HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:13:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.121135.8046@brtph560.bnr.ca> jcmarx@bnr.ca writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.221353.7322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> Interesting.  Marx assumes that women with guns will behave stupidly.
>> Since they don't, this can only tell us about him, not them, but what
>> does it tell us?
>
>Well, Dirty Harry,

Namecalling is always a good start.

>let me tell you something about guns; having five or six
>days of training (everyone keeps telling me that's all it takes) does not make
>one an expert at killing someone.

Expertise in killing isn't relevant.  With-gun self-defense requires
knowing when to use a gun, willingness to shoot if necessary, and the
ability to do so.  Most people are fairly good at the first, even if
they say "shoot to kill" when they actually mean "shoot to stop"; it
doesn't take long to teach them the fine points.  The last is also
easily taught because the ranges involved are rather short.  In the
relevant occasions, the second isn't a problem for people willing to
carry.  Sure, there are effects afterwards, but people willing to
carry balance that off against the costs of a successful attack.

Since that most with-gun self-defenses don't involve ANY shots fired,
certain "mistakes" don't have any adverse consequences and the defense
was still completely successful....  Even a cop-affiliate should know
that.  Remember, the average officer fires ONCE/career "in the line of
duty", but uses his gun quite a bit more often.

>> Does this tell us something about what Marx thinks about women, or
>> what he knows about appropriate behavior?
>
>My father was a GA State Marshal for twelve years.

That explains things.  In every US jurisdiction that has been studied,
the police are more likely to use force, especially lethal force,
inappropriately than self-defenders.  That's not surprising, given
that DAs hate to prosecute police and love to go after "the rest of
us", but it sure says something about the value of their training.

>> he thinks that people have bigger mace targets than gun targets, that
>> mace is easier to aim,
>
>Most of the mace canisters I have seen employ a SPRAY.

So?  At close ranges, dispersion isn't wide enough to make a real
difference while at greater ranges, it just guarantees a "no effect"
hit.  (Shotguns don't spread much at short ranges either, so much for
Marx' expertise wrt weapons.)  There's a possible fine balance here,
but no reasonable size Mace can can deliver enough mace/second to
allow significant dispersion.  Sure, some do "spray" anyway, but that
just makes them less effective than they inherently are.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: genetics
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:21:58 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug14.175514.25454@brtph560.bnr.ca>, kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.122558.8576@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> |> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> |> >It is pretty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
> |> >ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.
> |> 
> |> There is no evidence that the difference in women and men's strength in our
> |> society is genetic.  It could be entirely cultural.
> |> 
> |> *NOTE* I said NO EVIDENCE.  Responding with "come on, surely it's genetic" is
> |> not a valid counterargument (though it's the one I usually get).
> 
> Pick up a copy of "Muscle & Fitness" magazine.  Find a photo of the largest,
> most powerful pro builders of both genders.  Compare the two.  Now, think about
> how they got that way.  They eat the same food, train with the same equipment,
> read the same things, think about the same things, talk about the same things.
> Obviously before they started training they may have lived differently but to
> me comparing Anja Schreiner or even Paula Birchumshaw to Dorian Yates or Lee
> Haney is EVIDENCE ENOUGH. Some of the difference in strength *MAY* be cultural.
> But to suggest that it is entirely cultural just doesn't ring true.  IMO the
> difference is *MOSTLY* genetic.
> 
> KimmyD
> 

Only if you equate ability to fight as being dependent entirely on muscle and
size.

You know it is amazing how few of those muscle-atheletes ever win the Hevy
Weight Crown, or any kick-boxing competitions.

And I would put ANY of them up against Chuck Norris.

Or Franco from my old Karate school. (Little guy, could break several ribs on
the first puch, and had.)

Strength is somewhat genetics. What you do with it is entirely a personal
decision.

DC


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:49:54 GMT

*Dons Asbestos Suit*

	I usually wind up having to walk women either home (if close) to a
train station or bus stop, or to their car, after any situation where I
have been dealing with women.  I don't mind being expected to do this, I
guess because I have been trained to understand security and safety,
(courtesy of the US govt, alas) and I don't want to see anyone get hurt.
	The reason that I specify women in the above?  Simple:  Most men
are too proud to admit that they are worried about walking alone.  Most
women are NOT too proud.  If someone asks me to walk with them, I do.  I
expect the same if I ask, and I have always gotten it.
	Also, women, while potentially just as good at self defense as men
usually are, do not usually have the same background as far as physicality,
as men do.  I do not know many women who fought often in school, or who
were actively encouraged to engage in exertion, as many men are.  It is
p[retty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.  It
is a fact:  Your average man has been in MANY more fights than your average
woman.  It is a fact:  Your average man recieves much more encouragement to
engage in sports than your average woman.  Note the use of "average"
	Someone posted earlier about men being less prone to being
attacked.  I can't speak for any area other than the ones I know, but... 
	In my neighborhood there is virtually no violence done to women.
The reason?  The last time a rapist was caught, (by the girls family),
around here, he was supposedly castrated by the girls brother...  That is
only a rumor, but it *has* worked wonders, and gossip does fly fast around
here.  Also, men in my area are more prone to be in gangs than not in them,
so there is a lot of that around here.  I am much more likely to be
attacked than a woman, but, on the average, much more likely to be able to
defend myself.
	Anyway, as far as it goes, I think that there definately IS a need
for ANYONE who goes out late, or to a dangerous area, or has ANY worry
about being attacked, to get someone to go with them.  It is inconvienent,
sure, but, what's a little inconvenience compared to the risk of someone
getting attacked or worse, killed?  
	I personally would be upset if I heard about ANYONE getting raped
or otherwise attacked, not just people I knew well.  If it can happen to
them, it can happen to you.
*Removes Asbestos suit*
Remember, most of those are only my opinions, and the facts stated are as
correct as any you would find elsewhere.
	Sam
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Green Eggs and Ham
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:21:24 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug16.085439.20294@a.cs.okstate.edu>, boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN) writes:
> Wow.  Is it really necessary to quote so much of the other person's messages
> in your own replies, fellow net-posters?  We're getting posts now of 250 and
> 500+ lines!  Surely they can be trimmed down a bit.
> 
> You (used collectively here) also might find it useful to take a vacation
> from talk.rape for a while.  I think some people are more intent on literary
> vengence than on constructive critisizms(sp?), know what I mean?
> 
> Go for the "meat" of the post.  I hate to see people pick something apart (geez,
> that's why I hated literature classes).
> 
> -- 

Well, I am all for that.

What do you say Sam? Leave it that we disagree?

DC
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Statistic info
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:50:09 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug14.092420.3019@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>>>>  "If there was no way you could get caught for the crime of rape, would you
>>>>   do it?"
>>>>
>>>>   75% of the college boys who were asked said YES.
>>
>>   Any guess as to the %-age of "boys" saying YES to
>>      "Would you steal if you wouldn't get caught?"
>>      "Would you speed if you wouldn't get caught?"
>>      "Would you spit on the floor if you wouldn't get caught?"
> 
> I'd prefer someone to cover the floor with spit three inches deep rather than
> to rape someone.
> 
>>   How about:
>>      "Would you rape if you wouldn't get caught, but you knew
>>       the victim would hate it?"
> 
> But if they don't know the victim will hate it, it will still have the same
> effect.  It's scary that people are eager to rape.  It's not comforting to
> think that this is probably just because they don't know of the trauma it
> will cause, because there's nothing on the way to becoming a rapist that
> automatically informs people of this.  It's scary to know that the only thing
> stopping them is fear of the law, because we all know that there will be
> circumstances under which this fear is not present.  And then these college
> boys will rape.
> 
> I just can't get upset about people's willingness to spit on the floor.

What about the OTHER questions he raised? Let's face it, criminal statutes are
out there to discourage people from doing things, and when you ask a question
such as "Would you consider doing act X if you couldn't possibly get caught",
you need to compare that to other acts, like Y, Z, and Q.

What would those same males have said to other acts which are just as socially
repugnant? 

Also, before we can really become alarmed at these results, we need to see the
question that was asked. Was it:

1. If you knew there were no chances whatsoever of you being caught, because
God himself would guarantee your safety, are there any circumstances whatsoever
you would rape someone under?

or was it:

2. If you knew you could escape justice, would you rape someone?

BOTH of these could be asked and lead to the sattement "X% of males said they
would consider raping someone if they could not be caught." However, the two
questions are asking wildly different things.

I could ask the men here:

Q. If a woman (a jealous ex-lover for example) had just killed your children, 
paid a motorcycle gang to gang rape your wife to death, force-fed ground
glass to your parents, and injected your sister with the AIDS virus, IF the
only way you could gain vengance upon here were to hold her down and rape her,
otherwise she escapes with absolute freedom, would you CONSIDER raping her in 
an act of vengence?

I could then take the the results and, in all honesty, state:

X percentage of men on talk.rape would consider raping an ex-lover for the 
purpose of revenge!

Wouldn't exactly tell the whole story, would it?

DC
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:13:14 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

JC Marx (jcmarx@bnr.ca) wrote:
: 
: I think the actual scenario is more like:
: 1) Woman notices a man stalking her through the parking lot.
: 2) From her peripheral vision, she sees him running towards her and knows now
:   that she cannot make it to her car in time.
: 3) She runs from the attacker, drawing her revolver from her purse at the
:   same time.

or, for better mileage, from a holster.

: 4) She stops and turns around, pointing the gun at the man's chest (he is still
:   running towards her) - shoot or don't shoot, it's that simple. If she shoots,
:   she stands more than a good chance of killing him, missing him, or hitting
:   someone else...

if the attacker stops and runs away, she is saved the trouble of shooting him.
if he does not stop, and she shoots, she stands a very good chance of stoping
him, especially if she has recieved even a modicum of training.  if he dies...
i'm not unhappy.
: 
: Lastly,
: 1) The attacker is getting closer.
: 2) The woman continues walking at a fast pace towards her car.
: 3) The attacker catches her from behind.
: 4) The woman spins around, spraying the attacker in the face with mace.
: 5) The attacker falls to the ground screaming. The woman runs to her car and
:    gets away.

I have seen mace in action.  the most likely thing that happens in your 
scenario after 3 is: the woman spins around and the attacker is too close
to spray; her arm hits the side of his body, he overpowers her, and she
gets raped.  assuming that she does manage to hit him in the face with
the mace, it is equally likely that it will just piss him off, so she gets
raped and murdered.

don't get me wrong; mace CAN work... but the stuff they sell to 'civilians'
will NOT stop a determined attacker.
: 
: Assuming it is legal in the given state, I think mace is a pretty good
: decision.

Mace is better than nothing.  A handgun, in trained hands (and I don't mean
shooting a thousand rounds a week, i mean a few days training and occasional
practice), is better than mace.  Mace AND a handgun... now there's an even
better idea.
: 
: One man's opinion,
: JC

and another's...

DFT

--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:41:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.075004.411@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>4)  NOT use deadly force, but, instead use less than deadly force to stop
>them.  I don't think it is illegal in any state to kick the shit oput of
>them to get them out of your house if they begin to rob you (and, in your
>scenario, you made their stated intendt pretty clear.

Bzzt - "kicking shit" out of someone is the use of deadly force.

While using some things is "automatically" using deadly force, doing
other things can be.  "Kicking shit" out of someone is, no matter how
you do it.  Attempting to smother someone by stuffing cotton in their
nose and mouth is "assault with a deadly weapon", even though we
usually don't think of cotton balls as "deadly weapons".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: jcmarx@bnr.ca (JC Marx)
Subject: Re: genetics
Reply-To: jcmarx@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:46:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.172158.9453@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Aug14.175514.25454@brtph560.bnr.ca>, kimmyd@bnr.ca (Kimmy Posey P920) writes:
|> > In article <1992Aug14.122558.8576@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
|> > |> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
|> > |> >It is pretty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
|> > |> >ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.
|> > |> 
|> > |> There is no evidence that the difference in women and men's strength in our
|> > |> society is genetic.  It could be entirely cultural.
|> > |> 
|> > |> *NOTE* I said NO EVIDENCE.  Responding with "come on, surely it's genetic" is
|> > |> not a valid counterargument (though it's the one I usually get).
|> > 
|> > Pick up a copy of "Muscle & Fitness" magazine.  Find a photo of the largest,
|> > most powerful pro builders of both genders.  Compare the two.  Now, think about
|> > how they got that way.  They eat the same food, train with the same equipment,
|> > read the same things, think about the same things, talk about the same things.
|> > Obviously before they started training they may have lived differently but to
|> > me comparing Anja Schreiner or even Paula Birchumshaw to Dorian Yates or Lee
|> > Haney is EVIDENCE ENOUGH. Some of the difference in strength *MAY* be cultural.
|> > But to suggest that it is entirely cultural just doesn't ring true.  IMO the
|> > difference is *MOSTLY* genetic.
|> > 
|> > KimmyD
|> > 
|> 
|> Only if you equate ability to fight as being dependent entirely on muscle and
|> size.
|> 
|> You know it is amazing how few of those muscle-atheletes ever win the Hevy
|> Weight Crown, or any kick-boxing competitions.
|> 
|> And I would put ANY of them up against Chuck Norris.
|> 
|> Or Franco from my old Karate school. (Little guy, could break several ribs on
|> the first puch, and had.)
|> 
|> Strength is somewhat genetics. What you do with it is entirely a personal
|> decision.
|> 
|> DC
|> 
|> 

With regard to your little friend (who breaks ribs on first punch): Imagine
what he could do if he were, say two to three times stronger - or
put him up against a previous body builder gone kickboxer - Van Damm (sp?).
Sure, I'd love to see Norris vs. John-Claude...

As far as "those muscle-atheletes" ever winning the Hevy Weight Crown or
any kick-boxing competitions - I could just as easily say, Hey, I'd like to
see some of those Karate jocks bench press 500lbs.

But, we digress...
JC
From: jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:05:47 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <1992Aug17.060623.4197@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:

>them without deadly force.) I would not shoot if the attacker immediately
>fled.  I am merely saying that if you carry a gun, and you intend to use it
>in your defense, it is best not to even think about what you will do if the
>attacker runs, but to think about how to respond if they do not flee.

    Well, you should think out all the possibilities.  However, you're
right not to shoot if they're fleeing.  Because if you do, it's assault
with a deadly weapon and if you kill him it's murder.  Why?  Because in
the instant he fled, he ceased to pose a threat to your life.  The
danger is past, and employment of lethal force is not legally or morally
justified.

>	You had best decide, before carrying a gun, if you CAN AZND WILL
>kill an attacker.  If you draw a gun on someone, then you had damn well
>better mean business.  You had damned well better be able to live with any
>consequences of your actions.  You had damned welll be ready to kill.

    "Ready" in the sense of "willing", I hope.  Your objective is to
stop the threat.  The most effective way to do that is with a firearm
(see the US Statistical Abstract), and unfortunately that means you may
stop your attacker by killing him.

>Think of it as this:  You have a gun to kill, and only by good luck will it
>not be used.

    Huh?

>	Deadly force...  That force which is used to cause death or great
>bodily harm.  Such force is only to be used as a last resort, when all
>other means have failed.

    Absolutely.

>	You don't exactly have a lot of leeway there...  all other means
>have failed means essentially, that you cannot run, you cannot use another,
>less deadly means of defense, or the attacker has a weapon classified in
>the deadly force group.  Essentially, what this says to me is that a gun is
>only to be used for purposes of dealing death.

    I think you're stating your case too strongly.  You're not trying to
kill him, but to stop him.  Yes, it's deadly force.  Yes, you're only
justified in using it when you have reason to believe that you are
threatened lethally, immediately and unavoidably.

>	Finally, on handgun fatality statistics, they are only that:
>Statistics.  Don't even consider the odds that you might only wound your
>attacker, because they are irrelevant.  Consider only this fact:  Your
>using a gun for defense HAS to signify your willingness to kill your
>attacker.  Period.

    Yes, you must be willing to accept the attacker's death.

    Once again, two books which cover the topic far more thoroughly,
accurately and professionally than the net ever will.  _In the Gravest
Extreme_, by Massad Ayoob, and _Armed and Female_, by Paxton Quigley.

-Josh.

--
Josh Alden:  Joshua.Alden@dartmouth.edu
EMT Instructor, DMS Health Education And Rescue Training
Ownership of a weapon is a victimless crime.  (Where it's a crime at all.)
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Summary...
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:28:08 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug17.051524.3667@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:

> 
> 	As far as violating someone autonomy, I do not believe that I am.
> I am not forcing THEM to *DO* (i.e. perform an action or series of them)
> anything.  I am following them, and not interfering unless something
> happens.  I do not and cannot MAKE anyone do anything that they do not want
> to do, unless I used force or threat of force.  I do roughly the same thing
> as the police do, except I only watch out for one person.  If something
> happens tro someone else, I will give assistance if I see it, though.  The
> Gaurdian Angles, the Pink Angels and many other citizens groups do the same
> thing, and they do not say "Hey, is it okay if I watch out for you, to make
> sure you are all right?"  They go out and watch out for bad situations, and
> in some cases, many citizens have complained about them, because they felt
> that they were being controlled.  Quite the contrary, as those groups, and
> some individuals, are there to help.

And if you tell them to "Piss Off!", they will go on their merry way and leave
you be.

Tell me, if I were to stand out on the public sidewalk, set up a telescope, and
start to peer through your windows, how long before you felt I was infringing
upon your space?

I'd have the legal right to look, and you would have the legal right to close
your blinds if you didn't like it.

And the only way a person can avoid being escorted by you is to sprint faster
than you can follow.

Maybe you do not feel this is infringing upon their space, but it is pretty
blatent to me--IMHO.

> have done a bit of it myself, I will cease it.  There is no reason
> whatsoever to apply a derogative label to someone based on their opinions.
> The thing is, it is basically a foolish thing to say "You *are* an idiot"
> because, 1) you have no way of prooving this statement, and 2) it is
> basically slander, or libel, or somesuch.  Dont know if that can be
> prosecuted, but, it never hurts to be careful.  (By the way, the only way
> to be certain of avoiding the whole libel slander deal is to say "In my
> opinion, you are a/an <fill in the blank>"  As far as it goes, DC is

Adding your "opinion" does NOT relieve you of slander liability. We all KNOW the
other person is expressing an opinion* even if they do not say "In my
opinion..." Therefore, adding the qualifier does nothing as far as the court is
concerned.

Just a little legal tidbit to keep in mind.

DC

* The exception to tthis rule is where people are qulified to make assesments
of mental capacity, then add ing their opinion does relieve them of some
liability if they are wrong.


Newsgroups: talk.rape