Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: rape and firearms
Message-ID: <28641lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 10:59:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: <28641lanl.ARPA>
Posted: Tue Jul 23 10:59:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 03:59:49 EDT
References: <568@ttidcc.UUCP> <419@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 44

> >PLENTY of non-violent people purchase firearms, and for a variety of reasons.
> >I am one.  My father is one.  My ex-boss is one.  Shall I canvass everybody
> >I know with respect to gun-purchase and records of violence?  No, I'll leave
> >the exercise to you, the claimant.  Think you can handle it without blowing
> >it?
> 
> Buying a firearm with the intent of shooting someone is NOT a pacifist
> act. I don't care what your dad says. Non-violent people, and I do not
> use the term as loosely as you, do not consider shooting other people,
> even if they're rapists. All right -- flame me to death.

I guess I wouldn't consider pacificism to be synonymous with
non-violent.  Further, if I recall your original posting, Charles, it
seems to me that *you* made some generalization equating purchase of a
firearm  with violence.

I (and probably at least a few others) don't consider defending one's
self from violence to be an act of violence.  If you choose to turn
the other cheek and accept an act of violence against you without
trying to defend yourself against it other than by avoidance that is
fine with me.  I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO.  I also think it would
be nice if you respected the rights of others to defend themselves
against acts of violence provided, of course, that they accept the
responsibilities that are part of that defense.

If I am misinterpreting your postings, I apologize, but I get the
impression that you are one of those who think the criminals rights
are more important than those of the victim.  This attitude on the
part of the government, the courts, etc. is a major reason, I believe,
that more and more people *are* arming themselves for defense.  And,
of course, one is protected by the police only *after* the fact -- how
can it be otherwise?

Finally, as Adrienne pointed out, many people buy firearms for reasons
that have nothing to do with violence even by your definition unless
you consider shooting holes in paper targets or breaking clay targets
to be acts of violence.

-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa