"Can Altinbay" wrote in message
hlink.net...
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.


...as opposed to the theory that said rapist will wait patiently while
woman
fishes gun out of her purse.


And what of the cell phone you'd presumably prefer she carry instead?

Besides, if you carry your gun in such a way that you have to "fish" for it,
you may as well not have it at all.

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...

Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.

Comprehensive research has shown that a gun, when used defensively, is taken
away from the defender less than one percent of the time, and that a person
who uses a gun to defend against a crime is less likely to have the crime
completed against them, and less likely to be injured during the commission
of the crime than a person who resists without a gun or who resists using
other means.

http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/point-blank-summary

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...

Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.

I see what you're trying to say to this nutcase, Suzanne. Maybe I can help
.. . .

In other words, just lie back and try to enjoy it. Close your eyes and try
to think of . . . oh, I don't know . . . David Hasselhoff. And if you've
been doing your Kegels, you'll know how to relax those muscles so the ordeal
will be over with a little faster.

After all, your safest bet is to submit to his every whim, and hope he
doesn't get too jittery about leaving a witness. Naturally, this is a safer
course of action than trying to use force--especially deadly force--to
resist.

After all, you may be allowed to leave alive, having lost only your dignity
and that intrinsic sense of security that most folks take for granted.
Certainly those things aren't important enough to warrant bloodshed.

In article XcNIb.183369$8y1.584979@attbi_s52, Karl Hungus says...


"Suzanne" wrote in message
...

Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.

I see what you're trying to say to this nutcase, Suzanne. Maybe I can help
. . .

In other words, just lie back and try to enjoy it. Close your eyes and try
to think of . . . oh, I don't know . . . David Hasselhoff. And if you've
been doing your Kegels, you'll know how to relax those muscles so the ordeal
will be over with a little faster.

After all, your safest bet is to submit to his every whim, and hope he
doesn't get too jittery about leaving a witness. Naturally, this is a safer
course of action than trying to use force--especially deadly force--to
resist.

After all, you may be allowed to leave alive, having lost only your dignity
and that intrinsic sense of security that most folks take for granted.
Certainly those things aren't important enough to warrant bloodshed.

And if he has AIDS, you can always blame it on Ronald Reagan....


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.

"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...
In article XcNIb.183369$8y1.584979@attbi_s52, Karl Hungus says...


"Suzanne" wrote in message
...

Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.

I see what you're trying to say to this nutcase, Suzanne. Maybe I can
help
. . .

In other words, just lie back and try to enjoy it. Close your eyes and
try
to think of . . . oh, I don't know . . . David Hasselhoff. And if you've
been doing your Kegels, you'll know how to relax those muscles so the
ordeal
will be over with a little faster.

After all, your safest bet is to submit to his every whim, and hope he
doesn't get too jittery about leaving a witness. Naturally, this is a
safer
course of action than trying to use force--especially deadly force--to
resist.

After all, you may be allowed to leave alive, having lost only your
dignity
and that intrinsic sense of security that most folks take for granted.
Certainly those things aren't important enough to warrant bloodshed.

And if he has AIDS, you can always blame it on Ronald Reagan....


Okay, but Clinton takes the rap for genital warts! :^)

"Can Altinbay" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Wertz says...

On 28 Dec 2003 13:44:16 -0800, Chris Morton
wrote:

Does anyone who knows Chicago remember The Dolphin, a Korean
restaurant
on N.
Clark St., south of Wrigley field near a cemetary? They used to stay
open until
the staff got tired and went home, sometimes after 1-2am.

I used to eat there in the mid-'80s. I can't seem to find it anymore.
Is it
closed, renamed, or moved?

PS - Does anyone know where to buy OB or Crown beer in Chicago?

Just FYI - There's a chi.eats group.

Thanks.


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.


...as opposed to the theory that said rapist will wait patiently while
woman
fishes gun out of her purse.



The women I know who carry,
1) RARELY carry in a purse
2) Don't need any time to "fish a gun out of a purse"
3) Can probably outshout most men
4) Are probably aware enough not to have any questionnable males sneak up
on them.

This raises a couple of issues
1) Why do you presume that any woman who makes the decision to carry who
be so stupid as to be unprepared for the eventuality of getting out her gun
to defend herself ?
2) Why do you presume that a woman who decides to be pro-active about
her defense would ever let a dangerous male get close enough to her to be at
risk ?

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...
On 12/29/03 10:44 AM, in article , "Chris
Morton"
wrote:
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
with 210lb.
rapists.


Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.


Interesting...
Do you speak from personnal experience ?
Or are you presuming that women who choose to be pro-active about their
self-defense are as inept as you ?

