Lessons from Ms. Magazine experience

O

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
1. God save me from my damn allies!
2. The above.
3. The difference in our approach seems to be mainly in the attitude towards independent action. Let's take the often-posed question of "if attacked or mugged, would having a gun make things worse?"

Our view is that a gun is just another option to use or not to use. Having the means to control the situation is better thanrelying on some psycho's mercy.

Their view is that it would make things worse, anger the perp further.

They also feel that fighting back with means other than a gun would not make the per more angry; at least they do advocate resistance. Likewise, they are willing to call police who would bring guns and protect them.

So the question is, how does one recommend actions to people who feel that their own response would make things worse.

------------------
Oleg "cornered rat" Volk (JPFO,NRA)

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>God save me from my damn allies![/quote]

I saw what was going on over there and decided to not mix it up with them. A little bit at the time is all they can take with out the reflexes kicking in.
 
Like Sensop, I just looked in. Saw that they were not happy hearing the truth.I have a sister-in-law just like'em.
To your question. You can't. Until one of them is in danger,then they wish they had a gun. Too late!
Put it this way, how many here a TFL know that they need to diet or workout? When do they start? After the heart-attack, it they live.
Just my random thoughts.YMMV
Stay safe.
John
 
You can't. It is a personality factor.
Some people face fear by submission and
freezing. Some will fight.

Those who cannot conceive of fighting want to remove all dangers.

If you present the alternatives, some will probe their soul and choose the option to defend themselves. Some will after a threat, some never will.

Personality factors are probably inherited to a large part.

Try to get to those who have the right stuff.
 
As was stated, some people will only realize when the situation is upon them (literally) and then it's too late. Sadly, many will still not realize and/or refuse to realize and thus place blame elsewhere.

I never liked the word "self-defense". That's what it is but I prefer "counter-attack". Defense implies a passive, victim role whereas counter-attack means reacting to a situation and trying to gain the upperhand. The key is to try and control the situation as much as possible. Will the gun work all the time? No, but it is a very effective option.

Hoping that a perp will be nice is definitely an illusion. The reason why someone attacks someone, especially with a weapon, is to control the victim, the situation, and cause harm. If not, why else would they need a weapon?

Unfortunately, many people like to think that life is a perpetual paradise when in reality it can and is a harsh, unfair journey. Some people can't believe that another human can be so savage to another human so they believe it doesn't exist and won't happen to them.

I guess the most you can do is at least offer the options and let them take it from there. Statistics estimate that 1 out of 3 women will experience some form of violence against them. I guess many over at that forum are gamblers and feel lucky. Personally, I'd rather have a gun/knife and not need it than need a gun/knife and not have it.
 
:D :D :D Why you guys thought that you would convince anyone in that crowd is beyond me! Its like a group of blacks trying to bust in on a KKK meeting and convince them that all blacks shouldn't be deported to Africa.

And who, for the most part, joined in the effort to persuade? None other than the pro-gun equivalents of Jesse Jackson & company along with a few members of the Nation of Islam.

------------------
"I don't believe in individualism, Peter. I don't believe that any one man is any one thing which everybody else can't be. I believe that we are all equal and interchangeable."--Ellsworth Toohey
 
It is foolish to think you can turn a person's mind around in one sitting. It takes at least three valid messages, from different sources, to move a normal person.

I was a y2k nut. But to get there, I had my next door neighbor, utne reader and some other written missives before I started to take it seriously. Don't flame me now becuz nuttin happened, OK? I'm glad! :D And part of my y2k conversion included PERSONAL PROTECTION, and now here I am, messin' with your boards! ;)

Also, Oleg, thank you for introducing me to the Ms. boards. I used to be a flaming feminist. Time wears ya' out, I tell you. But I'll be there for some time carrying the Constitution & Bill of Rights for y'all.
 
I went. I didn't feel real welcome. I only saw a few posts by idiots but I didn't read the main gun-control thread because I had to go to class. Anyway, I promised after my initial post not to mention guns for awhile.
I too am getting tired of being blindsided by the stupidity of some of my allies. Sorry, Oleg. I don't know the whole story of Q's time on TFL but I know this is a sore subject for you.
 
I think that Michelle went away because some people (Conneach!) feel that a pro-RKBA liberal is an oxymoron.

Considering that Ms. readers are mostly keep on "re-distribution of wealth" concept (as is Michelle), I think there's a deeper divide than I can bridge at home or on-line.

Michelle feels that libertarians are basically middle-aged, middle-class males who "got theirs, fuxx everyone else". In her opinion, libertarians would let poverty, esp. among children be concentrated somewhere out of sight which is both cruel and myopic. She feels that each of us has a responsibility to out community and that majority rules (such as taxes) are the American way.

I said at some point that I would grudgungly spare money to feed the poor but absolutely hate behavior modification through taxation (NFA 1934 as an example). That got me "boys and their toys" line.

BTW, DC does not qualify as an officially-defined "single mother" because she comes from a good family and does well for herself. "Single mother" is also a blameless condition because it is invariably a result of a guilty man who skipped out (I suppose widows are not single mothers, officially).

Anyway: I hope I was accurate in representing Muchelle's views as I understand them; else she'll rip me a new one for mis-representing her views. She and Ms. regulars simply have a different set of pre-conceptions form us *and* different goals. How could we agree on the process given the disparity in start points and goals? That means that there's noi point in wasting breath arguing...plus I begin to sound like a missionary.

With that, I am going to retire off gun forums for aweek or so and try to get my domestic situation together.

Oleg
 
And Oleg, Michelle et al should be instructed that not all avidly-pro-RKBA people are libertarian - many (OK, some) are quite "liberal" on certain issues (myself included). Pro-freedom people are from all walks of life and otherwise all over the political spectrum. I like Libertarian philosophy vis-a-vis individual rights, but disagree with lassaiz-faire as to many well-established "market externalities".
 
I always thought re-distribution of wealth was a Socialist..or is it a Communist tenet."From those...according to their means...To those...according to their needs."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>... it is invariably a result of a guilty man who skipped out (I suppose widows are not single mothers, officially).[/quote]

Hmmmm. Might want to think that one some more, Oleg.
 
sensop,

this topic has got so confusing, maybe you could expand on your views of it. Would help me to catch your drift.
 
I don't get the part about DC not being an "official" single mother because she does well and is from a good family. Sounds like a Victorian definition.

But unfortunately, I believe that if the assertion about most single mothers being single because the evil man skipped out of his responsibility could be tested, it would be found true most of the time. I hate to say this about my own kind but a lot of men out there are just simply not interested in taking responsibility--just getting laid. I decided several weeks before my first time that I was with a girl I wouldn't mind marrying immediately if necessary (we were basically waiting to graduate before we got married anyway.)

I will go so far as to allow that there can be a pro-gun "liberal" (meaning left-wing statist, as I use it here.) But I don't understand it and I don't pretend to. If you ask me, THAT's an example of the "toy" attitude.
"Guns are fun and all, so I should be able to have one. But other freedoms are just unnecessary."
 
Don, I think you got pro-RKBA liberals pegged. That, or they realize that they need a defense against their own party purges but don't quite realize that other people would use arms against *them* and their party.
 
I don't get what you guys are saying, I'm a Pro-RKBA liberal. (ok a far left libertarian) Politically I'm probably pretty close to Futo Inu, & it sounds like Michelle is where I was at a couple of years ago.

The way I grew up, I allways concidered the left-wing to be anti-statist & conservitives to be the main PTBs. My dad was / is a college professor & durring the vietnam war, his students fire bombed a tank that the National Guard had on campus (talk about rage agianst the machine :)). It used to be that the right was overtly totaltarian & the left had a slight edge in the freedom department. The roles have reversed, but that dosen't inherently make a conservative stance more loving of freedom & liberty, than than a liberal one.

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


[This message has been edited by Tony III (edited March 22, 2000).]
 
I would contend that neither the left nor the right are able to "live and let live". That said, the left is currently more active in trying to mess us up. The choice is really between Alliende (sp?) and Pinochet and I'd say one is better than the other but both are damn nasty.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr.X:
I always thought re-distribution of wealth was a Socialist..or is it a Communist tenet."From those...according to their means...To those...according to their needs."[/quote]

"From each according to their means, to each according to their needs." -- Karl Marx

Those Democrats and others in favor of wealth-redistribution schemes don't always like being reminded of their philosophical origins. But, then again, some are proud of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top