From: clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:57:12 GMT

In <susan.703388254@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:

>>In article <susan.703122943@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>>malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>>>In article <susan.702687861@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>>>>	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.  
>>>
>>>>Fine; you can let your 'alternative _peaceful_ solution' be lying down
>>>>and spreading your legs when a rapist isn't willing to listen to you,
>>>>but don't try to force _your_ idea of the _right_ solution on someone
>>>>to whom lying back, gritting their teeth, and accepting it is a
>>>>completely _unacceptable_ solution. Coercing everyone else to follow
>>>>your ideal of 'peaceful solutions' makes you different from men only
>>>>in that you're employing a different _kind_ of violence.
>>>
>>>	A rather typical male response IMO.  Have you ever considered that
>>>it might not be possible to reach the point where its no longer necessary
>>>for anybody to have to, "lie back and grit their teeth,"?

>>What you state is a distinct possibility. However, on the assumption
>>that you were too _careless_ to proofread what you wrote, and what you
>>_meant_ to say was "... it might be possible to reach the point ...",
>>then suppose you answer the question of what we do until then. While
>>_society_ works toward your utopian ideal, _individuals_ are being
>>victimized. But, then, sacrificing the individual to the great god
>>Society has always been popular, on both sides of almost any
>>argument.

>	Indeed it has.  What was that T(w)ermie and Roy were saying back
>in November about those victims of mass murderers who chose to use a gun?

>	"Martyrs to liberty"?

>	I didn't see too many pro-gun people publicly taking them to task
>over their extreme, uncaring statements.

*chuckle*  There are plenty of people to take Termie et al to task without
me worrying about it.  I didn't see the original post with the above
quote.  I probably wouldn't have stated it that way, but I believe (and
it is an ingrained idea in US culture) that there IS a price to be paid
for liberty.

>	Well, perhaps its time that you realised that not everybody can
>be protected all the time and that in the process of getting crime under
>control through better gun regulation that some might have to be victims. 

Hmmm.  "Martyrs to regulation," Susan?

>Just as you refuse to admit that under the utopia of universal gun ownership
>you desire that some people are going to become the victims of crazed
>gun men and the criminals who do dare to continue to prey upon "law abiding
>citizens" (I would presume by shooting them before they have a chance to
>draw their mandatory gun).

I suggest Kleck's book "POINT BLANK: GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA" for
a nice discussion about how pro-gun propaganda overstates the deterrent 
affect of an armed populace, and pro-regulation propaganda overstates
the crime control effects of gun control.

BTW, my "utopia" wouldn not be universal gun ownership, but universal
rights to gun ownership.

>>>	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
>>>can't control their dicks?

>>Fine; if you want something that doesn't poke your 'women as victims
>>of men' kneejerk, then let's modify the above situation to having a
>>mugger corner you and threaten to use a 6" switchblade to perform some
>>amateur plastic surgery on you if you don't turn over your purse, then
>>decides to do it anyway because he didn't like your hesitation. Of
>>course, it's _completely_ unacceptable for anyone to be permitted to
>>choose to defend themselves against this, and to make sure that they
>>don't, we have to make sure that nobody has any legal way to obtain
>>the tools to make that defense easier.

>	Yet, how under your hypothetical would I be able to "go for my gun"
>unless I am carrying it in my hand, all the time Sean?

>	To me, in this situation, I would be simply giving my gun to the
>assailent anyway, as he has the drop on me, and despite what you think,
>I know I wouldn't be going out of my way to provoke him by attempting to
>draw my gun to defend myself.  If he's close enough to threaten me with
>a knife, he's too close to be able to draw a gun without being stopped IMO.

This is all meaningless speculation.  There are an infinite variety of
situations in which you might have to face an assailant.  In some of them
a gun would help; in some of them it wouldn't.  (Training however, might
allow you to avoid some of the latter.)

We could look at statistics on successful uses of a firearm to ward off
an attacker, but as an argument, they would not influence me much.  I
believe an individual should be able to assess the risk for himself,
using knowledge about the situations he is likely to face, his skills,
his mental attitude, etc.  Even if the success rate in general for 
successful uses of a firearm were low (which I don't believe, but am
not sure), an individual should still be able to make the choice of
_which_ chances he wants to take for himself.

>>That way, society divides itself neatly into the criminals (who will
>>be armed to prey on their victims), the police (who are armed because
>>the criminals are dangerous), and the victims (who aren't armed
>>because the police will protect them whenever they get around to
>>showing up).

>	So?  Then make the police more accountable.  Fund them better,
>provide better incentives to them to actually accomplish the job they are
>employed to perform.  Don't assume that simply because they fail today,
>that if you make them more effective they will always fail Sean.

I don't have hard figures to back this up, but it seems obvious to me
that to have enough police on duty at all times to _protect_ EVERYONE in
the country is a ludicrous idea.  How many policeman would it take so
that one could always hear a scream from any potential victim and respond
in, say 30 seconds?  (Hmmm.  I guess we could make ALL citizens a part
of the "reserve police force" and get the job done.  Sounds kind of like
the militia...;-)

Seriously, the benefit from police comes not so much from the "protection"
they provide, even though they sometimes get lucky and stop a crime in
progress.  It comes more from the deterrent effect of their presence and 
from their finding and incarcerating criminals so that they don't commit 
more crimes (at least for a little while :-(  

>--
>|  *   |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 Stanton____________________________________|
-- 
**************************************************************************
* It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion. * Jeffrey S. Clary  *
* It is better still to be a live lion, and usually  * clary@iastate.edu *
* easier.  -- (Paraphrase from memory of L.L.)       *                   *