"Can Altinbay" wrote in message
link.net...
"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...
In article , Suzanne says...

Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.

Why would a woman give a gun to a violent assailant? I've known a lot
of
women
and I haven't met a single one that stupid.

Can you cite for me a example of a woman giving her gun to an assailant
in
that
way? I've been asking for an example for something like twenty years
and
nobody
can provide one.


What part of rapist taking the gun away don't you understand?


I think your preconception is quite understandable ?
What part of it is anything but a figment of your prejudice and fears ?




Assuming for argument's sake that you're actually a woman, why do you
have
such
a low opinion of the intelligence and common sense of women?


What does intelligence have to do with the rapist forcibly taking the gun?


Obviously, it requires a lack of intelligence on you part..
What makes you imagine that any woman who decides to be pro-active about her
sef-defense would allow a potential rapist to have a chance of "forcibly
taking the gun" ?
Do you have any examples of such an event ?



And just as an aside, I thought this was a newsgroup devoted to food and
restaurants....


You're the one with the gun control sig. if you don't want it pointed
out,
don't put it there.


You haven't pointed anything out yet except for a visceral and non-thinking
attempt to censor his sig.
You are free to ignore it
You are also free to avoid posting stupid and ignorant comments about it.

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...
On 12/30/03 11:09 AM, in article , "Chris
Morton"
wrote:

In article .net, Can
Altinbay
says...

What part of rapist taking the gun away don't you understand?

What part of why would the woman let him, don't you understand?

You obviously have a profound level of contempt for women.
Chris, you may be misunderstand something here. Nobody is making an issue
about women except you. You are jumping your guns.


You did when you posted
========================================
== "Suzanne" wrote
== in message ...
== On 12/29/03 10:44 AM, in article , "Chris
Morton"
== wrote:
==
== Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
== raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.
========================================

Do you have any evidence to support your contention ?
Or are you just spouting the PC sheeple response unthinkingly ?


Assuming for argument's sake that you're actually a woman, why do you
have
such
a low opinion of the intelligence and common sense of women?


What does intelligence have to do with the rapist forcibly taking the
gun?

Why would an intelligent woman LET him?

Why are you so contemptuous of women?
Again, you seem to be fixated on the idea that people are constantly have
some level of contempt against women.


Your above quotation is pretty comptemptuous of women.
It implies that a women who is armed would easily be disarmed BEFORE she can
bring her weapon to bear
Do you believe that women in general are this incapable ?

"Shatto" wrote in message
news:v%vIb.702017$Tr4.1769419@attbi_s03...
To generalize all women to be not stupid is blatantly stupid.


To reverse the logic of your phrase
"To generalize all women to be stupid is blatantly stupid".
Why do you need to make such an implicit generalisation ?

"Can Altinbay" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Chris Morton" wrote in message
...
In article aZpIb.700589$Tr4.1752318@attbi_s03, Shatto says...

Who is the stupid one here. The lady said "taking" the gun, not
"giving"
the
gun. I think your intellect is at question here.

The stupid one is the one who thinks that the woman would LET someone
take
a
loaded gun away from her. It's indicative of a profound contempt for
women.

And let me point out again that this is a newsgroup devoted to
restaurants
and
food, not advocacy of the welfare of violent rapists.


Again, wanton misinterpretation/ puttying words into othrs' mouths. Or do
you REALLY not understand plain english that well?

So if it bothers you that this is not related to the newsgroup, why do you
keep responding?



And you're not responding ?
But you're the one who so contemptuously wrote:
=========================================
== "Can Altinbay" wrote
== in message
hlink.net...
== " ...as opposed to the theory that said rapist will wait patiently while
woman
== fishes gun out of her purse."
=========================================

Apparently you're grasp of English is not good enough for you to understand
exactly what you wrote.
Maybe you should not question other peoples' ability until you've improved
yours ?

"Shatto" wrote in message
news:8cwIb.19164$xX.70801@attbi_s02...
Oh, boy. It has nothing to do with "Letting" take the weapon. Are you
saying
that intelligent people don't let people take anything away from them??
When
it come to rape or other violent crimes it has nothing to do with
"letting."
Shit happens. If the perpetrator know what he is doing he WILL take that
gun
away. Face it. It has nothing to do with anyone's intellect. It has
nothing
to do with contempt for women either. It's all about contempt for your
ignorance.


And you speak from experience ?
How many women did you rape ?
And in how many cases did you have to "take away" their guns ?
Because how would you know that a perp would have no problems disarmng a
women while attacking her ?

