Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>            <<< Note 896.0 by FRECKL::HUTCHINS "Always a choice" >>>

Your personal name actually says what Dana is implying here. CHOICE.


>                        -< Still trying to understand >-



>   >Trying to reason with a homicidal maniac is futile. The 
>    immediate problem is to STOP him, right now. 
    
    
>Dana,

>When I read about such violent incidents, I try to comprehend what it is 
>that drove the person to such extremes in the first place.  So far, I've 
>come up empty handed, because it's such a complex answer, and blame is so 
>easy to displace, rather than examining the situation itself.

>	He may have been abused
>	He may have had lousy teachers
>	His parents may have been lousy role models
>	He may have been been an addict
>	He may have grown up in a wealthy family
>	He may have grown up on welfare
>	He may have asked for help, but no one listened 


>No, there's no easy answer.  I'm still trying to work on the question.

>Judi

I know that Dana can answer eloquently for himself, but this is my shot at it.

You are(IMHO) confusing two issues here, the first is the long term solution
to the problems of hatred/violence/-isms. the second is what to do "when
it(the violent act) is happening.

Despite stories to the contrary, neither the NRA nor any responsible gun-owner
advocates "guns for everyone" what we advocate is a freedom-of-choice.

The long-term solution to the problem will be just that, long-time coming.
I firmly believe that I am less prejudiced than my father, I believe that I
am raising boys who will be less prejudiced and more tolerant than I am
because I work hard at watching what I say/do that would promote intolerance.
There are many people in exactly the same situation.

Short term, I will not allow the predators and barbarians of this world
to destroy those who are the builders, the enrichers, or those-who-are-
working-to-make-it-better. I *CHOOSE* to arm myself, to practise pistol-craft,
and other defensive skills. I *DO NOT* limit my life to where I go or what I
do. I am not looking for a fight as some have accused me of in the past, but
I believe I have a right to walk or travel in any neighborhood. I do not 
give-up turf because it is infested with vermin. I have used a gun to
defend myself, I have drawn  a gun to defend others, I will do so again.
It is an automatic reflex(how I discovered that is another story), in a
situation involving danger I am ready to deal with it. in another note another
time someone said they didn't wish to be defended, unfortunately in a group
danger individuals may not have that choice if I am around. Another note
commented that it was just as bad to be kiled by a vigilante's wild shot
than by a crazed rifleman(if the quote is not exactly right I apologise)
I, and I am sure Dana also(and others I know), *NEVER* would "sling lead"
we practise, practise, and practise some more, so that when and if we need
to we can stop an attack without endangering others.
There are many of us that would gladly "hang up our guns" *IF* there was
a guarentee that the slime were all put away *before* they caused death
and destruction.

Amos

    What is the most effective way of dealing with slime?  I've watched
    both "Ghostbusters" movies, and it appears to me that if you shoot at
    the gooey stuff, it still just continues to ooze all over the place. 
    Not very effective, if you ask me.  As for "vermin", I suspect that
    there are more practical methods of killing lice and worms than
    shooting bullets at them.

    Of course, while guns are not very practical when used against slime
    and vermin, they are on the other hand quite effective when used
    against human beings.  But considering those you kill to be human
    beings has all sorts of messy moral implications; why think of
    something as, at best, a terrible but necessary evil, when you can
    elevate it to a virtue instead?  At least, that's what they teach you
    in Neanderthal Morality 101.
    
    -- MIKE

>         <<< Note 896.2 by CSC32::M_VALENZA "Echo and the Bunnymen." >>>

>    in Neanderthal Morality 101.
    
>    -- MIKE

OK OK OK, so you don't have to spend time thinking up cute replies!

I understand that people like lepine and purdey are human beings, under all
definitions of H. Sapiens. They are feeling, living, breathing, etc
people. however *they* made a choice to commit a rather anti-social act
(IMHO), I have made a judgement in *MY* moral-code that *WHEN* an act such
as those *IS BEING* commited(that means the here and now I donot believe
in track-em-down-and-kill-'em-later) Then *I* have a right to stop that 
attack by whatever means is available *WITHOUT* endangering or further
endangering those others around me. I accept that I am killing a human,
however that bothers me(in the case of that type of individual) no more
than killing termites. 
Satisfied?

Amos-who-really-hates-to-think-you-might-have-been-one-of-the-persons-I-was-
defending-in-a-certain-bar-incident-years-ago-when-obviously-you-don't-wish-
harm-to-anyone-for-any-reason-including-defense-of-your-own-life

    WAIT A MINUTE!
    
    Can we leave guns out of this one, please?  What I'm trying to
    understand is how someone gets to the point where s/he commits an act
    of violence.
    
    Many factors lead to that point, but it seems that people are reaching
    the boiling point a lot faster these days.  Or is that what the media
    will have us believe?  
    
    Take a child who grows up surrounded by violence and sirens blaring. 
    When s/he reaches adolescence, how are conflicts going to be resolved? 
    The way they learned growing up?
    
