Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    I'll be taking Model Mugging in May and will graduate on May 25.  
    Thanks to Justine for bringing me to my first graduation!  (The 
    graduation is at MM of Boston's new headquarters at 1168 Commonwealth 
    Ave.  C'mon down (it starts at 7:15 p.m.) and cheer us on if you're 
    not going away for the weekend  -- the 25th is the beginning of the 
    Memorial Day weekend.)

    I'll write about my experience in here when I can, perhaps while I'm 
    taking it.  (I'll be moving in June though, so life may be hectic for 
    awhile.  I also expect to go away somewhere after the graduation to 
    "wind down".)

    I'm excited about taking it and mostly hope I'll hold up physically 
    (there are a lot of disclaimers in the registration form)!  It'll be 
    intense, emotionally, I'm sure.  I've been thinking about possible 
    personalizations of scenarios and have a few in mind if that's an 
    option, as I've heard it is.

    CQ
    

Congrats Christine. Too bad I'll be away for your graduation.
	Mez

	   This was a response I put to not 78...it probably fits this
context far better.

	don
           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                  -< Topics of Interest to Women---Volume 3 >-
================================================================================
Note 78.7            Male violence: the rape of our liberty              7 of 24
AKOFIN::MACMILLAN                                    56 lines  23-APR-1990 09:20
                    -< "women can fight back! reply 78.0" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	What can women do?!

	Women can fight back! My firm conviction is that women should receive
quality self defense training probably beginning in the early teen years.

	A good rape and self defense course should:

	. Be structured against the most common forms of assault against women
	. Be based on the reaction time model
	. Have as much content about avoidance/awareness as physical response
	. Be structured around simple, proven effective, physical responses
	. Avoid reliance on 'flashy martial arts techniques which take too much
	  practice to be really effective...(if ever)
	. Show how to use everyday objects as weapons (keys,newspapers..ect)

	Such courses have been (and still are being) taught.I myself taught 
these type of courses for years in the westboro area...and know from those
experiences that women can defend themselves as well as men do.

	I also remember that a great number of my male peers felt that the 
wisest course for a woman was to submit and avoid enraging an assailant. This
is, in my mind, a dangerous bias and assumes that submission somehow leads
to a more merciful assault. From my research and the stories that were related
to me during my teaching time; I would say such an assumption is pure bull-
pucky!

	My oldest daughter is fifteen years old. Shes's sensitive, very loving
towards her friends, family and animals. She has developed a very keen sense
of justice and whats right and wrong. She hates violence.

	She can spasm a mans quadracep with a muay-thai leg extension kick in
the blink of an eye. She's very well versed in groin grabbing when attacked from
the rear...she can eye gouge when choked from the front. She can dislocate a
knee cap if anyone tries to drag her where she doesn't want to go.

	Christina understands well that any self defense used by a woman is
best applied by extending the reaction time of an assailant...and shortening
her own. Extending by feigning enjoyment on non-dangerous (harassment) assaults,
or feigning unconsciousness or faintness on the more dangerous. Shortening her
own by using simple techniques applied in the opportune moment and practicing in
graduated phases of mock assaults coming as close to the reality as possible.

	Having these resources does nothing to diminish Christina's personal
beauty...shes a wonderful person living in an increasingly dangerous age.
Especially dangerous for women.

	Self defense, as proven by my daughter and others like her, isn't all
physical. It's also based on speed, mental composure and intelligence; all
qualities that women possess and can be trained to draw on in times of extreme
stress (such as rape assault). I have no trouble backing up this argument,
there is sufficient documentation of women successfully defending themselves
using such methods.


			Don

    
    Well, out here in the west (western Mass., that is!), there is a
    martial arts studio run by women, for women, call the Valley Woman's
    Martial Arts.  They teach a variety of forms and occasionally give
    demonstrations in the area.  I've seen a few and they are quite
    good.  I do not go to them as I lean toward the "gentle" martial
    art, Tai Chi Chaun.  I find it to be a relaxing form of "moving
    meditation" as well as a means of self-defense.  To those who doubt
    it's effectiveness, I can only say that a friend of mine voiced
    her doubts to the master about it's usefullness.  He very calmly
    and quickly reacted with one of the movements, and barely touching
    her, delivered her to the floor in a blink of an eye.  He was smaller
    than she was.  The power comes from the Chi and not the size of
    the muscles.  That is why I think that Tai Chi is the best self-
    defense exercise for women.
    
    Debbi
    

	For the gentler natured Tai Chi Chuan is indeed a good choice in
a martial art. Along the same line so are Aikido, Judo and Kami shin ryu (sp)
ju jitsu; all softer approaches and taught in the Ma. area.

	One consideration though. There are many excellent reasons for persuing
a traditional Martial Art. If your primary focus is self defense then maybe
the amount of time required to gain and maintain skills in the more traditional
approaches would be unreasonable to you. There also has been a number of studies
to suggest that a lot of the defenses taught in traditional approaches do not
make sense within the context of real reaction time models. Maybe they did in
the times of 'ritualized combat' when they were developed.

	One of the things I like about Tai Chi is its not a situational art
requiring a lot of pre-set stimulous and response nonsense. But I think the
previous noter can speak to that issue much better than I.

		-D-

    Model Mugging
    Women's Self Defense and Empowerment
    1168 Commwealth Avenue
    Boston, MA 02134
    (617) 232-7900

    Upcoming Graduations:

    Wednesday May  23 7:15 p.m.
    Friday    May  25 7:15 p.m.
    Sunday    June 24 3:15 p.m.
    Saturday  June 30 3:35 p.m.

    It is recommended that you do not bring young children because of 
    the violent nature of the rape scenarios.

    Directions in next response.

    CQ

    Directions to Model Mugging's Boston facility:

    Address: 1168 Commwealth Avenue, Boston

    It says 1168, but the number on the building is 1168-70.  It also says
    Boston, but it's in an area marked Allston on my map.  MMoB is on 
    Commonwealth near Harvard Ave.  Here's a little map:

                                               Rte. 1
                                                 \ \
    ----------------------------------------------\ \----------------------
    --- <-----Huntington Ave--------------------------Rte. 9 ---> 128------
                                                                  | |
                                                                  | |
     ^                                                  Brookline | |
     |                                                            | |
     | |                                                         H| |
   Boston                                                        a| |A
     | |   B.U.           /----> REAR                            r| |v
     | |                  |                                      v| |e
     | |                  |                                      a| |
     | |                  |                                      r| |
     | |                  |                                      d| |
     | \   Apt. Bldgs.    |      MMoB           Honda             | |
     |  -----------------  ---------------------------------------   --------
     |  ---------------Commonwealth Ave---------------------------   --------
     | |                                                          | |T C
    B| |                                                          | |o a 
    r| |A                                                         | |  m
    i| |v                                                         | || b
    g| |e                                                         | || r
    h| |                                                          | || i
    t| |                                                          | || d
    o| |                                                          | |V g
    n| |                                                          | |  e

    
    I've just had my fourth class and wanted to enter a note here to tell
    you all what my experience has been.

    ------------

    I am one of 14 women in my class.  Our instructor's name is Risa.
    The man who plays the mugger is Evan.  Our assistant is Judy.  We are
    all shapes and sizes.  Some of us have been abused, some raped.  Some
    don't know their past.  Others are searching, with or without a clear
    idea of what it is they're looking for.  All of us are fearful. 

    I've held up physically.  After the first class, my throat was a
    little sore from yelling and I slept restlessly that night.  My
    joints (shoulders and hips) were sore. 
    
    The second class was the very next day and, before leaving for class,
    I reviewed the movements we'd learned.  Without thinking I would do
    this, I converted the very raw physical moves into a series of 
    smoothly flowing, meditative motions.  As I performed them, I felt 
    very strong and peaceful.  That night at the beginning of class, when
    asked to come up with a vision to help me fight, I chose a tree.  The
    tree, a massive, thick-trunked beech, was a powerful image for me and
    it stayed with me as I fought.  That night I slept more soundly.  My 
    body was sore, especially my joints, but similar to what I might feel
    after raking leaves or shoveling snow.  My throat was _very_sore, 
    though, and my voice was husky for the next week. 

    For some reason we were unfocused and disconnected during the third
    class.  I was, we all were, except perhaps for the instructors, who 
    sensed the disconnection and talked to us about it.  It was the most
    emotional night, too.  Several of the women struggled valiantly and 
    triumphantly through great waves of fear and anger.  The most 
    wrenching moments for me that night were those when I watched the 
    women on the mat being attacked.  From this, I think I wasn't the 
    direct object of abuse as a child, but that I saw others being 
    abused.  One of the most powerful moments of the evening came at the 
    end of the class.  When Evan had finished speaking to us -- we all 
    have the opportunity to speak, in turn, and tell how we feel -- he
    asked us to join hands.  He explained that, in order to ensure that
    we continued to see him as Evan, and not the mugger, he wanted to 
    make eye contact with each of us.  While we sat in our circle, all 
    connected by our hands, his gaze traveled quietly to each woman.  I 
    can't say anything more about this now, but it has stayed with me 
    all week.
    
    I had my fourth class tonight but it is too soon after to write about
    it.  The activity has become strenuous enough to require a second 
    mugger to provide relief for the original mugger.
    
    CQ

          re: 56.9 (Christine Quiriy)

          Christine, thanks for sharing your experience of Model Mugging's
          first 3 classes.

          One aspect of a class didn't register right with me  -

          > One of the most powerful moments of the evening came at the
          > end of the class.  When Evan had finished speaking to us -- we
          > all have the opportunity to speak, in turn, and tell how we
          > feel -- he asked us to join hands.  He explained that, in order
          > to ensure that we continued to see him as Evan, and not the
          > mugger, he wanted to make eye contact with each of us.

          I could understand him doing that at the end of the class series,
          but why in the third?

          Wouldn't it facilitate instruction and reaction by continuing to
          view Evan as the mugger?

          Did he explain why he wanted to be viewed as Evan instead of the
          mugger?  {isn't his job to be a mugger?}

                                                       curious,
                                                       nancy b.



    If he's like other Model Muggers, he's the mugger only when he
    has the [faceless] helmet on.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    re .10 Nancy's question about Eye Contact...
    
    When I took model mugging, I believe our mugger did the eye contact
    thing at the end of each class.  As Ann said, when the helmet is off,
    he's a friend, when the helmet is on, he's a mugger.  But I think he
    felt that it was important for us to see him and for him to see us
    at the end of each class.  I know that sometimes for me it was hard
    to let go of the anger -- I didn't want to look at him, but then when
    I really saw him, I knew that he was there to help me learn to defend
    myself.  
    
    Does this make it clearer, Nancy?  It felt like an important part of
    the process at the time.  So, Christine, you gonna wear your Womannotes
    T-shirt to your graduation? :-)
    
    Justine
    
     For those who are totally unfamiliar with Model Mugging...  it's a
    self defense and empowerment class for women.  It's taught by one or
    two female instructors and one male instructor who acts as a mugger. 
    He puts on a heavily padded suit and helmet, and we learn to deliver
    knockout-force blows -- usually kicks to the groin and head.  The
    "mugger" takes on different personas complete with verbal harrassment.
    When you fight, the anger and fear are real.  The point of the course
    is not to teach women not to be afraid but to teach women to use the
    energy the fear causes to defend themselves.  After fighting with this
    guy full force, it can be hard to turn off the fear and anger and 
    see him as a supporter, so the eye contact at the end of each class
    helps you do that.

    
    Nancy, Ann and Justine have it right.  At about the third class, the
    fighting became more real, and more scary.  I noticed that a couple
    of times that night when some of the women were talking about the 
    Mugger, they called Him "Evan".  Evan and the Mugger are definitely 
    NOT the same person.  Evan is Evan with the helmet off and the Mugger 
    is the guy with the helmet.  The Mugger is a bastard but Evan is a 
    gentle, caring man.  
    
    At any point during the class, the Mugger may take the helmet off; at
    that point he becomes Evan, who will give you feedback.  ("That kick 
    felt really strong," or "You weren't kicking through me, you were 
    pushing me, let's try that again," etc.)  Evan's not always hidden and 
    is an important source of information.
    
    What will I wear tomorrow night?  I'm not sure yet, but I think I'll
    paint my nails tonight.  :-)  Maybe this should go in the true 
    confessions note: I don't *have* a womannotes t-shirt.
    
    CQ

    Please forgive breaking into the current train of thought, but i'm just
    getting back =WN= after being (very) remote.  The opening notes,
    reminded me of a short work that is most applicable.
    
    I highly recommend reading "Principles of Personal Defense" by Jeff
    Cooper.  No, it probably isn't what you think, even though it is
    written by a well known proponent of pistolcraft.  It is about
    attitudes, awareness, all the things that help one avoid trouble if
    possible; mitigate it when it can't be avoided; prevail, when that is
    the only remaining alternative to becoming an abject victim.
    
    					der
    

    
    I read in another conference that Chronicle is going to do a feature on 
    Boston's Model Mugging course on Friday, April 5, 1991 at 7:30 pm on 
    channel 5.
    
    CQ

	Was looking for a more appropriate place to discuss
	rape whistles, and found this topic.

	I took the liberty of extracting all the relevant replies
	and appending them below for the reader's convenience.

						nancy b.

================================================================================
Note 13.1137                   I really hate.....                   1137 of 1146
RYKO::NANCYB "hymn to her"                           11 lines   7-APR-1991 15:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    	The advice given by Linda S. Wilson, president of Radcliffe,
    	who urged students to "carry whistles to signal for aid".
    
    	Believing that someone will come to your rescue when you
    	blow a whistle or scream is a wonderful fairy tale.
    
    	Don't fall for it.
    						nancy b.
    
================================================================================
Note 13.1138                   I really hate.....                   1138 of 1146
WLDKAT::GALLUP "living in the gap btwn past & futur" 22 lines   8-APR-1991 10:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I disagree, Nancy.
    
    Carrying ANYTHING at ALL that can help you in any way, is IMPORTANT!
    
    A whistle won't save you in a struggle, but it might do the trick to
    scare the assailant away, or perhaps bring a crowd to investigate that
    will scare the assailant away.
    
    Your saying "don't fall for it" comes across as being very negative. 
    The point is this....ANYTHING you can use to give yourself even a
    LITTLE BIT of an upper hand is IMPORTANT and it's use shouldn't be
    belittled.  I could only WISH that I had something like a whistle.
    
    Some women don't feel comfortable carrying guns, or mace, or whatever. 
    At least a whistle is better than nothing, and should not be devalued
    as a tool to help a potential victim...............
    
    kath
================================================================================
Note 13.1139                   I really hate.....                   1139 of 1146
ASDG::GASSAWAY "Insert clever personal name here"    24 lines   8-APR-1991 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Unless there was a marching band around, I would immediately assume a
    whistle is a woman in trouble.  I don't know of anyone who has a
    whistle for fun, and I thought it was a symbol of a sort for sexual
    assault.  I used to have one, and I had a male once ask me about my
    "rape whistle".
    
    Also, the "gives feminists a bad name".....an example from this
    weekend.  There was a non-comm radio broadcast of a "female issues"
    show.  Apparently the women were being pretty harsh on men, because
    there were some folks at the station talking about the "man-hater"
    show.  One of these folks was a woman who refuses to get married,
    refuses to have kids, refuses to have anything to do with femininity
    (combat boots, leather jacket, three nose rings, countless ear
    piercings, green hair).  I think she's a fine feminist, jsut by her
    actions and attitute.  But she thought the show went too far.  Her
    comment "I was raised by a man, and he's totally cool".   Now who's the
    one that would give feminists a bad name? We have two different camps
    that think differently.  I would say they're both "feminists" so to
    say, although my friend with the green hair probably wouldn't like the
    term.  It would make her too much like the women on the women's issue
    show.
    
    Lisa
================================================================================
Note 13.1140                   I really hate.....                   1140 of 1146
BUILDR::CLIFFORD "No Comment"                         4 lines   8-APR-1991 11:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have known several people who have whistles for fun. I am one. If
    I hear a whistle I assume that someone is playing a game.
    
    ~Cliff
================================================================================
Note 13.1141                   I really hate.....                   1141 of 1146
THEBAY::VASKAS "Mary Vaskas"                         11 lines   8-APR-1991 11:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It (a whistle) is still better than nothing.  Not every woman
will carry a weapon, not every woman would be able to scream loudly;
but most woman could and would blow a whistle, which has some
chance of scaring off an attacker and attracting attention.

A few weeks back in San Francisco, at a rally against rising
gay bashing, whistles were handed out for the same purpose --
whistle if you're being attacked.

	MKV

================================================================================
Note 13.1142                   I really hate.....                   1142 of 1146
SADVS1::HIDALGO                                      12 lines   8-APR-1991 11:56
                       -< What if we ALL had whistles! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: rape whistles
    
    When I went to Douglass (72-74) we ALL wore whistles.  And when you
    heard one, you ran to the sound, nothing like 70 women running out the
    dorm doors at 2am in our nightgowns to pin down a guy on the tennis 
    courts until the campus police came, he was terrified, we were terrified, 
    but it felt terrific.  This is the first time I've heard of or thought
    of those whistles since then.  
    
    Going to find a nice LOUD-EARDRUM-SPLITTING whistle tonight!
    
    Miriam  
================================================================================
Note 13.1143                   I really hate.....                   1143 of 1146
BLUMON::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice"         5 lines   8-APR-1991 11:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I think Nancy's point is that you just can't *rely* on
    a whistle to protect you.  It's not a sure thing.  And
    having one may lead one to a false sense of security.
    
================================================================================
Note 13.1144                   I really hate.....                   1144 of 1146
WLDKAT::GALLUP "living in the gap btwn past & future" 9 lines   8-APR-1991 14:18
        -< Every little step HELPS, though, and shouldn't be hindered >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    >I think Nancy's point is that you just can't *rely* on a whistle to
    >protect you.
    
    I know.....and that's a *very true* point....
    
    
    kath

================================================================================
Note 13.1146                   I really hate.....                   1146 of 1146
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."                    4 lines   8-APR-1991 18:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re: whistles
    
    The cool thing about a whistle, though, is that it can't be used
    against you.

re:  13.1138  (Kath Gallup)
    
>    Carrying ANYTHING at ALL that can help you in any way, is IMPORTANT!
 
	With respect to "rape whistles", I strongly disagree, Kath.

	I believe "rape whistles" are likely to do more harm than good,
	for several reasons: 

	o  A "rape whistle" strongly implies dependence on someone else 
	   coming forth to rescue you.  This is essentially betting your
	   life on the fact that someone will hear you.  

	o  If someone does hear you, there is the further risk that they
           will be capable enough to stop the attack.  Or they may decide
	   to not directly intervene, but to call the police, who might 
	   arrive several minutes later.  Several minutes is plenty of 
	   time to be severely beaten.

	o  The act of 1) finding the rape whistle  2) retrieving it to
	   your mouth  and 3) blowing could take  anywhere from 3 to 
	   15 seconds.  I've read that whether the outcome/victor of an
	   attack is decided within the first 8 or so seconds.  
	   So basically, if the whistle doesn't "work", you're f*cked.

	o  In areas such as parking garages and lots there are many sounds
	   (beeps, alarms, etc.) from security devices on cars these days
	   that make it less likely a whistle will be given attention.

	o  There is the chance that the sound of a rape whistle could 
	   scare off someone.  But what would a whistle accomplish that
	   a scream wouldn't?  You can scream without having to find 
	   something in your purse, and a scream is much a more recognizable
	   sign that someone needs help.  

	   Yes, a whistle could be louder, but for the reason above, I doubt
	   someone would go to investigate a whistle they hear in the 
	   distance.  Also, if you aren't physically capable of screaming for
	   reasons like:  his hand is over your mouth; you have frozen, 
	   etc., you aren't likely to be able to blow into a whistle.

>   Your saying "don't fall for it" comes across as being very negative. 

	Yes, I intended it as such, because I believe carrying 
	a whistle is bordering on being worse than not carrying
	anything.  

	In the seconds you (general) are using to get the whistle,
	you could be doing *much* more constructive things that would
	decrease your likelihood of victimization (like retreating - 
	running away).

						nancy b.

    "Fire" might even stall the attacker for a sec.
    
    ^-)
    
    ed

I don't know if I'd be capable of screaming, actually.

Also, if I'm walking around alone, especially at night, I'm going to
have keys and/or whistle or whatever close at hand, if not in hand.
This is a habit with keys already, but a whistle would be smarter
for me, I think -- so I wouldn't lose that 15 seconds.

It's something, anyway.  I'm not stupid, I'm still not going to
think I'm invincible.  I'm not likely to carry a serious weapon.
I have to do what fits me, what I feel comfortable with, or
else it's not going to be useful.

	MKV

    Re : Martial Arts
    
    As I understood it, the first technique of self defence is to run.
    My Mom (Judo Brown Belt) and my various sensei (martial arts teachers)
    told me that even in white belt.
    
    Re : Whistle and Scream
    
    I'm sure you are all aware of Kitty Genovese (sp?). How many people
    heard her and still did not come?  She is proof that just screaming
    is not enough. 
    
    Screaming fire might help though. My Mom also told me that once.
    
    Still, desparate battle seems to be the only defense.
    
    Cindi

    
    	re first defense is to run - the second defense is to go
    	for the eyes, according to a friend who studies martial arts.
    

    
    
    RE: .17 (NancyB)
    
    I understand your points and your reasoning behind them, however I feel
    you're forgetting one point.
    
    No one should rely on any ONE means for anything.  Just because a
    person has a whistle on their person doesn't mean that they will rely
    totally (and only) on that whistle.  
    
    Frankly, were I in the process of being raped or attacked, I would use
    EVERY means at my disposal (screaming, whistling, biting, gouging, etc)
    to secure my escape/rescue.  
    
    People look weird at my leather jacket that I wear into clubs in
    Boston, but it's got detachable metal "V's" on the shoulders which are
    VERY sharp, and it's also got a nice long thin "pin" in the front clasp
    that could be detached with a good swift tug on my part and could do
    some wonderful damage to many parts of an assailant's body.  And I've
    NEVER had a cop look twice at me in the jacket, even though it's
    openly displaying various forms of "weaponry" which would probably be
    considered "illegal."
    
    All I'm saying, Nancy, is that a person should never deny themselves 
    ANYTHING which would help them survive an attack....and that includes,
    "packing" a whistle.
    
    kath

    
    just carry a concealable, double action soup tureen..

re: .23 (Kath)

>    I understand your points and your reasoning behind them, however I feel
>    you're forgetting one point.
>    No one should rely on any ONE means for anything.  

	Umm, yea, I understand that, but I'm not sure I understand how
	that follows. 

	I thought we were talking about using whistles in general or as
	a first response to a sign you are in danger.

	I made arguments against whistles in general and as a first
	response to a sign you are in danger.

							nancy b.

	And yes, Kath, I think we agree that you can't rely on
	one thing or technique for every situation.

	As a matter of fact, one of the slides of AWARE's presentation
	is a chart describing the varying levels of threats a woman
	can face, and some of the *appropriate* levels of response for 
	those threats.  Responses (defensive actions) are based on 
	earlier slides covering what those _levels_ of response are, 
	and questions you need to ask yourself about what you are 
	capable of doing based on your personal situation.  

	For example, will the X method of self-defense work:
	
		if you are pregnant
		if you are overweight
		if you are underweight and have little physical strength
		if you don't have time to practice it more than
		       once a week;  once a month; etc..

	If any =wn=ers are interested in seeing AWARE's presentation,
	please send me mail.   The presenters are 2 other directors
	of AWARE, Dr. Lyn Bates, Barbara Clorite, and myself.

						nancy b.
	
	

    Sometimes it is very scary being a Quaker (and *believing* in the basis
    of my faith) woman.  I often wonder what I would do.  Would I believe
    and accept that my body is just a vessel for that of God in me, and
    that if I violate that of God in another, that of God in *me* is
    damaged?
    
    
    
    
    Or would I fight like hell?!
    
    
    
    When does faith become fanaticism?
    
    
    )*:
    
    
    E Grace

    
    	Oh E  .
    
    	I admire how strongly you hold your faith.
    
    	But I hope you would fight back, for yourself.  
    
    	I am too upset about what has happened to try to rationalize
    	it any further right now, 'cept to say that I care too much
    	about you to conceive of your not fighting back.  Tomorrow
    	I am going to do something about instead of just being bummed.
    
    						nancy b.
    

    re:.28
    
    A (female) friend of mine once mused, "I don't know what I'd do
    if I was attacked. I'd either curl up into a ball and whimper,
    or kick him to death."
    
    --- jerry

    I have two daughters, both have been attacked, one twice. The one who
    was attacked twice was first attacked when she was 11 while walking
    from her school bus stop to the house. Both daughters fought like hell
    and they were sucessful in fighting off their attackers. Both are now
    well trained in the use of firearms and carry weapons with them all the
    time. They would rather go to jail then have to fight off an attacker
    with their bare hands again, if the law requires it. Women should be
    raising all kinds of hell with their lawmakers to allow them the right
    to defend themselves with the best means that modern technology can
    provide and to also give them legal protection against lawsuites by
    injured of killed attackers. My daughters were trained since they were
    able to talk that noone was allowed to mess with them and they were to
    fight to prevent it. 

    
    I have been reading through some notes, and thinking what if it
    *happened to me? I have horses and I used to ride by myself and 
    way back in the woods. I was never afraid of anyone, i was cautious.
    My mother was anyways throwing those *WHAT IF"S at me , that Mothers
    like to do :*} but....I was always afraid of dogs biting my horses
    legs and injuring them, so i bought a can of bee killer (the kind with
    the long stream to reach under the roof eaves?) and used that on my 
    trail rides, i had to use it once. A dog howled so bad I couldnt stand
    it, after that i went out and bought a cattle prod (we used to use
    those in colorado, when we needed to get the cattle vacinated, to get
    them in through the chutes...) 
    anyway it doesnt hurt the cattle since they have a tough hide, but 
    on other animals/people it will deliver ONE  *ell of a jolt. 
    
    I travel long distances with horses )4-8  hours each way and i carry a 
    bright red tire iron under my seat and my cattle prod (just in case)
    I would have a gun,but with the laws changing from state to state , i 
    dont feel its worth the hassle.
    
    (plus my mother said she'd kill me :*} )
    
    	I agree with the previous author (about carrying a gun)
    to defend yourself.... It's too bad to has to come to that, but it will
    be a COLD day in *ell that I will be afraid to go somewhere 
    by myself. I would rather have a gun than, to not have one and be 
    petrified!!!
    
    	wendy o'
    
    

    If it comes to the point where a woman has to carry a gun simply to
    walk on the street, I think it might be time to seriously start
    considering bailing out on this country.
    
    Maybe I should start language lessons now.
    
    Lisa
    

          re:  56.33 (Lisa Gassaway)

          > If it comes to the point where a woman has to carry a gun
          > simply to walk on the street, [...]

          I view my gun as a tool that I need to carry with me.

          I keep a small fire extinguisher in my kitchen should a fire
          start there.
          I hope I never have to use my fire extinguisher.
          I do not think about a fire occurring every time I cook, but I
          take care to not leave unattended pots on high heat.
          Owning a fire extinguisher does not mean that I do not need the
          fire department.

          I wear a seat belt when I ride in a car.
          I hope I never get in a car accident.
          I do not think about car accidents every time I drive, but I do
          drive defensively.
          Wearing a seat belt does not mean I would not need an ambulance
          if I were to get into an accident.

                                                       nancy b.

    Lisa, try Norwegian ;-). (then you cover/understand Swedish and Danish
    aswell).
    You will not see a gun here (unless you're member of a club and into
    the sport), not even on the policemen!
    I'm not sure if that (low population of guns) reduces the crime-level.
    What comes now, might put you down.. it's your choise..
    
    
    Just read in the paper today that a 16-year old (newspaper-) boy 
    killed a 75-year old lady because she complained about late delivery of
    the paper. He used two (2) knives!
    
    
    
    PerS,
    
    

A friend of mine (not a Digital employee) is looking to organize a short
course in self-defense for women where she works.  She is not looking for
something as involved as a martial arts course, or even Model Mugging, but
one of the basic "here are the crucial points" type of courses.  (maybe
8-10 hours?)

Any information on who would teach such a course, how much it would cost,
who to contact, what sort of course is best, etc, would be greatly appreciated.

D!

re:           <<< Note 56.36 by TLE::DBANG::carroll "get used to it!" >>>
                    -< Course in self-protection for women >-

I don't know where you're located but periodically the Manchester (NH)
police dept. holds a basic self defense course for women. It's 4-5 hours
for one night and is very interesting. They also will give you some 
instruction with handguns if you want (it's optional). The course is
free and open to the public but you must sign up in advance. I don't
know when they'll be holding the next sessions but you may be able to
give the police dept a call and find out.

Jenna

Oh, sorry I forgot to mention, my friend (Beth) works in Cambridge, MA.  She
is looking for someone who would come in and do a group class to all the
women she works with, rather than an outside course for her to take.

Thanks for the replies.

D!

    What's been best (knock on wood) so far in my life has been prevention,
    specifically attitude and commonsense.
    
    I lived in New York City in an apartment alone, walked on the streets
    at night, and was okay.  I've also lived in San Francisco and Berkeley,
    CA, without being attacked.  
    
    There's a lot of luck involved, too.  But these are the rules I follow:
    
    - Don't go into places that are VERY hazardous.  Such as Central Park
    at night.  Sure, we want to take back the night, etc.  It's one thing
    to demonstrate about it, another to risk rape for no very good reason.
    
    - Look confident.  Walk at an average speed.  Don't dawdle.  Keep your
    handbag held close so you don't invite muggers or pickpockets.
    
    - Think, "I am invisible."  Sounds nutty, but it has worked well.
    
    - If threatened, my attitude is, I'm CRAZY and DANGEROUS.  I want the
    attacker to find me too dangerous to mess with.  I'm petite and of
    average appearance, by the way.  I just have a wild glint in my eye
    and a growl in my voice, when pressed to it.  In high school I scared
    off a boy with a steak knife.  It couldn't have done much for real, but
    he was too wary to mess with this crazy girl.  
    
    - I followed police guidelines in protecting my apartment.  Every
    police department has printed brochures on gates, locks, etc. and other
    aspects of personal safety.  Read them and follow them.
    
    - The only time I've been mugged I SAW the guys following me and was
    stupid enough to keep going.  That was 20 years ago.  Since then, if I
    felt I was being followed, I do not continue.  Better to cross the
    street and walk  back in the direction of the follower.  If you can see
    them, you are prepared.  Never let them be behind you.
    
    - Read a man's signals and believe what your intuition tells you.  If
    you feel threatened, you probably are.  Don't wait to find out.  Get
    out of the way of danger.  By any means available.
    
    Any martial arts trainer will tell you that the first method of
    self-defense is RUN.  The shrimps among us (myself include) are not any
    more helpless than the big women.  Given common sense and the right
    attitude, we can do pretty well in life.
    
    Laura

    re.39 Any martial arts (gawd I hate that phrase) trainer who tells
    a small woman to run from a man is not worth much, IMO. Men are
    generally faster runners, have longer legs, etc. (Of course, if
    you're tall and do marathons, disregard above.) Do you really want 
    to be knocked down from behind? The growl-and-maniacal-grin is
    much more practical.

    
    	re: .39  (Laura Steinhart)
    
    	Good points about attitude, etc... The "right" attitude can
    	get one out of many threatening situations.  There is an 
    	organization in Raleigh, NC, called SafeSkills Associates
    	that seem to have an excellent understanding of how
    	this can work.
    
    	They conduct a course on avoiding harrassment via attitude and
    	appropriate verbal response, well as describing warning signs
    	that (for instance)  the guy that stopped you to ask for directions
    	is really interested in something else...   
    
    	After reading their course syllabi, I think of them as being
    	on a caliber of Model Mugging but for a lower level of threat.
    	Properly dealing with the lower levels of threats (sometimes
    	the solution is as simple as just leaving the area) can prevent
    	a situation where physical contact self-defense (a la Model
    	Mugging) is necessary.
    
    						nancy b.
    	
    

    When I was mugged I believe my attitude saved me from serious harm.  It
    appeared to me that the young man was relatively inexperienced at what
    he had chosen to do and my calm reassuring manner allowed him to relax
    and respond.  He never pointed the gun at me, it remained hugged to
    his waist.  He allowed me to remove my money from my wallet, give it to
    him and keep the rest of my possessions.  
    
    I consider myself fortunate that this technique worked.  I asked him if
    it would be all right if I just gave him the money...and he agreed so
    he made the choice.
    
    When we discuss various ways of preventing harm to ourselves it is
    always wise to realize that each technique is dependent on the
    criminal, his physical makeup and his mental attitude.  A more
    experienced mugger might have rejected my approach to reason.

This note was inspired by the announcement nancy b. put in about a course 
on CAP-STUN.  From the announcement: "CAP-STUN instantly and safely 
incapacitates assailants by acting as an inflammatory agent that causes 
mucous membranes to swell, producing an immediate closing of the eyes, 
uncontrollable coughing, gagging, and gasping for breath."

Offhand, this sounds like the LAST thing I'd ever want to use on an assailant.
Why?  Because with bad allergies/asthma, I'm likely to be more susceptible to 
it than he is.  I'd be terrified of incapacitating *myself* instead, or first, 
or worse... especially at *this* time of year.

Have any studies been done on the effects of ambient CAP-STUN spray on
people who are unusually susceptible to other types of ambient particles?
What about "mistakes" (for example, reaching for your CAP-STUN instead of
your inhaler during an asthma attack)?  Is it potentially lethal?  Under
normal circumstances, is it even a viable form of self-defense for someone
like me?

    Sharon

    Sharon, for someone with allergies it is probably not worthwhile.
    One should only consider a particular method of self-defense if
    the benefits outweigh the potential risks. (Imagine teaching
    Tae-Kwon-Do to an arthritic elderly person with fragile bones.)
    
    Like every other method of self-defense, it is not universally
    practical. For this reason anyone considering adopting some means 
    of self-defense should investigate a broad spectrum of methods
    and choose according to personal circumstances, practicality,
    and interests/disinterests.
    
    Dana

re:.43 (Sharon Walker)  -< CAP-STUN (tm) for asthmatics? >-

> Have any studies been done on the effects of ambient CAP-STUN spray on
> people who are unusually susceptible to other types of ambient particles?

	Not that I've heard of, but I've put a call in to the 
	instructor of the course who can in turn contact the manufacturer.

> What about "mistakes" (for example, reaching for your CAP-STUN instead of
> your inhaler during an asthma attack)?  

	2 things:  

	1)  The CAP-STUN container that I carry has a leather "holster"
	    (it's called) around it that covers the container and the
	    top.  (You can still spray the capsicum from within the 
	    holster.  You can also disable spraying for those times when
	    you specifically don't want to spray accidently, and flick
	    the safety back for all other times)

	    My inhaler is L-shaped and maybe 3/4's as long.
	    My CAP-STUN	container is cylindrical, with 
	    length = length(keys A-H on your keyboard)
	    and a diameter of 2 computer keys.  I don't think I would
	    confuse the 2 in either an asthma attack or a physical attack.

	2)  To lessen the chance of the confusion every occurring
	    (between the Cap-Stun container and *anything* else), I
	    carry the Cap-Stun in a totally separate place outside of
	    my purse.  

	    During the winter, I have 2 coats I wear.  I bought a container
	    of Cap-Stun for each coat's pocket, because I would not 
	    reliably remember to switch my 1 container from coat to coat.
	    Therefore, when walking outdoors, to and from my car wherever,
	    I had very quick access with no worry of mixing it up.

	    In the summer, I'm going to keep it in the front compartment
	    of my waist-bag where I keep nothing else.


> Is it potentially lethal?  

	In 10 years of documented use, there has never been a 
	fatality due to Cap-Stun or complications arriving 
	from its use alone.

	In New York, there was 1 incident where the police sprayed the
	Cap-Stun on the person and then zapped him with a stun-gun.
	The carrier in Cap-Stun is mostly alcohol.  
	Can you guess what happened?  Yes, it is flammable, and
	the person caught on fire.  I believe he died.


> Under normal circumstances, is it even a viable form of self-defense 
> for someone like me?

	In the course I took, someone decided to take a hit with the
	real stuff.  She was armed with a rubber knife and went after
	the instructor who proceeded to spray her in 2 quick bursts.
	
	Standing close by the person being sprayed, I took notes on 
	her reactions and timed their duration.  While not sprayed 
	directly, I got a good whiff of it and started immediately
	coughing and tearing.  I can't say if my reaction was worse
	because I have (a mild case of) asthma, or not.  The sprayer
	was not affected.  Maybe I should experiment being a sprayer
	on a windy day  (it was windy outside that day as well!).
	
	OK, who would like to be sprayed ??? ;-)  
	D!, was that _you_ with your hand raised? ;-]

	Sharon, it sounds like you have more than a mild case
	of asthma, and if I were you I would steer clear of any type
	of chemical aerosol deterrents. (but I'll let you know what
	I hear if it contradicts anything I've said above)

	Perhaps a mixture of lead and tin would be better for you, 
	Sharon ;-).  In that case, see you at my firearms safety 
	course I'm teaching on Sat June 15 !!
	
						nancy b.
	

    I just read a really good piece in the Utne Reader (the May/June
    issue, which has "The Politics of Masculinity" as its primary forcus)
    about a woman gun owner called "A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She
    Carries a Gun". It really swayed my position on guns --- particularly
    because the author lives in western South Dakota. I associate the need
    to carry weapons with large urban areas, not isolated ranches.
    
    If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to send them a copy, or I'll
    post it in here.
    
    	june

post it, I'm interested

A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries A Gun

Linda M. Hasselstrom 

I am a peace-loving woman. But several events in the past 10 years have
convinced me I'm safer when I carry a pistol. This was a personal decision,
but because handgun possession is a controversial subject, perhaps my
reasoning will interest others.

I live in western South Dakota on a ranch 25 miles from the nearest large
town; for several years I spent winters alone here. As a free-lance writer, 
I travel alone a lot---more than 100,000 miles by car in the last four 
years. With women freer than ever before to travel alone, the odds of our 
encountering trouble seem to have risen. And help, in the West, can
be hours away. Distances are great, roads are deserted, and the terrain
is often too exposed to offer hiding places.

A woman who travels alone is advised, usually by men, to protect herself by 
avoiding bars and other "dangerous situations" by approaching her car like 
an Indian scout, by locking doors and windows. But these precautions aren't
always enough. I spent years following them and still found myself in
dangerous situations. I began to resent the idea that just because I am
female, I have to be extra careful.

A few years ago, with another woman, I camped for several weeks in the 
West. We discussed self-defense, but neither of us had taken a course in 
it. She was against firearms, and local police told us Mace was illegal. So we 
armed ourselves with spray cans of deoderant tucked into our sleeping bags.
We never used our improvised Mace because we were lucky enough to camp
beside people who came to our aid when men harassed us. But on one occasion
we visited a national park where our assigned space was less than 15 feet 
from other campers. When we returned from a walk, we found our closest 
neighbors were two young men. As we gathered our cooking gear, they drank 
beer and loudly discussed what they would do to us after dark. nearby 
campers, even families, ignored them; rangers strolled past, unconcerned. 
When we asked the rangers point-blank if they would protect us, one of them
patted my shoulder and said, "Don't worry, girls. They're just kidding."
At dusk we drove out of the park and hid our camp in the woods a few miles
away. The illegal spot was lovely, but our enjoyment of that park was 
ruined. I returned from the trip determined to reconsider the options available
for protecting myself.

At that time, I lived alone on the ranch and taught night classes in 
town. Along a city street I often traveled, a woman had a flat tire, called 
for help on her CB radio, and got a rapist who left her beaten. She was 
afraid to call for help again and stayed in her car until morning.
For that reason, as well as because CBs work best along line-of-sight,
which wouldn't help much in the rolling hills where I live, I ruled out a 
CB.

As I drove home one night, a car followed me. It passed me on a narrow 
bridge while a passenger flashed a blinding spotlight in my face. I braked
sharply. The car stopped, angled across the bridge, and four men jumped 
out. I realized the locked doors were useless if they broke the windows
of my pickup. I started forward, hoping to knock their car aside
so I could pass. Just then another car appeared, and the men got hastily 
back in their car. They continued to follow me, passing and repassing.
I dared not go home because no one else was there. I passed no lighted 
houses. Finally they pulled over to the roadside and I decided to use their 
tactic: fear. Speeding, the horn blaring, I swerved as close to them as I 
dared as I roared past. It worked: they turned off the highway. But I was 
frightened and angry. Even in my vehicle I was too vulnerable.

Other incidents occurred over the years. One day I glanced at a field 
below my house and saw a man with a shotgun walking toward a pond full 
of ducks. I drove down and explained that the land was posted. I politely
asked him to leave. He stared at me, and the muzzle of the shotgun began to 
rise. In a moment of utter clarity I realized that I was alone on the 
ranch, and that he could shoot me and simply drive away. The moment passed; 
the man left.

One night, I returned home from teaching a class to find deep tire ruts
in the wet ground of my yard, garbage in the driveway, and a large gas
tank empty. A light shone in the house; I couldn't remember leaving it on. 
I was too embarrassed to drive to a neighboring ranch and wake someone up. 
An hour of cautious exploration convinced me the house was safe, but once 
inside, even with the doors locked, I was still afraid. I kept thinking of
how vulnerable I felt, prowling around my own house in the dark.

My first positive step was to take a kung fu class, which teaches evasive 
or protective action when someone enters your space without permission.
I learned to move confidently, scanning for possible attackers. I learned 
how to assess danger and techniques for avoiding it without combat.

I also learned that one must practice several hours every day to be good at 
kung fu. By that time I had married George; when I practiced with him, I 
learned how *close* you must be to your attacker to use martial arts, and 
decided a 120-pound woman dare not let a six-foot, 220-pound attacker get 
that close unless she is very, very good at self-defense. I have since read 
articles by several woman who were extremely well trained in the 
martial arts, but were raped and beaten anyway.

I thought back over the times in my life when I had been attacked or 
threatened and tried to be realistic about my own behavior, searching for
anything that had allowed me to become a victim. Overall, I was convinced
that I had not been at fault. I don't believe myself to be either paranoid
or a risk-taker, but I wanted more protection.

With some reluctance I decided to try carrying a pistol. George had always
carried one, despite his size and training in martial arts. I practiced
shooting until I was sure I could hit an attacker who moved close enough to
endanger me. Then I bought a license from the county sheriff, making it 
legal for me to carry the gun concealed.

But I was not yet ready to defend myself. George taught me that the most 
important preparation was mental: convincing myself I could actually
*shoot a person*. Few of us wish to hurt or kill another human being. But
there is no point in having a gun---in fact, gun possession might increase
your danger---unless you know you can use it. I got in the habit of 
rehearsing, as I drove or walked, the precise conditions that would be 
required before I would shoot someone.

People who have not grown up with the idea that they are capable of
protecting themselves---in other words, most women---might have to work
hard to convince themselves of their ability, and of the necessity.
Handgun ownership need not turn us into gunslingers, but it can be part of
believing in, and relying on, *ourselves* for protection.

To be useful, a pistol has to be available. In my car, it's within instant 
reach. When I enter a deserted rest stop at night, it's in my purse, with 
my hand on the grip. When I walk from a dark parking lot into a motel, it's 
in my hand, under a coat. At home, it's on the headboard. In short, I take 
it with me almost everywhere I go alone.

Just carrying a pistol is not protection; avoidance is still the best 
approach to trouble. Subconsciously watching for signs of danger, I
believe I've become more alert. Handgun use, not unlike driving, becomes
instinctive. Each time I've drawn my gun---I have never fired it at another
human being---I've simply found it in my hand.

I was driving the half-mile to the highway mailbox one day when I saw a 
vehicle parked about mdiway down the road. Several men were standing in the
ditch, relieving themselves. I have no objection to emergency urination,
but I noticed they'd dumped several dozen beer cans in the road. Besides 
being ugly, cans can slash a cow's feet or stomach.

The men noticed me before they finished and made quite a performance of
zipping their trousers while walking toward me. All four of them gathered
around my small foreign car, and one of them demanded what the hell I wanted.

"This is private land. I'd appreciate it if you'd pick up the beer cans."

"What beer cans?" said the beliigerent one, putting both hands on the car 
door and leaning in my window. His face was inches from mine, and the beer 
fumes were strong. The others laughed. One tried the passenger door, 
locked; another put his foot on the hood and rocked the car. They circled, 
lightly thumping the roof, discussing my
good fortune in meeting them and the benefits they were likely to bestow 
upon me. I felt very small and very trapped and they knew it.

"The ones you just threw out, " I said politely.

"I don't see no beer cans. Why don't you get out here and show them to me, 
honey?" said the belligerent one, reaching for the handle inside my door.
"Right over there, I said, still being polite, "---there, and over there."
I pointed with the pistol, which I'd slipped under my thigh. Within one 
minute, the cans and the men were back in the car and headed down the road.

I believe this incident illustrates several important principles. The men
were trespassing and knew it; their judgment may have been impaired by 
alcohol. Their response to the polite request of a woman alone was to use 
their size, numbers, and sex to inspire fear. The pistol was a response in 
the same language. Politeness didn't work; I couldn't match them in size or
number. Out of the car, I'd have been more vulnerable. The pistol just 
changed the balance of power. It worked again recently when I was driving in a
desolate part of Wyoming. A man played cat-and-mouse with me for 30 miles,
ultimately trying to run me off the road. When his car passed mine with 
only two inches to spare, I showed him my pistol, and he disappeared.

When I got my pistol, I told my husband, revising the old Colt slogan,
"God made men *and women*, but Sam Colt made them equal." Recently I have 
seen a gunmaker's ad with a similar sentiment. Perhaps this is an idea
whose time has come, though the pacifist inside me will be saddened if the 
only way woman can acheieve equality is by carrying weapons.

We must treat a firearm's power with caution. "Power tends to corrupt,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " as a man (Lord Acton) once said.
A pistol is not the only way to avoid being raped or
muirdered in today's world, but, intelligently wielded, it can shift the
balance of power and provide a measure of safety.

.48, thanks for posting that.  It also gives much of the flavor of the reasons
I cannot be a pacifist...  There are some men who will not heed politeness or
reason from a woman, just as there are some people who will not heed politeness
or reason from any other person.  In those cases, stronger persuasion is
justified.

Sara

        June, thanks for entering that!  There was a sidebar on the first
        page of the aritcle as well.  I particularly liked the last
        sentence...


        Most women who spend any time living or travelling alone 
        know the fear and anger of being threatened by a man and
        being powerless to stop it.  South Dakota rancher and 
        writer Linda Hasselstrom spend 15 years agonizing over her
        decision to carry a gun.  She has wielded the gun only
        as a last resort, and has never shot at a person, but she's
        convinced that what she's doing is right.  You may find her 
        argument surprisingly persuasive.  Even women who reject the
        idea of toting a gun acknowledge the unfortunate need to 
        protect themselves.  Avoiding bad situations is always the 
        first choice, but if you still find yourself being threatened,
        what are your options?  _Community Safety Quarterly_ provides
        a no-nonsense self-defense guide. 

        May you never have to use it.

    
    	Sharon, the manufacturer of CAP-STUN says they conducted
    	studies on people with respiratory and heart problems,
    	and they found the effects on them to be no worse (and
    	no better) than the effects on a person without those
    	conditions.  
    
    	Are you allergic to peppers in particular?  Perhaps that
    	is the situation where you could be more susceptible to it.
    
    							nancy b.
    

    
    	A woman from S. New-Hampshire contacted me about taking
    	the CAP-STUN course.  I called the NH State Police to find
    	out what licensing is required there for Mace, Cap-Stun, etc., 
    	and _in New Hampshire_, you do not need a permit to carry it.
    
    	However, I then called the Massachusetts Commisssioner of 
    	Public Safety to ask what type of licensing a NH resident would
    	need that wanted to take our course.  The answer:  an out-of-state
    	License to Carry Firearms, which takes 9-11 weeks (at least he
    	said) to receive.  Which makes taking our course impossible for
    	a NH resident.  
    
    	To put all this in perspective, however, in California, it is a
    	felony to carry, own, or use CAP-STUN.  How progressive.
    
    						nancy b.
    

    Interesting.  Is this sort of "patchwork" legality typical of firearm
    laws?  Does a "permit to carry firearms for self-defense" from your
    town, for example, cover you legally in other towns?  Other states?
    Obviously, automobile licensing is not a good parallel here.

    My questions about CAP-STUN were prompted by a gift I received several
    years ago from my aunt and uncle: a can of mace.  It was the same color
    as one of my inhalers, and only slightly larger.

        Sharon

    re.53 Yes, the patchwork is even worse in the case of handguns. In
    some states it's easy for the out-of-town or out-of-state person.
    In others very difficult. (In NYC it doesn't matter who issued your
    permit, if it isn't NYC it isn't valid.)
    
    Your can of mace may be legal in your state and get you in deep doodoo
    if you carry it somewhere else. (Then again, you might already be
    a criminal. Welcome to the wonderful world of gun control. ;-)/2 )
    
    Dana

Dana, you make a good case for *national* gun control. :-)/2

Practically, what do these people think you're going to do?  Does the author
of the Utne reader article really have a suitcase full of permits in her
car for those long trips?  Let's say I live in a small New England town -
I'll pick Maynard, since everyone's heard of it - and have a permit to carry 
in Maynard.  Only.  Now, what are my chances of being attacked *in Maynard*?  
What happens when I desperately need to get something (milk, a prescription, 
a friend whose car has broken down, whatever) late at night... 2 towns away?

Perhaps Linda Hasselstrom should write another article: "A law-abiding
woman explains how she carries a gun legally" :-)/2  (Or is that the point?)

    Sharon

    re.55  A lot (*lot*) of people simply carry illegally under the old 
    adage, "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

         sharon asks in .55...

>>What happens when I desperately need to get something (milk, a prescription,
>>a friend whose car has broken down, whatever) late at night... 2 towns away?
         
         I suppose if you are unfortunate enuf to be in a situation
         where you use your gun to defend your life in the face of
         imminent, deadly force, and your permit isn't valid in the
         jurisdiction, then you pray that the prosecuting attorney
         won't crucify you too much.
         
         Nancy

I dunno, but in an age where a rapist whose conviction is overturned can
turn around and sue a victim for slander and defamation of character, that
thought gives me small comfort.

I wasn't thinking as much of a case where there is *obvious* imminent,
deadly force, but a case more like one of those described in the Utne
reader article: the men trying to run her car off the road, for example,
or the instance with the beer cans.  If a member of the police force 
happened to be watching from a distance, it might appear to him that the 
first sign of trouble was you drawing the gun, at which point I would 
assume that you would be far more likely to be arrested than those 
threatening you would be.

You could also be in trouble without ever needing to use the gun, even as
a threat - if, for example, a policeman behind you in the checkout line
sees it in your purse, and knows full well that in his jurisdiction they
"don't give permits to broads" (to use a choice line quoted by nancy b.)

	Sharon

         RE:  .58....
>>If a member of the police force
>>happened to be watching from a distance, it might appear to him that the
>>first sign of trouble was you drawing the gun, at which point I would
>>assume that you would be far more likely to be arrested than those
>>threatening you would be.
         
         You're right.  You probably will be arrested.  The outcome of
         your case will depend a great deal on your behaviour and the
         attitude and disposition of involved authorities.  
         
         Carrying a gun is always serious business, and in places
         where your permit isn't recognized, it's illegal too.  If
         someone spots my gun then I have been careless.  One of the
         cardinal rules is to nevernevernever show your gun unless you
         intend to.  Concealment is a high priority!  If you keep a
         gun in a purse then it is absolutely imperative that the gun
         not be visible when the purse is open.
         
         Nancy

Actually Sharon, it is more on a state by state rather than town by town 
basis.
In MA your permit to carry is good anywhere in the state, except state and
federal buildings(post office etc) (oh yeah, and hyannis mass). most states
work the same way. in some states there is no restriction to un-concealed
carry or even in a few midwestern statyes to concealed carry. possibly the
author of the UTNE(?) article traveled where it was legal. *OR* as some of us 
have done, we have non-resident permits in those states we visit regularly,
the hassle is small compared with the hassle of being "caught" without
the gun if needed. Most states wil issue non-res p[ermits if you have
the proper ones from your own state.
and as .-1 says concealement is very critical. you don't even tell your 
friends whether you are or are not carrying. there are reasons too long to
go into here but in general *you never tell*...

Amos

re: .53 (Sharon Walker)

> Is this sort of "patchwork" legality typical of firearm laws?  

	As my mother would say with a southern drawl,

	"Is a pig's ass pork?"    ;-)

> Does a "permit to carry firearms for self-defense" from your
> town, for example, cover you legally in other towns?  

	Yes (exception of Hyannis).

> Other states?

	No... (it gets complicated; is there reciprocity, etc...)

> Obviously, automobile licensing is not a good parallel here.

	That is correct.

> Dana, you make a good case for *national* gun control. :-)/2

	I agree that a national system is needed. 

	(lest there be any doubt, the Brady Bill is *not* the answer;	
         it will do absolutely *nothing* to reduce crime;
	 __all__ further discussion on this goes to topic 83) 
	 
> Does the author of the Utne reader article really have a suitcase 
> full of permits in her car for those long trips?  

	;-).  

	I have been planning on getting a NH license to carry and a
	Maine license for a while but haven't.  I'd also like to get
	a FL license since I travel there frequently (yes, you can
	carry firearms in your hard-shell luggage with the ammo and
	firearms in separate hard-shell luggages.)

	I already have:

	-  a license to operate a moter vehicle
	-  a license to carry firearms for the purpose of protection 
	-  a firearms ID card to purchase ammo, long rifles, Cap-Stun

	I'm thinking about getting my social security number tatooed on
	my forehead to further facilitate my identification should a 
	national list of citizens be kept for the purpose of "gun control".

> Only.  Now, what are my chances of being attacked *in Maynard*?  

	Hmm.  Good question.  Towns surrounding Maynard have about 
	4 rapes per year, sometimes more.  The  number of assaults each
	year are probably less than 100.  (I'll try to find out exact
	numbers for you.)

						nancy b.

Actually, Nancy... before you go hitting the books, I asked about my
chances of being attacked *in Maynard* strictly as an example; i.e., what
are the chances that if I were attacked it would happen to be inside 
Maynard boundaries.  I could have chosen any small town anywhere in the
country; the point is that a permit to carry firearms for protection *in
Town X* is nearly useless unless "Town X" happens to be a major city, or
a community in which you spend a large portion of your time.  (In point of 
fact, I would assume that my chances of being attacked in Maynard are nearly 
infintessimal, since I spend maybe 8 hours a year there on average).

    Sharon

    There's going to be a seminar on Women's Self Defense at the Chelmsford
    Mall in Chelmsford, MA on Tuesday May 14th at 7:30 PM.  The lecturer is
    Mr. James Keenan.  Mr. Keenan is founder and head of the Martial Arts
    Research Institute, a Charter Member of the Conflict Management
    Institute, and former advisor in Self Defense for Women Against Rape in
    Santa Cruz, CA.  The seminar is free.
    
    If you'd like more information, you can send me an E-Mail message or
    call me at dtn 297-7492.
    
    
    			Regards,
    			Ron Matthews
    

	  Last Friday I entered the note earlier in topic 53
	  about AWARE potentially offering a basic defensive tactics
	  course using pressure points.  Well, talk about coincidences
	  of unusual size (hi Jody ;-), the instructor I was in communi-
	  cation with earlier called me up last Friday night.

	  He had an officer cancel a place in one of his advanced 
	  Defensive Tactics courses, and wanted to know if I was 
	  interested in taking his place.  I decided to do it.

          I'm glad I did.  Before the course started I began to wonder what
          the h*ll I had gotten myself into ;-).  I mean, I haven't taken
          Model Mugging because I don't think I would deal very well with
          someone (their mugger) actually attacking me.  But then someone
          walked over to me and said he read the article I wrote for
          Guns&Ammo magazine (August issue, page 20), and he really liked
          it, etc...  So talking with him helped get my mind off what I was
          about to do.

          Half the course (3 tactics) was relevant to me, consisting of
          simple maneuvers I would realistically find useful to know.  The
          other half of the day was spent on 3 other tactics that were more
          oriented for a 2 police officer situation.  I doubt I would ever
          need or choose to implement those maneuvers.

          The general concept on the first 3 tactics was to get the
          attacker off balance through the use of pressure points, then
          deliver a debilitating blow of some type, then (for civilians)
          leave.

          The trainer kept stressing that these techniques are NO
          replacement for your gun or any other tool (like the P24 baton,
          etc.), but could be used when you don't have other defense tools.

          One general point he made that I found interesting was the
          importance of creating distance between you and the person who is
          threatening you. If the attacker is within an arms length of you,
          their _action_ will almost *always* beat your _reaction_.   Put
          the attacker at a distance of one arm's length (their arm's
          length, not yours) + 1 hand length, and you have a much better
          chance of stopping.  He demonstrated this by having us hold up
          our hands facing each other in front of our chest.  Your partner
          would then try to plunk your sternum at a distance of 1 arm's
          length.  If you could slap your hands together on his hand before
          it gets to your sternum, you win.  Adding an extra hand's length
          did make a big difference.  One comment he made was that even
	  though women's reflexes are somewhat faster than men's, at 1 
	  arm's length it's not enough to stop an action.

          An example he gave of creating distance was to walk backwards in
          short steps while telling the person to get back, and holding up
          both hands palm out (read: stop).  He said that once the
          threatening person advances on you after you've created extra
          distance, they've committed assault (you now have a justified
          fear of touch) and you are now justified in taking appropriate
	  defensive measures.

          The scenario I got a kick out of was the trainer's "Hi, I'm
          William Kennedy Smith" imitation where he's charming at first,
          then he gets a little more "assertive."

          During the 2'nd half of the day (the part more geared for police
          officrs), he emphasized the need to be very careful in a "3'rd
          party rescue" situation where 2 people are fighting and you're
          supposed to break it up.  He described psychology of the
          situation:  the 2 people who were fighting against each other now
          bond against _you_, the common enemy.  Also, it's easy to be
          wrong about who's the innocent and who's the attacker.

          And although the trainer instructs a variety of without-gun (only)
          defensive courses, he was the first to admit he carries a gun
          for self-defense.  I think that says something.

          Good things about the course:  I liked how, when I did something
          wrong, he didn't tell me what I was doing wrong, he *showed* me
          why it was wrong.  He didn't describe techniques; he explained
          concepts, then had us learn by doing.  We were able to deliver
          some full-force blows because he used one of the portable foam
          training cushions.  A lot of repetition was involved - it took
          over 3.5 hours to learn and practice 3 simple maneuvers.  He said
          it takes 3000-5000 repetitions before you really have muscle
          memory.  There was also some verbal abuse (which was tough to
          take.)  Also, this was the second time my "throwing partner" in
          the course had taken it, and he gave me other tips and offered a
          lot of resistance to me to make it more realistic.

          I didn't enjoy actually being thrown around; I didn't like being
          used as the 1'st police officer on the ground with someone on top
          of me holding my wrists while the 2'nd police officer rescues me
          (but I didn't get as weirded out by is as I thought I might), and
          I especially didn't like being picked up.  I really HATE being
          picked up.

          Would what I learned at this Advanced Defensive Tactics course
          prevented what happened to me?   No.

          They would be useful maneuvers to know, however, to prevent a
          low-level threat situation from escalating into a high one.  For
          instance, where someone is trying to physically intimidate or
          hassle me.    I wonder if the techniques  would work on one of
          the guys I play basketball with who is prone to unecessary
          roughness (just kidding! ;-).

                                                  nancy b.

    Does anyone out there from the UK know anything about any similar
    programs to this AWARE thing?
    
    Alice T.

>       <<< Note 56.65 by RDGENG::LIBRARY "A wild and an untamed thing" >>>
>                                    -< UK >-

>    Does anyone out there from the UK know anything about any similar
>    programs to this AWARE thing?
    
>    Alice T.

Sorry but the U.K. has determined that the life of the criminal/attacker is
more important than yours. There is no right to self-defense in the same
sense as there is in the U.S.
use of a weapon, any weapon, will get you jailed.
possesion and carrying of even a 2" folding pocket knife is considered worthy 
of jail time, despite the fact that it is a handy tool it is considered an
"offensive weapon". mace is illegal, guns are illegal. 

Amos

    I realise weapons are illegal over here, and frankly, I agree with
    that.
    
    I (mis)understood from the earlier replies that AWARE was more to do
    with avoiding such situations, rather than attacking the attacker.
    
    I do not regard the use of weapons as self-defense. I do not regard
    attack as a form of defense.
    
    I would rather have a shield than a sword.
    
    I regard the use of violence against an attacker as counter-productive.
    
    Alice T.

    I don't believe sarcasm is called for in such a serious note. I for one
    was being serious in .67.
    
    Alice T.

 You're right. The seriousness of the reply was probably lost because of how
I said it. Sorry.

    re.67
    -< Viilantes should not do the police's work >-
    
    Our American tradition of 'self reliance' tends to cause us to
    think that we are responsible for our own lives.
    
    >I do not regard the use of weapons as self-defense. 
    
    Use of weapons may be offensive or defensive. Type of weapon is
    irrelevant. (Nuclear weapons probably excepted.) The failure to
    differentiate between offense and defense is (IMO) a moral and
    ethical error at best, and I personally believe it to be a
    symptom of something worse. That, however, is a subject for the
    philosophy conference.
    
    >I would rather have a sheild than a sword.
    
    Alice, in the states we hava a saying the a good offense beats
    a good defense any day.
    
    Hypothetical situation - a large, strong male decides to rape you.
    You don't have a gun. You don't have a knife. You don't have a
    can of Mace or a Tazer. Just what sort of a 'sheild' do you propose 
    to use to stop somebody like that? 
    
    Dana
    

>    Hypothetical situation - a large, strong male decides to rape you.
>    You don't have a gun. You don't have a knife. You don't have a
>    can of Mace or a Tazer. Just what sort of a 'sheild' do you propose 
>    to use to stop somebody like that? 
 
	I presume by now he's trying to rape me, or I wouldn't know he was just
	a bloke on his way to wherever.
	I would suggest screaming, shouting and whatever (if he had hold of
	me and I han't escaped)
	if I had a weapon, he would have probably taken it off me and used it
	against me.


	There are different self-defence type courses held in the UK, phone 
	your local county/district council, or try some on the leisure
	centres.
	Also, the citizens advice bureaux, or the crime prevention section of
	the local police might be able to help.   

	Or, find a local policewoman and have a chat, they find themselves, 
	unarmed, up against strong men in nasty situations, and are trained
	to handle this.

	Heather

    The ideal shield I would hope for is an efficient, sufficient local
    police force.
    
    Re .73:
    
    What sort of things did she say?
    
    PS I have since obtained a copy of the local evening classes
    prospectus, and women's self-defense is included. But I like the idea
    of talking to the police about it - as a result of your reply, I intend
    to phone them for suggestions. I've only been here seven weeks - but do
    you know, I still don't know where my local police station is! (I know:
    that's no excuse!)
    
    Alice T.

    a) unarmed self-defense, to be effective, depends on muscle,
    practice, and experience. It takes a lot of boring repetition
    to truly master even basic techniques. Most people simply
    don't/won't pay the price.
    b) the average assailant in this case is larger and stronger
    than the average victim
    c) the average assailant probably has as much or more experience
    with unarmed fighting as the victim (plus the aforementioned size
    and strength difference.)
    
    In short, karate, etc. are impractical for most women, and indeed,
    most people. 
    
    The best defense is a weapon which neutralizes the differences.
    

    re last
    
    I agree entirely.
    
    I am a young man, above average build and usually able to look after
    myself. But, on my 21st birthday party, I was a bit worse the wear
    for drink and some yob decides I've spilt his beer. The next thing I  
    can remember I'm in the local casualty dept. having 8 stitches sewn
    up, a broken nose fixed and some severe bruising treated. Not exactly
    the way I planned things.
    
    The point I am making is nowadays, no matter how big and tough you 
    are, or how good at self defense you are, there is always someone
    who will be able to overpower you. 
    
    I'm all for another method such as spraying CS gas in the attackers eyes.
    
    I can guarantee that will stop anyone not wearing a gas mask. I just
    wish it was legal to buy here (UK) as it is in the rest if Europe.
    Trouble is, if it were all the yobs/potential attackers would buy it.
    
    Jerome

    Does another spray work, like deodorant, flykiller, or perfume?
    
    Alice T.

    Any other spray would do the job, apparently hairspray would do the job
    *very* well.
    CS is better known as teargas and indeed posession is illegal in most
    European countries.
    
    Charles Mallo

    I don't know what CS stands for, its an abreviation of the name of
    the chemical (methinks).
    
    Another type of spray would probably work but it may only irritate
    the attacker and make him more angry. Try advertising in MENNOTES
    for volunteers to be guinea pigs to find the best type of spray #-)
    
    CS gas would almost certainly work because it temporarily blinds 
    the attacker as well as being very painful to the eyes. It also stings 
    the skin and makes your lungs feel as though they are on fire. This will
    almost certainly disable your attacker for more than enough time to get
    away, and with any luck for long enough for the Bill to arrive.
    
    
    Jerome.
    
    
    PS - In case anyone is wondering how I know what its like, I'm in
         the T.A. (Territorial Army) and CS gas is used in training to
    gives troops an appreciation of the importance of donning ones gas
    mask quickly. Five seconds in a CS gas filled room without protection
    is MORE than enough !!!
             

    While CS is very effective, it may become effective on the user of
    it as well, e.g. in closed rooms, depending on the wind direction
    and speed.
    
    It is sold in various sizes, beware that the tiny ones (aka. lady-size)
    do not hold enough gas ... if the first dose does not disable
    the attacker at once.      

Teargas is very ineffective if the person is on some drugs, such as alcohol,
PCP, crack, etc.  Sometimes even simply adrenalin (spelling).  They simply don't
notice it.

Teargas' effectiveness is grossly overrated and has acheived the status of an
urban legend...

                         Roak

Ps. One of the activities that reinforce teargas' undeserved reputation is the
"gas chamber" at boot camp.  Of course if you sit there thinking about it,
dreading it, and worrying about it, it will effect you when you take your
mask off!

>Teargas' effectiveness is grossly overrated and has acheived the status of an
>urban legend...

	It's also illeagal for ordinary people to carry this in the UK
	
	Heather

Oh, I dunno... Tam and I got some respect for Mace when we were doing
some housecleaning... in the bottom of a box we found her can of Mace
from her college days.  Pointed it away from us and gave a quick spritz
(less than a second) to verify that it still worked.  A couple of minutes
later, as the dispersing (now invisible) cloud got to where we were
puttering, we started tearing and coughing like mad.  We had to get
out of that room FAST, and it was about fifteen minutes before we could
breathe well enough to resume work...

Of course, THIS particular can of Mace came from a friend who lives in
NYC... maybe they sell the turbo version there? 8-) 8-) 8-)

--jim

Re: <<< Note 56.83 by KVETCH::paradis "Music, Sex, and Cookies" >>>

I'm not surprised at its effectiveness on you; but its effect is somewhat, if
not completely dulled on an adernalin-laden (perhaps other drug-laden) attacker
who is out to beat, rob or rape someone...

                          Roak

At the very most, it's not an instant stopper; someone sprayed can still close
the distance and cause you bodily harm...

    
    My fear is that any weapon can be taken from you and used against you.
    If women decide to use weapons (guns, mace, etc), then I think they
    must be trained and well practiced in their use -- since the person
    you'll be up against is probably quite skilled at fighting and by
    attacking you has demonstrated his willingness to be violent.
    I'd rather use my voice, body, and wits to defend myself - because I
    know how to use those pretty well.
    
    Justine

    re : alleged ineffectiveness of CS gas.
    
    I find the suggestion that CS gas is ineffective on someone 'high'
    on adrenalin - in my experience - frankly laughable.
    
    I have been on TA training exercises where I have been 'high' on
    adrenalin and have charged into a house (on a training area) and
    unexpectantly come across CS gas. It is, I can assure you, very
    unpleasant and debilitating. All I want to do is get away from the
    source of the gas. It is the same in the open air. One gulp of CS 
    or ANY in the eyes and I'm choking and wiping my eyes furiously.
    
    If a man is so high on drugs/adrenalin that CS gas doesn't work
    then you could probably shoot him several times without effect.
    
    Also, no matter how high, an attacker will be blinded. This alone 
    should allow the intended victim to escape. I don't accept that
    an attacker will not be affected or not even notice it.
    
    Are there two types of teargas, one for the military/Police and
    one for the public (where it is legal).
    
    I also agree with a note back there that the intended victim be 
    VERY careful when preparing to spray CS. If the attacker gets the
    gas off you he may become more annoyed even if you haven't used it.
    Let alone that he may use it on you.
    
    Jerome.
    
    
    PS.  The point may or may not have been made, but I'll repeat it
         anyway. The effects of CS are temporary so there is no 
         permanent damage. This is why it is so popular with Police
         for crowd control.

    Jerome,
    
    The effects of teargas are indeed temporary. The effects of CS (which
    is a combination of ordinary teargas and some kind "nervegas") take
    longer to wear off and are much more "violent".
    This is the reason why Dutch police is not allowed to use CS.
    A few years ago some idiot sprayed CS in a disco and several people had
    to be hospitalised, some in critical condition.
    
    Charles Mallo

    re.85 about having a weapon taken away
    
    One of the most important things one learns in any form of
    'martial art' (gawd I hate that term) is a deeper awareness of 
    one's immediate surroundings. A black belt in kung-fu or a 
    38 special are worth _zero_ if your attacker gets the drop on you.
    This does not mean you have to walk around paranoid, it means
    you don't sleepwalk, you don't 'let yourself go 100%' except
    in situations which are known to be secure. (Like a =wn= party
    for instance ;-) ) If nothing else, this should be a given anyway.
    
    This awareness is what keeps someone unknown/untrusted from getting 
    close enough to take your gun in a dark alley, or close enough to 
    'sucker punch' you.
    
    Dana

Re: teargas not being an effective stopper

It's true.  A drugged-up or even adrenalin-loaded attacker can resist
the effects.  The U/S Army learned just how effectively some people can
resist weapons used on them during the Spanish-American War, in which
several incidents occurred wherein drugged-up Moros charged entrenched
positions and, even having been shot in the torso six times at point-
blank range with the then-standard .38-cal. revolver, kept right on
coming.

It was after the Spanish-American War that the U.S. Army went looking
for a better sidearm and came up with the Colt M1911 .45 pistol.

Do not rely on any weapon you have.  Use the best thing you can use, but
be prepared to augment its effect if needed!

-d

Re: <<< Note 56.89 by SMURF::CALIPH::binder "Sine titulo" >>>

>>                                    Use the best thing you can use, but
>>be prepared to augment its effect if needed!

Good statement to bring up something that we've danced around in this note, and
should put down in black-and-white:

The best thing you can use is your brain to stay out of trouble in the first
place...

                             Roak

        Following is a USENET post relevant to this topic...

        The post has the subject:
            "Idiotic self defense as taught in books"
        and was preceeded by other posts detailing the at
        best humorous and at worst dangerous self-defense advice 
        that is fed to women in books.

        Some of the language in the first half of the post 
        was offputting to me, and some of the acronyms were
        not immediately clear.  I believe these are:
                MA = martial arts   (not Massachusetts! ;-)
                R.M-A = the newsgroup rec.martial-arts
                echo  = the name of his dog

        But some interesting points are raised...

                                                nancy b.


Subject:    Re: Idiotic self defense as taught in books
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.women,rec.martial-arts

Oh gosh, such a dificult and important issue :-(
I am writing from rec.marital-arts BTW, I don't read those
other lists, but will allow this response to filter there.

First, I bought a book titled Women's Self Defense, from England,
I will try to get the ISDN, but I suspect it is out of print since
I got it on the cheap from Hamilton Booksellers.  It was such a
good book, I bought another copy.  Despite the fact the forward
claims the techniques are mostly based on Hapkido, the book presents
mostly Judo techniques.  We use the book as a primary reference for
our demonstration team.  Many of the techniques are quite excellent.
The photography is the best how-to-do-MA I have ever seen.  There
are even 2 pictures that tell you when to give up, a strong male
attacker in a good target stance with a handgun and another with
a knife.  The majority of the techniques are not idiotic.

>I don't live in fear, and I don't think any woman should either.

This was the subject of an earlier R.M-A thread.  I wear a white
hat, I am a good guy.  When I walk my MA dog at night, women clearly
fear me.  Worse, they show their fear.  You advocate guns for women.
My family owns guns, including handguns, my wife is the primary user
of the handguns, sometimes she "packs".  Several of us on the R.M-A
list have  female SOs that are "trained" in one or more martial arts.
Some of the highest quality contributers on the list are female.  My
wife is probably among the most formidable of that group.  She stands
6' 4" tall.  She lifts weights.  When she is in top form she can
military press slightly more weight than I can.  Though she is becoming
more administrator year by year her roots are teaching Emotionally
Disturbed (ED) teenagers including institutionalized ED teenagers.
She can take you down almost as fast as a Silat practictioner (Hey
Khan).  She routinely carries a sheath knife you can shave with,
capscium spray, kubotan, and as I said sometimes a S&W .357.
She is AFRAID to walk echo at night.  She will do it, but she is
careful to stay where there are street lights, alert all the time.
She is afraid because she knows EXACTLY what disturbed individuals
are capable of, the incredible strength that a disturbed person can
possess, the incredible pain they are capable of withstanding.
This is why we got echo, his mission in life is to tip the scales,
to buy my wife (hopefully) enough time to do what needs to be done.
Echo is coming along well in his training, but he isn't really protection
capable yet.

The point is, if my wife isn't certain she can defend herself from
just one nut on the street at night, what women can be?

What about us men?  In fact what about MA men?  Hey, no problem, I won
the heavyweight division at the wazoo state championship 2 years ago and
took first at the flimflam tourney this year.  BLAH BLAH.

     Maybe there is a problem.

First off this list has just about convinced my that my tourney skills
poor as they are won't buy me much "on the street".  Not just that, but
I don't carry the aresenal my wife does, and I am but half as alert.

     My only saving grace is that less of the population considers
     me prey.

This is the only real reason I don't need to live in fear.  Very few
people want to rape a big man with a bigger nose.  I'm not gay so it
is harder to lure me into an apartment to cut chunks off my body.
I'm a country boy, so I don't tend to be in big cities where gang like
creatures will rob or whatever me.  So I have the marvelous privilege
of stumbling through life doing a form of aerobics I call martial arts,
doing all my "fighting" wearing pads.  So of course I am fat dumb happy.

     What about women?

I'm close to giving up on this issue.  I've talked about our school's
Sat. afternoon women's self defense.  $5.00 buys a private or semi private
hour or longer usually personally taught by the master.  We advertise in
the paper.  No one comes.  After some women gets raped or eaten by a dog
or wahtever one or two ladies trickle in for one or two classes.  We
haven't given up ... yet.  I have a hard time getting my wife to come in
and throw me around.

     Is it possible that females are somehow conditioned to be
     victims?  Or is it just that we are all easy prey, and they
     just happen to be the hunted?

===================================================================
   ** my dream: voice, video, data, 3 services, 1 network **
===================================================================

Stephen Northcutt (snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil)     News Admin

    
    	RE: .92  sdt
    
    	It may not be lack of support (for firearm safety and practice)
    	as much as a lack of interest and/or lack of knowing what to
    	say about it.
    
    	In my case, I am extremely interested in firearm safety *and*
    	practice (and intend to be involved in both of these in the
    	near future) - so I'm extremely interested in everything Nancy
    	and others have written about it.
    
    	However, I don't have much to say about this interest (since I'm
    	in a fledgling stage with it, even more fledgling than my skills
    	as an eager but inexperienced C programmer in my spare time) -
    	so it may seem like a lack of support, but it's really a matter
    	of being quiet about it.
    
    	"Quiet" isn't necessarily a lack of support, after all.

    
    re .92
    
    so what you are saying is that all replies have to pass ideological
    muster in order to be acceptable?
    
    what kind of discussion would that be, when all parties are in violent
    agreement?
    
    vladimir ilyich would most assuredly approve...
    

    Hi folks!  It tangent time again!  ;^)
    
    This is really a sport more than self-defense, but I was wondering
    if anyone could give me some pointers on archery.  I took a few
    classes a while back and love it.  Now I'm moving to an area with a
    big enough  back yard to put up a target and practice in ernest.
    
    Mods---move this if it's appropriate.
    
    
                                          L.J.

    L.J.,
    
    If you want to buy a good bow that's easier for a less well-muscled
    person to pull (if you are in fact less well-muscled than the average
    man who pulls a 60-pound bow), I suggest you look into a model called
    the Dynabo.  It uses a nautilus-shaped cam at each end so that the pull
    gets easier instead of harder as you draw it, but it throws arrows like
    fury when released.  Not cheap, but well worth the price if you're
    serious.
    
    -d

>    In this conference there is a problem in which people are NOT
>    particularly supportive of those whose beliefs and attitudes
>    differ from their own ...  and sometimes it seems a mystery!
>    
>    Why is it difficult for women to seek out training in use of
>    firearms?  Because most women are non-supportive of this sort
>    of activity.

	As this is in the self-defence topic, I assume you mean in relation
	to self defence 

	..........I don't seek it out as it would be useless to me in self 
	defence as I have no idea how to obtain a gun illeagally.
	It goes back to your initial paragrapgh, my beleifs, and the law
	in this country, don't believe in the use of firearms other than
	for sport.

	Heather

    re.98  and I say this as a friend,
    
    Steve, are you willfully deaf to what people are saying?  Nancy's is
    probably the strongest feminine voice of enthusiasm for shooting
    sports, but it hasn't been the only one.
    
    Am I pathetic just because I no longer wish to shoot?  because I gave
    up shooting when I felt it wasn't right for me?
    
    Does my not wanting to own or shoot a gun in any way deny _any_one the
    right to own and shoot one?  I don't think so.
    
    It seems that Nancy has received a good deal of support in her battle
    to own and carry a gun, as well as her efforts and work with AWARE,
    from numerous women here who do not choose to own or shoot guns.
    
    I will grant you that there have been, and are, those who are
    unalterably opposed to private gun ownership; but I wouldn't
    characterise that as the pervasive atmosphere and I would be surprised
    to find it a majority stance.  Over the years there have been some very
    heated words from both extremes on this issue.
    
    I, for one, am very, VERY tired of being characterised as someone who
    does not support your Consitutional Rights simply because I do not
    choose to own and carry a gun.  I don't _want_ one Steve.
    
    You seem a responsible person. I trust you to be a responsible gun
    owner.  But even if I didn't, it wouldn't alter your rights, would it?
    I don't think so.  Not any more that the fact that there are people I
    don't trust with children means they don't have the right to have them.
    
      Annie
    
    

    
    well, this heah isn't the "wild west", but rather 1991 Murica,
    and hopefully we have gotten beyond needing to be our own judge
    and jury. 
    
    sure, go ahead and blast away, just hope you get the right villain
    and oh by the way, better hope the other person gets the right 
    villain as well. may come as a suprise, that someone might might
    mistakke you fer a bad guy..
    
    i'd rather see people acting more civilized, 'specially towards the
    wymminfolk so's they won't have to feel need to pack heat and be ready 
    to fill strange myn fulla holes. 
    
    
    

    Simple enlightened self-interest there?
    
    						Ann B.

    Somehow, it doesn't seem that thwarting a violent assault properly
    equates with "be(ing) our own judge and jury."  Certainly, it would be
    nice if everyone were behaving in such a civilized manner that no one
    felt threatened.  Since this is not the case, acting as though it were
    - before the fact - only guarentees the aggressors that they will have
    a ready supply of abject victims.
    
    Having been in a few places where it was NORMAL for most folks to be
    armed, i find it interesting how much more "civilized" everyone tended
    to act in that environment.  Maybe politeness is a function of risk.
    
    As an aside, references to the "wild west" or "Dodge City" mentality,
    should be taken into context.  The worst year that old west Dodge City
    had (number of homicides per hundred thousand of population) would 
    hardly have rated an entry in a modern city's tabulation. 
         [dale]

> Shooting - and in particular the potential use of
>    handguns for self-defense - is an area most women approach with a sense
>    of real uneasyness.  How may this be dealt with here in =womannotes= if
>    not as an opportunity for women to go try and report back their results?

    !!!  Somehow, I don't think you're going to get a lot of volunteers
    for women to go out and rustle up rapists and murderers so they can
    shoot them in self-defense (and then report it in womannotes).  (Yes,
    I know this is not what you meant, but it's how I read it ;-)

    There seems to be a real need for potent non-letheal (sp?) weapons for
    both men and women.
    
    The one that I've seen that seems to be effective is a tear-gas like
    spray termed CapStun. It combines tear gas with caspium powder. Should
    be a real gas (as they say).
    
    I can't see the local political atmosphere allowing the use of letheal
    weapons (except in some limited cases).
    
    Another item is stun guns and batons. Some are indeed potent and can
    render any attacker helpless within a half second or so.
    
    Sadly, I don't see enough of the product. Some states even outlaw their
    use thinking that if anyone is going to use a defensive weapon, then it
    should be letheal.

    If anyone is going to use a weapon, it should be _effective_.
    A firearm is simply the 'ne plus ultra' in _effective_ defense
    methods. An ineffective weapon, or even an ineffective unarmed 
    defense, is worse than useless, and it will probably anger your 
    attacker. 
    
    The drawback of a firearm is that it may, in some situations,
    be _too_ effective. For instance, a cop who has to subdue
    a large, belligerent drunk. That's why s/he is issued a baton,
    teargas, etc. The cop is also trained to know _when_ to use
    each, and when to reach for something with more power. The
    average citizen probably doesn't know, or really need to.
    He or she deals in two extremes  - no threat, or deadly threat.
    The first requires no defense, the second requires a totally
    reliable one. Using a limited method in a deadly encounter is 
    like fighting for your life with one hand tied behind your 
    back. (I admit, I _don't_ understand the mindset that voluntarily
    accepts such restrictions. Self-defense is _not_ a sport.)
    
    Dana

    
    Dana, I disagree that there are only "no-threat" and
    "deadly-threat" situations.  There is a wide spectrum
    in between and the Model Mugging course (for one) deals
    with this.  And what to do/what works at each elevated
    level of threat.
    

    The other drawback to a firearm is accessibility, even if you're
    carrying it on your person.  It's hard to draw _anything_ if a
    much stronger person is pinning down your arms.

    "Effectiveness" of defense methods is not a linear scale.  A toolbox
    might be a better analogy: a screwdriver can be a stand-in for a
    hammer in certain circumstances (like tacks), but neither is a good
    substitute for wire-cutters.  Similarly, wire-cutters are no good
    when you need a screwdriver, and neither are going to be useful if
    the toolbox is locked.  If someone is pinning down your arms and 
    trying to rape you, the best tool for stopping the attack is not, at
    that point, a gun.

        Sharon

    re.107 Agreed. the best defense in that case is not letting anyone pin
    your arms! There is no substitute for awareness of your surroundings.

    You obviously have never had the experience of someone pinning down
    your arms anyway when you were doing your best not to let them.

    Saying "don't let anyone pin down your arms" is like saying "just say
    no to rape": sometimes it may work, but ultimately that requires the
    will of the person that's physically stronger.  It's naive to expect
    that your powers of persuasion are a universally effective self-defense
    mechanism, which is essentially what you're doing in this case if you
    can't count on your physical strength being superior.

    "Awareness of your surroundings" in this case could mean nothing more
    than realization that you are trapped, and that the other person is
    much stronger than you and just as determined.  That's not necessarily
    worth much.

    I meant this as an example of a situation where you'd want to know
    some model mugging techniques, even though this is a "high level of
    threat" situation.  You may be wary and armed, but neither will do
    you much good if you can't get enough distance to draw your gun and
    point it at your attacker.

        Sharon

    If he pins your arms, it's probably taking both of his arms to do that,
    and that's good -- you know where his hands are.  If he hasn't lifted 
    you up off the ground, you can probably stomp his instep, which is 
    painful and will cause him to loosen his grip; at which point you squirm 
    your way around and on the way, smash him in groin with your fist.  (Have 
    a good yell while you're at it; "NO!" is short and to the point and easy 
    to remember :-)  His head will automatically fall forward after a blow to 
    the groin; now you can grab it and hold it while you bring your knee up 
    for some solid contact with his face.

    If he's lifted you off the ground, he'll probably throw you there.  The 
    ground is your friend; once there, you can kick the shit out of him.
    
    Oops.  This isn't the model mugging note!  
    
    CQ

    
    re .110
    
    Maybe you can answer a question ... how do you "stomp an instep"? 
    Isn't that the part of the foot on the ground ?
    
    Puzzled
    Jamd

    
    
    Yes, it's the part of your foot where your arch is.  If you stomp
    down on top of someone's foot, so as to smash that part of the foot
    down to the ground, it hurts.  (Well, I've been told it does and I 
    believe it.)  If you stomp hard enough, I imagine you can break the
    foot.
    
    CQ  

    Thge part you want to hit [and the part I needed customized shoes for]
    is the top of the foot above the arch, though it does appear that the
    dictionary indicates the instep is on the bottom, I always thought it
    was above.
    
    ed

    re: .109
    
    Sharon,
    	I think you were missing Dana's point.  Situational awareness,
    isn't merely knowning that you are under attack while engaged.  It is
    recognizing that you are being stalked, or that attack is imminent
    before you have actually been touched.  If you don't know you are in
    danger until someone already has your arms pinned, you've failed.
    	[dale]

    No, I saw that.  It's just that I think it's overconfident to say
    "just don't let them pin your arms", and assume you'll always have
    a choice in the matter.

    Example: you are in an elevator at high noon with two other people, 
    a man in a three piece suit carrying a briefcase, and an elderly
    woman.  The elevator stops, and the other two get out.  You realize
    you don't want to be in the elevator alone, and move to leave.  The
    minute you step out of the elevator, a tall, muscled man leaps at
    you, knocking you to the floor of the elevator, and pinning your
    arms down.  The other two people are out of sight.

    Maybe your situational awareness is better than mine.  Assuming you
    had a gun on your person, at what point would you have reached for
    it in the above scenario?

         Sharon

    RE:.116
    
        Heck, didn't you know?  Everyone should carry their gun in their
    hand, loaded, with the safety off.  An armed society is a polite
    society!  ;^)
    
    
    
                                     L.J.

Re: <<< Note 56.116 by COBWEB::swalker "Gravity: it's the law" >>>

Sharon, a gun is not a panecea, I don't think anyone will argue that.



Neither is model mugging.

                              Roak

    
    
    Did anyone say anything about a panacea?
    
    CQ

Re: <<< Note 56.120 by GNUVAX::QUIRIY "Presto! Wrong hat." >>>

>>    Did anyone say anything about a panacea?

No, but Sharon kept pointing to a case where a firearm may not work, as if it
was the the one and only case by which the effectiveness of firearms should
be judged.

Hey, a firearm may not be able to be applied in all cases.  I'll admit it, but
it *is* the most applicable solution available, in my opinion (in locations
where the police don't assure the criminals unarmed victims, of course...)

                          Roak

Nope.  Actually, a firearm would work great in this case, but you have to
be able to get to it first.

Let's extend this example and say the elevator door is now closed.  If all
you're using is model mugging techniques, you're betting that you won't be
the one to get tired first.

    Sharon

    Advocating firearms is all very well in the states, but here in 
    the UK, their use is very restricted. Very few people are allowed to
    carry them each and every day. Even the (few)armed police have to sign
    their weapon out of the armoury and usually can't take it home with them.
    
    In fact, I have just been reading a notes discussion in the CARS_UK
    conference about the harsh (but not by British standards though) sentence
    of Bertrand Gachot the racing driver.  It seems that the possession
    alone of a weapon can get you a custodial sentence. If that weapon is
    then used, even in self defence, it also carries a more severe sentence. 
    Gachot received 6 months for possession of a CS gas can and 18 months for 
    actually using it in self defence. 
    
    It would seem here in the UK women cannot rely on any sort of weapon
    for self defence. This simply serves to give attackers an advantage - 
    they know that very few women will be armed with anything harmful.
    
    Jerome. 

    You're right, Jerome, the law in the UK is, in certain circumstances,
    an ass.  The same brush can be used to paint the law here in the USA,
    in some cases.
    
    -d

>    You're right, Jerome, the law in the UK is, in certain circumstances,
>    an ass.  The same brush can be used to paint the law here in the USA,
>    in some cases.
    
 
	I don't believe the law to be an ass, this law ensure that I don't
	have any weapon that anyone else can use against me, and also that
	many other people don't carry weapons.

	The people who decide to break the law and carry weapons will always be
	there, and it won't matter what I am allowed to carry or use when 
	confronted with these people. I am my best defence, and I wouldn't want
	to put extra weapons at my attackers disposal.

	Heather

    I agree with Heather. I get the feeling that if everyone were allowed
    weapons, the country would turn to anarchy.
    
    Alice T.

    re : last couple.
    
    I do not advocate the carrying of any weapon capable of inflicting
    lasting harm, and in this respect, I think the UK has good legislation.
    
    What I *do* agree with, is that the "weapons" such as CS gas and mace
    are allowed to be carried and *only* used in self defence. These gas 
    type weapons, I beleive, should also be registered and only available
    to those with a relevent licence. 
    
    If someone - licenced or not - then uses CS/mace to attack and not 
    to defend, then I think the full weight of the law should fall on 
    the offender. Even possession of an unlicenced can should also then 
    be heavily penalised. 
    
    The point raised that the attackers would also have access to these 
    weapons is probably true already. An attacker who is going to go 
    equiped to attack will either get hold of an illegal weapon or simply
    take the nearest, available weapon, such as a knife or screwdriver. I
    would rather be attacked with CS than with a knife ! 
    
    
    Jerome.

    Excuse me, reading this string made me realize some of my 
    unconscious assumptions. I'm male, rather large, and don't
    look like an easy mark. Not the sort one would physically
    attack in a less-than-deadly-serious manner. I assume that 
    anybody who starts with me is out to _really_ hurt me. So,
    _for me_ any attack is potentially deadly. My black-and-
    white statement is a useful simplification, but subjective,
    and I should not have offered it as an objective statement.
    
    As was correctly pointed out, it is useful to have a variety
    of options, to deal with various levels of threat.
    
    Dana

    To give another perspective on self defence....
    Last weekend two guards patrolling the grounds of one of their army
    camp bumped into two masked men pointing small but very accurate and
    deadly crossbows at them.
    Now there are two guys walking around with two UZI sub-machine guns
    with sufficient ammunition.
    
    Charles

The simple fact is that wherever people are determined to possess arms
in defiance of the local law, the arms can be had for a price.  In the
UK, where virtually all firearms except shotguns are all but illegal,
and shotguns themselves tightly regulated, it's harder to get guns, but
as .130 makes plain, it is not impossible.  The price the two crossbow
users paid to get Uzis was the risk of being shot dead.  They won their
gamble.

Air guns.  Think about air rifles in the UK.  I know there are strict
regulations as to power, but springs are cheap and easy to transport in
one's luggage.  A 30-ft-lb spring for a cal. .22 Weihrauch HW-77 could
probably provide enough power to dispose of a very large human being.
(In the UK, the legal limit is 12 ft-lb,. which is more than enough to
kill a rabbit or a marmot.)

In the USA, I know people who would for $500 or so provide me with a
good AK-47 and several hundred rounds of ammunition.  Only the price is
different.

I am not a gun nut, but I sincerely believe that the bumper sticker has
it right:  IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.

In the USA, it's simply too late.

-d

    re.131
    The two crossbow users took very little risk.
    They had the advantage of being alert and ready to fire.
    The two soldiers were alert, but (for safety reasons) *not* ready to
    fire.
    
    Charles

    	The british laws may reflect the bad experience that one british
    majesty had with some of the colonies where the authorities neglected
    to deprive the colonials of weapons.  The american laws may reflect
    their being descended from the colonials who overthrew the lawful
    government using weapons that the lawful government was trying to take
    from them.  (Remember what the british were going to get when they
    walked out to Concord?)
    						John
    

    
    well actually it was Gen Washingtons Army, the alliance with the French
    and Prussia,  that caused the britannic  majesty to become annoyed, not 
    the armed rabble.
    
    the canard that armed mobs make the majestys tremble should have been
    put to bed by now. Witness the velvet revolutions in Prague, Leipzig,
    and Moscow..
    

    re.134 Who do you think comprised Washington's army ? Who fought at
    Concord and Lexington? Do you know who the 'Minutemen' _were_ ???
    The colonies had militias of citizens, _not_ standing armies. (One 
    of the great lost principles of this country IMO) 
    
    And if 'armed mobs' don't frighten opressive governments, why are
    those governments so quick to confiscate private arms? Purely
    out of loving concern for their citizens, I suppose. Sure.

Bob,

If armed mobs do not make majesty tremble, then I propose we put it to
the late Louis XVI and his queen and several thousand of their closest
friends that they needn't have feared the mobs of sans-culottes who came
to give them free tumbrels rides to meet the Widow of Paris...

But we are digressing from this string's intended topic!

-d

    
    army is army, and minutemen is armed mob...
    
    a bunch of hearties with their personal weapons in the pahking 
    lot is not militia..
    
    a group of disciplined and trained people in uniforn with uniform
    weapons might be.
    
    gummint is confiscating guns voted to be illegal by the voters as is
    their right and privelege. congress and various legislators voted and
    your side lost. 
    
    this is too bad, mebbe NRA didn't buy enough influence..
    

The Minutemen were farmers and businessmen, most of them using hunting
rifles.  Some had fowling pieces, and some had nothing more offensive
than pitchforks.  They had no uniforms.  But they were a militia:

    militia, n.  2: the whole body of able-bodied male [sic] citizens,
    declared by law as being subject to call to military service

				- Webster's 9th.

Don't say a whole lot aobut uniform arms or iniform dress, does it???

-d

    
    .. armies of sans-culottes were also sans assault rifles, not that they
    needed them..
    
    once the Directory was established (and ther Terror as underway) 
    the sans culottes were quiet enough..  
    

    wow this is wandering very far afield!
    
    How remarkable that men are diverting a subject in womannotes.
    How unique.
    I look forward to this continued string with intense anticipation.
    
    
    -Jody

    
    i think its safe to say that being sans-culottes is not the answer..

    FWIW, the sanc culottes only became sans culottes when Napoleon
    conscripted them and sent them out his colonies, without food and
    clothing and ordering the colonies to feed and cloth them.
    
    And for civilians using arms to overthrow a government, this worked in
    the days of the North Bridge in Concord and the uprising of the Dutch
    against and the emperor of Spain and later Napoleon.
    Today (unless the army with it's tanks and other heavy stuff is with
    the people) forget it.
    
    Now, what was the original question again? ;-)
    
    Charles

    >Now, what was the original question again? ;-)
    
    How much women in the UK need methods of self-defense, and what's
    available (given that weapons usually aren't).

           <<< Note 56.143 by BUBBLY::LEIGH "still got the radio" >>>

>and what's
>    available (given that weapons usually aren't).

	The merciful nature of the attacker?

	Seems to be all that's left.

Jim

    
>    	Perhaps we should envision the situation in which some persons
>    (to use actual examples, let us say TENAYA::RAH and AERIE::THOMPSON)
>    should become violently hostile toward one-another ... and no firearms
>    were readily available to either party in the ensuing combat ...
    
 
	I would suggest they would still both end up alive, whereas with 
	firearms involved, one or both could end up dead, and it may not be the
	person who went into the struggle armed with the gun.
	
	Heather

    Umm, Heather, it doesn't take a gun to kill someone. A knife, club,
    or even unarmed expertise will do nicely. Determination makes the
    difference. 
    
    dana

    All true, dana, but with a gun, you don't have to get emotionally
    (or physically) involved -- heck, you could do it accidentally --
    it's much harder to accidentally kill somebody with a hand weapon.
    
    I believe that this is Heather's point.

   <<< Note 56.148 by VMSMKT::KENAH "The man with a child in his eyes..." >>>

>but with a gun, you don't have to get emotionally
 
	Pointing a loaded gun at another human being is a VERY
	emotional experience, take my word for it.

Jim

re: .146

    Heather, why would you suggest that?  It sounds nice conceptually, 
    but the data I've seen suggests otherwise.  Can you back it up?

    Also, considering that this topic *is* "self defense for women", I
    don't know that AERIE::THOMPSON vs. TENAYA::RAH is an apt example.
    What do you think would be the outcome if one of the parties was
    a female?

        Sharon

>>but with a gun, you don't have to get emotionally
 
>	Pointing a loaded gun at another human being is a VERY
>	emotional experience, take my word for it.

Nevertheless, it is easier than beating someone to death. There 
are many instances of people expressing the wish that they had 
NOT access to a gun under very emotional circumstances. A knife 
or a club is easier than fists ... there are degrees of ease in 
hurting someone, I think that was the point.

What happened to the original topic here?

--Lillian

    re.151 Lillian, people who can't control their tempers probably
    should not consider owning a gun in the first place. It is _not_
    a panacea. (Ditto for homes with mentally disturbed individuals
    in residence.)
    
    Dana

>    re.151 Lillian, people who can't control their tempers probably
>    should not consider owning a gun in the first place. 

Too bad so many find that out too late ... 

    
    Model Mugging teaches you to fight to the finish -- where "the finish"
    is when the attacker is unconscious or runs away.  It was my experience
    (and that of the instructors I spoke with) that Model Mugging attempts
    to "overtrain" you.  The well-padded "mugger" keeps coming at you
    well past the point of what an ordinary man would be able to stand.
    This serves at least 2 purposes:
      1. To enable you to deal with a psychotic or drugged assailant who
         isn't deterred by or can't feel pain
    
      2. To facilitate and speed up the "body memory" -- you shouldn't have
         to think about what to do -- you just do it even (actually,
         especially) when afraid.
    
    It may be that fighting back will cause the assailant to become more
    violent.  The woman has to decide whether or not fighting back is the
    best choice.  Model Mugging (and other self defense (including weapons)
    courses) give the woman the tools to be able to CHOOSE whether or not
    to fight back.  I wouldn't stomp an attacker's instep if I wasn't
    willing to follow through to the end.  It would be rather like poking
    at a hornet and then just standing there...
    
    
    Justine

Everyone knows I'm pro gun.  Now that we have that out of the way...

From what I've read and heard of Model Mugging, it is an excellent program (it
is mentioned quite a bit in Paxton Quigley's book, "Armed and Female").

In the case where a woman wakes up with someone pinning her down, a gun will not
do any good, at least until the woman can put some distance between her and her
attacker.

However, in the case of a someone waking up to the sound of glass breaking,
wood shattering, footsteps downstairs, etc., a gun's effectiveness is most
obvious.

Whereas Model Mugging *requires* you to close with your attacker (hopfully not
armed with a knife, bat, gun, whatever -- anything but unarmed) with a firearm
you can both keep a distance from the attacker as well as using your knowledge
of your house to your advantage (read: tactics).  The simplist tactic, and one
of the most effective is to get behind your bed (you do have room to place
yourself on the far side of your bed from the door, don't you?) keep the gun
on the door and call 911 (the phone is within reach from the far side of the
bed, isn't it?)

In the worst case scenerio, someone bursting through your bedroom door with a
gun, you have a termendous advantage:

	1) You know they're not selling Girl Scout Cookies, and you can assume
	   you're justified in using lethal force.
	2) You will not be immediately be seen hiding behind the bed and
	   therefore not an obvious target.
	3) You will have already aimed your gun at the door (and by now the
	   attacker).
	4) Having a gun means you can keep the attacker at a distance and you
	   will have some time to stop the attacker before he closes on you.

It all adds up to tactics.  Once someone closes on you, it's no longer a matter 
of tactics (something the homeowner can use) it's now a matter of who's better
in hand-to-hand contact.

I'm an engineer.  I sit in an office all day.  If I come up against someone who
has been street fighting all his (or for that matter, her) life, I *will* be at
a disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat.  Period.  Model Mugging would help
someone like me.  So would Judo, Karate, etc.  It would help a lot.  But it
requires you to close on your attacker, giving them an even break.  I wouldn't
want to give a mugger, rapist or murderer an even break, I'd like to have the
odds in my favor, wouldn't you?  Remember, the game the criminal is playing with
the victim is called "You bet your life."  It'd be a crime to loose the game... 
(not a funny pun)

                                 Roak

>    Heather, why would you suggest that?  It sounds nice conceptually, 
>    but the data I've seen suggests otherwise.  Can you back it up?

	If one of the parties had a gun, and they were fighting, I beleive
	the gun would be used, and it would be very likely that one or the
	other would end up dead.
	
	If they were fighting without a weapon, then it is much less likely
	that one of them would end up dead.

>    Also, considering that this topic *is* "self defense for women", I
>    don't know that AERIE::THOMPSON vs. TENAYA::RAH is an apt example.
>    What do you think would be the outcome if one of the parties was
>    a female?

	I hadn't realisedthat one of the wasn't, I don't beleive the scenario 
	would be any different.
	
	Heather

    A few of the previous replies seem to be advocating the use of guns
    for self defence, and I agree, that in many situations that a gun
    could be invaluable. But, there are very many situations where a gun
    can have tragic consequences. One story that comes to mind is the bloke
    in the US who shot his teenage daughter in the head severals times as
    she stood outside the front door - she had just returned from a night 
    out and I think she was having trouble with her key.
    
    I would also be concerned at the temperament of the intended gun owner.
    A recommendation from your doctor *and* a psychologist should be
    necessary to get a licence to own a gun.
    
    I think that guns should also be strictly controlled, and every single 
    bullet be accountable for.  The gun owner, as a requirement of the 
    licence should have to do a certain amount of range firing every week.
    This would firstly improve the standard of shooting so that it is more
    likely the intended target is hit, and also to improve familiarity 
    with the gun.
    
    Also the gun user should have to attend a compulsory series of "gun
    sense" lessons, which teach all aspects of gun safety and security.
    
    This is all academic here in the UK because guns are unlikely to ever
    be given the free availabitlity that there is in the states.
    
    This is why a still advocate a "weapon" that does not permanently harm
    the attacker, such as Mace/CS.
    
    I also do not think that self defence classes are practical for all
    women (or mne) - the aged and disabled come to mind - and also require an
    amount of commitment.  I did karate for a while but stopped. I can now
    remember or perform very little of what I learnt.
    
    Jerome who_thinks_CS_gas_is_the_answer_so_there!
                                      

>    
>    This is why a still advocate a "weapon" that does not permanently harm
>    the attacker, such as Mace/CS.
 
	I am completely against this, any weapon you carry can be used against 
	you, and if its legalised, the perpatrators can carry this leagally.

	I don't want a whole load of people leagally carrying this stuff 
	which can incapacitate me.
	What a boon for muggers, rapists, and friday night fights.
	- a leagal advantage

	Heather

This note was going nicely along, discussing firearms being used for self
defense, their advantages, disadvantages and application...

It is now degenerating into a gun control note.

Gun control can, and is, being discussed in at least a half a dozen other notes
files even as I type...

Couldn't we keep it out of this note and file?

                               Roak

           <<< Note 56.160 by SUBURB::THOMASH "The Devon Dumpling" >>>

>	I am completely against this, any weapon you carry can be used against 
>	you, and if its legalised, the perpatrators can carry this leagally.

	So Heather, you agree with my entry in .145?

	In discussing this note with my wife (all perfectly legal since,	
	even though she is on LTD, she is still an DEC employee) she couldn't
	comprehend why any woman would be opposed to women (in particular)
	carrying a defensive weapon. She is outraged that in our County she
	can not obtain a permit to carry a firearm (specifically a handgun).

	As I said, she is currently out on permenent disability. She can not
	"close with an attacker" and ever hope to come out the winner. She wants
	to "even the odds". Granted part of her thinking is colored by the fact 
	we have, according to the Police Dept., at least two serial rapists 
	running around loose in this town. But that IS the reality. She is
	actually afraid to visit her sister after dark. Why does she, or any
	other woman for that matter, have to live in fear? 

	Rapists, muggers, any criminal that is willing to physically confront
	confront his/her victim is a PREDATOR. They prey on the weak. The only
	defense is not to BE weak (at least in their perception). This can be
	accomplished in a tiered defense. No one is saying that a gun is the
	only answer, but if closing with your attacker is not an option and you
	can not get away to safety, then a gun is a perfectly viable option.
	Few people will continue an attack with a gun pointed at them and if
	they do you know immediately that they are not in their "right mind".
	Your only option at that point is to stop them. 


>	I don't want a whole load of people leagally carrying this stuff 
>	which can incapacitate me.

	Any weapon that can be an effective defense can also be used for 
	offense. The choice you seem to be making is to not take any defensive
	action at all. That IS your right. But many others will not to choose
	to follow in your footsteps. Try to view this discussion through their
	eyes for a moment. It may give you a new perspective.

Jim

      .161
>This note was going nicely along, discussing firearms being used for self
>defense, their advantages, disadvantages and application...
>
>It is now degenerating into a gun control note.
>
>Gun control can, and is, being discussed in at least a half a dozen other notes
>files even as I type...
>
>Couldn't we keep it out of this note and file?

                               Roak

      Not really Roak, all we are meeting here is the difference in the
      mentality from across the Atlantic. You must remember that In England
      where heather comes from guns are not allowed. Probably unrelated to
      this but 1 in 500,000 brits or less can expect to be murdered
      this year. The cost of protection is an important issue. There was an
      article in Time magazie a couple of years ago of the 25,000 murders in
      the US, 70-80% were with guns, and some 70-80% of those were within the
      family. The actual number of people who managed to successfully use a
      gun to defend themselves could be counted without taking your shoes off.
      Your answer to this is because *I* had a gun I frightened the atacker off
      and this does not come into the statistics. There is a certain amount of
      truth in that but this must be weighted against the loss of a daughter
      trying to get into the house without a key etc etc.. 
      The need in Britain for a woman to defend herself exists to a far
      smaller degree and she must do it without a gun.
      To the earlier comment about the judo brown belt defending herself by
      stomping on the attackers foot. *My Daughter says* that a brown belt
      would never do that, she would use an "AshiBarai" (sp?). This should
      leave the attacker on their back. It would leave her free standing to
      either run or continue the fight.
      Rgds,

    Distances in fighting -
    
    In Kenpo we learned that there are, in unarmed combat, three distances,
    or distance lines, to be aware of. The outer distance line is defined
    by the foot, or as far as you can kick. The middle distance is defined
    by the hand, or punching distance. The inner distance is defined by
    the elbows and knees. (We could postulate a fourth distance - call it
    remote - where only a gun can reach.) 
    
    Various martial arts tend to concentrate on one distance line, which 
    can be detrimental in a fight. Some styles place heavy emphasis on kicks, 
    which are only useful when your opponent is at the outside distance
    line. An opponent who gets 'inside' such a defense has gained an 
    advantage. A person who trains at boxing may be unable to deal
    effectively with kicks _unless_ he closes to a distance where _his_
    skills are superior. Likewise, a kung-fu stylist who engages a 
    boxer at the middle distance line may lose. Or, a person who
    is not comfortable at close range will have difficulty fighting
    a judo stylist.
    
    To be truly effective, a fighting style needs to address all three
    lines of distance - you should be taught how to defend yourself
    no matter what distance your opponent is from you. Also, you should
    be taught how to _control_ the distance to your advantage.
    
    (By extension, you may wish to learn how to use remote weapons - guns -
    to keep your attacker from the closer distances where he may prevail.
    This is the course preferred by many smaller, less muscled people.
    However, circumstances may render this ineffective, so a backuup
    should be maintained.)
    
    dana

>	So Heather, you agree with my entry in .145?

	No I don"t, and I have replied as such.
	
>	 But that IS the reality. She is
>	actually afraid to visit her sister after dark. Why does she, or any
>	other woman for that matter, have to live in fear? 

	I really have no idea, but I can only assume that they don't look at 
	the actual figures, but worry themselves into beleive the world
	is a lot less safe place than it actually is.

>>	I don't want a whole load of people leagally carrying this stuff 
>>	which can incapacitate me.
>
>	Any weapon that can be an effective defense can also be used for 
>	offense. The choice you seem to be making is to not take any defensive
>	action at all. That IS your right. But many others will not to choose
>	to follow in your footsteps. Try to view this discussion through their
>	eyes for a moment. It may give you a new perspective.

	I am not saying that I would not take any defense. I would run 
	shouting and screaming, I would kick them where it hurt If running
	didn't suceed, I would	headbut, I would poke my fingers in their eyes,
 	I would bite off their nose..........what I don't want is for someone 
	to come up behind me and squirt CS gas making  me a slumped target for 
	whatever they wanted - or shoot me, or stab me.

	Keeping these weapons illeagal means people who do carrythem can be 
	locked up for doing just that. having the weapon on their person. and
	I would like to keep it that way.

	Heather

    Heather,
    
    Remember carefully the half-joking point that that possession of these
    kinds of weapons is illegal *only* if the person carrying them is
    caught.  There are plenty of people carrying them around, even in the
    UK, who are simply never caught.  One rarely becomes subject to being
    caught unless one actually uses such a thing where there are witnesses;
    the police do not make a habit of searching everyone...
    
    -d

    
>    Remember carefully the half-joking point that that possession of these
>    kinds of weapons is illegal *only* if the person carrying them is
>    caught.  There are plenty of people carrying them around, even in the
>    UK, who are simply never caught.  One rarely becomes subject to being
>    caught unless one actually uses such a thing where there are witnesses;
>    the police do not make a habit of searching everyone...
 
	And their are plenty more that would carry them around for illeagal
	perposes, if they were leagal.

	Heather

Without pointing at individual notes or noters *BUT*

In the USA guns are used twice as often to stop crime(about 1 million times 
year) than are used to commit crimes (600k) (FBI Crime stats)
Criminals are killed in the act of commiting a felony 3 times as often by 
civilians with legally owned guns as by police. making armed civilians the
the best defense in society.

so the argument that a weapon will be taken away from you just doesn't hold
up. as in other discussions in this file about the _exceptions_ there
are always isolated cases where x happens but the total numbers make it
pretty clear. 


The argument about people not carrying illegal stuff;
 Is there any drug problem in the UK? is there a problem with armed groups
in Northern Ireland?
Where do they get their drugs/weapons?

In the USA (DEA and Coast Guard figures) There are nearly as many guns
smuggled in from third-world countries as cocaine on a pound-for-pound basis.
taking away my legal gun is going to help that problem how?

Self defense includes a number of tactics, if you haven't studied what
can, can't, should, and shouldn't be done in various situations then
you need to listen to those that have, rather than making blanket statements
that "it will be used against me" or "CS is the only answer".

Amos who teaches this stuff 

>Without pointing at individual notes or noters *BUT*

	Well, it's Okay, even tho you haven't asked me, I'll answer for me.

>In the USA guns are used twice as often to stop crime(about 1 million times 
>year) than are used to commit crimes (600k) (FBI Crime stats)
>Criminals are killed in the act of commiting a felony 3 times as often by 
>civilians with legally owned guns as by police. making armed civilians the
>the best defense in society.

And the result is that many many people end up dead, civilians, police, and
criminals.

>so the argument that a weapon will be taken away from you just doesn't hold
>up. as in other discussions in this file about the _exceptions_ there
>are always isolated cases where x happens but the total numbers make it
>pretty clear. 

Yup very clear, there are a large amount of murders/legal restraint.

>The argument about people not carrying illegal stuff;
> Is there any drug problem in the UK? is there a problem with armed groups
>in Northern Ireland?
>Where do they get their drugs/weapons?

Drugs are grown, imported and manufactured, illeagal weapons are funded in a
large part by NORaid in Ireland.
And even with all this, the number of people murdered in the whole of the UK
is less than in an average US City.

>Self defense includes a number of tactics, if you haven't studied what
>can, can't, should, and shouldn't be done in various situations then
>you need to listen to those that have, rather than making blanket statements
>that "it will be used against me" or "CS is the only answer".

	"It will very likely be used against me, and I'm sure it would be"
	- better?

	and I agree, CS is not the only answer, it isn't even an answer.

	Heather

    re.170 Heather, your country has a cultural fear of weapons, we in the
    US have a cultural fear of tyranny. You give up the means to fight
    tyranny to safeguard yourselves against armed crime. We risk armed
    crime as the price of being able to defend ourselves against
    tyranny. You believe that democracy and law and civilization will
    prevail. We agree, but feel that those are all too often veneers over 
    baser motives.
    
    Different cultures with different priorities, we'll probably never
    agree.
    
    I will point out that, at the start of WWII, your people
    *begged* us to send guns. And we did.
    
    Dana

    re WWII
    
    That was the government that asked, not it's citizens. Yes, armies need
    weapons, but individual peaceful people do not. What we need is
    knowledge of how to prevent such violent situations, such as knowledge
    of "bad" areas of town, how to be observant, how to keep your car/home
    secure, knowledge of how to recognise a person who is not what he says
    he is...
    
    Alice T.

    Looks like we're back at it again.....
    People having guns *DOES NOT* help them to fend of tyranny!
    Usually the other side had far bigger and better weapons.
    And can we *please* leave WWII out this discussion as well?
    Us Europeans are slowly getting sick and tired with the "we saved your
    ass" statements.
    
    Charles

    I seem to be on my own when it comes to advocating CS. I still think
    it is better to temporarily harm someone than blow them away. Also
    if CS is used in error,  the consequences are *not* permanent - how
    many people could live with the fact that they had killed someone over
    a misunderstanding ?!
    
    To address the gun issue, I do think that the gun is a worthwhile
    weapon, but - at the present time - only in the states where the
    public in general are a lot more used to guns than here in the UK.
    
    Having regularly used firearms with the TA though, I don't think
    the UK will be ready for firearms until, and if, the crime rate
    is comparable here with that of the states at present. I myself have
    had to reprimand *trained soldiers* on sloppy weapon handling - even
    when handling a loaded rifle in a public place - and also for poor
    safety procedures. I have seen civilians do things with loaded,cocked
    weapons on ranges that make me want to take cover. It never ceases to
    amaze me that hundreds of thousands of people in the US aren't 
    slaughtered every year through the non-criminal use of firearms.
    
    I do think that if and when firearms laws are relaxed here, there
    should be a greater degree of control than there is in the states.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but in the states all you need do to buy
    a gun is to produce ID.  That to me seems ludicrous. The ID could
    belong to a madman or even be fake for all the gunshop keeper knows.
    
    I also come across many TA recruits. Some people are very gunshy, and
    some I would rather never held a gun again because they are a danger to
    themselves and others.  Should these people still be allowed to own a
    gun ? 
    
    
    However, as was mentioned earlier, there will be times when you will
    not have your gun with you. If you are attacked then you will need a
    alternative method to defend yourself. I feel this is the area that
    this note should be discussing. 
    
    
    
    Jerome who has a VERY healthy respect for firearms.

    Charles,
    
    Okay, let's leave WWII out of it.  Let's look at the War with the
    American Colonies instead.  The other side, from my point of view, had
    bigger and better weapons, more manufacturing capability, and a trained
    standing army that was even *quartered in the houses of my side* -- and
    it was my side, the peaceful armed citizens, who succeeded in fighting
    off the tyranny imposed by that other side.  Once burned, twice
    cautious -- we're not about to let that happen to us again.
    
    This is ratholing again, however.  Dana is correct.  The people of the
    UK elected, through their government, to give up the right to self-
    defense against an armed attacker, and the people of the USA elected,
    through *their* government, to retain that right.
    
    Heather,
    
    The number of dead people isn't the issue of this particular
    discussion.  We in the USA also kill far more people with cars than you
    do in the UK, on either a per-mile or a per-capita basis.  The real
    issue here, if we can get past the magnificently overblown rhetoric, is
    the percentage of success achieved by armed criminals against their
    victims (with an eye toward minimizing that percentage).  Consider that
    number and that number alone, and stop trying to compare apples to
    oranges.
    
    -d

    -d
    The war with the colonies can in no way be compared with modern time
    warfare.
    Care to imagine how long supplies (just to name something) were under
    way those days.
    
    And the people in the UK (and several other European countries) have
    not elected to give up their rights to defend themselves. We *do*
    defend ourselves.
    We have however chosen to leave our defence by armed force to our
    government i.c. our police force and army.
    It may sound weird, but we *do* trust our government and have elections
    to show otherwise.
    
    Oh, and it was mostly *unarmed* citizens who did a lot of damage to the
    German occupying forces.
    
    Enough ratholing, back to the original programme ;-)
    
    Charles

>    re.170 Heather, your country has a cultural fear of weapons, we in the
>    US have a cultural fear of tyranny. 
	
	Actually I have the fear that I don't want to put weapons into the
	hands of a would-be attacker.
	
>   You give up the means to fight
>    tyranny to safeguard yourselves against armed crime. 

	Firslty, there is very little armed crime here, and I'd like
	to keep it that way, and secondly, I do not give up the means to fight
	it, if I can't get away first. See previous notes.
	
	And Tyranny? if you mean armed attack by other countries, we have
	the armed forces for that. 

>    We risk armed
>    crime as the price of being able to defend ourselves against
>    tyranny. 

	Well, you took the risk, and you have the results.
	I'm still not sure what you mean by tyranny, but I'm sure you
	don't think you"ll stop a rocket with a handgun.

>    You believe that democracy and law and civilization will
>    prevail. We agree, but feel that those are all too often veneers over 
>    baser motives.

	Yes, I believe they will prevail, backed up by our armed forces if
	the decision is made. I would not like to think we would have to
	back this up with armed civilians - thats a recipe for mass murder.
	 
	   
>    I will point out that, at the start of WWII, your people
>    *begged* us to send guns. And we did.
 
	Well, I never begged, neither did my mother and father, and 
	further more, you never sent them any either.

	It was our armed forces that were armed, not our civilians.

	And you joined injust in time participate in the celebrations.

	Heather

my take on tyranny, Heather, is that it refers _not_ to invasion by a foreign
country; I'd take up arms in support of the military in that case, if it was
necessary, but I believe the military probably doesn't need my help in defending
our shores and skies.

The tyranny that I fear is rule of unjust law (eg, the RICO laws that enable
the cops and the DEA to confiscate property on suspicion of certain crimes, but
the action is part of the civil, not criminal, code and is thus not restrained
by the Bill of Rights. I oppose RICO whether applied to anti-abortion protesters
or to drug smugglers - it's just not right).

It was the (real/perceived) rule of unjust law that drove the colonies to rebel
in the first place.

this is all aside from personal self-defense for women, of course.  End rathole.

Sara

    Heather,
    
    I don't think tyranny refers to that of foreign governments so much as
    the possiblility of tyranny in our own government.  After the American
    Revolution folks wanted to protect their right to forcibly overthrow
    their own government if necessary.  The cost and sophistication of
    today's weapons or war has made that idea obsolete for the common
    citizen.  Today a gun will only protect me from the tyranny of other
    people with guns.
    
    Mary

    
    re .179:
    
    >...only protect me from the tyranny of other people with guns.
    
    I hope you're only speaking for yourself and not trying to speak
    for others, Mary.  Because that's not true for me.  5'3", weighing
    107 lbs, I'm an easy target for any determined male of any size
    without a gun.  And a gun could easily protect me from the tyranny
    of such a determined male.
    
    Actually, let me qualify that.  "A gun" won't protect anyone
    of any size who hasn't bothered to learn to use, shoot, and
    understand it, as I have done.
    
    Heather, I really don't mean to be condescending, but I'm having
    a hard time not being so in saying this: I think it's hopelessly
    naive to think that "fighting back" with no weapons other than
    your body parts will always get you out of trouble.  It *sure*
    as heck wouldn't work for 107-lb me against any determined
    "bad-guy"!  I'm not so naive to think that it would.  Just ask
    Nancy Bittle.
    

    re: .180
    
    Ellen, you're quite right.  My statement was not as exact as it could
    have been.
    
    Should read
    
    ... only to protect me from the tyranny of other people with greater
    means of force. (e.g., bigger, stronger, armed, etc.)
    
    Mary

I will make one comment on "tyranny" etal.

Those who say one armed-citizen cannot stand up to tanks/planes/etc are 
correct.

but, think of the American Revolution, Guerilla warfare tactics.
would the military bomb whole towns to kill a few rebels? raze a city to root
out a small group?
think of what partisans/freedom-fighters/revolutionaries/you-name-them have 
been able to accomplish throughout history.

and when it comes to rifleman vs rifleman many of our military personell
can't shoot.

Heather, I hope you never run into any of the kinds of people I have
seen over here, or others in this file have met. 

Amos

>The tyranny that I fear is rule of unjust law (eg, the RICO laws that enable
>the cops and the DEA to confiscate property on suspicion of certain crimes, but
>the action is part of the civil, not criminal, code and is thus not restrained
>by the Bill of Rights. I oppose RICO whether applied to anti-abortion protesters
>or to drug smugglers - it's just not right).

	Well, I've not heard of RICO before, but if your explaination
	is right, I don't call it tyranny at all, I call it protecting the
	public..............and we have no bill of rights, but laws and
	precedents (some being rather archaic).

	Heather

    
>    Heather, I really don't mean to be condescending, but I'm having
>    a hard time not being so in saying this: I think it's hopelessly
>    naive to think that "fighting back" with no weapons other than
>    your body parts will always get you out of trouble.  It *sure*
>    as heck wouldn't work for 107-lb me against any determined
>    "bad-guy"!  I'm not so naive to think that it would.  Just ask
>    Nancy Bittle.
 
	I also think that it's hopelessly naive to think that you'll get enough
	warning of an attack to get a gun/knife/cs gas fron wherever you're
	carrying, and be able to use it, and if you manage this fantastic
	trick, then be able to use it without being overpowered and have it 
	used against you.

	I also think it's hopelessly naive to think that by making weapons
	leagal, you will be protecting the victims. You will be creating
	more, and better armed agressors which will outweigh any benefit.

	Heather

Heather,
To make RICO clearer
  This law allows police to arrest on suspicion then confiscate everything you 
own _BEFORE_ you ever get a trial or hearing. leaving you in a position
that you can't hire a lawyer or pay for any defence.

This was supposed to be used by gov't after a conviction to pay the costs of 
chasing criminals.
it is now being used against anyone suspected of drug-dealing and lately
against any "unpopular" law-breaker. it could be used against protestors
on either side of a question, it could be used against any citizen accused
of not paying taxes, whether it is true or not.
it is a terrible law, has nothing to do with protecting the public.

and IMHO is one of the worst forms of *TYRANNY*.
Amos

>To make RICO clearer
>  This law allows police to arrest on suspicion then confiscate everything you 
>own _BEFORE_ you ever get a trial or hearing. leaving you in a position
>that you can't hire a lawyer or pay for any defence.


.............

>and IMHO is one of the worst forms of *TYRANNY*.

Amos, you are saying you want arms to fight tyranny.
You have said you can site cases where the worst form of tyranny is taking 
place.

So, who have you fought with your arms to overthrow this tyranny?

Heather

>	I also think that it's hopelessly naive to think that you'll get enough
>	warning of an attack to get a gun/knife/cs gas fron wherever you're
>	carrying, and be able to use it, and if you manage this fantastic
>	trick, then be able to use it without being overpowered and have it 
>	used against you.

 I worked plain-clothes/undercover stuff for years, never had a problem.
Training in proper use and situational awareness takes away 99% of the
possibility you keep talking about. it does mean you cannot walk around
oblivious until someone jumps on top of you, you need to be A.W.A.R.E.




>	I also think it's hopelessly naive to think that by making weapons
>	leagal, you will be protecting the victims. You will be creating
>	more, and better armed agressors which will outweigh any benefit.

We do not advocate giving them away in ceral-boxes. there are laws that
deal with convicted-criminals, adjudged-drug-users, 
adjudged-mental-incompitants, etc. not being allowed weapons.
those who are law-abiding citizens, if denied the right to posses are being
judged before any crime is commited. just as we don't stop people from
buying a ferrari or Jaguar because they "might" drink/drive/speed/kill 
after all a Jag will do 160MPH+ the limit is 55, no one needs more than a
ford escort or a Yugo. :-}
Amos

>           <<< Note 56.186 by SUBURB::THOMASH "The Devon Dumpling" >>>


>Amos, you are saying you want arms to fight tyranny.
>You have said you can site cases where the worst form of tyranny is taking 
>place.

>So, who have you fought with your arms to overthrow this tyranny?

>Heather

Despite what Brit text books may have said about the 1776 unpleasantness,
The colonists were patient people. it took a tremendous number of insults and 
atrocities by George to drive them to the final "Shot heard round the world".

I have stated that I own my arms for Self-defence, sport(I shoot competition 
rifle, pistol, and shotgun), *AND* as a last defence against tyranny.

There is a saying here, Americans have 3 boxes they use to effect change
in the gov't. the soap-box, the ballot box, and the cartridge-box.
some of us think that the first two have not worked and we are getting closer
to the day of the third one. I fervently hope not. I am basicly a peaceful
person. But I will not forfeit my life or the lives of my family/friends
to criminals/tyrannts/foreign-or-domestic enemies.
Amos

the only thing I'll add to Amos' description of the application of the RICO
laws is that the police and/or DEA do not that's NOT have to charge a citizen
with any crime, but can confiscate cash and property merely on suspicion, or
because the citizen fits a profile. (one ex that has been given: Black man buys
plane ticket at airport with cash, ticket agent calls cops who confiscate over
$9000 cause they say the man fits a 'profile' of someone going to make a drug
buy.  Ticket agent gets 10%.  Man is never charged with any crime.
Related in theme, 13 county sherrif's deputies in
L.A.county charged with skimming $$ from cash seizures of this type.)

this is corruption layered on top of tyranny.

re. Note 56.184           Self-Defense for Women: What's Best?            184 of 189
>SUBURB::THOMASH "The Devon Dumpling"                 20 lines  11-SEP-1991 13:08
    
>	I also think that it's hopelessly naive to think that you'll get enough
>	warning of an attack to get a gun/knife/cs gas fron wherever you're
>	carrying, and be able to use it, and if you manage this fantastic
>	trick, then be able to use it without being overpowered and have it 
>	used against you.

    Heather, WADR, you are terribly ignorant of weaponscraft. Anybody
    who isn't sleepwalking can learn to draw and fire a handgun in
    under two seconds. On target, from concealment. It takes a certain
    committment to practice, correct equipment, and proper technique.
    As for a knife, most experts will tell you it is the _most_ 
    difficult weapon to defend against, let alone take from an opponent.
    
    There is no "fantastic trick" to this, just knowledge and practice.
    
    Dana

Dana, you're right, but I think you're also wrong.

I used to practice "quickdraw" in the style of the "Wild West."  Using a
single-action percussion revolver with a 7-inch barrel, I was down in
the 3/4 second range to draw and fire a pointed (not aimed) shot.  A
single-action revolver must be cocked manually before each shot; you
can't just pull the trigger.  It is far more difficult to point
accurately than to aim, because you must have an instinctive feeling
for the weapon, which you don't raise to eye level.  My accuracy was
such that I consistently placed bullets in the lethal zone of a
man-sized target.

This doesn't represent what you would face on the streets, but it goes
to indicate that Dana's two seconds sounds about right.

But the down side of this, which I think Dana has missed, is that these
times are for drawing from a properly placed holster that is designed to
allow quick access to the weapon.  Few women are going to carry handguns
in this way.  Getting a gun out of a purse or pocketbook, in a moment of
high emotional stress and imminent physical danger, is a far more
difficult thing to accomplish.

-d

>      <<< Note 56.191 by SMURF::CALIPH::binder "As magnificent as that" >>>
>                    -< Under two seconds, indeed -- but... >-

>in this way.  Getting a gun out of a purse or pocketbook, in a moment of
>high emotional stress and imminent physical danger, is a far more
>difficult thing to accomplish.

>-d

Finally back toward the topic :-}

-d, there are "holsters" made for women, allowing much quicker access than
"the bottom of the purse" :-} in the sixties when I instructed women the 
choices for concealment were limited-to-none, today with various 
belt/shoulder/pack type carries it can be done from concealement, man or
woman, in 2 seconds or less. 
lot's of research has been done on what works and doesn't. I would be glad
to spend a day offline telling someone the options.