Or are you simply projecting your misoginy by presuming that an armed woman
would be so incompetent that she could be disarmed by a mere rapist ?
By the way do you have any evidence to support this position ?
Or is it really your contempt of women and their ability that leads you to
believe that this would be true ?

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...
On 12/29/03 4:39 PM, in article , "Chris Morton"
wrote:

In article , Suzanne says...

Gun Control, 210lb. rapist taking the gun away from 110lb. women...or
210lb
raping the 110lb women with his gun pointing to her head.

Why would a woman give a gun to a violent assailant? I've known a lot
of
women
and I haven't met a single one that stupid.

Can you cite for me a example of a woman giving her gun to an assailant
in
that
way? I've been asking for an example for something like twenty years
and
nobody
can provide one.

Assuming for argument's sake that you're actually a woman, why do you
have
such
a low opinion of the intelligence and common sense of women?

And just as an aside, I thought this was a newsgroup devoted to food and
restaurants....


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.


I mean to say taking the gun forcibly. The point here is that it is wrong
to
assume that guns will resolve many of social issues we have as believed by
many gun advocates (intentionally or not). I am not saying we should
control
guns, but we need to control people who use guns, especially in this
paranoid stricken America.


Maybe you should read the works of criminologist Gary Kleck about the number
of Defensive Gun Use that occurs annually in the US.
It is estimated to beat least 100,000 incidents per year
That works out to about 270 per day.
Now naturally this does not imply that shots were fired.
It means that the gun was either shown up to the gun was actually fired, but
in all cases the intended criminal activity was stopped.



I think the need to be relieved of this paranoia
via owing a gun(s) must be dealt with in this country. I don't believe in
shoot first and ask question later (if he/she survives).

In many cases, you don't even have to "shoot" a gun for it to be effective.
If a person threatens to beat you up for your wallet, a gun can convince
them to try somewhere else without a shot fired..
As to the attitude of shooting first and ask questions later.
Do you also believe in bein assaulted first and asking question later ?
I know from personal experience that assault victims RARELY feel that way.




And may I ask how
do I come across as having low opinion of women. I think you are taking
things one step ahead of yourself. Just because people supports or have
otherwise non-agreeable notion to gun control does not necessitate insult
to
any gender. However, Yes, I do agree that this is a food related
newsgroup,
I just couldn't help seeing your strong statement on guns footnoted on all
your messages. I am complimenting you by noticing it and having rational
retort. You don't expect all people to agree with you? Well, do you?


I think that your position that an armed woman would be easily disarmed by
an assailant is not a very positive view of women and their ability to
defend themselves.
This may be true for you. And maybe you enjoy being helpless in the face of
danger.
But there are a lot of woment who choose not to be helpless and who would
resent your imputation that they are incompetent to put up a successfull
defense against an assailant.
As a matter of fact, many women who have successfully defended themselves
against attack would think that you are their worst ennemy for believing
that they should not have access to a tool that gives them the best means of
self-defense.


Maybe you should read the works of criminologist Gary Kleck about the number
of Defensive Gun Use that occurs annually in the US.
It is estimated to beat least 100,000 incidents per year
That works out to about 270 per day.
Now naturally this does not imply that shots were fired.
It means that the gun was either shown up to the gun was actually fired, but
in all cases the intended criminal activity was stopped.

"Suzanne" wrote in message
...

I think gun control is controlling who gets to have and carry which guns
all
together. Wouldn't you think this is necessary in this civilized nation??


Actually, REAL gun control is hitting what your target.

That political, called gun-control is not really about guns.
It's just another form of people control.
Those in power control the rest of the population so that they can't be
ousted from power.

That was the basis of the gun-control laws passed in the southern states
after the Civil War of 1860-1864. To control the newly-freed black
population
Control without which the KKK and their ilk could not have ridden so
roughshod over the black populations for the next 100 years
That was the basis for the Sullivan Act in NY City. To insure that the
corrupt Irish Tammany Hall politicos would not be ejected by force by the
non-Irish populations of NY City.

You may want to go over to the www.JPFO.org web site.
It might open your eyes to the history of gun-control and its tragic
results.

"Shatto" wrote in message
news:aZpIb.700589$Tr4.1752318@attbi_s03...
Who is the stupid one here. The lady said "taking" the gun, not "giving"
the
gun. I think your intellect is at question here.


And you agree with Suzanne's statement that any woman with a gun will have
it taken away from her ?
Would that be because she is smaller and weaker than her attacker ?
Or would it be because she is a woman ?

Maybe it's time to crank up whatever "intelect" you may possess and start
using it more before posting such illogical material ?