    Aside from the physiological factors, I'm trying to understand why
    people react as quickly and as violently as they do in some cases. 
    What happened to the pressure valves that help alleviate the degree of
    reaction.
    
    This has been going on for millenia, and will continue to do so.  Even
    Shakespeare wrote about it in "Othello".
    
    Judi
    

    
>    Many factors lead to that point, but it seems that people are reaching
>    the boiling point a lot faster these days.  Or is that what the media
>    will have us believe?  


	 Might frustration have a lot to do with it?  Our society is
	 becoming more "me" oriented.  And before I go any further, I
	 want to explain that I don't mean that in a bad way.  People
	 are realizing that no one needs to take care of them any
	 more, that they are on their own to succeed, that they and
	 only they are going to be in charge of them.

	 It's sort of a growing independence.

	 Hence we don't want to be needed.

	 Perhaps people like Lepine have a need to be needed, and that
	 need isn't satisfied anymore with the way society is moving.
	 That need can fester and harbor anger to the point where the
	 frustration that no matter how hard you try, you don't get
	 what you need.

	 Frustration and anger can become a very violent painful
	 combination.  I had a boyfriend once who was so angry that
	 his professors didn't give him better grades, and the
	 frustration that no matter how hard he tried he never get
	 better, led to him hitting me one night.  (Notice, he thought
	 society owed him something...he thought these professors owed
	 him good graded, when in fact, only HE could give himself
	 good grades).

	 Perhaps people like Lepine and others have this
	 frustration/anger that society is not given them what they
	 NEED. (When, in fact, they are the only ones that can give
	 themselves what they need).  Frustration and anger can be a
	 very blinding thing.

	 I have felt backed into a corner like this.  I think I know
	 the ultimate helplessness feeling and frustration and anger
	 that could cause this kind of violent.  Fortunately, my
	 violence has been directed internally.  I'm not an outwardly
	 violent person at all.  But I can understand what could blind
	 a person enough to drive them to this.

	 It's wrong and I hope to God that these people get help
	 before this happens, but I understand what it is that could
	 drive them to it.  If you haven't experienced that immense
	 hopelessness and frustration, you can't understand what could
	 drive them to it.

	 It's horrific to think that people get that far without some
	 outward sign to others that there is a problem.

	 kath

    Another possibility in society becoming more full of instant-violence
    (add opportunity and mix?) is that we are becoming more
    immediacy-based.  Want dinner?  Was:  real oven.  Now: Microwave.  
    See a movie?  Was:  drive or walk to the theatre.  Now: VCR.  Christmas
    brings us more and more toys of immediacy - toys where children
    live their TV and movie heroes, Nintendo games that allow them to
    experience adventure, kick-boxing, commando-raids, spy-hunting NOW.
    TV is so much more immediate than reading.  News is delivered at
    your kitchen counter minutes or seconds after it happens - no longer
    must you wait for the daily news.  Instant information.  Instant
    gratification.  And sometimes the devaluing of the human life. 
    You ARE what you EARN says society sometimes.  You ARE what you
    WEAR.  What you DRIVE.  What you OWN.  what you LIVE IN.  If someone
    are not successful, they are nobody.  And of course, since they've
    been labeled nobody by society, it must be society's fault.  They
    set out to be somebody.  What went wrong?  Fix it.  Now.  The loss
    would take too long to recoup.  Nobody's don't become somebody's.
    Nobodies get no gratification at all.  Nobodies become statistics.
    And the NOW reflex takes over and demands they reconcile their
    differences with a life they longed for but were denied.
    
    BLAM!
    
    -Jody
    

    If killing certain human beings is a positive virtue rather than a
    necessary evil, with no troubling aspects whatsoever, and therefore
    morally equivalent to killing termites, then that raises the question
    of whether or not these two actions are equivalent in every other way
    as well.

    Actually, I can think of some reasons why someone who doesn't feel any
    compunction about killing certain people might still be more bothered
    by killing a human being than by killing a termite.  First of all,
    unlike humans, termites are not likely to leave large and messy blood
    stains on the wall.  Also, termites don't make annoying noises while
    they writhe in agony during their final moments of life, which can be
    distracting to you while you are doing important activities, like
    reloading your gun.  On the other hand, the worst that happens when you
    squish a termite is that you have to scrape the remains off your shoe.

    There are workarounds for those problems, though.  With a little
    creativity, for example, blood stains can actually add to a living room
    decor.  And if, for some reason, dark red blotches don't match your
    color scheme, you can always paste NRA stickers over them.

    -- Mike
    

    Great note, Jody!
    
    My primary objection to guns is that they're easy. One finger-squeeze
    can fire off a barrage of bullets, and anyone can pull a trigger.
    And does. 
    
    I don't think that the world is appreciably more violent now than it
    ever was; through global instant communications the result is now
    brought to us immediately. The means of death are more powerful, as
    well.
    
    -roger
    

    Where does everyone get off thinking that this sort of violence is
    new? Or is it that it seems senseless as opposed to the Pinkerton's
    comming in and slaughtering striking miners. Or the crime lords in
    Chicago in the 20's and 30's. How about the mafia in Italy. Life in
    our own frontier towns was full of bloodshed and peasants everywhere
    are the canon fodder of revolution. 

    Women and children are beaten, abused and killed every day and have
    been for centuries. Our country just managed to hide it under
    suburban lawns and now it's more open. Yes, I believe that the force
    of women's independence has frightened and angered men who are not
    good enough to face us on equal terms but they were killing us
    before this ever happened. Technology has just made it easier.

    As someone mentioned earlier, we are the product of centuries of
    violence and "might makes right" genetic and cultural selection.
    I sadly find myself leaning more towards those who advocate
    retaliation violence because, in the short term, nothing else works.
    If we don't live through the short term all talk of changing the
    future is meaningless. liesl

>    As someone mentioned earlier, we are the product of centuries of
>    violence and "might makes right" genetic and cultural selection.
>    I sadly find myself leaning more towards those who advocate
>    retaliation violence because, in the short term, nothing else works.
>    If we don't live through the short term all talk of changing the
>    future is meaningless. liesl

But if we choose to live by a philosophy we abhor, doesn't that make
the present meaningless?  We end up perpetuating what we abhor, instead
of finding, learning, spreading a better way.  We waste our short 
chance to make it better for those after us.  If *I* don't live through
the short-term (exposed as I am to disease, accident, violence, whatever),
I still want to think I did something to make it a more peaceful
loving world, for everyone else.  And I can't make it peaceful and
loving if I am not peaceful and loving.  And I can't be peaceful and
loving if I live by war and hating.

	MKV

Did someone say Shakespeare?!?!?!

Judi, do you mean Othello himself, or Iago, or the poor jerk Iago tricked into
participating, or Desdemona's pop, or all of these folks? I never thought of
Othello as a play about people responding too quickly and violently to anger
(which is what I'm hearing from you). Iago works Othello hard. Othello is an
old dude (there are several impotence lines), and is black in a society that
equates the Ethiopes ear with that which is non-beautiful. He's got lots of
reasons to be insecure.

	Mez

    For what it's worth, my 40+ years' experience with life tells me that
    part of the alienation in our society that leads to violence against
    others and self stems from the loss of community and a feeling of being
    part of something bigger.  
    
    Families break down, not just from divorce, but from splintering and 
    moving to distant areas.  Support systems have to be purchased (from 
    social workers, medical personnel, mechanics, baby-sitters, lawn 
    services, etc. etc.) when once they were merely one of the benefits of 
    the extended family.  Religion has slipped to the back burner or 
    completely off the stove for many of us; for others it has taken on an 
    unhealthy, compulsive and judgmental quality.  Neighborhoods are places 
    to scurry through, looking neither to the right nor to the left, on the 
    way to and from work and home.  People living in condos and apartment 
    houses -- so physically near to each other -- don't KNOW each other.  
    
    I could go on, but you get the idea.  Look around you to where you turn 
    for basic support and compare that to the community your grandparents 
    lived inn.
    
    Most of the "civilized constraints" imposed on people back in the days
    when we imposed constraints on people came from the fear of "what the
    neighbors would think" if we strayed from the prescribed path, or from
    the disgrace we'd bring down on the family.  Today, who cares what the
    neighbors think -- we don't know them anyway.  And the family is too
    busy and too distant to be affected by OUR disgrace should we stumble.
    
    Granted, we've gained some benefits from the looser controls, but we've
    also lost as well.
    
    Karen

     I would first like to address liesl's comment about retaliatory violence.
    I prefer the concept of preventative violence (boy, is that a crappy
    term. Valenza's already thinking up ways to ridicule me for it. :-)
    
     Just like it is beneficial to the human body for a surgeon to cut the
    body open and remove a ruptured appendix, it is beneficial to society
    to remove violent individuals from placxes where they may harm society.
    The act of cutting into one's flesh is indeed destructive, from an
    immediate point of view. But in the long term, it is indeed beneficial
    to remove the ruptured organ for the good of the entire body.
    
     Rather than being retaliatory in nature, I feel that someone shooting
    Lepine while he was on his rampage would have been providing a useful
    service to his subsequent victims. Their families would likely agree.
    If he had been shot after his first shot, would not the net result of
    have been bnetter for all of the people involved?
    
>But if we choose to live by a philosophy we abhor, doesn't that make
>the present meaningless?
    
    I think the difference is between idealism and pragmatism, and
    pragmatism doesn't make the present totally meaningless.
    
>I still want to think I did something to make it a more peaceful
>loving world, for everyone else.  And I can't make it peaceful and
>loving if I am not peaceful and loving.  And I can't be peaceful and
>loving if I live by war and hating.
    
    To carry the analogy, if one said "I cannot promote healing by
    harming," surgery would not occur. And surgery is beneficial, in many
    cases.
    
     I understand how you feel (despite what you may think about my
    positions). I believe that I am simply being more pragmatic in
    addressing the problem. We both want the same thing- an end to
    violence. It is the means over which we quarrel.
    
     The Doctah
    

    re .11
    
    Mez,
    
    I was looking at "Othello" from the point of view that he believed what
    his "friend" Iago told him, rather than Desdemona's actions.  That
    belief blinded him to what was actually happening.  Had he not listened
    to Iago, perhaps the outcome would have been different.
    
    There are times where it's easy to get wrapped up in an interpretation
    of the situation, not looking at all the facts.  Police informants and
    "expert witnesses", for example.  Who's to say that their
    interpretation is valid.  Will all of the facts be presented, or biased
    according to the "expert" sources?
    
    In the Montreal massacre, lepine had tried to gain admission to the
    engineering school, and failed.  Did he conclude that that failure was 
    due to the fact the University admitted too many women, hence he wasn't
    able to gain admission?  Only he knows.
    
    One thing that really bothers me about this case is how lepine walked
    across the campus with his weapon, and no one noticed!  It's not
    exactly a concealable weapon, is it?  Didn't anyone think it a bit odd
    to see someone walking around with such a rifle?
    
    In violent actions, the situation has reached the point where violence
    appears to be the solution *to the perpetrator*.  Something happens to 
    the person that says "This is the only way out.  Deal with the situation
    and get it over with."  That something may be an innocent coment which 
    is misinterpreted; being in the wrong place at the wrong time -- whatever 
    it is, it sets off something that has been coiled within the person 
    for however long.
    
    ----------------------
    
    re others
    
    Thank you for your points of view.  I still don't like the situation,
    but I *am* beginning to understand it.  I'll never accept violence as a
    solution, but I'm trying to understand how it is that some reach that
    point.
    
    Yes, I want to volunteer, or help in some way, but is there a way to
    accomplish that when I'm working 40-50 hours a week, just to make ends
    meet?  Time and money are both in short supply for me, but is there a
    way that I can make a difference?  I don't pretend that I can change
    the world; I just want to try to be a positive part of it.
    
    Judi
    

    
    Maybe I'm just weird or something, but it makes me uneasy to think
    about what life would be like if everyone decided that it would be a
    good idea to carry a concealed weapon at all times to defend
    themselves.  I mean I don't go to Homestead Avenue in Roxbury because
    I know that there are a lot of guns around and I really don't want to
    be shot.  But if the lady in front of me in the supermarket has one,
    and the obnoxious neighbor in back of me has one and the guy sitting
    next to me in the movie has one?  I'd personally be scared of EVERYONE.
    People lament the loss of community, but I'd be wary of approaching
    someone I didn't know if I knew they had a gun.  And I'd really have to
    be careful not to make anyone around me angry.  
    
    I guess I just don't like violence, and if US society got to the point
    where it was pretty much a free for all, kill or be killed Mad Max
    type of thing, then I'm sure there must be somewhere else I could go
    where I wouldn't have to fear for my life when I got up in the morning.
    
    As to why people go all strange and kill others, I think that one of
    the main reasons is that no is responsible for anything anymore.  It's
    always someone elses fault.  It's my professors fault I didn't get a
    good grade, it's women's/men's fault that I can't get a date,  it's the
    doctor's fault that I'm sick, it's the woman's fault she got raped,
    it's the TV's fault that my kid can't read, it's the school's fault
    that my child didn't know about birth control and got pregnant, it's my
    neighbor's fault that my kid got hurt in their yard (even though the
    kid didn't have the neighbors permission to be there), it's the
    driver's fault that Fluffy got run over (even though Fluffy was in the
    middle of Route 20), etc....
    
    NO IT'S YOUR FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    If people would just start being held responsible for their own actions
    then maybe we wouldn't need as many scapegoats!!!!
    
    Lisa

    re:-1
    
    I don't think it would be such a terrible thing for people to be
    careful of other people.  I think that if you would be a lot more
    cautious if you knew someone had a gun, then I suspect that those whose
    intentions are less than honorable would be a bit more hesitant too. 
    What's the problem there?  If all the desirable metholds of setting
    limits don't work then I am (unhappily) left with undesirable metholds. 
    What I am not left with is letting people with no emotional control do
    whatever they want to do to me or mine just because the "nicer" ways of
    coping don't work.
    
    Dondi

    
    re: -1
    
    Well, I guess the disagreement is that those with less than honorable
    intent would find a way to get around the situation.  If you want to 
    attack a woman then wait until her hands are full and she can't get to
    her gun.  Wait until she's got a bag of groceries in her hand.  Watch
    her house and wait until she's taking a shower. Just shoot her first
    then attack her, she'll be partially disabled.  Get a friend, since
    two guns are better than one.
    
    But I guess what worries me the most are those who don't necessarily
    make crime a way of life, but those people with short tempers.  I mean
    there's already so much violence over stupid things, can you imagine
    if everyone was armed with a gun?  And what's worse, someone armed with
    a gun who is drunk.  I certainly wouldn't want a bar in my neighborhood
    if everyone had a gun.  Or have some kids around whose parents had a
    gun but weren't very responsible with it.  Gee, let's have some fun
    tonight randomly shooting people's windows.  And what would you do with
    kids?  When would they be old enough to have a gun of their own?
    Would they be able to bring it to school?  They would have to defend
    themselves on the way home wouldn't they?  
    
    A society based on fear.  
    
    Lisa

re: .13

I do understand your position from a logical, intellectual
point of view, and respect that fact that this is just a different
means towards a common goal.  And more importantly, am glad the goal
is the same.

I just can't reconcile morally, for myself,
compromising my principles in my daily life.  And I think that I have
more chance to spread love than to stop a killer -- every day I
live, work, play, by my principles.  If I spent a chunk of that
time preparing to make an exception to my moral code, for any reason,
I'm no longer living by my principles -- I'm living by
principles plus exceptions.  (By "peace and love is good, killing
and violence are bad" *except* when I decide it's OK to make an exception.)

If I spend, say, 2 hours a week learning how to kill or hurt a 
person, on the off-chance that sometime in my life, for 10 
seconds, I am faced with that choice and can't come up with another way 
out of the situation, I've corrupted myself.  I'm less likely to find a 
way out of the situation in accord with the principle of love.
I'm *more* likely to make a moral exception, because I've practiced 
it, I've prepared for it, I've told myself, for 2 hours a week, that
it's OK.  I've numbed myself to the moral implications of killing
by practicing -- kind of like, perhaps, the constant images of
"acceptable violence" in the media might be numbing us and our kids,
making violence for some reasons acceptable.

	MKV

    Hmm, a society based on fear?  I think that's what we have now.  It's
    just that the "less-honorables" aren't afraid and the "honorables" are. 
    I see no problem with making the sides more equal.  And, yes, I agree,
    there are always those who don't care, have no sense of self
    preservation, and are intent on committing acts of intrusion and
    violence on others but we don't have to make it easier for them.  I'd
    much rather that some tiny part of that attacker be uneasy about
    whether the victim will fight back or not instead of being sure it's
    easy pickings.
    
    Dondi

<old dude (there are several impotence lines), and is black in a society that
<equates the Ethiopes ear with that which is non-beautiful. He's got lots of
<reasons to be insecure.
    
        Nit: if an Ethiope's ear is not beautiful then why say in Romeo
    and Juliet that "she hangs upon the cheek of night, like a jewel
    upon an Ethiope's ear", which dosen't seem to mean that the night
    ugly but made me think of black velvet. liesl

    re:19
    
    National Public Radio is doing a series of shows on gun control this week.
    
    They quoted the statistic that in 85% of the handgun homicides the
    perpetrator knew the victim.
    
    So, dividing society into honorables vs less honorables is bunk, in my
    opinion. This concept of the professional criminal class victimizing
    decent upright citizens is a false model created by gun advocates,
    rather than a reflection of reality.
    
    -roger
         

    
    RE: Society of fear
    
    Well, I'm still at a point in my life where guns scare me, so I guess
    that a scenario of have a gun or die is a no win situation for those of
    us who just don't like guns.  I don't like the idea of keeping my hand
    on a gun at all times, so that I can be prepared to kill anyone at
    anytime.
    
    And even if everyone did have a gun, there'd still be some guaranteed
    losers.  What about people who wear glasses?  Everytime they go to
    sleep they'd be vulnerable because they have to take their glasses
    off, and there's probably not time to grab your glasses and your gun if
    the intruder is right there in the same room.  And what about people
    with bad aim?  I wouldn't want to be near their conflict.
    
    But the more I think about this, the more I worry about schools.  How
    many kids would bring guns to school?  How many would take their
    grievances against others out with a gun?  Would parents let their
    daughters walk home from school alone without a gun?  
    
    I guess that there are people who accept an armed society as
    inevitable.  I don't want to live in one, and I certainly wouldn't
    bring children into one.
    
    MHO, which is too ingrained for me to change, maybe I belong in another
    country or something.
    
    Lisa

>I do understand your position from a logical, intellectual
>point of view, and respect that fact that this is just a different
>means towards a common goal. 
    
    Well, that is certainly helpful. :-)
    
>I just can't reconcile morally, for myself,
>compromising my principles in my daily life.
    
    Not only is that understandable; it is laudable. You're a bigger person
    than I.
    
    When someone is brutalizing you, especially out of a sense of sadistic
    pleasure, it is difficult to cling to such lofty goals. When you are
    feeling pain and fear, the concept of love seems so far away. I suppose
    I might be more likely to simply suffer until it was over, resigning
    myself to the fact that my life was in the hands of a antisocial human.
    But when I think of the possibility that my wife or child(ren) could be
    at the hands of such a person, I cannot simply do nothing. I feel I
    must take an active role in protecting my family in the best means at
    my disposal. And such protection may necessitate me to forgo my own
    life for the mere opportunity for my family to escape harm. I feel
    compelled to do my utmost to protect and defend my family, and myself.
    
    I also believe that if I happen to wound or kill someone while
    defending my family or myself, at least I will remain alive to continue
    to spread love. I cannot spread love while dead. Only memories...
    
     The Doctah

>    National Public Radio is doing a series of shows on gun control this week.
    
    And not terribly accurate, from what I hear.
    
>    They quoted the statistic that in 85% of the handgun homicides the
>    perpetrator knew the victim.
    
    Did you know that in over 90% of gang related violence, the victims
    knew their attackers. This is supposed to prove that we're all buddies
    until guns come around, then we blow each other away? C'mon Roger-
    you've got more going for you than that.
    
     The Doctah

    Doctah:
    
    >Did you know that in over 90% of gang related violence, the victims
    >knew their attackers. This is supposed to prove that we're all buddies
    >until guns come around, then we blow each other away? C'mon Roger-
    >you've got more going for you than that.  
    
    This is still not the "criminal class" attacking the upright citizens
    of the country.
    
    BTW, do you have a pointer for posted statistics on homicide/accidental
    cause of death information? I'm interested in whether or not the
    perception of violence is or is not born out by statistics.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    
    
                               

>    This is still not the "criminal class" attacking the upright citizens
>    of the country.
    
    The point is that "victims knowing their attacker" is a useless metric
    because of all of the random categories lumped into it.
    
>    BTW, do you have a pointer for posted statistics on homicide/accidental
>    cause of death information? I'm interested in whether or not the
>    perception of violence is or is not born out by statistics.
 
    I would simply wait for the Texas Chainsaw Statistician to provide the
    requested info. :-) Right Greg? :-)
    
     The Doctah   
    

	re: .21 & .25 (Roger Brown)

	>      -< fear is a choice >-

		Maybe for you.

	>    I'm interested in whether or not the
	>    perception of violence is or is not born out by statistics.
    
		The perception is real enough.
		
							a statistic    
  

    I personally do not arbitarily divide people into honorable or
    not-honorable categories except for the sake of defininition in
    argument.  I do think that the issue is boundaries.  Where do you draw
    the line that certain behavior is acceptable or unacceptable to you? 
    And where do you draw the line of what you will do to stop that
    behavior?  If I know my attacker, does that have anything at all to do
    with whether or not I allow the attack to continue unblocked?  I don't
    think so.  There is a serious problem with people who have no
    boundaries of their own, no respect for others, no rational response to
    a reasonable expectation of co-operative societal living.  I am as
    hopeful as anyone else that the world will become a peaceful and safe
    place to live.  But I am under no illusions that it is that way now. 
    If the world isn't safe by nature then I must protect myself and my
    family from the evils as best as I can.  If someone is afraid of me
    because they think I have a weapon, that's fine.  They will think twice
    before they attack.
    
    Dondi

    Nancy Bittle:
	
    >>      -< fear is a choice >-

     >		Maybe for you.

      >	>    I'm interested in whether or not the
       >	>    perception of violence is or is not born out by statistics.
    
	>	The perception is real enough.
		
	 >						a statistic 
    
    This is a bit cryptic for me, Nancy. As I don't know your personal
    history, I would appreciate a somewhat clearer explanation of this
    point of view of yours. Are you a victim of violence?  
    
    Thanks,
    
    _roger
     
                                                                           

    re:Dondi
    
    >Hmm, a society based on fear?  I think that's what we have now.  It's
    >just that the "less-honorables" aren't afraid and the "honorables" are. 
    >I see no problem with making the sides more equal. 
    
    This is the quote I was responding to, Dondi. This splits it very
    clearly into sides, and I still believe this is an inaccurate model
    of criminals vs. the good human beings. I don't think that arming the
    general population is the solution to the crime problem, but will
    instead produce more violence, in a destructive cycle of fear-based
    violent acts.
    
    Lebanon is a good example of a well-armed civilian population taking
    the law into their own hands. Are these firm enough boundries?
    
    Is there one acceptable standard of behavior?
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    
    

    
    There is a similar gun discussion going on now in the "Soapbox note"
    in another conference. (A conference that was NOT set up for social
    issues).  There are quite a few members of the conference in Europe
    and I thought it interesting that they really had a problem
    understanding why many of the American noters felt that owning a gun
    was necessary for survival.  They got the impression that American 
    society was overly violent.  
    
    I'm curious if there are any =wn=noters who are from outside the US,
    and if they get the same impression.
    
    Lisa 

    Re .31, Lisa-
    
    > I'm curious if there are any =wn=noters who are from outside the US,
    > and if they get the same impression.
      
    You might want to look at 218.195 and numerous replies, wherein
    Kris Hatashita offered a Canadian perspective and questions.
    
    DougO

re: .20 (liesl)

It's the high contrast (to my mind). The jewel/Juliet is incredibly beautiful;
everything else is not.

But I do see your point.
	Mez

	I'd like to try an analogy here. If I fail in my attempt to
	get my point accross I'll try again. The analogy is DELIBERATELY
	simplistic so that a one-to-one mapping of analogy to reality
	is possible. I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges.

	Let me begin by saying that I am trying to grow the IDEAL
	lawn. Now the IDEAL lawn (as perceived by ME) is beautiful
	green grass, smooth, thick, etc. with no imperfections. There
	is an expectation here that the IDEAL lawn will be a certain
	way. (Over time, the expectations of the IDEAL lawn may change
	as I learn more ABOUT lawns).

	Every now and then, the universe being what it is and entropy
	taking it's place, there appear things in the lawn which
	TAKE AWAY from it's IDEAL state. Things like weeds, etc.
	While these negative things have their place in the scheme 
	of things they TAKE AWAY from the IDEAL lawn. Now if I let
	these things REMAIN in the lawn they will corrupt it. So
	I remove the negative things. 

	The act of removing these negative things isn't right IN AND 
	OF ITSELF. In fact, there may be places in the universe where 
	the negative things (weeds) are the IDEAL. But not in the lawn 
	we have. So we continually try to remove the negative things.

	And thus it is so continually forever since negative things
	always present themselves and there really ISN'T an IDEAL
	state of things WITHOUT INTERVENTION.

                               ********



	Life as we humans know it can be thought of in IDEAL terms.
	We can continually try to evolve to the IDEAL state but it
	takes deliberate action to remove the negative things.

	In an ideal world NOBODY would need to carry guns. We wouldn't
	even need police, etc. But since this ISN'T an ideal world
	and the police aren't everywhere each of the "blades of
	grass" must do what they can to remove the negative parts
	of their environment. While the "removing" is in itself
	a negative act, it is a positive act for the WHOLE (lawn).
    
	Once the negative parts are purged from the environment
	the "blades of grass" can continue to grow and evolve toward
	their IDEAL state.



	Those of you that GOT my message would you please help
	me put what I just said into better words? Expand on or
	edit the analogy as necessary. Or create a better one.

	Just trying to help.

							Warren

re 896.34

    Warren, I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your
    position.  Here's my two bits on what I thought when I read
    your note (surprised I got the first response--everyone else
    must be on vacation!):

        Suppose that there are several techniques for removing
        the weeds which are infesting our ideal lawn.  Suppose
        that Weed-Killer A gets the weed, nearly every time, and
        seems to even prevent regrowth of that type of weed in
        the same area. Unfortunately, over time, it seems to
        weaken the surrounding grass blades, and there's even a
        rumour that there's a really nasty type of weed out there
        that *thrives* on Weed-Killer A! 

        Now Weed-Killer B isn't as effective as A, sometimes it
        needs repeated applications to get rid of the weed, and
        if I'm not paying attention, the weed may even spread a
        bit before I get back for a second or third application.
        On the other hand, it doesn't seem to kill the grass...so
        if I use Weed-Killer B, I'm gambling that I can kill all
        the weed before it takes over the yard. 

    I purposely used "seems" and other such fuzzy words in the
    above:  although we may have a pretty good idea what the
    statistical chances are for a particular weed-killer killing
    a particular type of weed without killing the grass or
    encouraging other weeds (pause for breath), we generally
    don't have such a good idea about techniques for social
    change.  It is my opinion that encouraging gun use on an
    individual scale is like using Weed-Killer A: it may be
    pretty darned effective, but I worry about the long-range
    effects.  On the other hand, attempting to educate ourselves
    and others so that we don't need guns may be like using
    Weed-Killer B:  we may be overrun by the "weeds" before we
    can educate everyone. 

    I was going to wind this up with some sugar-coated comment
    about how I'll let you use your weed-killer on your part of
    the lawn if you'll let me use mine on the part I'm taking
    care of...but in the middle of it I realized I'd been led
    astray by my analogy, as we're really working on the same
    "lawn."  Is it fair to say that legislation on gun control
    seems to be an attempt to "ban Weed-Killer A" by persons
    concerned about the consequences of its indiscriminate use,
    while persons who are against tighter controls feel the
    "lawn" is in imminent danger of being overrun, and thus using
    only "Weed-Killer B" seems rather risky?

    If I've phrased that correctly, then it sounds like we're
    dealing with people's perception of 1) how much trouble we're
    in, 2) whether certain "problem-solving" methods are
    inherently dangerous or not, and 3) whether we've got the
    time and resources to use slower (and less dangerous?)
    methods to get ourselves out of trouble.  And I'm really not
    sure that we know enough about our society and techniques for
    societal change to make even a stab at filling in some of
    those fuzzy areas--so most of us fall back on gut feelings,
    having very little "hard" data to base our judgments on.

