NPR (Michigan): More Women Getting Gun Training

[TPaine7]

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/4/0/1517780/Opinion/More.Women.Getting.Gun.Training

Good news from that bastion of extremist, sociopathic, racist, misogynistic, reactionary, right-wing loonies--NPR.

Rina Miller may have felt the need to proclaim her purity--"It's not for me"--but at least she doesn't see the women as martians:

I can understand the appeal of the sport, and why a woman might feel more secure with a weapon she knows how to use.

That's progress.

[iverglas]

1. huh

I wonder what NPR's sociopolitical orientation might have to do with any of this.

I can understand "the appeal of the sport" myself. I've often said so.

I can also understand "why a woman might feel more secure with a weapon". Just as I can understand why some people feel more secure with a rabbit's foot, and some people believe that if they're very very good they'll go to heaven.

We all understand that nobody's feeling makes anything so, right? And that there are many people in this world whose job it is to make people feel the way it is in their own interests for them to feel ...

Of course, there are also funny undergraduates who think nobody can figure these things out.

[TPaine7]

3. LOL

Of course, there are also funny clueless little old women who think they can figure these things out.

[krispos42]

161. Welcome back

:hi:


Always interesting to watch you work.

:popcorn:

[iverglas]

2. just a reg'lar woman

"Me and my husband purchased a assault weapon, assault rifle, just before the holidays, just before the current president was elected, just because of the fact that the current vice president that we have was one of the top supporters of the Brady Bill, which originally banned all assault rifles," she says.

Nah, she's not a right-wing ideologue at all. Move along.

I hope somebody straightens her out on that "assault weapon, assault rifle" business soon. She's letting the team down, isn't she?

[TPaine7]

4. As a specific example of the aforementioned clueless little old women

who think they can figure these things out is your post.

Think it through, iverglas, what self-respecting right wing ideologue wouldn't know all the terminology--at least in your fantasy world? This woman is a regular woman, as you put it. She is certainly not part of the so-called gun culture. She's letting the team down because she's not on it.

And your assumption that only right-wing ideologues purchase so called "assault weapons" reeks of ignorance.

As I said, there are funny, clueless little old women who think they can figure these things out.

[iverglas]

5. the term you're forgetting

would be "dupe".

I wonder whether anyone has ever suggested that a right-wing ideologue can't also be a very stupid person ...


And your assumption that only right-wing ideologues purchase so called "assault weapons" reeks of ignorance.

And your unfounded allegation that I assumed any such thing reeks of the usual demagoguery.

[TPaine7]

6. Touché

The aforementioned funny, clueless little old woman is also a dupe.

There, fixed it.B-)

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Back tirelessly defending the right of other women to agree with you, I see

Admittedly, you do bring a certain zing to the Guns Forum. Without you, it's been like Indian food without
saffron here.

[iverglas]

11. and still misrepresenting reality

I see.

Odd how I didn't see anything about anyone's right to do anything in this thread, until you showed up and pretended I said something about someone's right to do something ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. "We all understand that nobody's feeling makes anything so, right?"

While one may feel that women gun owners are laboring under some sort of false conciousness,
the assertion or hint in a public forum that they are is certainly subject to challenge.

I feel very strongly that it is the right of any person to do as they wish (within law and
social boundaries).

I also feel it is upon the individual to develop her own interpretation of class
consciousness or social justice, and it is not the business of any self-proclaimed 'vanguard' to decide where her true interests lie,
whether the 'vanguard's' politics are Palinite, Millettist, Gileadist, or any other school.

An endless round of exegesis might be diverting, I would suggest it is not very illuminating
regarding the political motives (such as they may be) of women gun owners.

But that's just my feelings....

[iverglas]

114. forgot to mention ...

I feel very strongly that it is the right of any person to do as they wish (within law and
social boundaries).

How nice for you.

Does this somehow make you special, or does it place you smack in the mainstream where we find pretty much everybody in the world, including myself?

I mean, saying that someone has "the right" to do "as they wish within law" is actually kinda a tautology, doncha think?

It's even quite arguable that there are things people have the right to do that fall outside the law, let alone "social boundaries".

I wonder what your point could have been?

If not a point ... just a demagoguic attempt to persuade someone that I had said (or that I "feel") something different?


While one may feel that women gun owners are laboring under some sort of false conciousness,
the assertion or hint in a public forum that they are is certainly subject to challenge.

Zippedydoodah. Once again, a bit of a statement of the obvious, doncha think?


I also feel it is upon the individual to develop her own interpretation of class consciousness or social justice, and it is not the business of any self-proclaimed 'vanguard' to decide where her true interests lie, whether the 'vanguard's' politics are Palinite, Millettist, Gileadist, or any other school.

Good for you!


An endless round of exegesis might be diverting, I would suggest it is not very illuminating regarding the political motives (such as they may be) of women gun owners.

Hmm, once again, a novel topic is introduced.

I believe the statement of mine that you just may be referring to concerned a woman gun owner, not "women gun owners".

But hey, why not just avoid the issue and pretend we're talking about something we ain't?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. Now that is funny.

:toast:

[TPaine7]

7. To be fair, you said some things that I failed to acknowledge

Let me rephrase:

To assume that a woman who buys an "assault weapon" with her husband before an election because the potential VP was a top supporter of the AWB is a right-wing ideologue is ignorant. Of course you never said that, you never thought it, you wouldn't have imagined it in your wildest dreams, right? LOL

You actually had a fractional point--I didn't fully address your position--and I like to acknowledge all of your legitimate points (or fractions thereof). Rare as they are, acknowledging them keeps things fun.

[iverglas]

8. allow me to make an assumption

I'll assume that the little mama voted Democrat in November.

Will you call me the fool I obviously am for making that assumption?

Your sister, your mama, your sister, your mama ...

Watch out your head doesn't explode, now.

[TPaine7]

9. ????

You can concede what you will (and don't think I don't appreciate the oh-so-rare honesty), but I think it's against the rules for me to call you a fool.

Thanks anyway. I think I'll avoid that trap.

B-)

[rl6214]

15. I hope sombody straightens her out

that assault weapon and assault rifle are not one and the same. Assault weapon= the term in the AWB that used to refer to semi-automatic rifles that have scarey features. Assault rifle = a fully automatic rifle that is heavily regulated, very expensive yet still legal to own as well.

[Euromutt]

34. I think we may be seeing semantic development in action

The term "assault weapon" was originally coined to attach a stigma to military-looking semi-automatic firearms, the term implying that the primary (or the only) purpose of such weapons was to commit assault. But the term has gotten so overused, not to mention misapplied (the Chicago Tribune once referred to Mauser 98-type rifle as a "bolt-action assault rifle") that maybe it's just started to lose the meaning it was originally meant to convey.

Evidently, the woman quoted in the article doesn't attack any particular stigma to the term, simply because she's heard to too often. To her, the "assault" part in "assault weapon" no longer means "to physically attack" but just means "has a pistol grip and a banana-shaped clip thingy." If this is more widespread, the saturation of media reports with the term "assault weapon" will have come round to bite the anti-gun movement in the ass.

[X_Digger]

44. Interesting point..

Any ooga booga stigma that the brady bunch may have tried to attach to it is in the process of losing the meaning they wish it had.

[rrneck]

13. It's my understanding that women have better

fine motor control than men. It makes them better shooters.

Between economic difficulties, looming resource depletion, and changing political demographics increased firearms ownership is no great surprise.

[Statistical]

14. women also tend to be more attentive learners of course there are exceptions to the rule.

Some men also tend to think they should naturally be good shooters, and are also more competitive this sometimes leads to them skipping the basics and picking up bad habits.

The difference between goal oriented and process oriented.

[DonP]

16. Better ability to focus and concentrate?

I'm not sure why (and I risk a very Larry Summers moment here) but pretty much every woman I've ever taught to shoot, family, friends, Pink Pistols et. al. have been better shots than the men.

Could be motor skills, hand eye coordination, ability to focus on a single task.

The only exceptions have been first timers that have a built in "flinch" reflex because of the noise. One of our girls had that problem and I had to get her ear plugs and good ear muffs on top of that. After that she got pretty good.

[Euromutt]

17. I've had the same experience

I've been told part of it is that women's hearts don't beat as abruptly as men's do, making them less twitchy on the trigger. I don't know if that's true, but I do know my 13 year-old niece is a natural with a bolt-action .22. Similarly, my wife and a friend from Europe produced very good groups shooting .22 and 9mm pistols on their first range trips.

[Tim01]

18. Women don't think they already know it all.

And they generally don't see the gun as anything but a tool. So they just pay attention and pick up the skills. Usually better than men.
In the military we often saw that men with no gun experience would learn better than those with just enough experience to learn bad habits.

A lot like guys and girls and cars.Girls are not trying to prove anything.

[iverglas]

19. I seem to have got rusty

"changing political demographics"

What's that code for, again?

[Merchant Marine]

23. Perhaps

a decrease in statism and an increasing belief in personal responsibility for one's actions and safety?

[iverglas]

25. mmmmmmmmm ... no

I don't think so. I'd hardly use the expression "political demographics" to describe any of that noise.

Thanks for playing, though!

[Merchant Marine]

28. Pardon me,

I forgot. It's really code to activate the right-wing terrorist sleeper cells.

[iverglas]

29. well ....

I think it's code for "lots of people with funny coloured skin who speak funny languages and weren't born here", myself.

But heck, I could be wrong.

[benEzra]

37. That wouldn't be "political" demographics, though, would it?

Not being a mind reader, I can't say for sure, but I would wager that the thought in question was the shift in attitudes toward gun ownership among progressives that accompanied the resurgence of the Democratic party over the last four years or so.

BTW, welcome back! I hope all is going well for you and yours.

[iverglas]

38. uh huh

"the shift in attitudes toward gun ownership among progressives that accompanied the resurgence of the Democratic party over the last four years or so"

Another of those funny false/unproved premises so popular hereabouts ...


I think there's a report on me and mine in this thread someplace. ;)

[rrneck]

87. Yep.

There were surely Progressives that watched the Bush administration tomfoolery that rethought their stand regarding firearms. I expect there were also red state fence sitters (How anyone could sit on the fence under the circumstances is beyond me, but I've seen it.) that began to see the light and crossed over to take a chance on a Democrat in spite of fear of increased firearms regulation. They may have voted for Obama, but I bet a bunch of them sent money to the NRA at the same time. I guarantee they will do everything they can to turn guns into a third rail for him and bolt if they think he let them down, and I guarantee he knows it.

We may have elected a Democratic president, but the entire country didn't turn into Berkley overnight.

[DrCory]

91. Implying the Author of Post #13 is a Racist, Eh?

I was hoping that you would return with some new material.

[iverglas]

93. oh, I know just how you feel!

I was hoping that when I wandered back here to peek in there'd be some new material, too.

[NewMoonTherian]

24. That's what you get for being gone so long. Welcome back! n/t

[Tim01]

20. 911 Woman shoots intruder. / Woman not armed

911 call recording.
Woman shoots intruder who has broken into her house, smashed through the bedroom door, and is strangling her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk


911 call recording.
Unarmed woman gets raped in her home by an intruder while waiting for police. He tells her he is going to kill her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags


These always make me feel a little sick. But nothing illustrates the point any better.

[TPaine7]

21. A rabbit's foot is just as effective, doncha know?

I don't have time to look up the FBI statistics on DRFUs (Defensive Rabbit's Foot Uses), but I'm sure someone will be posting it soon.

[Tim01]

22. And of course dead victims are morally superior to women who shoot rapist/murderers.

[iverglas]

26. yeah, I know

Stories about women being sexually assaulted make everyone in this place real sick.

That's why there are so many of them retailed hereabouts ... by men ...

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

39. I think you'd better watch that mouth

And I think you'd better retract that false and filthy statement.

"And yet you are still in favor of women being raped instead of defending themselves."

You have time to edit the post to remove it, or you can feel free to just state you retract it and apologize.

I have no clue who you are, and I don't give a crap. You are not entitled to come to this place and speak to a member of this site in that way.

[Tim01]

43. Then you are in favor of women being armed with guns. Good.

That is one of the things the 2nd amendment is for. It's great to see you support the 2nd amendment.

All Americans should support the 2nd amendment.

[iverglas]

46. "All Americans should support the 2nd amendment."

Goody.

I care about your second amendment about as much as I care about your opinion about that or anything else, of course.


Here's one for you.

Which would you rather do: hit that little old Jew over the head with this bag of shit, or beat out that rhythm on a drum?

Feel free to google "Firesign Theatre". And then "false dichotomy". Oh, and don't forget "demagoguery".

[Tim01]

64. I don't follow your sidetracks. I have American reality to look at. 2 taped examples.

Look up anything you want. University professor lectures on logic debate don't change the reality of the raped woman or the dead badguy. Both actually happened.

[iverglas]

66. ah, the simple man

How refreshing. I won't bother you again with things like, oh, ideas.

[Euromutt]

49. Why don't you take your own advice to heart?

You are not entitled to come to this place and speak to a member of this site in that way.

Coming from you, that's pretty rich. Just about every post of yours I've read since you returned has been more than a little insulting, so you don't have a lot of talking room here. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[iverglas]

50. so, sweetie

You find me a post of mine in which I have made a filthy, false statement about someone else here equivalent to the one in issue. Just one.

[TPaine7]

56. Maybe he should look at

"You tender, sensitive, principled, saintly soul" below

The quote in that post was pretty vicious. It would have really hurt coming from someone with a beating heart and a human soul.

Just saying...

[Euromutt]

68. That's going to be a tall order...

...given that going by this post of yours http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x230249#230419 Tim01's assessment of your position seems to be largely correct: you would prefer to see a woman raped than see her successfully defend herself, at least with lethal force.

But assuming, for the sake of the argument, that Tim01's accusation were false, I'll concede I probably wouldn't be able to find any single post of yours that achieved that level of severity. Rather, there's a continuous, almost incessant, stream of low-level, indirectly worded insults from your corner. In this thread alone, you've implied Statistical harbors (possibly along with others) "pornographic fantasies," you've implied Tim01 is patronizing, "deceitful and/or dim," you've accused TPaine7 of engaging in demagoguery and being "a girly-man at heart", and you've essentially accused rrneck of racism ("changing political demographics" in your opinion meaning "lots of people with funny coloured skin who speak funny languages and weren't born here"). Elsewhere, you've said outright that I'm "plainly" ignorant of Iranian history, and implied my education is sub-standard.

Oh, you're very skilled at "moderator-proofing" your posts, I'll acknowledge, but your general attitude is incessantly condescending and abrasive. Which would be one thing if you weren't evidently rather thin-skinned when it comes to less than positive assessments of your own opinions.

[iverglas]

72. May I visit your planet please?

Me: Do I prefer a scenario in which there is no dead person to a scenario in which there is a dead person?
(Rhetorical question. The answer really is yes.)

You: you would prefer to see a woman raped than see her successfully defend herself, at least with lethal force.


I really do think a planet on which those two things look exactly alike would be quite a lot of fun.

Just imagine. I could look in a mirror and see, oh, Sarah Palin looking back at me. The possibilities would be endless ...


Now, as to all my bulletproof assertions: would you like to offer any evidence that any of them are false?


Oh, you're very skilled at "moderator-proofing" your posts, I'll acknowledge, but your general attitude is incessantly condescending and abrasive.

Yeah. I do have fun, don't I??

Which would be one thing if you weren't evidently rather thin-skinned when it comes to less than positive assessments of your own opinions.

My dear fellow, you go ahead and formulate and state whatever assessments of my opinions you might care to formulate and state.

If you lie about my opinions, though, you'll find me saying so. In my own charmingly condescending, abrasive and bulletproof way, of course.

[Euromutt]

80. Once again, if you make the assertions, you assume the burden of proof

Now, as to all my bulletproof assertions: would you like to offer any evidence that any of them are false?

Care to provide any evidence they're true? Or, for that matter, bulletproof? (I assume you mean "bulletproof" in a metaphorical sense, since it would be impossible to literally shoot holes in them.)

I really do think a planet on which those two things look exactly alike would be quite a lot of fun.

I don't quite understand what that's supposed to mean, since the two scenarios quite obviously do not look exactly alike. That's the entire point. In one scenario, an innocent person is victimized by a sadistic assailant (with all the concomitant emotional trauma on the victim's part); in the other, such an assailant is effectively halted. Quite different outcomes, I hope you'll agree. (As an aside, let's not assume the the assailant who ended up shot was "only" there to take the woman's material possessions. He sought her out in her hiding place, on the other side of a locked door, strongly indicating that his primary intent was to inflict physical harm on her.)

Now, I'm sure everybody here would prefer an outcome in every scenario in which the assailant could reliably be prevented from inflicting harm on his prospective victim without recourse so lethal force. Problem is, the method that would reliably allow that to happen has yet to be developed. That's why law enforcement personnel continue to carry firearms, even though they have an increasing variety of "less lethal" methods (OC, tasers, etc.) at their disposal. So the most desirable outcome cannot be counted upon to be achievable, to put it mildly. No, actually, the most desirable outcome would be no assault occurring in the first place, but the violent crime statistics indicate that we really can't count on that happening.

Exactly where that wolf-murderer Palin necessarily comes into this is unclear to me. Why not bring up Eleanor Roosevelt? She carried a revolver while doing civil rights activity in the South.

[iverglas]

83. could you please try to keep up

at least with your own end of the conversation?

From my previous post:

Me: Do I prefer a scenario in which there is no dead person to a scenario in which there is a dead person?
(Rhetorical question. The answer really is yes.)

You: you would prefer to see a woman raped than see her successfully defend herself, at least with lethal force.

You chose to make a statement about me.

Your statement is false.

It IS NOT what I said.

I was addressing two SPECIFIC scenarios. I stated a preference for one of them.

In one scenario, someone was killed.
In the other scenario, no one was killed.

On those BARE FACTS, and on those SPECIFIC CRITERIA ALONE, I preferred one scenario over the other.

In point of fact, the two scenarios were quite likely apples and oranges. But they were the choices offered, and I stated a preference.


Your statement is false, because I HAVE NEVER SAID that I would prefer to see a woman raped than defend herself. (Whether such defence is "successful" is entirely irrelevant; the issue is whether I approve of someone defending herself: I can't make approval conditional on the success of the attempt. Really.) Never.

I know stuff that you either don't know or want to pretend doesn't exist.

The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults do not involve any actual risk of death. Even if we consider only REPORTED assaults, the overwhelming majority are committed by people known to the victim.

Those offenders are NOT going to kill their victims. And those victims are NOT going to use "lethal force" to defend themselves against the assault. Period. No matter how rich the fantasy life of those drooling over women shooting up bad guys to defend their virtue. Real women act according to their own needs and priorities and constraints, not gunhead scenarios.

I do not regard killing someone in apprehension of anything less than serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative to doing so is available, to be tolerable in a civilized society. And in civilized societies, it is not tolerated.

Even in uncivilized societies where capital punishment is practised, it is not applied for lesser crimes than homicide. I mean, except in really really uncivilized societies that really aren't part of this discussion.

Sexual assault is not punishable by death. I see absolutely no reason why killing to defend against a sexual assault -- where there are no reasonable grounds to apprehend serious physical injury or death -- should be tolerated.

Sexual assault is an assault. It is a particularly vicious kind of assault, and it is tolerated by a society for very particular reasons. Sexual assault is one part of a whole web of controls imposed on women by patriarchal society.

Encouraging women to kill men attempting to assault them sexually does nothing to address the many serious problems women have in such societies.

And the plain fact is that the men crying crocodile tears for women who are victims of sexual assault and urging all women everywhere to shoot the bastards know perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of women, the overwhelming majority of whose abusers and attackers are people known to them, are not going to do that.

So you know what I see? I see a nice little victim-blaming scenario being set up.

All women have to do is pack heat, and pull trigger, and that whole rape thing will just go away. Women don't want to do that? Well damn, whose fault is it when they are abused and assaulted then, eh?

[TPaine7]

89. "Civilized"

Those offenders are NOT going to kill their victims. And those victims are NOT going to use "lethal force" to defend themselves against the assault. Period. No matter how rich the fantasy life of those drooling over women shooting up bad guys to defend their virtue. Real women act according to their own needs and priorities and constraints, not gunhead scenarios.

I do not regard killing someone in apprehension of anything less than serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative to doing so is available, to be tolerable in a civilized society. And in civilized societies, it is not tolerated.

Even in uncivilized societies where capital punishment is practised, it is not applied for lesser crimes than homicide. I mean, except in really really uncivilized societies that really aren't part of this discussion.

Sexual assault is not punishable by death. I see absolutely no reason why killing to defend against a sexual assault -- where there are no reasonable grounds to apprehend serious physical injury or death -- should be tolerated.

Those offenders are NOT going to kill their victims.

Trust the felon.

I do not regard killing someone in apprehension of anything less than serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative to doing so is available, to be tolerable in a civilized society. And in civilized societies, it is not tolerated.

Rape is very serious, at least according to the women who've confided in me, and is intolerable in a civilized society. In addition to the serious violation, it subjects the victim to any diseases the rapist may be carrying and to a possible sentence of carrying the perpetrators child. (Some women have moral strictures that forbid abortion and even the morning after pill. You may despise their convictions and the foundations on which they rest, but to them choice ends at conception. Do their rights count?)

Civilized society supports women who don't trust in the goodwill of felonious assailants and defend themselves as necessary against the guy that would rape them but would never dream of otherwise injuring them (and of course passed his recent Aids, hepatitis, drug resistant syphilis and gonorrhea, ... tests too).

Sexual assault is an assault. It is a particularly vicious kind of assault, and it is tolerated by a society for very particular reasons.

It should never be tolerated. One way it is tolerated is by classing it separately from "serious physical injury or death." Lethal diseases and the trustworthiness of felons aside, there is such a thing as serious mental injury. If we could trace the ripples through society, we would certainly find that many deaths and serious physical traumas result from mental trauma--and not just to the immediate victim. So for multiple reasons, physical and mental, civilized societies allow lethal force in defense against rape.

Encouraging women to kill men attempting to assault them sexually does nothing to address the many serious problems women have in such societies.

Self-defense--lethal or otherwise--against a would-be rapist will not improve a woman's body image, her feeling incomplete without a man, her posture, her education, or her earning power. But then it's not intended to. It's intended to stop the rape. "It's a nice car, but it won't shine my shoes. I guess I'll leave it on the lot." Yeah, that's it.

And the plain fact is that the men crying crocodile tears for women who are victims of sexual assault and urging all women everywhere to shoot the bastards know perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of women, the overwhelming majority of whose abusers and attackers are people known to them, are not going to do that.

So you know what I see? I see a nice little victim-blaming scenario being set up.

All women have to do is pack heat, and pull trigger, and that whole rape thing will just go away. Women don't want to do that? Well damn, whose fault is it when they are abused and assaulted then, eh?

I see a bitter, clueless woman who lacks the imagination to understand decent men--and so condemns what she doesn't understand. I see a woman who doesn't understand the depth of some men's conviction. For example, were I to lose my mind and attempt to rape a woman, any woman, she would be fully justified to kill me if necessary--according to me. (I hate to use myself as an example. It opens me up to particularly virulent and stupid abuse--apparently within the rules--but I trust readers can discern the truth. And I can't think of an example closer to home.)

No one thinks that guns will solve rape categorically. And yes, some women will never use lethal force, even to protect their innocent children. Some women will know that their "men" have raped their children and will still be concerned about whether he "loves" them. That certainly doesn't mean that a civilized society won't support--through laws and through moral support--women who use lethal force, be it a knife, a bat, a 2 x 4 or a gun, to protect themselves or their children.

Here is an example of "civilized" laws:

Ms. Deng explained that she used a fruit knife in self-defense when the men attempted to sexually assault her. The original police report said that the men asked for "special services," which is popular euphemism for sex. Later reports claimed that the men only asked for "bathing service," which is a legitimate service offered at hotels like the one Deng worked at.

In any case, Ms. Deng repeatedly told the men that she was a waitress and did not work in the bathhouse section of the hotel. The official report omits the fact that Deng Guida, the decedent, is accused of beating the victim after being refused sex, calling her a prostitute and threatening to kill her. Finally, the most recent report, released a few days before the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, downplayed Deng Yujiao's "guilt" and seemed calibrated to appease the growing numbers of Chinese clamoring for justice.

Even when releasing Ms. Deng, the court claimed that her self-defense was "excessive." That claim seems incorrect. Article 20, Clause 3 of the Chinese Criminal Law states:

Where a defence is conducted to an immediate violent crime of committing physical assault, committing homicide, robbery, rape, kidnapping, and other crimes seriously endangering the security of a person, and it causes bodily injury or death to the unlawful infringer, such an act shall not be defence that exceeds the limits of necessity, and criminal responsibility shall not be borne for such an act.

Nevertheless, the court pointed to two grounds in favor of releasing her. First, she had reported the incident to the police. Second, she supposedly had diminished responsibility because she is manic-depressive. Her former lawyers, however, dispute the manic-depressive assertion. Some commentators believe the mental health allegation, initially made at the outset of the investigation, was originally fabricated to discredit her; later, it became a handy tool to have her released without the government needing to openly account for the Communist Party officials' crimes.

Source: http://volokh.com/

Were those men actually going to hurt her? Did she show sufficient concern for their well being? They were such gentlemen--they only wanted a nice quiet rape. They showed goodwill. Her self-defense was clearly "excessive":

She said: “Yes, I have never seen money. If you have the guts, you can beat me to death.” Deng Guida said: “Indeed I’ll beat you to death with money. I am going to summon a truckload of money and squash you to death.”

Source: http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/05/deng-yujiao-tells-her-story/

See! The death threat was clearly a joke. The men were harmless. (And of course men who frequent prostitutes are know not to have Aids. No threat of serious bodily harm--just a sure death sentence to a poor Chinese woman who couldn't afford drug cocktails.) The court was right to be gravely concerned about those gentlemen's well being.


If that's civilization, I am glad America is barbaric.

[gorfle]

98. Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal...

You chose to make a statement about me.

Your statement is false.

It IS NOT what I said.

But it is exactly what you implied. Now you want to play the old "I said X but meant Y" game so that you can play the misunderstood victim once again.

We haven't forgotten you, Iverglas.

On those BARE FACTS, and on those SPECIFIC CRITERIA ALONE, I preferred one scenario over the other.

Then I think you are a fool, Iverglas. The two scenarios are nearly identical except for one important fact - in one scenario the victim was armed, and escaped physically unscathed, in in the other, the one you prefer, the victim was beaten and raped.

Your statement is false, because I HAVE NEVER SAID that I would prefer to see a woman raped than defend herself.

But clearly you have said you prefer the scenario where that is exactly what happened.

The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults do not involve any actual risk of death. Even if we consider only REPORTED assaults, the overwhelming majority are committed by people known to the victim.

Those offenders are NOT going to kill their victims.

First of all, who cares? Just breaking into my house and forcing me to retreat behind other locked doors in my house until they finally break through those is sufficient cause for me to shoot them, regardless of what their ultimate intent for me is.

I do not regard killing someone in apprehension of anything less than serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative to doing so is available, to be tolerable in a civilized society. And in civilized societies, it is not tolerated.

If you think that either of the women in either of the scenarios were not in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death, then you are almost certainly in a minority of such opinion holders.

I can't imagine anyone listening to those tapes and not coming to the conclusion that those women were in for serious physical injury or death. The only difference between them is one woman was able to resist her attacker and the other was not.

Second of all, I'm sure every victim of a rape where the perpetrator tells them they are going to kill them will feel much better knowing that they are only going to be beaten and raped.

And those victims are NOT going to use "lethal force" to defend themselves against the assault. Period.

Then I suggest you re-listen to the first recording, where what you claim is not going to happen period did happen.

Sexual assault is not punishable by death. I see absolutely no reason why killing to defend against a sexual assault -- where there are no reasonable grounds to apprehend serious physical injury or death -- should be tolerated.

Well thank dog you don't make the laws around here.

Encouraging women to kill men attempting to assault them sexually does nothing to address the many serious problems women have in such societies.

And discouraging them from defending themselves from sexual assault does nothing but leave them to scream over the phone to helpless 911 dispatchers.

All women have to do is pack heat, and pull trigger, and that whole rape thing will just go away. Women don't want to do that? Well damn, whose fault is it when they are abused and assaulted then, eh?

Let's be perfectly clear here. I do not blame the woman in the second recording for being beaten and raped - it is a travesty and a tragedy. But I do see that she clearly had plenty of time to fetch a firearm and take up a defensive position aiming at the basement door - if she had a firearm. I feel the same kind of remorse for these kinds of situations as I do when I hear about someone who died in a car accident and did not wear a seat belt. "If only, if only", and "This will never happen to me."

[iverglas]

102. show your work, please

But it is exactly what you implied.

Declarative statement. Substantiate, please.

I mean, not that the maker of the statement you assert I implied didn't hedge his own bets kind of cleverly, to the point that his own statement is actually pretty damned meaningless.

I don't say meaningless things, of course. So that settles it right there, really.

But you go ahead. You've made your own statement, so you substantiate it. Show what, in my own statement, implied the preference attributed to me.


Now you want to play the old "I said X but meant Y" game so that you can play the misunderstood victim once again.

Oh, the backwards planet we all live on here.

I say X, somebody tells me I said/meant Y, and I'm "misunderstood"?

You do remember, surely -- I've never ever ever claimed to be "misunderstood". ;)



The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults do not involve any actual risk of death. Even if we consider only REPORTED assaults, the overwhelming majority are committed by people known to the victim.
Those offenders are NOT going to kill their victims.
First of all, who cares? Just breaking into my house and forcing me to retreat behind other locked doors in my house until they finally break through those is sufficient cause for me to shoot them, regardless of what their ultimate intent for me is.

Um, why are you talking about people breaking into your house?

I was very clearly talking about the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults, which are committed by people known to the victim.

Do people known to you break into your house and behave in threatening ways?

I do not regard killing someone in apprehension of anything less than serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative to doing so is available, to be tolerable in a civilized society. And in civilized societies, it is not tolerated.
If you think that either of the women in either of the scenarios were not in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death, then you are almost certainly in a minority of such opinion holders.

If war was peace, you'd have said something true and meaningful.

If I thought what you insinuate I think, I'd be a complete moron. Now, is it nice to insinuate that?

I said that killing in the absence of apprehension of serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative is available, is not tolerable. That really is pretty clear and unequivocal.

Why would you insinuate that I was talking about a situation in which there WAS apprehension of serious injury or death, and no alternative to the use of force was apparently available?

I could guess. Or you could tell me.



Here's how the little chat originally went:

you: But what I see when watching that second video is that the woman would have had all the time in the world to grab a shotgun and rest it over the back of a chair pointing it at the door to her basement, and when the criminal came through it she could have blown him right back down the stairs. Instead, being defenseless, she trusted to the police getting their in time to save her. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

me: Here's what I see, of course.
Scenario 1
(haven't you people tired of that little morality play yet? It was being done to death last time I was here)
- dead person
Scenario 1 <should say "2">
- no dead person
Do I prefer a scenario in which there is no dead person to a scenario in which there is a dead person?
Guess.

You claim that "it didn't work out" in scenario 2.

That's your assessment. My assessment is that a serious crime was committed and the appropriate authorities intervened to stop any further harm being done, and all parties survived.

I have never, ever said that the woman in scenario 2 would not have been justified in using force to defend against the assault. And I do not say that, and will not say it. And, if she reasonably apprehended serious injury or death, which there is every reason to believe she did, she would have been justified in using whatever force was necessary to prevent it.

On the facts, that was not necessary, because of the intervention that prevented serious injury or death. I prefer that OUTCOME. That is what I SAID.

It MAY NOT be inferred from that statement that I do not approve of anyone using force to defend against an assault that s/he reasonably apprehends will result in serious injury or death.

Particularly because I HAVE SAID the exact opposite OVER AND OVER in this place. I'm particularly fond of this little thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x21533#21553


And those victims are NOT going to use "lethal force" to defend themselves against the assault. Period.
Then I suggest you re-listen to the first recording, where what you claim is not going to happen period did happen.

And I suggest that you do whatever remedial studies you need to do, and/or stop pretending that my use of the words "those victims" referred to the victims in the secnarios in question, and not to the victims I WAS TALKING ABOUT: the overwhelming majority of women victims of sexual assault, whose assailants are men known to them, who ARE NOT intending to kill them and DO NOT kill them. Let me say that again: the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

Packing heat and pulling trigger IS NOT going to protect the overwhelming majority of women from the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults committed against women.

And let me just say: if women did start shooting and killing their fathers, family friends, dates, coworkers, classmates and partners who attempted to sexually assault them, we all know we'd be hearing a very different tune. It is hard enough to make the case that a sexual assault occurred when it did. Imagine making the case that one committed a homicide in self-defence in the exact circumstances in which the assailant, if alive, would be saying "But Yr Honour, she wanted it!"

Hmm. Would "fighting back", by shooting to kill, be evidence she didn't want it? Hmm.


Encouraging women to kill men attempting to assault them sexually does nothing to address the many serious problems women have in such societies.
And discouraging them from defending themselves from sexual assault does nothing but leave them to scream over the phone to helpless 911 dispatchers.

Lend me those special earphones, will you? I want to hear that, so I can know who said it, and give them a good telling off.

In the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of cases, defending against sexual assault means having the self-confidence to trust instincts and take action to AVOID the individual in the situation in which it may occur. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of men who sexually assault women do not break down their doors -- they get them alone in supply rooms or offices, they ask them out on dates, they give them rides home, they invite them back to their homes or get invited back to the women's, they ask to meet so they can repent and talk about getting back together, they threaten to fire them, they threaten to fail them.

THOSE women don't need pistols or shotguns. They need confidence both in themselves and in public policy and public authorities, so they can AVOID those assaults and also not suffer intolerable consequences for doing so.

If women who kill men who attempt to sexually assault them deserve your praise, surely women who refuse to be assaulted by their workplace superiors or academic evaluators deserve the public's protection from reprisals, and women who refuse to be assaulted by former partners deserve the public's protection from restraining order violations, just for instance.

Of course, it's cheaper to tell women to go buy guns. Knowing, of course, that women are not going to use guns to defend themselves against assaults by their partners, dates, coworkers, employers, classmates, teachers ...

And less likely to mean that anybody might have his own unimportant choices restricted even a teeny bit to provide those protections for the women who really need them.



html fixed

[TPaine7]

103. Aids, hepatitis, and drug reisistant STDs

will reasonably be expected to result in serious injury or death.

Rape threatens that.

[gorfle]

139. As requested.

Declarative statement. Substantiate, please.

As evidence, I submit all the other posters in this thread who replied to you indicating they interpreted what you said just as I did.

I say X, somebody tells me I said/meant Y, and I'm "misunderstood"?

When it's the nearly unanimous opinion of everyone that hears you speak that you actually came off as meaning Y, it's a pretty safe bet that either you are misunderstood or everyone is seeing right through your bullshit. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which.

Um, why are you talking about people breaking into your house?

Um, have you listened to the two recordings? This is the central event in both of them.

I was very clearly talking about the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults, which are committed by people known to the victim.

And my point is, who cares? If someone is breaking into your home, as happened in the two recordings under discussion, I don't care if they are there for sexual assault or to wish me happy birthday. Either way warrants being blown away.

Do people known to you break into your house and behave in threatening ways?

Obviously you have not listened to either recording. In the first recording, the person who broke into the home was known to the victim.

I said that killing in the absence of apprehension of serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative is available, is not tolerable. That really is pretty clear and unequivocal.

Here's what we know. You have claimed that the first recording scenario is worse than the first one because someone (a home invader with a history of stalking) died by the victim having a gun to defend themselves. You have claimed that the second scenario is preferable because no one died, even though she was beaten, raped, and was told she was going to be murdered by her assailant.

Now, putting two and two together here (and I can already hear the howls of "but I didn't saythat!", if it is your opinion that "killing in the absence of apprehension of serious physical injury or death, or when an alternative is available, is not tolerable", and it is your opinion that the second recording scenario is preferable to the first recording scenario because no one died, it's pretty clear here that you don't think that the woman in the second situation was in "apprehension of serious physical injury or death".

And to that, all I can say is almost no one here agrees with you.

you: But what I see when watching that second video is that the woman would have had all the time in the world to grab a shotgun and rest it over the back of a chair pointing it at the door to her basement, and when the criminal came through it she could have blown him right back down the stairs. Instead, being defenseless, she trusted to the police getting their in time to save her. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

That's your assessment. My assessment is that a serious crime was committed and the appropriate authorities intervened to stop any further harm being done, and all parties survived.

You are clearly assigning far, far, far, far, far more value to the survival of the violent, brutal rapist than nearly anyone else on the fucking planet would. I mean I'd expect to find that kind of pacifistic concern for a violent rapist only to be found deep in the halls of a Buddhist temple or something.

My assessment is that she should have had a shotgun to blow that fucker right back down the basement stairs. Then the right party would have survived, would not have taken a beating, would not have had her crotch used as a human ashtray, and would not have the emotional trauma of her physical assault.

I have never, ever said that the woman in scenario 2 would not have been justified in using force to defend against the assault. And I do not say that, and will not say it. And, if she reasonably apprehended serious injury or death, which there is every reason to believe she did, she would have been justified in using whatever force was necessary to prevent it.

But you still prefer her scenario over scenario 1. Which means everything you just said in the paragraph above is complete and utter bullshit. You said X, but clearly mean Y.

And I suggest that you do whatever remedial studies you need to do, and/or stop pretending that my use of the words "those victims" referred to the victims in the secnarios in question, and not to the victims I WAS TALKING ABOUT: the overwhelming majority of women victims of sexual assault, whose assailants are men known to them, who ARE NOT intending to kill them and DO NOT kill them. Let me say that again: the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

Packing heat and pulling trigger IS NOT going to protect the overwhelming majority of women from the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults committed against women.

So because the majority don't defend themselves let's forgo the possibility of anyone defending themselves, then, eh? What a pathetic, weak-willed argument.

In the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of cases, defending against sexual assault means having the self-confidence to trust instincts and take action to AVOID the individual in the situation in which it may occur. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of men who sexually assault women do not break down their doors -- they get them alone in supply rooms or offices, they ask them out on dates, they give them rides home, they invite them back to their homes or get invited back to the women's, they ask to meet so they can repent and talk about getting back together, they threaten to fire them, they threaten to fail them.

But we aren't talking about those cases. We are talking about the two cases in the original post where a home invader broke in with obvious confrontational intent, and in one case the attacker was thrwarted by force and in the other the attacker succeeded because no opposing force was offered, both while on the phone with police who arrived to late to save the victim.

Now you want to change the subject and/or negate the validity of these two cases by saying most of the time men don't break into homes to commit sexual assault. Well woop-tee-doo. I'm sure the women in these two cases are very comforted by the fact that they are in a minority of assault cases.

This is not nearly as complicated as you are trying to make it. It's really simple. These two cases illustrate very bluntly what can happen in a home break-in situation where the homeowner is aware of the impending break-in situation. And in one case the homeowner trusted to the police to save her, and in the other the homeowner saved herself.

However you might want to spin and dance to trivialize these cases, that's what it boils down to.

[Euromutt]

136. I'm trying to get this clear, really I am

I was addressing two SPECIFIC scenarios. I stated a preference for one of them.

In one scenario, someone was killed.
In the other scenario, no one was killed.

In one scenario, the intended victim was not beaten and raped.
In the other scenario, the intended victim was beaten and raped.

You expressed a preference for the latter.

On those BARE FACTS, and on those SPECIFIC CRITERIA ALONE, I preferred one scenario over the other.

By "those specific criteria alone," do you mean "if you ignore the fact that in one scenario, the victim was beaten and raped"? If so, that's rather a crucial factor to choose to overlook, isn't it?

In point of fact, the two scenarios were quite likely apples and oranges.

That's not very plausible. As I pointed out elsewhere, in the scenario in which the assailant got shot, he had first sought out the victim in her hiding place, forcing open a locked bedroom door to get to her. She was using a cordless phone, so if he'd wanted to interrupt her 911 call, he could have located the base station (which is generally located in a common area) and disconnected that, probably in less time than it would have taken to locate her with the handset. And if he'd just been after the DVD player and the PlayStation (or other material possessions, he had ample time to grab those while she was ensconced in the bedroom.

Moreover, the assailant was known to the victim; he'd been stalking her for some time previously, and she'd already filed six complaints against him.

I haven't listened to the other call. I honestly don't have the stomach for it.

No matter how rich the fantasy life of those drooling over women shooting up bad guys to defend their virtue.
<...>
So you know what I see? I see a nice little victim-blaming scenario being set up.

For someone who protests so frequently that she never literally said what is being attributed to her, you certainly have no scruples about drawing inferences--and spurious ones at that--about what other people mean.

All women have to do is pack heat, and pull trigger, and that whole rape thing will just go away. Women don't want to do that? Well damn, whose fault is it when they are abused and assaulted then, eh?

You wanted an example of a "filthy, false statement about someone else here equivalent to the one in issue"? You just made one.

It should be superfluous to say it, but rape is always the rapist's fault. That's my considered opinion, and it would take something truly remarkable to change my mind on that.

I mean, sorry, but do you think we firearms enthusiasts don't have women in our lives that we care about? Spouses, lovers, sisters, friends, co-workers. We're all lefty-type liberals here (by American standards) so chances are we know women who aren't comfortable with owning, let alone carrying, a firearm. Which is fine; some people just aren't comfortable with firearms. Are you seriously suggesting that we'd be fine with those women being raped because they preferred not to own and carry a firearm? Hell, even women we don't know? What a horrible idea.

The answer is no. No, we pro-RKBA types aren't looking to blame the victim. We don't want there to be any victims of rape and sexual assault. The problem is that the causes of rape are myriad, and to a large extent (at present) outside our ability to control by means of public policy. In other words, we don't know how/don't have the ability to eliminate rape at the source, much as we would like to. This goes for violent crime in general. Absent that ability, the best we can hope for is to provide potential victims with the means to defend themselves. And in our considered opinion, firearms are the most reliable tool for that purpose.

You don't have to agree with that, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume our motivations are nefarious.

[iverglas]

144. naaaaaah

We're all lefty-type liberals here (by American standards)

I do know that US standards are pretty fucked, in this and many respects, but that one there is just a big old guffaw. No. You aren't all.


so chances are we know women who aren't comfortable with owning, let alone carrying, a firearm.

Actually, chances are you know some people, including women, who are opposed on principle to the idea of people wandering around in public with firearms, and for whom it would be completely contrary to their principles to do that, so they don't.

But you go ahead and take that drippingly patriarchal tone when you talk about women and how they just aren't "comfortable" with those gun things.


For the rest -- I'm quite bored with pretending to believe that anybody didn't grasp anything I said the first time I said it. If anybody wants to keep pretending they didn't, they can have a picnic.

[Euromutt]

150. Ah, more abuse

But you go ahead and take that drippingly patriarchal tone when you talk about women and how they just aren't "comfortable" with those gun things.

Did I generalize? No, I don't believe I did, unless the word "some" mutated overnight to come to mean "all."

Confidence with firearms (which is not the same as complacency, I hasten to note) is a learned behavior. In my own case, it took repeated drilling by the Royal Netherlands Army to acquire it. If you've been pelted constantly by sensationalist mass media stories uncritically quoting advocacy literature about how guns "go off" seemingly by themselves, and present an unavoidable threat to their owners and those around them, then yes, you're going to conditioned to be uncomfortable around guns.

That doesn't just apply to women, but as it happens, we were talking specifically about women because you brought up your "male gun owners want to blame rape on women who won't arm themselves" hypothesis. Hence, I limited my comments to women. Some women; I've personally instructed several women (family, friends and complete strangers) in basic firearms handling and marksmanship, and they all came away having felt the experience to be a positive one.

As for the accusation that my tone is "patriarchal," I've known that word to be used too often to simply be an ad hominem meaning "you're male" for me to take it seriously any more.

For the rest -- I'm quite bored with pretending to believe that anybody didn't grasp anything I said the first time I said it.

Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that you had to feign belief that we didn't grasp what you said. Because the way I see it, we grasped it only too well, and you weren't too pleased about having the logical consequences of your position pointed out to you. You might (gasp!) have to re-examine your opinions; no, much better to just deny your opinions are what they are.

[iverglas]

154. nah, sorry

I already said I was bored with pretending to believe things you people say.

Not much point in you making any more shit up and pretending to believe it then, was there?

[Euromutt]

157. Oh my, a reversal to the normal state of affairs!

I already said I was bored with pretending to believe things you people say.

I can't believe I'm the one pointing this out, but that's not what you said. What you said was:

I'm quite bored with pretending to believe that anybody didn't grasp anything I said the first time I said it.

Not my fault you chose ambiguous wording.

[iverglas]

158. hmm

A. "pretending to believe that anybody didn't grasp anything I said the first time I said it."

B. "pretending to believe things you people say."

Granted, "A" is just a subset of "B". I generalized the second time around. I should have made it plainer in the first place that I'm bored with pretending to believe anything you people say you believe, since I really am.


edited to avoid further potential ambiguity ...

[iverglas]

94. yeah, but I didn't make 'em; too bad, so sad

On the other hand, the filthy and false assertion made about moi, why, where did that go??

[Euromutt]

143. You changed your tune (short-term at least)

First you're asking for evidence that your assertions are false. Then, only after I point out the onus is on you to provide evidence they're true, you backpedal and claim you didn't make them.

I'm seeing a pattern here.

As for "the filthy and false assertion made about vous," it's not forgotten. The problem is that the preponderance of the available evidence indicates that it's not false, and if it is indeed not, the filthiness of the accusation is a function of the filthiness of the opinion.

ETA: "too bad, so sad"? What's the intellectual level you're operating on here? Fifth grade? Wham! lyrics?

[TPaine7]

74. A sophist may clearly state that

a grand total of 2 men where in the room, then exactly 2 more men entered while no men left. But you are not supposed to attribute the idea of there then being 4 men in the room to the sophist. "I never even said the word 'four'" "that's outrageous" "how dare you!"

Most folks have a hard time parsing the BS of people who have lied professionally--politicians, lawyers, PR types and their ilk. These are the kinds of games they play. Another favorite is the precisely worded non-statement--"there is no improper relationship with that woman."

I've read your posts; you will have less trouble than most. The biggest thing is to be aware of the character of the speaker. I do what I can to warn newcomers.

Oh, and don't be fooled. Our resident sophist is far from bulletproof. Very far.

[gorfle]

97. Oh man, another bookmark worthy post!

Oh, you're very skilled at "moderator-proofing" your posts, I'll acknowledge, but your general attitude is incessantly condescending and abrasive. Which would be one thing if you weren't evidently rather thin-skinned when it comes to less than positive assessments of your own opinions.

This is almost as good as Beevul's synopsis of iverglas' style:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774

[iverglas]

99. ah, if only it were accurate, eh?

... if you weren't evidently rather thin-skinned when it comes to less than positive assessments of your own opinions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230249&mesg_id=230388


Huh. I didn't know I could get "less than positive assessments of <my> own opinions" deleted!

Just think of the opportunities I've missed ...

I am obviously the queen of the world, in addition to being goddess of truth and beauty.

Now where are my proposals?

[Euromutt]

151. I've got a proposal for you...

It involves a long walk and a short pier.

Draw your own conclusions, though of course if you say what those are, I'll deny that that was what I meant, and cast aspersions about how only a complete idiot could think such a thing (without naming you or anyone else directly, of course).

[iverglas]

153. oh dear

Have you considered medication for that hypertension? I mean, the old BP must be a-risin' there, eh?

[Euromutt]

156. My blood pressure's fine, thank you

Had it checked a month or two ago. How's your gall bladder?

[gorfle]

96. I would but...

They've been deleted by the moderators.

[TPaine7]

51. You tender, sensitive, principled, saintly soul

I can see why one so refined as yourself would be offended by such accusations.

Here's another, far less justified assault upon a less deserving target. Surely you condemn it as well?

You're just trying to get your own way so you can have what you want and do what you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it, and you'll attempt to exploit the misfortune and suffering of anyone who crosses your path if they look useful.
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607#170683

You do condemn that, don't you?...

Say what? You made that unjustified character assault yourself?!

I wish you the best in your medical life, iverglas, and I guess it's a good sign that your hypocrisy is still completely intact (from a medical--not a moral--perspective). But I wouldn't want anyone to be confused by your "delicacy."

That would be like Jeffrey Dahmer passing himself off as a finicky eater.

[iverglas]

55. and then, of course, there's what we call "the whole truth"

iverglas
Sat May-10-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #9

12. "If it's exploiting when the goose does it, it's exploiting when the gander does."

Think hard, and you'll see the difference between the gander and the goose here.

One has no dog in the race, and one does. There's your first clue.

In case you're not good at clues:

I have nothing to gain personally from anything done to protect women from violence committed by their intimate partners, including violence and intimidation committed using firearms. In fact, I have nothing to gain personally from any measures taken to reduce harms caused with firearms.

You're just trying to get your own way so you can have what you want and do what you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it, and you'll attempt to exploit the misfortune and suffering of anyone who crosses your path if they look useful.

Seeing it now?

I just know you do.

You might also want to stop pretending I have done or said anything that suggests my "delicacy" is somehow in issue.

I have objected to a filthy, false statement about myself, just as I would to such a statement about anyone else here. Because I care about civil discourse, and I despise filth and falsehood.

[TPaine7]

58. "The Whole Truth"

"Because I care about civil discourse, and I despise filth and falsehood."

