Dr. Michael S. Brown: Women and guns

dZ

New member
http://www.enterstageright.com/0400woguns.htm
By Dr. Michael S. Brown
web posted April 3, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>One of the great ironies of the cultural war over gun rights is that women
are generally more anti-gun than men. Violence against women is an extremely
serious problem, yet women are constantly told to forgo the most effective
means of self-defense.

A young woman known to my wife was abducted and raped recently by a sex
offender on parole. She is now HIV-positive and the assailant left town
before police could build an airtight case. Another woman in our area
was forced to change her own name and move to a new home because her attacker
knows her identity. A woman I know and two female family members were
terrorized by an intruder who entered their home at 5 AM. The man escaped
before police could respond to a 911 call and he has not been caught.

Contrast this to a case in Arizona where an unarmed woman was raped,
shot and left for dead. The attacker then forced his way into a private home where
he was promptly shot and killed by a second woman with a handgun. He will
not rape again. Episodes like this happen around the country, but are totally
ignored by the national media.

The bias against armed self-defense is one of the most insidious forms of
victimization of women. The dominant cultural conditioning tells women that
they are not capable of defending themselves with a gun. They are told that
if they arm themselves, the attacker will simply take the gun away and use it
against them. Although this rarely happens, millions of women have
accepted the degrading concept that they are not capable of learning to defend
themselves and their children with a firearm, should they so choose.

Many women are afraid of guns because they have never been encouraged to
understand them. They are often afraid that guns go off on their own. A man
who provides firearms training to women helps allay his student's fears
with a story from his childhood. It seems that his mother was a dressmaker and
kept several sewing machines in the house. The boy was terribly afraid of
them, because he thought that they might suddenly start up and sew through his
hand. Once he understood that sewing machines are simply tools that will
not function without human control, he lost his unreasonable fear.

Some women have conquered the conditioning and acquired firearms training.
It can be an empowering and life changing experience. They lose some of
the fear that all women are forced to live with, because they can now provide
security for themselves and their children. Once they discover that they can
handle a gun safely and responsibly, they resent the way they have been
lied to all their lives.

Although firearms accidents have steadily declined for the last century,
concern for child safety has been a major weapon of anti-self-defense groups like
Handgun Control Inc. While there are legitimate concerns about keeping
guns in a house with children, there are many excellent options for childproof
storage and many effective ways to raise children safely around guns.

Unfortunately, firearms training and safety programs are also under attack,
since certain political factions have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of
the incompetent woman. Women who feel helpless and vulnerable are more
likely to vote for greater government control, while those who can provide
security for themselves and their families are not.

There are some women who are speaking out against this unfair stereotyping
and conditioning. Authors Camille Paglia and Claire Wolfe have written in
support of gun rights. Respected firearms trainer Gila Hayes at the Firearms
Institute of Seattle said that, "Women are taught from childhood to fear guns
and to believe they are not capable of fighting back. They are literally taught
to be victims. When properly trained in gun safety and marksmanship, they
realize the gun is just a tool -- one with which they can save their own lives."

There is always much discussion in women's media about what to do when attacked.
Armed self-defense is invariably discouraged. Unarmed resistance
has not been very effective, so the current topic is whether a woman
should ask a rapist to wear a condom. It is difficult to understand how a nation that has
been heavily influenced by the feminist movement can sink to this level of collective cowardice.

In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by
offering firearms training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by
nearly 90%. Thanks to the efforts of the anti-self-defense movement,
such an effective and common sense solution to violence against women would be
impossible today.
No doubt the folks at HCI would rather have women ask a rapist to use a condom.[/quote]

Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist in Vancouver, WA who
moderates a large email list for discussion of gun issues in Washington State. He may
be reached through his web site at: http://www.geocities.com/rkba2000
 
Someone ought to post this one on the Ms. Board.

It would certainly be seen as “another gun thread” and castigated thoroughly as a lot of women just do not like to hear information like this.

Good article.

Skyhawk
 
I'm willing to be the one to post it and take the ensuing flames, but I'd like to know if that claim about a debate among feminists on whether to ask a rapist to wear a condom is true. It sounds too absurd to be believed and I know I'll be called upon to source it.
If we can find a source or disprove it, one way or the other, I'll post it there.
 
No way in Hell I'm posting this over there now. I checked into the condom thing. Feminist leaders have NOT advised women to do any such thing. The furor was over SEVERAL cases where women, during the rape, begged their attackers to use condoms to protect their health. Now, that sounds stupid to me (yeah, the rapist cares about your health) but no less stupid than when people ask a robber herding them into the back room to take the money and let them go--it's just human nature, once you submit. And I don't like the idea of submitting, either. I would hope my fiance's rapist won't need a condom, cause as soon as he's on top and his hands busy she'll give him the gift of cold steel.

BUT--the most shameful part is that, in those few cases, the woman's "request" for the rapist to use a condom was entered into evidence as CONSENT!!! That's right, those rapists were acquitted because it was considered consent.

No offense to his fans, but Dr. Brown is now somewhat suspect in my mind. That was outrageously dishonest and I expect he did it with full knowledge of what it would do to the tempers of protective men like myself who are already somewhat suspicious of the feminist agenda. I don't need allies like this guy watching my back while I act all self-righteous about HCI's latest lies!

[This message has been edited by Don Gwinn (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
To any bad guy that comes to rape ME, he's going to be riddled full of 40 caliber holes. I am lucky to have a family that did not raise me as the weak little female. I am an equal, and can go hunting and skeet shooting with any and all.
 
Don Gwinn,

Why not post it? The original article only says that issue of asking a rapist to wear a condom has come in up the feminist media. Infact it has and you veried this is so. Additionaly your research has given you yet more information.

The original article would have had an even stronger impact had he stated that asking a rapist to wear a condom was giving consent. This really gives insight into the repercussions of the choices by a woman being raped. Either risk death by HIV or legalize the assualt upon your person. This is a loose-loose situtation if the victim feels that the attacker fits the profile of someone with HIV.

I say post it.

Sprig
 
I believe the bit about asking a rapist to wear a condom came up in a case in Texas(?). The part I remember for sure is:

1) Perp broke into a woman's bedroom, armed with a knife
2) Woman, realizing she was going to be raped, asked her assailant to wear a condom because she was scared of STD's (IIRC, he did as she asked)
3) The rapist had the IQ of a retarded chimpanzee
4) His court appointed lawyer used the only defense he could think of - that by asking him to wear a condom, the victim was agreeing to have sex with him (remember, he's obliged to give the best defense he can, whatever the circumstances or his personal beliefs).
5) The jury didn't buy the defense. Perp went to prison.

So, it did protect the victim from STD's, and the perp went to prison.
 
The facts revolve around a case out of Austin where a man was almost aquitted on sexual assault charges on the grounds that his being asked to use a condom represented consent on the part of his victim. The name of the case escapes me at the moment. It is only a couple of years old. I remember it in particular because my then fiance about exploded at the news.

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited April 13, 2000).]
 
I would post it. A perusal of the MS Board shows that some of the posters there do advocate pausing the sexual assault to request the use of a condom.
 
Don,

You said exactly what I was thinking since I first read this the other day. I was trying to remember what thread it was because I wanted to ask for a source regarding the request for a condom during assault. If a women were to do that, I would be worried that it would be judged consentual.

In another part, the person remarks: unarmed resistance isn't doing any good, so ask that the rapist wear a condom.. Their thinking concludes the opposite of unarmed = a stupid verbal request. I thought the opposite of unarmed = armed. So, they're smart enough to realize the problem is unarmed resistance, but too stupid to take it the to next step (which is armed and trained resistance with extreme prejudice as in fill him so full of lead he could only use his d*** for a pencil).
Oh, I forgot, the rapist has more rights, sorry, I didn't know what I was thinking.

By the way, anyone find a source?

..damn, my first rant, what are you people doing to me?
 
Screw it. It's going over to Ms. right now. Not only did somebody finally admit that she knows of Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence "instructors" who TEACH this, but three posters have already said that they will not resist a rapist. Not because they're afraid of being hurt if they resist (I could see that) but because it would be wrong to hurt HIM.
Now, I was polite over there but this makes me extremely sad. I just can't understand it and I'm not sure they'll ever be able to explain it to me.
 
Where is this Ms. Board? I'd like to lurk and watch the flames.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 13, 2000).]
 
Don Gwinn,
Personally, I can't see how anyone who isn't willing to defend themselves could be a parent. If you're not willing to defend the person who has the responsibility of providing for/caring for/raising your child, you simply shouldn't have any offspring. If you have children, you're not fighting for yourself, you're fighting to be there to protect them when they need you! If you're not willing to do everything within your power to ensure that you are there to watch out for your children, who will?
 
The Russian women lost most of their men in WWII, The Chinese women saw the horror of war facing the Japanese. The American women lost their men, but the War was over there. Same with the British. Britan was bombed but not over run. Now today which groups are interested in disarming?

Have the American women been socialized into being anti gun, because they have never seen first hand, the utility of weapon enhansed self preservation?

dZ
 
Don,
I suspect that these women who would not resist a rapist because they believe it would "be wrong to hurt him" are simply deceiving themselves.
I had someone tell me recently that he would rather die himself than kill his attacker in self defense. After I agreed that he had the right to make that decision for himself, I asked him if he ever considered the possibility that he might change his mind.
It's one thing to have this kind of noble sentiment when you are safe and secure in comfortable surroundings and your life is not in jeopardy. It's something else when you are alone with your assailant and you realize that the cavalry isn't going to kick the door down and save you at the last minute.
Several years ago, we had a carjacking/rape/murder case down here that was closely covered by the local media.
A young, recently married woman was carjacked from a parking lot near her work, driven to a remote location where she was raped and subsequently murdered.
Her attacker was captured and, during his trial, claimed that his victim consented to the sex. He also claimed that he didn't mean to kill her but that his gun went off during a struggle.
The jury didn't buy it and he's currently appealing his death conviction.
What was interesting to me was the revelation, briefly mentioned in one of countless articles about the crime, that his victim was a member of the local chapter of Ceasefire. This group advocates a policy of no resistance to criminals. They apparently believe that if you just give the criminal whatever he wants without resistance, he will not hurt you.
In light of this disclosure, is it conceivable that this young woman consented to her own rape? Maybe.
And afterwards, when she realized that he was going to kill her anyway, did she struggle with him in a futile effort to save her life? Maybe.
What are the chances that in those final moments of her young life, when she knew with absolute certainty that she was about to die, that she would never see her husband or family again, that she might have wished that she had the means to save herself? I guess we'll never know, but I have my doubts.
I believe that most people don't have a clue about what it actually means to be a victim of violence. Even with the more graphic nature of todays movies and TV shows, the suffering and fear are not likely to be accurate portrayals of what true victims experience. I don't believe that anyone who has a true knowledge of the degree of brutality that's possible would meekly agree to accept it.
I would be curious to know how many women who have actually been the victim of a brutal rape subscribe to this ask him to wear a condom nonsense.
 
Back
Top