    -- Linda

    
    	     Thanks Linda, for adding so eloquently to my analogy.
    
    	I don't have an answer except to say that in the area of
    	social change think back to a little over 200 years ago.
    	A small group of people DRASTICALLY changed their social
    	environment, unfortunately using the very thing we're saying
    	is not desireable: violence.
    
    	But with all the other changes going on in the world WITHOUT
    	violence I'm inclined to believe that once we figure out what
    	the correct social change is we can MAKE it happen without
    	that ugly word "violence". The question is, how do we find
    	out (discover, invent, etc.) the correct social changes
    	to correct these types of deficiencies in our society.
    
    	Keep the ideas coming.
    
    							Warren
    
    

>Is it fair to say that legislation on gun control
>    seems to be an attempt to "ban Weed-Killer A" by persons
>    concerned about the consequences of its indiscriminate use,

 That sounds like a fair characterization.

>    while persons who are against tighter controls feel the
>    "lawn" is in imminent danger of being overrun, and thus using
>    only "Weed-Killer B" seems rather risky?

 It's more like "weed-killer A" is something akin to the appendages found on
certain plants like pumpkins, squashes and cucumbers which allow the plants to
choke out competing weeds by cutting off their supply of nutrients. These
appendages look similar to corkscrews and grow coiled around the stems of 
any nearby weeds. In this way, the plant is taking an active role in protecting
itself.

 There are occasions when the plant will use the coil on another plant of
the same species- sometimes even itself. Usually, though, the plant is able
to distinguish somehow the difference between weeds and like plants.

 Those that like "weed-killer A" recognize that the lawn keeper is unable to
be every place at once, and do not wish to be completely defenseless should a
weed crop up in their area of the lawn. They realize that the lawn keeper will
eventually root out the weed, but perhaps only after they or their loved ones
have been victimized. The end result is that the weed is eradicated; the 
difference is that perhaps less of an infestation will need to occur before the
weed is removed.

 I suppose one could make the argument that the "good of the lawn" is more
important than the good of the individual blades of grass, and that allowing
the use of "weed-killer A" is not in the best interests of the lawn as a whole.
That's a judgement call. I tend to shy away from having certain individuals
involuntarily suffer for the good of the whole. I also tend toward a situation
where the individual weeds and the individual grass are equally potent- thus the
tendency for victimization is reduced. Forcing the grass to fight with one
hand tied behind their backs seems somewhat counter-intuitive.

 The Doctah

    
    	Re: .-1
    
    		We're on the same wavelength I think.
    
    	If all the blades of grass worked well enough in a cohesive
    	way, the "problems" of the lawn would always get fixed. Not
    	that problems would ever stop showing up in the lawn, but
    	the overall reaction of the lawn as a whole (and the
    	blades of grass individually) would be more efficient
    	in helping the the whole evolutionary process towards
    	the IDEAL.
    
    	One wrench in the works: each blade of grass is it's own
    	individual and can tend to see things any way it wants,
    	whether for the good of the whole lawn or not. Perhaps
    	this is somewhat like the "me-ism" of the '80s?
    
    	It's getting better at each reply. And though the analogy
    	does have it's limits (after all, people AREN'T blades of
    	grass) I can see enough there for some real information
    	sharing to occur.
    
    						Warren
    

    Nor can you be peaceful and loving if you are killed because you failed
    to resist aggression.  You can only live by "your" principles by 
    virtue of someone else taking responsibility for your protection -
    and a good deal of luck.  Such an attitude actually contributes to
    the tragedies such as the type under discussion.
    A sociopath gets a certain amount of encouragement from the knowledge 
    that there is little chance that he will encounter effective
    opposition.
    There is a big difference between declaring that one will never 
    INITIATE the use of force, and declaring that one will never USE
    force.
    

    In a debate, a pacifist asked his ideological opponent, "If
    the whole world disarmed, then would you be willing to
    disarm, also?"
    
    After carefully considering the question, the response was, "Under
    those conditions, yes."
    
    The pacifist concluded, "Then the main difference between you and me
    is that I would be among the first to do what you would be among
    the last to do."
    
    R

      <<< Note 896.40 by LITE::J_CHRISTIE "Personal_name <set hidden>" >>>
                                    -< ** >-

	Thank you I needed that light today.

	It is a simple but major difference.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			Be one of the first in your neighborhood
			disarm today, live in peace and harmony
			and you will be a leader for the future.

    .40 and .41 ::
    	I make special effort to live my life in such a manner that no 
    person of good will would ever CARE whether i were armed or not.  
    I would not feel right about deliberately shifting the burden of my 
    defense to someone else, to whatever extent i am capable of providing 
    my own.  Neither am i willing to be someone's abject victim.  I don't
    do these things to others, it is not right that i should endure them
    myself.