From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: none
	<183135@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1992Aug20.192733.14403@athena.mit.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Aug21234232@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Aug23.065002.4534@hawkmoon.mn.org>
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:29:57

Executive summary:

Bill Gray said:
(1) You want to ban all guns.
(2) A gun is the most effective defence against rape.
(3) Therefore you require woman to passively acquiesce to rape.
(4) Therefore you are telling them to "lean back and enjoy it".

I reply:
(1) is false.
There is no evidence for (2).
Even if (1) and (2) were true (3) does not follow. (Since "resist with
gun" and "passively acquiesce" are not the only possibilites.)
Even if, in a fit of insanity we concluded (3), (4) does not follow.
(Since "passively acquiesce" does not imply "enjoyment".)

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:50:02 GMT, gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) said:

> (Tim Lambert) writes:

>>(The Rifleman) said:
>>>>George Lambert

>>> Are you related to Tim "lean back an' enjoy it" Lambert?

>>More fantasies from Mr Rifleman, I see.  Since when did expressing
>>scepticism about the mish-mash of mangled pro-gun propaganda that you
>>spout equate to advocating "lean back and enjoy it"?

> My newsfeed here is intermittent, so I apologize in advance in I attribute
> to you  positions you do not take.

> Having said that, I recognize your name as one of the Oz posters who
> never saw a gun they didn't want to ban.  At least, that seems to be the
> constant refrain from every Oz address--except Geoff Miller (?).

Sharing a continent with a person does not imply that I also share the
same opinions.  I have never posted anything to this
newsgroup advocating the banning of ANY sort of gun in my country or
elsewhere.  My contributions to this newsgroup have been more
concerned with investigating and refuting claims such as "one
million crimes are stopped each year with guns", "gun training caused
rapes to plummet in Orlando", "Kennesaw burglaries fell dramatically
after gun ownership was made compulsory", "medical data shows that a
gun is no more deadly than a knife", etc etc.

You may consider this as helpful to gun banners. Tough.  I don't believe
you should base your case  on falsehoods.

Furthermore, I never read anything from any poster in Australia
advocating the banning of ALL guns.

> If, therefore, yo do not wish to allow people to have firearms, then it
> follows you want them to do something else when self-defense is necessary.
> Now, U.S. Dept. of Justice studies of victimization show that the safest
> way to resist any kind of robbery, assault, or attempted homicide is by
> actively resisting with a firearm.  Any other course of action is more
> dangerous to the intended victim than active, with-gun resistance.

> Furthermore, WRT rape, the same source shows that overall, rape is completed
> in 35% of attempts, but only in 3% of attmepts when the woman
> defends herself with a gun.

This is bogus.  I have checked out the study from which this statistic
is drawn ("Rape victimization in 26 American Cities").  The 3% figure
is for self-defence with gun or knife, and clearly marked as
statistically unreliable, since it is based on insufficient data.
The same source "shows" that for white women, gun/knife defence is LESS
effective than non-violent resistance.  ("shows" in quotes, because
this too is based on insufficient data.)

Just how common do you think with-gun self-defence against
rape/attempted rape in the US is anyway?  (Data from the victimization
studies you cite above.)

a. 1,000 times a day
b. 100 times a day
c. 10 times a day
d. less than once a day

> Other studies show that armed citizens use lethal force wrongly about 1/3
> as often as "trained" police officers.

What?????  This implies that 75% of firearm homicides are committed by
police officers!!  If cops really are killing 7500 innocent people
each year in the US then I withdraw my suggestion that widespread gun
availability might be a contributing cause to the high US homicide rate.
Clearly it is widespread police availability ;-)

> Lastly, there was once a common saying--now considered intensely
> unfashionable that went, "When rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it."

The reason why that statement is so deeply offensive is that it
implies that rape is about sex and that it is possible for the victim
to "enjoy" it.  The self-defence aspect is irrelevent to this
statement.  If you try to attribute it to your opponent, this is an
obvious blatant smear attempt, the sort of desperate tactic tried by
someone on the losing end of an argument.  Usually the next step is to
call them a Nazi.  It's the sort of thing I've come to expect from
Terminator/Rifleman who in the past has called me stupid, a communist,
and a hoplophobe.  

Tim

P.S. The answer to the multiple choice question is d.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob