In article <8cwIb.19164$xX.70801@attbi_s02>, Shatto says...
>
>Oh, boy. It has nothing to do with "Letting" take the weapon. Are you saying

You obviously presume that women are too stupid or foolish to take the obvious
step to retain the gun.

That's misogyny.

>that intelligent people don't let people take anything away from them?? When

It's a gun, not a turkey leg. It has certain qualities which make it easy to
retain.

>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

Really? Have you ever taken a loaded handgun from somebody?

"If the perpetrator knows what he is doing"?

Define "knows what he is doing".

How many do?

Why do misogynistic anti-gunners attribute to women utter stupidity, and to
common rapists, the combat skills of the SAS and GSG-9?

Seems like they have a preference... and it's not for the woman.

>to do with contempt for women either. It's all about contempt for your
>ignorance.

You're obviously unqualified to say, not to mention biased AGAINST the woman.

And needless to say, none of this has anything to do with food or restaurants.


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

In article >, Suzanne says...

>Sorry, I'm not as intelligent as you are, but I don't care to solve your

Clearly.

>inconclusive riddle (if its one). Listen, you have your problems where ever

What's the matter? Is the answer to embarassing? Does it go beyond misogyny
and into racism?

>you live, but keep in mind that guns are not your solution to your
>predicament. You got one, he's got two. I'm only imagining a society without

What IS "my predicament"?

Only anti-gunners view refusal to be a helpless victim a "predicament".

>guns so that we can prevent Columbine. You can fathom that if you have any
>sense.

"Imagine" is exactly right. It's a fantasy. But that just points up the fact
that you're utterly ignorant about firearms or self-defense and willing to force
women to be helpless victims in order to pursue that pernicious fantasy.

And I must note that none of this has anything to do with food or restaurants.


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

In article <yAwIb.707691$Fm2.613727@attbi_s04>, Shatto says...
>
>What the F... are you taking about????? Make some sense you want to be taken
>seriously...not that I do.

Whats the matter?

Can't you answer the question?

And what does this have to do with restaurants or food?


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

In article <kCwIb.702161$Tr4.1769864@attbi_s03>, Shatto says...
>
>Anymore generality about any gender is take as stupid.

That's why I don't assume that all women are idiots who can't be trusted to
defend themselves with a firearm.

Aside from that, you should spend less time on gender and more time on
grammar....


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

In article <IEwIb.19239$xX.71226@attbi_s02>, Shatto says...
>
>Yah, It looks like you started all. Take that .sig out before I start
>quoting Saddam.

No.

I don't give a crap if you quote Carrot Top.

And speaking of carrots, your impotent threat has nothing to do with food or
restaurants.


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

"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 ?

"Shatto" > wrote in message
newshvIb.18978$xX.69806@attbi_s02...
> Alright, anyone with any level of intellect knows that history is an
> interpretation of historical or archeological data. History is not a fact.
> We were never there.
>

Actually, that is a totally ignorant CROCK of manure..
The historical events that are well-documented are FACTS.
The interpretations may on many occasions be tinged by the bias of the
interpreters. or of the ignorant.
But the events are DEFINITELY considered to be facts by those who study the
subject.

For example, are you telling us that Napoleon Bonaparte did was not an able
soldier who managed to conquer most of Europe end crown himself Emperor ?
If you are stupid enough to believe that that is not FACT and is instead
"interpretation of historical or archeological data", then I'll stop wasting
my time addressing you..

"Suzanne" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's strange, here in Los Angeles we have the minorities as the
> predominant owners of guns. So, your theory doesn't work here in LA, may
be
> just in Chicago.
>


And your sources for this claim are ?

"Suzanne" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Sorry, I'm not as intelligent as you are, but I don't care to solve your
> inconclusive riddle (if its one). Listen, you have your problems where
ever
> you live, but keep in mind that guns are not your solution to your
> predicament. You got one, he's got two. I'm only imagining a society
without
> guns so that we can prevent Columbine. You can fathom that if you have any
> sense.
>

Guns were NOT the cause of Columbine.
It was the fact that 2 boys were constantly allowed to be abused in their
school to the point where their only way of responding was violence.
And notice that all the gun laws currently in place did NOTHING to prevent
them from ILLEGALLY acquiring firearms to do what they did..
More gun laws would not prevent another Columbine. Just take Dunblane
England as an example. That occurred in a country with far less guns in the
hands of the public and even more restrictions on the accessibility to guns
by the public. Idem for the University of Montreal Massacre in Canada, and
the Port Arthur massacre in Australia.

On the other hand contrary to what the gun-controllers claimed when Florida
became a shall-issue state. Florida did NOT become the "Gunshine State".
Instead the rate of crimes agains individuals dropped much faster that in
those states that remained with gun-control..
IN the same way, compare Alexandria Viriginia, a bedroom suburb of
Washington D.C. and Washington D.C.By your premise D.C. should be a lot
safer than Alexandria, because Virginia is a concealed-carry state while
D.C. has a near-total ban of gun-ownership. And yet Washington has been the
murder capital while Alexandria is nearly crime-free.

Disarming the population does NOT disarm the criminals. It only makes the
law-abiding defenseless.
And your dreams of Utopia are just that. Dreams

"Can Altinbay" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Chris Morton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> WHO assumes the worst of a gender? HOW is the woman going not not let the
> rapist take the gun?

Thank your for repeating the proof that indeed YOU DO assume the worst of
the female gender.


> You yourself, in your .sig, which is NOT on topic for
> the group, said that the gun protects the woman from the rapist. That
> implies that the rapist is strong enough to wrest it from her, provided
that
> she can even reach the gun in enough time. You have also advocated new
> women's fashion - holsters. Have we really come to that?
>

You are the one who supposes that a woman would be so helpless and
incompetent that she would not be able to bring to bear a weapon in case of
attack ?
Do you ALWAYS make such an assumption about the abilities of women to
respond to assault ?
Is this based on any evidence on your part ?
Or is it based on your need to believe that women are not only the weaker
sex, but the incompetent sex as well ?

By the way, where has Chris talked about either
women's fashion ?
or holsters ?

Seems like you're projecting again..



> Your reasoning sucks bigtime. No one is protecting the rapist. This is
> really the kind of stuff people come up with so often because they don't
> have real arguments.
>

Another projection about "protecting the rapist"


> > As for the purpose of this newsgroup, I attempted to use it for that
> purpose.
> > You have attempted to divert it from same.
> >
>
> But you have a .sig that is off topic and you insist on inflicting on us
> every time. Do you think that we enjoy reading it?
>

"Inflicting"
Are you telling us that his sig is actually causing you suffering of some
sort ?
Why don't you tell us EXACTLY how it causes you suffering ?
(This shoudl be good)

> If you think it's off topic, and it really bothers you, don't respond.
Let
> it die.
>

Practice what you preach, bub..
Then you won't inflict on yourself the need to think about why this is
causing you such "suffering"..

"Can Altinbay" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Chris Morton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm endlessly fascinated by the contempt which gun control advocates
> display for
> > the intellect and character of women. Apparently, you don't think that
a
> woman
> > is smart enough to either use a holster or a purse designed for the
> carrying of
> > firearms. You also don't appear to believe that women are smart enough
to
> carry
> > firearms which can be fired from inside a purse or a coat pocket.
> >
> > Misogyny is a consistent trait of gun control advocates....
> >
> >
>
> Don't you love it. No one ever said anything about intelligence, and we
> come up with THIS doozy.
>
> For the record, I know women who could take out said rapist easily. It's
a
> matter of training, and they don't have to find their gun. So don't give
me
> misogynist. Straw man of the worst kind.
>
> And your examples still mean the woman has to get to the gun. That takes
> time.
>
>

Yup a few days versus a few years of time.

So tell us, how long would a 120 lb 40 year old with a full-time job have to
train in some martial art to present a more effective defense than she can
achieve with about 40 hours of training at a range ?

Any generalisation about stupidity is stupid..

Recognize yourself ?


"Shatto" > wrote in message
news:kCwIb.702161$Tr4.1769864@attbi_s03...
> Anymore generality about any gender is take as stupid.
>

"Shatto" > wrote in message
news:IEwIb.19239$xX.71226@attbi_s02...
> Yah, It looks like you started all. Take that .sig out before I start
> quoting Saddam.
>
>
> "Chris Morton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Steve Wertz says...
> > >
> > >On 29 Dec 2003 06:58:09 -0800, Chris Morton >
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>Thanks.
> > >
> > >No problemo.
> > >
> > >It is kind of funny how one word can start a flame war, though.
> >
> > A flame war in usenet???
> >
> > I'm shocked, shocked! : )
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
> 210lb.
> > rapists.
> >
>
>

"Shatto" > wrote in message
news:7zwIb.694537$HS4.4966918@attbi_s01...
> Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
> importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.
>

Feel free to jump in with an intelligent comment.
We're still waiting for one..

"D.A. Tsenuf" > wrote in
:

> 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.

Two things you should point out about the Kleck study.

1) By his research, the 100,000 incidents of crime being stopped because a
gun was on the scene is greater than the number of incidents where a gun
was used in the commission of a crime.

2) Gary Kleck went into his study with moderately strong views in favor of
more gun control laws. He no longer works toward expanded gun control.

"orwell" > wrote in message
9...
> "D.A. Tsenuf" > wrote in
> :
>
> > 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.
>
> Two things you should point out about the Kleck study.
>
> 1) By his research, the 100,000 incidents of crime being stopped because
a
> gun was on the scene is greater than the number of incidents where a gun
> was used in the commission of a crime.
>

In actual fact Kleck estimates DGUs to be in the 2,500,000 range annually.
(I had changed my mind on how to present that argument and did not do a good
follow-through on my text)
The 100,000 number is from another source based on DOJ data gleaned from
police reports.
In actual fact, considering that in many cases, telling the police that you
used a gun to defend yourself may cause you more problems than the actual
crime you stopped. So the 100K number is INCREDIBLY conservative.
Just look at the Dixon case In New York this last year, where he (Dixon) was
prosecuted for using a gun to shoot someone who had broken into his infant
son's bedroom. The reason for the prosecution was that his legally purchased
(in Florida) handgun was not yet registered in the Byzantine system of the
NYPD as required by the Sullivan Act.


> 2) Gary Kleck went into his study with moderately strong views in favor
of
> more gun control laws. He no longer works toward expanded gun control.

The same can be said of John Lott who also was originally hired by the
ant-gun crowd and did a u-turn when he saw the numbers produced by his
study. It should be noted that the study was originally funded by the
anti-gun crowd.
There was also another study whose intent was to discredit Kleck with his
2.5M estimate. They were embarrassed when their methodology came up with a
4M estimate Demonstrating that Kleck may have been conservative in his
numbers.
..

"D.A. Tsenuf" > wrote in
:

> The same can be said of John Lott who also was originally hired by the
ant-gun crowd and did a u-turn when he saw the numbers produced by his
study. It should be noted that the study was originally funded by the anti-
gun crowd.
> There was also another study whose intent was to discredit Kleck with
his 2.5M estimate. They were embarrassed when their methodology came up
with a 4M estimate Demonstrating that Kleck may have been conservative in
his numbers.

It's off topic for the group, so I won't ask for this information to be
posted here, but I would be interested in seeing it. I'm very interested
in the methods they used to collect their data. I would appreciate it if
you would email links to the reports or some additional information to help
me on a web search to me at the despammed address above. If not, I
understand your reasons.

