Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Women using handguns for protection
Message-ID: <438@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 15:57:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.438
Posted: Wed May 22 15:57:08 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 20:30:15 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 30



Re all the discussion over shooting (or not shooting) a person who is
assaulting a woman:

  This is one of the great double-binds thoughtfully provided by our
  double-standard system and the ever present questions of perception.

  Chances are, if a woman carried a handgun, and used it in an assault
  ("Did you try sufficiently hard to resist?") she'll be hauled into
  court on an illegal weapons charge.  If she killed her attacker, you
  can bet she'll see a plethora of lawsuits because she deprived some
  other person of "support" (if the attacker was married) or the court
  will rule that she was meeting force with an UNequal amount of retalia-
  tion ("Can you prove he intended to kill you?"  "No, yer honor.  I must
  admit, I did not wait until he slit my throat with his knife.")
  If she only maims her attacker, he can sue her for loss of wages (since
  his attack and her retaliation have rendered him unable to make a
  living).  And this is always presupposing that the court decides the
  attack was really, honest to goodness, an attack, rather than her own
  fevered imagination.

And then, (stop me when I get _too_ cynical) some genius of a defense
attorney will dream up the old rape-isn't-a-crime-of-sex-it-is-a-crime-
of-power defense that (rather than wearing "provokative clothing")
carrying a weapon is "provoking" to this poor attacker who has a power
hangup and therefore she ASKED FOR IT.


I *love* this stuff.  It makes *SO* much sense.