Amos

>>	I also think that it's hopelessly naive to think that you'll get enough
>>	warning of an attack to get a gun/knife/cs gas fron wherever you're
>>	carrying, and be able to use it, and if you manage this fantastic
>>	trick, then be able to use it without being overpowered and have it 
>>	used against you.
>
> I worked plain-clothes/undercover stuff for years, never had a problem.
>Training in proper use and situational awareness takes away 99% of the
>possibility you keep talking about. it does mean you cannot walk around
>oblivious until someone jumps on top of you, you need to be A.W.A.R.E.

	That's exactly my point, if you see something brewing, you avoid it,
	and you can do this most of the time. It's the small percent when 
	you've missed it, and it's too late to do anything that a weapon may
	help - if you can get to it, and if you can keep hold of it - which
	I think is very unlikely.

>>	I also think it's hopelessly naive to think that by making weapons
>>	leagal, you will be protecting the victims. You will be creating
>>	more, and better armed agressors which will outweigh any benefit.

>We do not advocate giving them away in ceral-boxes. there are laws that
>deal with convicted-criminals, adjudged-drug-users, 
>adjudged-mental-incompitants, etc. not being allowed weapons.

	But by making weapons leagal, you increase the supply many hundreds of
	percent, and you get rid of the law which would put people in gaol for
	having these weapons.

>those who are law-abiding citizens, if denied the right to posses are being
>judged before any crime is commited. 

	Actually we are all being protected, we are not being judged.

>just as we don't stop people from
>buying a ferrari or Jaguar because they "might" drink/drive/speed/kill 
>after all a Jag will do 160MPH+ the limit is 55, no one needs more than a
>ford escort or a Yugo. :-}

	But you can't drive them leagally unless you have passed your test,
	and we do impose high insrance premiums to ensure they're not 
	widely available, and if you have less than 6 years clean driving, the 
	insurance premiums rocket, and we are also debating laws to restrict 
	powerful cars until someone has passed their test for at least a year.

	Heather

>I have stated that I own my arms for Self-defence, sport(I shoot competition 
>rifle, pistol, and shotgun), *AND* as a last defence against tyranny.

	Amos, you stated that there is current tyranny in the US and it is the 
	worst type of tyranny.

	Now, if you won't fight against what you see as the worst
	sort of tyranny, then you will not get me to beleive that it is
	a reason you hold a gun.

	Heather

>    Heather, WADR, you are terribly ignorant of weaponscraft. Anybody
>    who isn't sleepwalking can learn to draw and fire a handgun in
>    under two seconds. On target, from concealment. 

	Okay, so how do you defend yourself against someone like this?


	Heather 
		

    The trick is to *be* that person ;-)
    
    Seriously, if you choose to carry a gun, you should be responsible 
    enough to master shooting effectively. Hopefully, one does not 
    simply buy a gun and drop it into one's pocket or purse. Anything
    so powerful deserves serious thought and study. And practice.

	Okay, so how do you defend yourself against someone like this?
      Gosh heather,
      I should really let you end on this. Trying to explain to people in the
      US that women in Europe have *much* the same freedom of movement as men,
      is a little like explaining a winter sunset, to a blind person. You need
      to tase the fear which the crime statistics indicate before you can
      understand the problem.
      Rgds,

>      I should really let you end on this. Trying to explain to people in the
>      US that women in Europe have *much* the same freedom of movement as men,
>      is a little like explaining a winter sunset, to a blind person. You need
>      to tase the fear which the crime statistics indicate before you can
>      understand the problem.
  

	Fear?   I have always walked home after the pubs kicked out, quite
	often I'm by myself . I have done this on many places.....
	Plymouth Union street (where many of the sailors from the ships drink)
	it's the main club/pub area (and also where I used to work).
	Reading centre, and now in Theale (Reading) - just South of the M4.

	I have never, and still don't know what there is to be afraid of, 
	however, if it was leagal to carry guns, knives and CS gas, THEN I 
	might start to be afraid!

	Heather..................going fishing!
	

    
    re: .199
    
    > I have never, and still don't know what there is to be afraid of,
    > however, if it was legal to carry guns, knives and CS gas, THEN I
    > might start to be afraid! 
    
    I found this statement really quite baffling.  If I understand
    correctly, you personally have no fear, and are not afraid of anything. 
    I admire you for this. But then you go on to say that you don't  
    have any knowledge of anything that you should be afraid of. 
    And there seemed to be an underlying statement - correct me if I'm
    wrong - that you don't see why anyone else should be afraid of, say,
    walking home alone down Reading's Oxford road after the pubs have
    emptied.  This is why I'm puzzled.  Does this mean that you don't read
    the newspapers, or watch or listen to local news?  For example, would
    you feel comfortable taking a short cut through Palmer Park one evening
    in the company of a friend?  Are horrible things only ever likely to
    happen to other people? 
    
    
    

Heather,
  Do you really want me to start the second american revolution just to prove 
a point? :-}
 How about looking at it this way, Because the citizenry is armed the gov't
is kept in check to some extent. BTW I never said that the worst possible
tyranny was going on, if I did it was an error. I have seen and can imagine 
far worse. some of those things would most definately be serious enough to
start another revolution.

  I am also upset at your idea of "stay out of dangerous areas"
Isn't the ability for all people to go where they wish and dress as they wish 
a goal? I have a friend who makes 50% more salary by working in Boston in a 
"tough" part of town, by neccesity she works till after dark on occasion.
should she give up a very lucrative job for a unsatisfactory one just to stay 
out of Boston south-station area? And as events in the suburb of lexington
and cambridge proved even "safe" streets aren't *safe*. 

Amos    
    
    

Recent events in Plymouth, NH (the murder of a 33 year-old woman) prove
that you're not safe in your own home even in a "safe" town. Few details
of the murder have been released but I wonder if this woman would have 
survived if she owned a gun.

Jenna

    
    The latest statistics for UK crime have just been released.
    They're horrifying.
    The figures for different crimes (theft, assault, rape, burglary)
    are up, on average, 12% on last year - the biggest ever leap.
    
    Rape is one of the highest growing areas, running at just over 12%.
    Most of the rapes are by attackers known to the victim.
    And, of course, this statistic only covers reported rapes.
    
    I have been attacked in "nice" areas in Reading and threatened in
    "nasty" ones.
    I've been badly scared in various parts of London, both "sleazy"
    and "decent".
    And on UK trains at night I've endured flashers and masturbators
    as well as the usual threats and attempts.
    
    In case this sounds as if I'm a magnet for this stuff, I would
    stress that I am *careful* in my travel - I avoid darkness, being
    alone, or taking unnecessary risks wherever possible. I don't think
    I'm an unusual statistic.
    
    Consequently, I don't believe there is any such thing as a "safe" town 
    or a "safe" area - in any country.
    'gail

Re: .201

What happened in Lexington?

Ben

	re: .202 (Jenna Thibault)

> Recent events in Plymouth, NH (the murder of a 33 year-old woman) prove
> that you're not safe in your own home even in a "safe" town. Few details
> of the murder have been released but I wonder if this woman would have 
> survived if she owned a gun.

	Was this what the "Take Back the Night" march was about
	in downtown Concord, NH, on Saturday night?  

	What a strange juxtaposition of events that was...  I've
	been in Concord the past 2 weekends for a course about
        when you are legally justified in using a firearm  to
	defend yourself, along with some range practice and
	a police qualification test.  

	It had been an emotionally draining day for me.  Anger
	(over not knowing an effective way to defend myself
	when I was attacked) resurfaced.   Anger that I didn't
	know anything more effective than "knee him in the groin"
	and "poke his eyes out."   

	While at dinner with another woman in the course, and while 
	having one of those rare conversations where I could actually
	*talk* about what I was feeling (instead of distantly writing about
	it) with another woman, the marchers walked by the windows of
	the restaurant.   Quite a timely event.

	But what I don't know is what was the impetus for the march?

	I saw a "Take Back the Night" sign, a sign with "Lesbians for
        [missed this part of it]" on it, and a sign that said,
	"She was murdered because [missed this part of it]".
	I couldn't hear the chanting.
						nancy b.

    
    	One of the main points of the (mostly firearms-related)
    	course I took over the past 2 weekends, the one that
    	was repeatedly stressed, was that:

	[In avoiding / deterring / surviving  an assault on your person...]
    
    
    
    		Your mind is your primary weapon.
    
                          

re:             <<< Note 56.205 by RYKO::NANCYB "Woman of Caliber" >>>
>>                     -< Take Back the Night march in NH ? >-

>>	Was this what the "Take Back the Night" march was about
>>	in downtown Concord, NH, on Saturday night?  

Nancy,

	I'm not positive, but I believe the march is an annual
	event in Concord. They did it last year as well. The timing
	was probably just a coincidence.

Jenna

    
    	re: .207 (manic::thibault)
    
    	>  I'm not positive, but I believe the march is an annual
        >  event in Concord. They did it last year as well. The timing
        >  was probably just a coincidence.
         
    	I thought it was just a coincidence at first also, but 
    	when I returned to class the next day I talked with 
        another student in the course who is a prosecutor from NH. 
    
    	He described about 4 separate incidents of brutal violence
    	against women in that area in the past couple months. It was
        almost unbelievable - a stabbing here, a murder there, etc...
    
    	Did NOW of NH organize the march?
    							nancy b.
        

Re: <<< Note 56.209 by MANIC::THIBAULT "Land of Confusion" >>>

>>	      I'll be damned if I'm gonna quit riding but I need to figure
>>	out how to conceal a handgun while wearing bicycle pants :-).
>>	Anyone have a suggestion?

Any one of the numerous "fanny packs" (worn as a belly pack) that have a holster
in them.

A belly pack is better than putting it in a bag on your bike, because it'll stay
with you if you and your bike become seperated...

                                Roak

    
    > I'll be damned if I'm gonna quit riding but I need to figure
    > out how to conceal a handgun while wearing bicycle pants :-).
    > Anyone have a suggestion?
    	
    	Jenna, when I bike I wear a waistbag with a false backing
    	for a gun. It opens via velcro and a snap. I carry a S&W
    	Airweight Centennial, which only weighs as much as 1.5 cans 
    	of coke.  I hardly notice it.  
    
        I also carry 1/2 oz Cap-Stun (oleoresin capsicum) in the front
    	compartment, which I hope would be sufficient for all 2-legged
    	*and* 4-legged creatures ;-).
    
    	This summer I've done mostly off-road biking, sometimes alone.
    	I don't think it's an acceptable risk to ride without at least
    	Cap-Stun.  Last summer 3 men raped and assaulted 2 teenage girls
    	in conservation land I used to ride in.  This year a woman
    	in Maine on a bikepath was assaulted.  [sigh]
    
        AWARE sells Cap-Stun, by the way.  If you are interested, please
    	call Roger at 508-624-0066, and identify yourself as an AWARE
    	supporter.    A while back, I read an account of someone actually
    	successfully using it to protect himself on a university campus.
    	If I can still find it, I'll post it here.
    
    							nancy b.
    
    	

    
    Re Fanny Packs to conceal handguns -----  uh, oh, you're all going to
    hit the ground next time you walk down Commercial Street in PTown or
    Centre Street in JP  :-)
    
    
    Justine   -- wearing her fashionably correct black leather fanny pack 
                 right now  ;-)

    Re: a few back...
    
    Take Back the Night in NH is usually held on Women's Equality Day.  For
    some reason, this year it was held later.  (I'm guessing that it was
    moved because a lot of people are on vacation in August, but that's
    just a guess on my part.)
    
    NOW in NH was signed on as a sponsor, but the event is organized by the
    NH Coalition Against Rape and Sexual Violence, out of Concord, NH.
    
    I don't want NOW to take any credit away from this wonderful
    organization.
    
    judy

    just out of curiosity, how did NOW _stop_ them?

    NOW hasn't been involved in the Take Back the Night marches in New
    Hampshire in any official capacity except to sign on as a co-sponsor 
    for several years.  I've been an officer in NH NOW since 1986 and I've
    never heard of us stopping someone from passing out informational
    handouts. 
    
    If that has been done in the name of NOW, it was done by an individual 
    NOW member and was never discussed as a policy of the NH NOW board.
    
    judy

>. But then you go on to say that you don't  
>    have any knowledge of anything that you should be afraid of. 
>    And there seemed to be an underlying statement - correct me if I'm
>    wrong - that you don't see why anyone else should be afraid of, say,
>    walking home alone down Reading's Oxford road after the pubs have
>    emptied. 

	I have done this on numerous occaisions

>    This is why I'm puzzled.  Does this mean that you don't read
>    the newspapers, or watch or listen to local news?  For example, would
>    you feel comfortable taking a short cut through Palmer Park one evening
>    in the company of a friend?  Are horrible things only ever likely to
>    happen to other people? 
 
	I also lived in Palmer Park road, and often took the shortcut through 
	Palmer Park.

	I read the papers and news, and beleive me, more murders and attacks
	take place against women in the home than they do in the streets
	or parks.
    
	Also,There is more chance of being killed crossing the road or driving
	a car, than being attacked in the street, but I don't stop driving
	or crossing the road.

	I believe many people don't take things in context, and frighten
	themselves needlessly into being afraid of life.

	Heather	
	    

> BTW I never said that the worst possible
>tyranny was going on, if I did it was an error. I have seen and can imagine 
>far worse. some of those things would most definately be serious enough to
>start another revolution.

	In .185 you said it was "one of the worst forms of *TYRANNY*"

	
>  I am also upset at your idea of "stay out of dangerous areas"
>Isn't the ability for all people to go where they wish and dress as they wish 
>a goal? I have a friend who makes 50% more salary by working in Boston in a 
>"tough" part of town, by neccesity she works till after dark on occasion.
>should she give up a very lucrative job for a unsatisfactory one just to stay 
>out of Boston south-station area? And as events in the suburb of lexington
>and cambridge proved even "safe" streets aren't *safe*. 

	I don't stay out of "dangerous" areas, however, if guns or other
	weapons were available freely, and people were free to carry them, 
	then I may (or I may not).
	    
    	If I carried a gun in this situation, it wouldn't make it any
	safer for me, but by alowing any other Tom, Dick or Harry to carry
	one would definately make it less safe.

	Heather

    
	Gail, your note really amaizes me,
	
>    I have been attacked in "nice" areas in Reading and threatened in
>    "nasty" ones.
 
	I have never been approached or attacked in any area of Reading.

>    And on UK trains at night I've endured flashers and masturbators
>    as well as the usual threats and attempts.
 
	I've missed this too, and my mother, who travels all overthe UK at all
	times of day and night (except rush hour, as her pass doesn't allow 
	this) has never had anything likethis happen to her.
   
>    In case this sounds as if I'm a magnet for this stuff, I would
>    stress that I am *careful* in my travel - I avoid darkness, being
>    alone, or taking unnecessary risks wherever possible. I don't think
>    I'm an unusual statistic.
  
	Well, I don't avoid darkness, I'm not that careful with travel, I often
	travel alone, the only thing I avoid is the London  underground, as I 
	don't like being underground, and I don't like major cities much.
	I do keep my eyes open........
  
>    Consequently, I don't believe there is any such thing as a "safe" town 
>    or a "safe" area - in any country.

	I don't think anything you do can be 100% safe, but that dosen't mean
	it's dangerous eithr.

	Heather

    
   >	I have never been approached or attacked in any area of Reading.

    That's great Heather, and I'm pleased to hear it.
    
    However, that doesn't invalidate my experiences.
    
>>    And on UK trains at night I've endured flashers and masturbators
>>    as well as the usual threats and attempts.
 
 > 	I've missed this too, and my mother, who travels all overthe UK at all
 >	times of day and night (except rush hour, as her pass doesn't allow 
 >	this) has never had anything likethis happen to her.
  
    That's also good news.
    
    Heather, when you juxtapose your comments against mine like this I
    feel as if you're suggesting that either I'm lying or I've somehow
    done something that you (or your mother) haven't done to "cause"
    this to happen. Do you think that?
    
    Otherwise, I'd just say that our experiences are different and that
    maybe mine would encourage caution and yours would encourage
    confidence. I agree that we can choose not to go through life being
    fearful of whatever, but I think we should also be educated about
    the experiences women have had in our locality so that we can make
    informed decisions about our risks.
                                        
>	I don't think anything you do can be 100% safe, but that dosen't mean
>	it's dangerous eithr.

    I'd say that nothing is 100% safe, but I prefer to take informed risks.
    
    'gail

>   >	I have never been approached or attacked in any area of Reading.
>
>    That's great Heather, and I'm pleased to hear it.
>    However, that doesn't invalidate my experiences.
 
	I never said it did, I was just telling my experiences in the same
	situation.
    
>    Heather, when you juxtapose your comments against mine like this I
>    feel as if you're suggesting that either I'm lying or I've somehow
>    done something that you (or your mother) haven't done to "cause"
>    this to happen. Do you think that?
 
	There is absolutly no way I believe you are lying, and if I thought
	you were, then I would say so.  

	I have no idea why we have had different experiences in similar
	situations, however as the situations were so similar, I thought it
	relevent to relate them.

>    I'd say that nothing is 100% safe, but I prefer to take informed risks.
    
 	Information....statistics.......a woman is more likely to be attacked
	and/or murdered in a home by someone she knows, than on the streets
	by strangers.

	How many people decide to stay in because thay are "afraid" to go out.
	They should, by taking informed risks, go out. It's safer!

	Heather

    Heather, I find myself in agreement with 'gail. I have heard lots
    of reports about Reading that deter *me* going to the Oxford Rd area
    (and others) at night. I also know a girl whose best friend was raped 
    on a train stationary waiting *at* Reading station. All I can say is that
    you have been *very* lucky so far. I would suggest that you might be
    more careful rather than wait until you are attacked. Better safe than
    sorry I say.
    
    
    Jerome.

    
    I think it's pretty naive to think that just because something
    *hasn't* happened to *you* doesn't mean it couldn't or won't.
    

    It seems, from reading accounts by survivors of violent attacks, that
    most of them lived in a state of "It hasn't/won't/can't happen to me,"
    until it *did*. 
    
    I wonder if that mindset, and corresponding body language, isn't part 
    of how the attackers _choose_ their intended victims. 

>    Heather, I find myself in agreement with 'gail. I have heard lots
>    of reports about Reading that deter *me* going to the Oxford Rd area
>    (and others) at night.

	Well, if it's not safe on the streets, and it's even less safe
	in the home........I'd better stay in the pub!


	Heather

>.....I'd better stay in the pub!


good one, Heather!

;-)

    Heather, I find myself in agreement with Heather. Stay in the pub. 
    Much safer.  :-)
    
    
    Jerome.

    Usually warmer than the streets, too.
    
    Alice T.