In article > , orwell says...
>
>"D.A. Tsenuf" > wrote in
:
>
>> The same can be said of John Lott who also was originally hired by the
>ant-gun crowd and did a u-turn when he saw the numbers produced by his
>study. It should be noted that the study was originally funded by the anti-
>gun crowd.
>> There was also another study whose intent was to discredit Kleck with
>his 2.5M estimate. They were embarrassed when their methodology came up
>with a 4M estimate Demonstrating that Kleck may have been conservative in
>his numbers.
>
>It's off topic for the group, so I won't ask for this information to be

I agree that it's off topic.

The anal retentive, anti-woman trolls having seemingly departed, now would be a
good time to return to the discussion of food and restaurants.


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

In article >, Steve Wertz says...
>
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:22:11 GMT, "Shatto" >
>wrote:
>
>>Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
>>importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.
>
>You should lay off those steroids, dude.

You misspelled "q u a a l u d e s".


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

"Chris Morton" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Steve Wertz says...
> >
> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:22:11 GMT, "Shatto" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
> >>importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.
> >
> >You should lay off those steroids, dude.
>
> You misspelled "q u a a l u d e s".
>

More like "stupid" pills.

In article >, D.A. Tsenuf says...
>
>
>"Chris Morton" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Steve Wertz says...
>> >
>> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:22:11 GMT, "Shatto" >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Feel free to jump in anytime if you have any balls to say something of
>> >>importance. Its easy to be an onlooker.
>> >
>> >You should lay off those steroids, dude.
>>
>> You misspelled "q u a a l u d e s".
>>
>
>More like "stupid" pills.

As stupid as he is, he's gulping suppositories.


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

On 30 Dec 2003 22:27:53 -0800, Chris Morton >
wrote:

>Strange, I was unaware of a "law" that .sigs had to be relevant to groups. Does
>that apply to everyone, to everyone whom you can't refute, or just me?

Interesting. Note that s/he said "Let it die" but s/he wanted the
last word.

I wonder how s/he'd have reacted if you used your old sig -- you know,
the one with the monkey in it?

;-)

In article >, Zippy the Pinhead
says...
>
>On 30 Dec 2003 22:27:53 -0800, Chris Morton >
>wrote:
>
>>Strange, I was unaware of a "law" that .sigs had to be relevant to groups. Does
>>that apply to everyone, to everyone whom you can't refute, or just me?
>
>Interesting. Note that s/he said "Let it die" but s/he wanted the
>last word.
>
>I wonder how s/he'd have reacted if you used your old sig -- you know,
>the one with the monkey in it?
>
>;-)

Don't recall that. Maybe you're thinking of Mort Davis.


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

On 11 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0800, Chris Morton >
wrote:

>Don't recall that. Maybe you're thinking of Mort Davis.

Hmmm. I'll have to search. Maybe so, but I thought it started out
"Chrissie, you...." with a bunch of insults I won't repeat, and was
attributed to someone I always thought must be sorry as hell he ever
wrote it.

On 11 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0800, Chris Morton >
wrote:

>Don't recall that. Maybe you're thinking of Mort Davis.

Found it, but it's probably mistaken identity, for which I apologize.
It's unmentionable in polite company.

It's "chris01 at ameritech.net"

Sorry about the mistake. He uses Christopher Morton as a sig.

I feel pretty stupid about bringing it up...

In article >, Zippy the Pinhead
says...
>
>On 11 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0800, Chris Morton >
>wrote:
>
>>Don't recall that. Maybe you're thinking of Mort Davis.
>
>Hmmm. I'll have to search. Maybe so, but I thought it started out
>"Chrissie, you...." with a bunch of insults I won't repeat, and was
>attributed to someone I always thought must be sorry as hell he ever
>wrote it.

Oh! Yeah, that was a quote of Lee "White Aryan Resistance" Harrison.

I thought you were talking about an ASCII drawing. : )


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