:rofl:

Are you trying to kill me again? I bit my tongue just in time, and the pain stopped me from laughing to death.

It won't work, iverglas. I'm on to you.

[gorfle]

42. It's a pertinent example.

I don't think I've seen the word "misogyny" around here since you left.

First of all, the first recording does not involve a sexual assault. The second one does, but the point of comparing the two has nothing to do with sexual assault.

The point of the two videos is to demonstrate exactly the kind of scenarios that people who advocate being armed are preparing for.

In both cases, we have women locked in their homes fully aware that someone is attempting to break in. They all have plenty of time to call the police and describe what is happening to the dispatcher as the criminal attempts to break in.

Both are still on the phone as the criminal succeeds in breaking in.

But in the first recording, the victim retreats to her bedroom closet, which the criminal proceeds to open the door of, and then the victim shoots him 3 times, killing him. The police do not arrive in time to save anyone.

In the second recording, the victim is unable to retreat as she is on a corded phone, the battery in her cordless phone being dead. The criminal breaks into her home from the basement and begins to beat her and then, after throwing her onto a pool table, rapes her, while telling her he is going to kill her. The police arrive while the rape is in progress, but too late to prevent the assault.

In both scenarios, a firearm could have made all the difference in the world. In the first scenario, it did. In the second scenario, it did not, because the victim did not have one.

Now I'm sure the conversation will turn into a debate of what-ifs, such as we don't know that if the woman in the second recording had a firearm that she could have defended herself as the woman in the first recording did. And if this is the position you want to take - that having a firearm would not have made a difference, then that is your option.

But what I see when watching that second video is that the woman would have had all the time in the world to grab a shotgun and rest it over the back of a chair pointing it at the door to her basement, and when the criminal came through it she could have blown him right back down the stairs. Instead, being defenseless, she trusted to the police getting their in time to save her. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

[iverglas]

47. huh

Here's what I see, of course.

Scenario 1
(haven't you people tired of that little morality play yet? It was being done to death last time I was here)
- dead person

Scenario 1
- no dead person


Do I prefer a scenario in which there is no dead person to a scenario in which there is a dead person?

Guess.

[Statistical]

53. Wow.

I am assumming the 2nd scenario 1 is a typo and is scenario 2? Otherwise it makes no sense.


But that is all you saw.

This is what I saw

Scenario 1
I see victim not assaulted + dead criminal

Scenario 2
I see victim assaulted (both physically & sexually) + no dead criminal

You honestly think scenario where nobody dies is always better?
I think the victim in #2 would disagree but then again she was the one that had to endure the assault not you.

I will take a thousand scenario 1 before a single scenario 2.
I wouldn't care if it happened so often the EPA put burglars on the endangered species list.

[TPaine7]

60. It makes you wonder who's the real mysogynist, doesn't it? N/T

[iverglas]

73. well, me, I'm wondering

who deserves the oscar for "best performance as a female stereotype".

I think you're way ahead of me on that one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. I would have preferred the scenario where the perp screamed like a Jonas Brothers fan...

...and ran away into the night upon laying eyes upon the shottie, but that didn't happen.

Hard cheese for the bad guy, but housebreaking and attempted rape should be a hazardous occupation.

I just hope the woman who was forced to shoot him got help to deal with her PT stress, and make no mistake:

Killing someone, even if it is justifiable, is traumatic.

[Euromutt]

54. I'd guess that Tim01 was at least partially right.

Your indignance notwithstanding, it would appear that you would prefer to see a woman get raped than that she defend herself, at least with lethal force.

I spent four years working for the UN ICTY; I've read more than my share of statements by rape victims, and I read comparatively few. To my mind, a dead rapist is not what I'd call a loss to society. In fact, the words "good riddance" come to mind.

[iverglas]

57. and now for all the new members of my fan club

You just haven't done your research, have you?

I've been the woman in whatever scenario it was where nobody died. I almost did. But I didn't.

And I prefer that scenario to one in which I killed somebody, ta.


But y'all go ahead and keep inventing the iverglas who suits your purposes, now. I'm sure you haven't had so much fun all year!

[Tejas]

61. I hear Letterman is looking for new material

Get your passport in order and show him how it's really done.

[Statistical]

62. Ok just to be clear you would pick the scenario where "nobody dies" no matter what the cost?

Nothing is better than a criminal losing his/her life?
Not an assault? not rape? not kidnapping? Nothing.
Life of a criminal is always more important than what happens to the victim?

Of course most people would prefer the scenario where the criminal leaves or never attacks to begin with but that often isn't a choice and that wasn't the question posed between scenario 1 & 2 above.

Given the choice between a criminal taking what he wants and a women avoiding assault BUT using lethal force that results in a justified homicide you would be against lethal force?

Even if that is your personal belief you don't have the authority, moral or otherwise to chose that for other people.
What about women who may not wish to be forced to accept a scenario where "nobody dies" regardless of the costs to them?

[TPaine7]

65. This is unquestionably in iverglas' philosophical neighborhood:

Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in their homes must surrender rather than fight back — in other words, that burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens. See United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional right to have guns ready to hand when distributing illegal drugs).

Our hypothetical is not as far-fetched as it sounds....

Source: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FGDTE.pdf

This hypothetical is not at iverglas' precise philosophical address, of course, but it is at most two or three doors down. Of course, if questioned, she would no doubt deny the existence of highly placed jurists (The 7th Circuit, no less) who believe it constitutional and lawful to outlaw self-defense. "Nobody opposes self-defense as long as it is desperate, unplanned, and one does not have eeeeeeevil guns for that purpose" or something like that.

She's never seen her neighbors.

[iverglas]

67. aren't you supposedly the wrong sex

to spend so much of your time gossiping? Just a girly-man at heart, I suppose.

[TPaine7]

69. Good one!

Yes, I gossip. About philosophical neighborhoods.

I confess.


<stage whisper> But admit it, you would have denied that people--serious people in high legal places--would ever seriously contemplate a legal system forbidding self-defense outright, wouldn't you? </stage whisper>

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Hah! Read one of Elmore Leonard's novels. Guys gossip too.

To quote a line from another supposedly 'butch' writer, Quentin Tarantino:

"You little scamps are worse than a sewing circle"

Mia Wallace (rather accurately, BTW) commenting on the gossip habits of Vincent Vega and his associates

[burrfoot]

100. *scratching head...*

Doesn't the quotation below kind of answer everyone's question?

Iverglas has repeatedly been questioned about whether she would prefer the scenario where a woman is raped and no one dies. She's said that she does.

"I've been the woman in whatever scenario it was where nobody died. I almost did. But I didn't.
And I prefer that scenario to one in which I killed somebody, ta."

Asked and answered.

I don't happen to agree with that, but then I am a male and therefore astronomically less likely to be the victim of a sexual assault, so I'll most likely never know from first hand experience. Therefore, I can't possibly even begin to assert that it's incorrect.
By the same lights, Iverglas has never been the woman who shot a man who was attempting to assault her(as far as I know). It should stand to reason that, therefore, she cannot possibly begin to assert that that action is incorrect....but that's where this falls apart.

Iverglas, from what I've read, you do in fact assert that the choice of the gun owner/lethal defensive force user is wrong, and in doing so you make digs and jokes about those who disagree. That's what gets people fired up around here. Not that you believe what you believe, but that you feel the need to insult and denigrate people who believe differently.

If you want to try and convince people here that their beliefs are wrong, it might help to do so without throwing out accusations that any of the people who discuss this situation are harboring rape fantasies. That's not something that you could possibly know and it's a pretty disgusting thing to state without proof.

If you just enjoy the debate for the sake of the debate, well, then...keep on truckin'.

Edit: let me head off a potential semantic deflection here... I realize that Iverglas did not state implicitly that anyone here has rape fantasies. However, this quotation:

"Stories about women being sexually assaulted make everyone in this place real sick.
That's why there are so many of them retailed hereabouts ... by men ..."

allows for that interpretation. So I will propose these two follow up questions: 1) Iverglas, do you in fact believe that some or all of the men here post on this topic and discuss it because of some unhealthy fascination with rape? 2) Do you have any evidence of this?

[iverglas]

104. a brand new fan club member!!!

You certainly meet all the qualifications!


That's what gets people fired up around here. Not that you believe what you believe, but that you feel the need to insult and denigrate people who believe differently.

Look at that! A great big fat icky misrepresentation, right there in our first little chat!

I don't give a good god damn what anybody believes.

I will point and jeer at people who can't defend their public policy positions, or back up their claims, with anything other than deceit and demagoguery.


If you want to try and convince people here that their beliefs are wrong, ...

We can stop right there. I hope you haven't thought that's what I was trying to do!


1) Iverglas, do you in fact believe that some or all of the men here post on this topic and discuss it because of some unhealthy fascination with rape? 2) Do you have any evidence of this?

I believe, and have repeatedly stated, that quite a lot of people here intentionally exploit other people's victimization for their own ends, which are contrary to the interests of the victims in question.

I find the constant exploitation of women who are victims of sexual violence, and in particular the very small minority of women who suffer or are threatened with violence in a context in which there is or could reasonably have been expected to be serious injury or death (while completely disregarding the overwhelming majority of women who are victims of sexual violence at the hands of men known to them), to be ... peculiar.

I think that if people don't want to look like drooling rape-fetishists, they oughta reconsider. Even if their real motivations are just to push a sociopolitical agenda at the expense of anybody who happens to be handy.

[Deadric Damodred]

108. Now that's interesting.

If men posting stories of women who are victims of sexual violence, is exploiting them, and that means that those posters "look like drooling rape-fetishists", then the question that needs to be asked is: How many people are there with the point of view that men who post stories of women who are victims of sexual violence are both exploiting those women and look like drooling rape-fetishists? If the answer is just a couple out of many.....then there's really no reason to give a shit if out of many people who see the post, only a couple view the poster as an exploiting rape-fetishist, as the many's view of the poster would have more effect on the poster than a couple of undesirables and their very minority viewpoint.

Oh we're having some fun today aren't we?

[iverglas]

109. snork

How many people are there with the point of view that men who post stories of women who are victims of sexual violence are both exploiting those women and look like drooling rape-fetishists? If the answer is just a couple out of many.....

A couple out of many ... what?

If two people assert that eating other people is wrong and bad, and 1,000 cannibals disagree ...

Snork.



typo fixed

[Deadric Damodred]

110. Then I suggest those people hang around a different crowd...

...because clearly the cannibals rule. ::insert Jack Nicholson's Joker Laugh::

[iverglas]

111. Ah. True.

Arguing about cannibalism with cannibals and being in the minority. Perhaps not the wisest course. ;)

One trusts that arguing about firearms with people in possession of firearms ... well, you know.

[burrfoot]

112. So...

Do I get a t-shirt and my own fan #? That would rule :)

You actually answered most of what I asked in a pretty straightforward way. Good times.

I'm still confused(yes, I said it. Do with it what you will) about the misrepresentation part, though.

Are you suggesting that, actually, you don't care about people believing that lethal force is or is not "ok" to use in a given situation, you only care that people want to defend public policy that allows an individual to make that choice?

I'm not sure those last two statements are correct. Perhaps I don't quite understand what your position is. There's so much crap thrown back and forth surrounding your posts that I'm not real sure what it is that you object to. Is it gun ownership, period? Is it CCW? Is it use of lethal force in specific situations which you do not believe was warranted? Any/all/none of the above?

I like you Iverglas. You're fun.

[iverglas]

113. well, that wasn't *quite* a proposal

I understand. You're new, and you're shy.


Are you suggesting that, actually, you don't care about people believing that lethal force is or is not "ok" to use in a given situation, you only care that people want to defend public policy that allows an individual to make that choice?

So here's the trick.

Don't ask loaded questions.
Don't create false dichotomies.

Are those really my only two choices? --

- don't care about people believing that lethal force is or is not "ok" to use in a given situation
- only care that people want to defend public policy that allows an individual to make that choice

?

I don't even know what would have put those two in your head, when there are so many others available that one might readily think of.


http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.


Preventing assault

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

Now, it can be easier to say than to apply to a specific situation. But it really is pretty easy to say.

[burrfoot]

115. I'm continually impressed...

by your understanding of argument and logic. However it wasn't a loaded question, because answering the question would not have backed you into any particular position, whichever way you might have answered, if you had chosen to; nor would answering it have implied anything about your beliefs other than what was asked.

You missed the point. There is no hidden meaning there. I was literally asking you if either of those two statements were correct, because I'm trying to figure out what it is that you object to.

You'll note, however, that I did not in fact limit you to the two choices that I presented. I asked you a question, provided two possibilities, and then in the very next sentence said "I'm not sure those last two statements are correct." I didn't mean "I think they are false and you think they are true and therefore you're wrong"; I meant "I'm not sure those last two statements are correct about you." Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd written it that way the first time.

I offered further possibilities after that- "Is it gun ownership, period? Is it CCW? Is it use of lethal force in specific situations which you do not believe was warranted?"; I even specifically included an option for none of the statements to be true "Any/all/none of the above?". That last part there (none) actually prevents any possibility of having created a false dichotomy because it gives you the option- right out in the open- of not agreeing with any of the statements that I presented. Should you have agreed with something I'd written but not all of it, you even could have picked "any" and specified which.

Don't get me wrong- I understand why, on this board and with your opinions, you perhaps thought that I was up to some trickery, sitting behind my keyboard with the gears furiously turning in my brain, thinking about how I was going to develop a verbal trap for you that no rebuttal pointing out logical inconsistencies could get you out of.
I wasn't, though. I asked a question wanting an honest answer. Then I spent some time protecting my *brave* Vizsla puppy from our Florida afternoon thunderstorm and playing tug-of-war. Now I'm back, because this is way more fun than algebra.

But I'm still not being tricky.

In order to prevent any further confusion, will you just tell me what it is that you object to? Based on the snippet of self-defense law posted above, it seems to me that you object to the use of lethal force in situations which you believe do not warrant it; but I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Plus that was one of the options and you didn't pick it.

I'm new, but I'm not shy.

Edit: minor typo "back" to "backed"
Edit2: "I" to "I'm"
Well gosh darn it, Iverglas, you sure make me double and triple-check my writing.

[iverglas]

116. "lethal force"

I don't use this jargon.

I object to the use of force where no assault is apprehended, or where there is an alternative.

(And no, I wouldn't rule out grabbing the person trying to make off with the purse from my shopping cart. Lest you think I'm particularly stupid, it did happen to me last fall, because I never ever take a purse into a grocery store but I had gone straight from the bank, where I needed my purse, and wasn't in my car, where I would of course had left it, and just had a lapse. And I wouldn't have ruled out beating up the person who did it, if I'd found him/her, frankly, but I'd recognize I was committing a crime ...)

It isn't the force that's "lethal", it's the intent of the person using the force.

If the big bad wolf breaks into your house in the middle of the night and comes down the hall to your bedroom announcing "I am going to eat you", and you hide behind the door with a 2x4 and jump out and bash him over the head so you can run down the stairs and escape, that is justified. If you bash him over the head to kill him, that is not justified.

It's entirely possible to hit someone over the head with a 2x4 hard enough to incapacitate him/her and enable one's escape, without killing. The calculations involved may not be something the general public can do, particularly in the situation at hand, but the use of a 2x4 in and of itself is no evidence of intent to kill.

Firing a gun at someone's head, that pretty much is. The intent to avoid injury or death can co-exist with it. And the force in question could indeed be no more than is necessary to accomplish that end. But the fact is that it could also very definitely be excessive.

No one here has ever denied that firearms have been used by people to save themselves from serious injury or death in circumstances in which such injury or death would otherwise very probably have resulted, and in which their apprehension of serious injury or death was entirely reasonable, and even that the force used, which resulted that the death of the person attempting the assault, was no more than was necessary, in a particular set of circumstances.

Many of the cases drug up and plastered around this forum as examples of "righteous shoots" simply do not rise to that standard. But they are rallied to by the "crime is a dangerous occupation", "you break into my house, you seal your fate", "one less bad guy" crowd that infests this place.

And those are the sentiments behind the nauseating, right-wing "castle doctrine" laws (a complete perversion of the real castle doctrine) and "stand your ground" laws being adopted all over the US, and decried by anyone who has a clue about the law and/or gives a shit about human rights.

The opinion that someone who causes a death by using force to defend against an assault likely to cause serious injury or death should not be prosecuted for homicide is one thing. That is what "self-defence" is, after all: a legally recognized excuse for committing a homicide.

Glee at the killing of a person who committed a crime, often in circumstances in which the killing was not justified by the time-honoured rules of the self-defence excuse set out in the legislation I quoted, is another. A nauseating, right-wing other.

Assessing a situation in which a death was caused by someone acting in self-defence, to determine whether the death was a permissible result of justified use of force, is essentially impossible. (I refer to assessing the situation, not the reasonableness of victim's claim to have feared injury/death -- that can be entirely reasonable even if it is fairly plain in hindsight that it would not have been borne out.) No one really knows whether the woman in the scenario who shot the man in her house would have been seriously injured or died if she had not shot the assailant. I can't say she would not have, and no one can say she would have.

What I think would be more interesting to consider are situations in which a victim did die -- or was seriously assaulted, e.g. -- and whether the victim (or someone else) having a firearm would likely have changed that outcome.

I think it is quite obvious that the vast majority of homicides/crimes could/would absolutely not have been prevented by the presence of a firearm in someone's possession.

And given all of the other horrors that are very definitely known to occur when there is widespread easy access to firearms in a society, with inadequate oversight of the modalities of possession, well, I just don't see anyone's speculation about what the outcome would have been if a firearm had/had not been present in some particular fact situation as outweighing that very obvious reality.

[burrfoot]

119. Thank you!

I realize that it may not matter to you, but I thank you for taking a minute to explain all that to me.
I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from and I'm now going to be able to just read and smile at all the attacks that go back and forth on these pages; because you are not, actually, a loon.

FWIW, I agree that some gun owners seem to get off on thinking that they're Ninjas. It's not impressive. Neither is blindly crying "GOOD SHOOT!" whenever we hear that someone has shot someone else (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, just a general statement).
I do, however, think that there is value in discussing the incidents; as it's a ridiculously complicated subject and it never ends without serious consequences. Anyone who makes the choice to own a firearm and accepts the fact that it may be used for self defense, in my opinion, should be constantly reviewing and assessing what that might mean.

[iverglas]

121. well, I don't know what you disagree about

but I'm sure there will be opportunities to find out.


Anyone who makes the choice to own a firearm and accepts the fact that it may be used for self defense, in my opinion, should be constantly reviewing and assessing what that might mean.

And in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm should have been reviewed and assessed before being permitted to have access to it, and his/her possession/use of it should be subject to ongoing review and assessment -- by the public.

'Cause forgive me, but yours is just a platitude, and does nothing whatsoever to protect the public from the risks inherent in anyone's possession of firearms.

[burrfoot]

126. It's ok, you're forgiven.

That comment wasn't designed to protect anyone from firearms. It was just a statement of opinion.

We disagree in our assessment of what constitutes a legitimate/legal/moral use of a firearm in a self-defense situation.
But that's ok. Odds are rather high that neither of us will ever be judging the other anywhere except on this forum.

[Deadric Damodred]

127. What?

"And in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm should have been reviewed and assessed before being permitted to have access to it, and his/her possession/use of it should be subject to ongoing review and assessment -- by the public."

By the public -- do you mean that even people who hold no office should be able to have a say in whether a person should be allowed to keep their firearms? Pretty much anyone that lives in the area can just up and say "nope, I don't think that guy should keep his guns (his personal property that HE paid for with his hard earned money)? And if that's the case, what about the cost of the person's firearms? Will the public, provided they've had a little "vote" that Joe Blow shouldn't keep his guns, endure the costs of paying Joe Blow for his $10,000 in personal property that they have decided he shouldn't own anymore?

[iverglas]

128. oh, sigh

By the public -- do you mean that even people who hold no office should be able to have a say in whether a person should be allowed to keep their firearms?

I know that this concept of "the public" is a kind of foreign one on certain parts of the North American continent ... and one that is actively hated by some in those parts ...

How in the hell would you imagine that the public would exercise oversight? How does the public normally exercise oversight?

Through things we might call public agencies, maybe?

Kind of like how the public does pretty much everything the public is obligated/entitled to do qua the public?


Pretty much anyone that lives in the area can just up and say "nope, I don't think that guy should keep his guns (his personal property that HE paid for with his hard earned money)?

Yes, of course, that is just precisely exactly what I meant. Hell, I've always wanted to live in, oh, Iran. I'd like to just be able to go to my local block committee and say "take his gunz! take his house! take his business!"

Cripey. How can people stand to live in a world believing that the other people who inhabit it are that stupid?

Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to ask ...

[Deadric Damodred]

129. Well then why don't you explain what...

...you meant by "review and assessment -- by the public"? That is if you actually know what you meant by it.

[iverglas]

131. Tell ya what

You try guessing. I have to go home for din, but I'll check your work when I'm back.

Try starting out with the premise that I am not a moron. It might help.

[Deadric Damodred]

132. Na.

I'd have to give a shit to start guessing. It was more of a fleeting interest, which is now gone. One person's views on how firearms should be handled are not going to change the world.

[Tim01]

78. I prefer the badguy is dead and the innocent woman is not raped. You agree?

Well? Do you prefer the woman is raped and the bad guy is not shot? Just say it.

I'll take a dead bad guy every time. Dead bad guys do not hurt anybody else. Ever.

[iverglas]

79. Are you implying that I agree?

I don't.

I prefer no one dead.

I thought I had made that clear.

I actually believe in human rights and the rule of law, and stand up for them when necessary.

If I lived where you do, I might be saying something about not taking the smorgasbord approach to the Bill of Rights.

[Tim01]

81. So you prefer the woman gets raped and the badguy doesn't get hurt.

That is what you are saying.

Wow. That is just off the scale. Off my scale anyway. Kind of like bizarro world.



I had a friend who went to the University in Edmonton. She couldn't wait to get away from Bush ruled jesus land and go to a civilized, liberal country. She and her husband.
She came back thinking American is pretty good after all. She got into guns for sport and defense. And the experience turned her from Democrat to Libertarian. She much enjoys feeling safe in American big cities. Even D.C.
They have no desire to live in a Canadian city any more.

Makes sense.

[iverglas]

85. wtf?

Why would anybody live in Edmonton? May as well live in bleeding Dallas.

Not that I have any clue what your ninny friend had against Edmonton anyhow.



So you prefer the woman gets raped and the badguy doesn't get hurt.

So ... so ... you're a duckbilled platypus. Oh, oops: ?


In my case, the bad guy got severely bruised and did four years behind bars. Probably should have been longer, but I was a bleeding heart liberal and the Crown was too eager to include me in plea discussions.

I don't have a real problem with that. It's how things work in civilized societies.

[Tim01]

92. You still refuse to just answer the question about your opinion.

I will bear that in mind. I can't really take you seriously though.
You try to put down everybody else and won't stand your ground when it comes to you. Just a bunch of stupid word games. I don't respect that at all.
I won't waste much time with you. Feel free to get the last word in now and in the future. It isn't like you say anything anyway.

[gorfle]

95. Wow.

Wow. So if Scenario 1 had proceeded to end up like scenario 2 (and there seems every indication to believe it would have), but no one died, that would have been OK with you, eh?

Well, there's not much to debate there. I mean when someone finds a victim beat-down and raping better than the assailant dying, what can you say?

[iverglas]

106. so let's parse it

Well, there's not much to debate there. I mean when someone finds a victim beat-down and raping better than the assailant dying, what can you say?

Let's try some other scenarios. In all cases, you are alone - no kids or pets to protect. Oh, and no little wife who needs her big strong hubby to do for her.


Someone armed with a baseball bat opens your car door and tells you to get out the passenger side door (i.e. evidently does not intend to harm you) so s/he can take your car.

Which is better:
- get out the passenger door?
- pull a gun and shoot the would-be carjacker?

What if the would-be carjacker looks to be about 12 years old?


Someone wearing a ferocious mask knocks on your front door, and when you open it, makes loud noises and tries to enter your home.

Which is better:
- run out the door to the neighbour's and call the cops?
- pull a gun and shoot the apparent home invader?

What if the apparent home invader turns out to be a classmate of your kid who mistook your house for the one down the block where the monster-theme party was happening?


Someone walks into your driveway and gets into your unlocked car and grabs your laptop computer.

Which is better:
- run out the door and give chase?
- pull a gun and shoot the computer thief?

What if the computer thief is your drug-addicted kid?


Someone walking down the street stops in front of your house, walks through the gate, and starts peeing on your begonias.

Which is better:
- walk out the door and yell at the peeer?
- pull a gun and shoot the peeeer?



Which bad guy do you feel entitled to off, and which bad guy would you feel good about offing?

Where, exactly, do YOU draw the line?

I draw it where civilized societies draw it. You don't, but I'm curious where you do. Feel free to invent some scenarios of your own.

[TPaine7]

141. So parse = change the subject and misrepresent?

Let's say the neighbor's 5 year old comes in uninvited, steals a cookie and runs out to some other kids on the playground?

I--and I'm sure all of the other posters here who believe in the 2nd and 14th Amendments agree with me--would see this as a perfectly good time to use an assault rifle. A real one. We could cut down the excess population and retrieve a cookie fraction. And yes, cookie stealing is directly comparable to brutal rape. :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

145. Excellent

So we now know of a situation in which it is *not* generally regarded as acceptable to shoot somebody.

Any others, then?

[Tejas]

59. gunowners fancy stories of rape?

Stories about women being sexually assaulted make everyone in this place real sick.

That's why there are so many of them retailed hereabouts ... by men ...



really?

[iverglas]

63. Who said that?????

Hearing voices?

[Tim01]

70. You did. Post 26.

At least have the guts to own up to it.

[iverglas]

71. the full content of post 26:

Stories about women being sexually assaulted make everyone in this place real sick.
That's why there are so many of them retailed hereabouts ... by men ...

The statement falsely attributed to me (with that cute little decorative question mark attached -- you really do need to learn the tricks of this trade: you have just made the false allegation right out):

gunowners fancy stories of rape?

If I stand on my head in the fifth dimension, will I see the word "gunowners" (or even the words "gun owners") in my post? Or some words that mean that, or even to that effect?

I hope so. I think a place like that would be kinda fun. More fun than this place, anyhow.

[TPaine7]

75. Remedial English, anyone?

Statements end with periods--dots like the one at the end of this sentence. And who, having successfully completed 2nd grade, doesn't know that questions end with question marks--like the one at the end of this sentence?

Now this may not be true when you're standing on your head in the 5th dimension in your favorite universe, but it is true here on earth.

Of course if the trade that you recommend Tim01 learn is reality surfing while standing on your head--and not English grammar, earth style--then none of the above applies.



PS: my apologies, Tim01. That BS just irked me.

[Tim01]

84. Aw, jeez. More word games. This is just entertainment for you isn't it.

You just like to argue and start new arguments by insulting people. Noted.

[iverglas]

76. still waiting for the author's answer

gunowners fancy stories of rape?

Doesn't actually look like a question to me.


A question would look like this:

Did you say that gun owners fancy stories of rape?

or maybe

Why do you say that gun owners fancy stories of rape?

or just plain

Do gun owners fancy stories of rape?


There actually are rules of English grammar that dictate the structure of an interrogative sentence, and that one just doesn't measure up.

That one is of the nasty little subcategory of demagoguery practised by people who seek to persuade by misrepresentation rather than by sincere presentation of actual fact and defensible argument.

It seeks to plant the idea that an adversary said something s/he didn't say, without actually coming out and saying that. Sometimes it is framed as an expression of a logical extension of something an adversary said, as in:

A: I don't like pomegranates.
B: So, you're prejudiced against things from Iran?

But sometimes, it's just a flat out misrepresentation, hiding behind some improperly used punctuation.


Still waiting for the answer, here.

[Tejas]

90. Quit feigning innocence,

you're confusing your minions. If you keep it up the only thing they'll know to do is post "who, me?" in future responses when caught in the headlights.

[Scout]

27. women wouldn't feel they needed guns....

if there weren't so many ASSHOLES (mostly men) that already have them.

fucking duh

[DonP]

30. Oh, I get it...

That way the 5' 3" 110 pound woman would be "fairly" matched against a 6' 200 pound male aggressor because neither of them would have an evil gun.

Obviously magically making all guns disappear would solve the domestic abuse problem overnight. Get to work on that right away.

[Statistical]

31. 75% of rapes and 60% of robberies involve no firearm.

Generally speaking a larger, heavier male that by virtue of biology has a greater % of muscle mass tend to have an advantage to begin with.

If anything a firearm gives a physically disadvantaged person (women, elderly, handicapped, slender, overweight, non aggressive, or anyone unable/unwilling to put up a strong direct physical defense) are more equal chance at self defense.

Rape, assaults, robberies occurred long before the invention of firearms. For much of human history the non warrior, the serf, the commoner had no real method of effective defense.

I big reason why raping, pillaging, looting, and taking of slaves was so popular among invading armies. Why not? Once the opposing force is destroyed the commoners were easily exploited for any value they had.

That era of human conquest and exploitation came to an abrupt end around the time of widespread adoption of firearms by civilians (for hunting & defense). Suddenly a commoner defending a home and family with a musket or early rifle because a real threat to even an experienced soldier.

[Euromutt]

35. More like 97% and 73%, respectively

Source: Weapon Use and Violent Crime from the USDoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on NCVS data from 1993-2001. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

According to their figures, 3% of rapes/sexual assaults and 27% of robberies were committed using a firearm.

[Statistical]

36. Thanks. n/t

[Tim01]

137. This info should have it's own thread.

I'll start the thread if you like.

[iverglas]

146. oh, by all means!

A thread about how men with gunz are no threat to women! Yes, please! And one in which the sexual assault of women is the main topic, instead of just a little side diversion! How much better could it get!

I shall be waiting with bated breath.

[Tim01]

149. Wow. No need to to get so emotional. Chill out. nt

[iverglas]

152. uh, "emotional"?

I know. I look female.

[Euromutt]

160. You don't, actually.

I initially thought you were a bloke.

[iverglas]

40. would those be the ones committed by fathers, friends, intimate partners ...?

The usual suspects, the ones that NO WOMAN ON EARTH is going to have a gun at hand to use against, let alone would use?

The pornographic fantasies live on.

[Tim01]

32. You are very uneducated aobut this.

An average guy doesn't need a gun to rape and kill an average woman. A gun gives a woman a chance to defend herself, if she wants to.

Big guys die at the hands of little women with guns. It does happen.

[iverglas]

41. being patronized by the deceitful and/or dim is always such fun, eh?

I ask, just because the question sprang to mind for some reason ...

[Merchant Marine]

45. Do you support a woman's right to choose?

Does a woman have the right to defend her body with lethal force?

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Not if it involves guns

The iverglas political line:

Any person not already a conservative who buys a gun is being duped by them. The promotion and/or
defense of gun ownership in the United States is part of "racist misogynist right wing" conspiracy.

Because a person is just not capable of freely choosing to arm herself, absent right-wing intervention. If a person carries a gun, she is either a "racist, misogynist, right-winger", or being groomed by them.

Just how the purported movement is helped by encouraging the possession and expert use of lethal weapons
by people they are supposedly trying to oppress is never explained.

It is Fact, much like papal infallability or young-Earth creationism, and to question Fact means "you're
in on the plot".

[Tim01]

48. Insults and no point. Care to get on topic?

[iverglas]

52. ain't that just rich?

You made a statement to the other poster:

You are very uneducated aobut this.

Now of course, I just love statements with spelling mistakes calling other people uneducated.

I replied with a comment on that statement.

If you don't wish to read commentary on things you say, don't say 'em.

And if you don't want to look really dumb, don't accuse someone of insulting you when the comments you take issue with were a response to a really dumb and quite unpleasant insult.

See how easy?

[Scout]

105. an average woman is extremely unlikely to be attacked by a "big guy"

that she doesn't know and would need a gun against.

i guess women are just too stupid to think that they could OUTRUN an unarmed big guy ... or they could leave the house from the back if he's breaking in the front ... no, the only thing they can/should think of doing is getting their gun and killing him.

i was married to a "big guy" who was an alcoholic and abusive asshole. the LAST FUCKING THING i wanted in the house was a gun. i didn't need to kill him, i divorced him. and i've been and felt much safer without him and without a gun in my house.

why are you gun freaks ALWAYS so worried about us little women getting raped? you rarely seem to worry about any crimes against women except for rape.

do us a favor, don't protect us so much.

[iverglas]

107. uh oh, watch out

i guess women are just too stupid to think that they could OUTRUN an unarmed big guy ... or they could leave the house from the back if he's breaking in the front ... no, the only thing they can/should think of doing is getting their gun and killing him.

There's a reason why that Scenario 1, or whichever it was, is so popular around here.

As I recall, it's the one where the woman did go out the back door the first time Mr. Bogeyman showed up ... and Mr. Bogeyman was waiting for her.

What I can't figure out is why Mr. B was on the streets the second time it happened. Hmm. I wonder whether it was because the public authorities didn't take the woman's problem seriously.


i was married to a "big guy" who was an alcoholic and abusive asshole. the LAST FUCKING THING i wanted in the house was a gun. i didn't need to kill him, i divorced him. and i've been and felt much safer without him and without a gun in my house.

And that's hitting the nutshell on the head. Abused women who live in homes where there are firearms report that the presence of the firearm was a factor in the abuse and their difficulty in escaping it. Women who have recently left abusive partners are at most risk at that point. Women know that. It's one reason why women "put up with" the abuse. Leaving an abusive, controlling partner with firearms ... well, hmm, it may not look like a really good idea.


why are you gun freaks ALWAYS so worried about us little women getting raped? you rarely seem to worry about any crimes against women except for rape.

Gosh, I was beginning to think I was the only one who noticed ... ;)

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. Sorry about your previous abusive relationship

But your situation has little to do with *women* being the gun owners. The gun didn't cause the abuse, your
abuser chose to be an asshole.

i guess women are just too stupid to think that they could OUTRUN an unarmed big guy ... or they could leave the house from the back if he's breaking in the front ... no, the only thing they can/should think of doing is getting their gun and killing him.

Don't really know how defensive firearm use is taught, do you? Once again, factual knowledge is shown
to be a hindrance to some...

I see you support the right of other women to make choices you agree with. Got "in-group oppression"?

If a guy were to publicly offer up such a dismissive comment regarding the reasoning powers of women,
he (rightfully) would be raked over the coals.

But, since this is about teh evil gunz, it's...OK.

do us a favor, don't protect us so much.

Fortunately, the women in the NPR segment agree with you. Me too, for that matter.

"Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves"

[iverglas]

118. it's really very simple

despite your spinning and twisting.

Women who are abused by intimate partners DO NOT NEED FIREARMS. Because the vast majority of women in that situation, for a whole multitude of reasons, are not going to use firearms on the abuser. And because firearms in the home are very often part of the organizing structure of intimate-partner abuse of women.

Women do kill their abusive partners -- in situations in which the pattern of abuse and its psychological effects on the women make their claim to have feared for their lives reasonable, even if there was no objective basis for that fear.

Women should not have to kill their abusive partners in order to escape the relationship. But many women really do see no alternative.

And one reason why women do not see leaving as an alternative is that they know that leaving itself puts them at greater risk. Firearms in the hands of the abusive partner put them at exponentially greater risk.


If a guy were to publicly offer up such a dismissive comment regarding the reasoning powers of women, he (rightfully) would be raked over the coals.

And if I were to pretend to believe that a sarcastic representation of ideas that the speaker herself plainly rejected actually represented what the speaker herself thought ... I'd be ashamed. Very ashamed.


Just as I'd be deeply, mortally ashamed if I were ever to try to exploit and manipulate any victimized group for my own selfish ends. You apparently have no such compunctions.

[TPaine7]

120. It is simple

Women who are abused by intimate partners DO NOT NEED FIREARMS.

Naturally. All women who agree with you should be free to act on their beliefs. Others, like perhaps the ones in the OP, not so much. Right?

Women do kill their abusive partners -- in situations in which the pattern of abuse and its psychological effects on the women make their claim to have feared for their lives reasonable, even if there was no objective basis for that fear.

Personally, I would tend to believe the abused woman, instead of armchair quarterbacking to find "objective" bases to contradict her. It's part of my misogyny.

Women should not have to kill their abusive partners in order to escape the relationship.

You are totally right there. Also there should be no war, or suffering, or pain... And I want to walk on the moon.

But many women really do see no alternative.

And we should all work together to make sure that those who see no alternative--even those who have no alternative by the most felon-coddling standards--lack the tools and skills to protect themselves.

Being well trained and armed--especially if the abusers are unaware of it--will of course increase the women's helplessness.

Firearms in the hands of the abusive partner put them at exponentially greater risk.

Record any number of points desired against whoever advocated for the rights of physical abusers to be armed against their victims.

[iverglas]

122. I see you still need a dictionary

Do they really not have them in that undergraduate place?

Women who are abused by intimate partners DO NOT NEED FIREARMS.
Naturally. All women who agree with you should be free to act on their beliefs. Others, like perhaps the ones in the OP, not so much. Right?

Now go look up the meaning of "belief". I'm not the first bit interested in their or anyone else's beliefs, as I thought I'd made clear many times. And I wasn't stating any "belief" of mine, so no one else's is of the slightest relevance here.


Personally, I would tend to believe the abused woman, instead of armchair quarterbacking to find "objective" bases to contradict her. It's part of my misogyny.

Perhaps. Is it part of your misogyny to misrepresent everything I say?

Or is it just that you don't have a clue?

An objective basis for the alleged apprehension of serious/injury death is NOT the standard that applies, you see.

That would be why I said: the pattern of abuse and its psychological effects on the women make their claim to have feared for their lives **reasonable**, EVEN IF there was no objective basis for that fear.

(hoping the various emphases will help you)


Being well trained and armed--especially if the abusers are unaware of it--will of course increase the women's helplessness.

I think even you must have got a chuckle when you wrote that.

You are apparently saying that women will do just fine living with abusive partners as long as they have gunz.

Sorry, that is just too weird for me.


Record any number of points desired against whoever advocated for the rights of physical abusers to be armed against their victims.

As soon as you let me know what you're doing to make firearms difficult for said abusers to access ...

[TPaine7]

124. The rest is boring wordplay and silliness,

But I think you actually misunderstood this:

{me}Being well trained and armed--especially if the abusers are unaware of it--will of course increase the women's helplessness.

I think even you must have got a chuckle when you wrote that.

You are apparently saying that women will do just fine living with abusive partners as long as they have gunz.

I was talking about a woman afraid that if she left a man he would stalk/kill her--post break up/move out. She could be secretly trained and armed after leaving him. Or, as Paxton Quigley did it--she could be not secretly trained and armed. It worked for her, and she was an anti-gun activist (until she was brainwashed by the eeeeeeeeevil gun lobby, of course). Somehow her stalker lost interest.

Sorry, that is just too weird for me.

Apology accepted, but not required. I seriously doubt it was too weird for you.

[Scout]

123. but, but, but....

"whoever advocated for the rights of physical abusers to be armed against their victims"

people on this board do that every fucking day, when they complain that as long as someone is not a criminal (and one must have been CONVICTED of a crime to be a criminal, right?) they should be allowed unfettered access to guns. my ex was never convicted of a crime, and i was lucky enough to have the wherewithal and the help to get out before he hurt me, but if he had owned a gun he could very well have killed me with it, instead of just calling me a cunt and a bitch and throwing his drink at me.

but oh well, if he had done so, some sick fuck would have posted it here and said, "oh, poor silly her, she must have been afraid of guns, she should have had her own and killed him first."

:rant:
and BTW, I am not afraid of guns, i have never been afraid of guns, i am a damn good shot for the little official training i have had. what i AM afraid of is a gun in the hands of the average everyday ASSHOLE--whether they are a criminal, a gun nut, an anti-gunner or jo blow. i have lived alone for years, with a dog and no gun and felt perfectly safe. i didn't run out and buy a gun when i left that asshole. if he's determined to shoot me, he will lay in wait and do it from a distance, coward that he is--owning my own gun and carrying it around with me would not prevent this from happening.
:rant:

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. It's not up to you, me, or anyone else to decide for a woman what her needs are

Even if we don't like the choices they make.

Women who are abused by intimate partners DO NOT NEED FIREARMS.

I'm sorry, could you refresh our memories on just when it was the College of Cardinals elected you?

And, unless you have some information we do not, none of the women in the NPR segment appear to be
victims of domestic abuse.

Women do kill their abusive partners -- in situations in which the pattern of abuse and its psychological effects on the women make their claim to have feared for their lives reasonable, even if there was no objective basis for that fear.

And what would you suggest be done by the legal system in such cases?

Yes, some women do kill their abusive partners. And courts have found in some cases that they have
a reasonable AND objective basis for fearing for their lives. It's called "justifiable homicide".

Just like it was justifiable homicide when a homeowner killed a drunken, weapon-bearing neighbor who was
breaking into his house late at night. But then, re that case, you said:

A society that permits anyone to KILL A HUMAN BEING when they have no need to is a society of scum, or at least governed by scum.

So, what's your standard for justifiable homicide? A 'reasonable' fear for one's life, or an 'objective'
one? A combination of the two?

[iverglas]

134. you too, eh?

One pretends I've stated a belief, another pretends I've made a decision ...


What I've done is acquire a rather thorough knowledge of the relevant facts. And drawn the fairly obvious conclusions from them.

I know. Foreign concept.

Much better to wallow in anecdotes and pound one's chest and weep crocodile tears.


And, unless you have some information we do not, none of the women in the NPR segment appear to be victims of domestic abuse.

(Could you pleeeease stop hitting that enter key randomly in your posts? It really is just aesthetically displeasing, all the disjointed oddly formed paragraphs ...)

None of the women in the NPR segment appear to be victims of anything, actually. One of them seems to engage in some possibly unnecessarily risky practices, and the other seems to be a rather unpleasant dolt.

If they're the poster children for why it's a good idea for women to tote gunz around, whoever hired 'em should get their money back.

On the other hand, there are real women, lots of them, who are in real jeopardy and in need of real solutions and real assistance. It's telling that you don't seem to want to talk about them.


Yes, some women do kill their abusive partners. And courts have found in some cases that they have a reasonable AND objective basis for fearing for their lives.

You don't know what you're talking about either, do you? You certainly don't know what I was talking about, anyhow.

Someone who kills another person who is sleeping does not have an objective basis for a claim of reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death of the kind that is needed to justify the use of force in most cases. The apprehended assault must be imminent, ordinarily.

Some cases are different. The reasonableness of the apprehension will be determined based on the individual's subjective appreciation of the situation, not the objective nature of the situation. An abused woman might indeed successfully claim self-defence if she kills her sleeping abusive partner.

It's called "justifiable homicide".

Perhaps. Traditionally, it's called the self-defence excuse. "Justifiable homicide" may be somebody's jargon, it just isn't mine.


Just like it was justifiable homicide when a homeowner killed a drunken, weapon-bearing neighbor who was breaking into his house late at night.

"Just like"? Because ... you say so?

Got it.

I say apples are just like steering wheels. 'K?


So, what's your standard for justifiable homicide? A 'reasonable' fear for one's life, or an 'objective' one? A combination of the two?

I'm not some silly undergraduate. You can't fool me into wasting my time to make you happy.

If you don't know the answer to that question, you must have a brain like a sieve. Not my problem if you choose to forget, or deny remembering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230249&mesg_id=230665

I see your name right in that thread, with today's date. Not my problem if you don't read.

And that must have been about the 20-200th time. It was a special favour for a newby. You're in luck.

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. Actually, I was trying to stick closer to the subject of the OP

But if you want to threadjack onto the theme "iverglas shows the unevolved Gungeon dwellers how much
more evolved she is", by all means do so. You're a grownup, and can deal with heckling.

Similarly, if I point out that your attempt to portray "I support the right of women to arm themselves
if they so desire" as meaning "I don't really care about the plight of women in abusive relationships"
is just a smear, I can certainly deal with the subsequent vitriol thrown my way by you and your 'pathfinder'.

And, if I point out that your acceptance of the defense theory of "justifiable homicide" (a perfectly cromulent term, BTW) seems to depend very much on the gender and/or location of the person committing said homicide, I am also willing to accept whatever mud and/or rotten tomatoes you choose to hurl my way.

So, keep on serving the same daily special of endless exegesis w/side dish of insult (criticism of typographic choices for dessert) , and I will continue to act the restaurant critic...

[Scout]

125. yeah, i'm sure you're real sorry

take your sympathy, fold it five times, and shove it up your ass

obviously a gun doesn't cause anything, it's an inanimate object. only an idiot would think a gun caused anything.

ultimately, it doesn't fucking matter once i'm shot does it? i'm just as dead whether you blame the gun or the asshole who shot it. that's just a stupid attempted distraction, not an argument.

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. Again, what does your abusive ex-partner have to do with the women in the OP?

Nobody forced them to buy a gun and take lessons. There's no indication that any of them are in an abusive relationship. What is it to you if someone other woman decides to arm herself?


Like I said, some people are "pro-choice" - as long as it is a choice they approve of.

[iverglas]

148. happy to spell it out

I have been a victim of misogynistic violence.

Scout has been a victim of misogynistic violence.

You and your ilk persistently exploit the victimization of women in the service of your own agenda, which Scout and I and large numbers of women consider to be abhorrent, and specifically to be contrary to the interests of victimized women with effects that are a not insignificant contributor to the victimization of women.

That's what OUR EXPERIENCES have to do with the discussion here -- which is NOT about the women in the OP, it is about the possession and use of firearms. Someone just decided that the women in the OP could be productively used as means to their own end in that regard.

If anyone here genuinely cared about the victimization of women, you would all be engaging in serious discussion about the very real contribution of firearms possession to that problem. You aren't, never have, never will.

Now, I think you understood all this very well, but anytime you need a refresher course, you let me know.

[friendly_iconoclast]

159. I see. You're threadjacking for a good cause

I'm sorry about your bad experiences at the hands of the male gender, but having gone through them doesn't
give you license to:

Slander me

Slander gun owners in general

Decide what other women should and should not do. This isn't the Republic of Gilead, and I (and other Duers)
are working our asses off to make sure this country never is.

Be the moral arbiter of what shall and shall not be suitable for discussion here.

Be the moral arbiter of what is and is not suitable for other women to do, see, own, say, think
or anything else. Otherwise known as "wowserism". Whatever the women in the OP are like, if
you find them wise, silly, thick as two planks, or just plain stupid, they are free to choose.

To use the word 'dupe' smacks of saying "They are not capable of agency, since the subject is gun ownership"

Or that old standby, 'false consciousness'

So stop acting like an Aunt. I'm waiting to hear 'this culture is dying from too much choice'.

My analogy with the "Army of Ghod" or "Operation Refuse" nuts wasn't all that far off, it seems.

I don't go to the Women's Rights forum and propagandize endlessly about how women's lives would be improved
if they were to own guns, with snarky asides denouncing the intellectual and moral inferiority of those who disagree with me.

It would be grotesquely inaccurate and extremely rude, and I would be properly denounced.

[iverglas]

162. short and sweet

and multiple.

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm#strawman

[iverglas]

163. an invitation!

I don't go to the Women's Rights forum and propagandize endlessly about how women's lives would be improved if they were to own guns, with snarky asides denouncing the intellectual and moral inferiority of those who disagree with me.

Give it a shot. You could even start without tossing straw around as you have there.

Perfectly suitable topic for the Women's Rights forum. I'll watch for you.

[Scout]

164. geee, a story about WOMEN in MICHIGAN getting gun training....

i'm a woman who's lived in michigan all my life.

but you know best who is and isn't allowed to post here and about what, big strong daddy.

what is it to you if i decide to post?

[Tim01]

138. We are not trying to protect you. You protect yourself or not.

But it is your choice.

I would protect you if I could. I would risk my own safety to help an innocent, most people would. But mostly you are on your own.

My mom is old and lives alone. She couldn't stand against any average man. She keeps my dads (deceased) revolver for protection. She shoots it just fine. And she would shoot an intruder. And so the 5'2" little old lady is just as deadly as the professional criminal just out of jail.
She has good locks, a security system, and handgun. She sleeps better, and I sleep better.
It is HER CHOICE.


Don't like guns? Don't get one.

[Scout]

142. "Don't like guns? Don't get one"

don't know the truth? make shit up.

[Tim01]

147. There is no need for insults. Did you have a point? nt

[Scout]

155. what insult would that be?

i responded to your lie that i don't like guns.

you don't know the truth, you didn't bother to ask for the truth, you made shit up.

you got a problem with my response, then quit making shit up about me.


edit: changed afraid of to don't like

[gorfle]

140. This isn't about protecting "little women".

why are you gun freaks ALWAYS so worried about us little women getting raped? you rarely seem to worry about any crimes against women except for rape.

Make no mistake. When I originally posted these two recordings in another thread it was not to illustrate anything about women or crimes against women. Yes, in both recordings the victim happened to be a woman, and in the second recording the unarmed woman was, in fact, raped by her assailant.

But I posted these not to illustrate anything about women, protecting women, or rape. It could have just as easily been a male homeowner.

The point here is that in both cases you had a homeowner fully aware of an impending break-in, who called the police, who were on the phone with the police when a violent act occurred, and the police did not arrive in time to save the homeowner.

This could be anyone, male or female.

[gorfle]

101. Interestingly...

women wouldn't feel they needed guns....if there weren't so many ASSHOLES (mostly men) that already have them.

Interestingly, in neither of the two recordings did the criminal have a firearm.