chose)
before they release the abusive man.

My counterscenario:

Your sister marries an abusive man, who gets arrested for the offense
but makes bail, goes out and buys a shotgun, and shoots her then
himself.

My point:

The easy availability of a gun in this scenario is more likely to end
up with somebody (the woman in this case) being dead.  I would also
submit that mere *possession* of the gun would not make the woman any
safer.  You have to have the skill and the will to use it. (See
below.)

>The Presbyterians think it is morally wrong for a victim to take
>an attacker's life under ANY circumstances.

Sorry, but I'm not a Presbyterian.

>>>Try these ideas: [for ending domestic violence?  still isn't clear]
>>>
>>>Women almost never initiate violence.
>>>Men already have all the "ARMS" they need to commit violence
>>>against women.
>>
>>How does this help things?  Or are you suggesting a complete ban on
>>firearms sales to men?  That would be novel, but I wouldn't support
>
>No, not at all. Since men already have the means to commit rape and
>other forms of violence on women, what is needed is a liberalization
>of the ability to buy and carry firearms for women. Restricting men
>won't make any useful difference. Empowering women will.

I suppose you could then take the view that if we all have guns, we
are all empowered.  This might be true, but I would like to look into
other ways of empowering us all.

[Here Phil Ngai deletes some inconvenient material about my real beliefs
 about gun safety, gun sales, and my personal experiences with firearms,
 I assume because they are inconvenient for him to argue.  Particularly
 the part about requiring gun proficiency and safety training up-front
 before the purchase of any firearm.]

>>Unfortunately, I have also decided
>>that the NRA is much more interested in promoting its weird gun policy
>>objectives than in making people safe shooters, or insuring that only
>>qualified people get to own them.  But what to do?  The present
>
>Three points.
>
>The NRA does promote gun safety education with free materials for
>schools and such. (such materials contain the message "if you see a gun
>DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT.") Many schools turn them
>down because they are "from that nasty NRA".

Then they are stupid, unless they have, say, the local police run
similar gun safety programs.

>The NRA does much of the firearms training in the US.

Which is my point.  This is great, but it is *clearly* dissociable from
other NRA political activities, which I find extremely objectionable.
Can you really defend all of the positions they have taken on gun-related
issues?  Many of them are totally reprehensible, in my opinion.

>If the gun banners weren't so active, the NRA would have more resources
>to spend on safety and training. That was the reason they were founded
>and that was their focus until the gun banners started up and the ACLU
>refused to lift a finger.

Maybe because the ACLU looked at the part of the vaunted second
ammendment about the "well-regulated militia", and didn't think they
had a case.  I'm not actually sure if this is true, but I don't
remember many Supreme Court rulings overturning gun legislation on
second second ammendment grounds since I've been an adult.

>What specifically does the NRA do that you object to?  You may find that
>some of the things you have been told are misinformation.

Not bloody likely, since I did grow up in an NRA household.  Don't you
find it a bit strange that local and national police groups have been
finding themselves opposing some of the more bizarre NRA crusades
recently?  Don't you find their blatant vote-buying (or electoral
blackmail) a bit disturbing?  Do you really feel more safe and more free
because of their activities.

Each to his own, I guess.

jking




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns