From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Blame the victim (Was Re: UK court approves use of shotgun)
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:39:52 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

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
of physical self defence is sometimes needed. But this
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.


>
>  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.

>(There have been a few isolated instances of people like Termie 
>shooting off their mouths about what they feel that they "should" be
>allowed to do with firearms - but IMHO even they would use great
>restraint in real events, as indeed they are legally required to do
>in the U.S.  Anyone who would take Termie's most strident statement 
>and claim it represents the overall feeling of 1/4 billion people in
>the USA is either naive or duplicitious (and a ratbag to boot!)
>
I think we all know that Termie is not representative of all
in America. However he does represent a minority and it
is intereseting that very few have distanced themselves from him.

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.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns