NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/rape/2239

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-19 | 11.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx!nmsu.edu!opus!ataylor
From: [e-mail] (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:51:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Lines: 295
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 19 Aug 92 12:58:45 GMT

<In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (JC Marx P825) writes:
<In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nosy) writes:
<|> <In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (JC Marx) writes:
<|>
<|> <In addition to what DC has already said, handguns are not normally as
<|> <accessable as a small container of mace.
<|>
<|>     This is false. Small revolvers and/or pistols can be
<|>     carried safely in a number of ways that make them just
<|>     as easily reached as any chemical tool.

<Hmm. A mace canister attached to a set of car keys can be openly exposed and
<ready in public (a mall). It can even be in the ready position while carrying
<an armload of packages without throwing fear and panic into the masses around
<you. That's great if your state allows you to handle your hand gun just as
<easily.

    Keychain sized canisters of Mace(tm) do not contain
    enough of the chemical to deter an attack, according
    to people I have contacted who make a living in security.

    Furthermore, the Mace(tm) which is obtainable by civilians
    is much weaker than the Mace(tm) used by the military.

    AWARE in New York conducted a test in which 10 women,
    selected at random, were to advance upon a NYPD
    officer who sprayed them with Mace(tm). All were able
    to advance some 20 feet and "stab" the officer with
    a rubber knife. None reported permanent effects; one
    woman said, "That stuff stings and made me angry".

    Now, Mace(tm) couldn't stop a 5'2" woman, but it's
    supposed to stop a coked-up 6'2" man? I have doubts...

    I believe this event was videotaped, but do not know
    how to obtain the tape at this time.

    In states where concealed carry of handguns is legal,
    it is possible to conceal a handgun where it may be
    reached in seconds.

    In states that do not allow citizens to exercise
    their rights, one must make the choices that one
    can live with. Working to get no-nonsense CCW
    laws passed is also worth considering.

    Capcicum (sic) sprays are worth investigating for
    those who cannot or choose not to obtain firarms;
    they operate differently on the body than Mace(tm).
    However, chemical sprays only provide one with
    a chance to escape; that may or may not be useful
    if one is attacked in ones own home, as almost
    half of women rape survivors are.

<|>
<|> <Mace is legal
<|>
<|>     No, it isn't. It is prohibited in some Eastern U.S. states,
<|>     may be illegal in some provinces of Canada (I have conflicting
<|>     information) and requires a weapons permit in Massachusetts.

<I don't know for sure, but logic would suggest that for each given state in
<which mace is not legal, hand guns, too, are illeagal.

    Logic, in this case, would be faulty. There are states
    where virtuallly the same permit is required for a firearm
    or Mace(tm). If it is possible to have both, that would
    be a good option; having more tools means more flexibility
    in responding to trouble.

    There are also states which have banned Mace(tm) to
    civilians presumably because Mace(tm) is a "police
    item" like the PR-24 baton; but firearms are still
    obtainable, after some degree of bureaucratic hassle.
    I believe that New York is in this category, as is
    New Jersey.

<|> <and can be attached to one's car
<|> <keys, which are quite often already in one's hands anyway. Probably wouldn't
<|> <do to have a woman, who thinks she is being stalked through the mall, to have
<|> <her handgun ready, esp if a) no bullet is breached, and b) she is carrying
<|> < several packages.
<|>
<|>     "Wouldn't do"? Excuse me, there are at least 2 methods
<|>     of concealed carry which allow a person to put hand on
<|>     firearm in "ready" position (finger off trigger) while
<|>     not exposing the firearm to view.

< Which would require a bullet in the chamber.

    In the case of the Smith and Wesson 640 or 642,
    there would be 5 cartridges in the chambers of the
    cylinder. However, so long as no pressure is applied
    to the trigger, the firearm would be safe.

    Loading a firearm with bullets would be pointless, now
    wouldn't it?

<I can just see mommy contending
<   with her child (or daddy) while keeping her hand on her unexposed, ready to
<   fire hand gun.

    If a person is easily distracted, no tool will be particularly
    useful for self defense. Training can reduce this problem.

<Do you have any idea how many accidental shootings occur in
<this nation each year?

    If you mean accidental FATAL shootings, I do. This
    number is readily available in the library; it has
    been decreasing steadily for over 30 years.

    It is less than the number of car accidents by several orders
    of magnitude.

    Does this mean that women should not be allowed to drive
    cars because they are "too dangerous"?

<Carrying a gun with a bullet in the chamber with
<children regularly nearby is an accident waiting to happen.

    Interesting; do you suggest that police should not
    be allowed around children?

    There are methods to keep children from misusing
    firearms, just as there are methods to keep children
    from misusing cars.

<|>
<|> <Beside, IMO, most woman aren't as vengeful (sp) as men. If
<|> <some guy(s) tried to rape me, I would definately be trying to kill them. Woman
<|> <don't normally have this thirst for blood and simply wish to escape the
<|> <attacker, which frankly, makes much more sense.,
<|>
<|>     Since you are not a woman, this comment isn't particularly
<|>     useful.

<Incorrect. My statement revolves around the theory of something called "The
<Killer Instinct". It is a well proven much documented fact that women do not
<have the same inborn instinct to kill as (most) men. Some men do not even
<possess it.

    Please supply this well proven documentation.

    It would be most interesting to read.

<|> Suffice to say, women constitute the fastest growing
<|>     category of firearms owners in the U.S.

<<Chuckle> But men remain the number one killers IN THE WORLD (even with war and
<self defense excluded).


    That would seem to be a most excellent argument in favor
    of women owning and being quite proficient in the use of
    firearms, now wouldn't it?


<|> <In addition to the above, one must be trained to use a handgun effectively -
<|> <no training required for mace.
<|>
<|>     This is incorrect as well. Basic training in proper handgun
<|>     use can be done in as little as 5 or 6 days.

<As I have previosly mentioned, 5-6 days of training DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE
<to preparing one for the use of a deadly weapon under stress.


    Interesting. Have you attended Gunsite, Chapman Acadamy,
    Lethal Force Institute or other places that offer such
    training? Do you know anyone who has?

    If not, then your opinion may not be firmly based in fact.

<|> Women generally learn *faster* than men do, because they don't have their
<|> ego to get out of the way.

<   But since you're not a man, you don't know about 'ego', so this isn't
<   particularly useful.

    Odd, Masaad Ayoob asserts exactly what I wrote; and he
    most certainly is a man. He is also quite an authority
    on self defense both with and without tools, as well as
    a law enforcement instructor, police officer and SWAT
    team member.

    Perhaps he's better informed on these matters than you are?

<|>     Mace and other chemical sprays *do* require training to use
<|>     properly. AWARE in Massachusetts regularly offers training
<|>     in the proper use of these tools.

<   Okay, ready for your mace training? Here goes - point the red arrow at the
<   target and push the button on the top. The end.

    That's nice. Suppose I am in a car, elevator or other
    enclosed space; what happens?

    If I'm outside, does it matter which way is the wind
    blowing...is it blowing hard or just a breeze? Does
    rain have any effect on Mace(tm)? What about attackers
    with glasses, goggles or masks? What about multiple
    attackers; do I spray each one with a little bit, douse
    just one real well, spray in the air and hope?

    Suppose there are other people in the vicinity;
    what is my legal liability when using this chemical tool?

    Hmm. The "training" seems incomplete....could you
    answer my questions, please?

<|> <Mace goes in the face (an easy target in most
<|> <instances), however, a bullet must be aimed with precision.
<|>
<|>     Sorry, mace to the face isn't as easy OR as reliable
<|>     as you seem to think.
<|>
<|>     Women who defend against rape attempts with firearms are
<|>     most likely to succeed, according to FBI reports.
<|>     Note that "defend" in most cases does NOT mean shots
<|>     fired.
<|>

<|> <If the woman
<|> <hesitates, even for a second, her own gun could be turned against
<|> <her.
<|>
<|>     A good point in favor of proper training in use and
<|>     retention of firearms.

<<sigh> You have a grave misunderstanding of "proper training" (I have detailed
<this on a previous post).

    The Lindell method of weapons retention can be taught in
    one evening. I assume you have taken the course?

<|> <She is more likely to make that deadly hesitation while aiming a handgun.
<|>
<|>     Since you aren't a woman, this is not particularly
<|>     interesting.

<Touchy, touchy; I used the word 'she' to be consistent with my scenario. ANY
<person, male or female, who is engaging in (potentially) deadly combat with
<another human (possibly armed as well) is likely to hesitate. If handling the
<weapon is not second nature (which DOES NOT come with 5-6 days training),
<there is likely to be at least a second of deadly hesitation.

    Odd, Col. Cooper seems to think otherwise. He is,
    among other things, a veteran of the Pacific Campaigns
    of World War II.

    You've been to Gunsite, I assume?


<|> <Lastly, a small container of mace is several times cheaper than a handgun.
<   |>
<   |>     Not necessarily.

< <sigh again> "Not necessarily"???? What exactly does that mean?

    It means that a cheap tool which does not do the job
    is worthless...if "the job" is self defense, a cheap
    tool that fails can get one killed....which is a very
    high price to pay for "saving money".

<Oh, you know
<where I can buy an effective, reliable hand gun for less than thirty dollars -
<PLEASE TELL US.

    I know an 80 year old woman who defended herself against
    an intruder with a small caliber (.380) pistol that
    probably cost less than $100 new; used it might cost
    less than $65.

    Since the intruder entered her bedroom through the
    window and was 2 meters from her bed, Mace(tm) would
    have been worthless in this case; she could never
    have outrun him.  According to the police report,
    the man who invaded her home while she slept had
    been convicted of burglary, armed robbery and rape.
    Had he raped her, she might well have died.
    Thus, Mace(tm) would have cost less to buy, but
    *could* have cost her life; this is poor economy.



    Chemical tools can be useful, as can any tool.
    Ideally, one should have many resources; unarmed
    combat skills, chemical tools, firearms and
    a cellular phone to dial 911 with. However, not
    everyone can afford all these options, nor can
    everyone *use* all these options. Chemical tools
    afford one the chance to run away; suppose
    one is 80 years old and has an artificial hip....
    running isn't an option in that case.