In article >, Suzanne says...

>I mean to say taking the gun forcibly. The point here is that it is wrong to

Have YOU ever taken a loaded gun away from somebody?

>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. 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

So then violent rape is just a creature of paranoia and never happens?

>shoot first and ask question later (if he/she survives). 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

You presume a priori that women are too stupid and foolish to defend themselves
with a firearm. That's misogyny.

>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?

If you assume the worst of a gender, that's an insult. If it's against women,
that's misogyny. You have assumed from the beginning that a woman hasn't got
enough sense to act appropriately when a violent attacker attempts to harm and
or disarm her. There's a really simple solution to that problem, and we both
know what it is. Why have you not admitted what it is? Because you don't want
to see the rapist come to harm.

As for the purpose of this newsgroup, I attempted to use it for that purpose.
You have attempted to divert it from same.


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