Feminism

Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by mashers, Sep 1, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Iain Aschendale

    Iain Aschendale New Kitten Lost Behind the Fridge Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2015
    Messages:
    10,006
    Likes Received:
    19,245
    Location:
    Seat 29e, Air Gradia 452
    Just one more comment. Both @mashers and I made conscious choices that lead to our being... bothered. He got inked up, I wore unconventional clothing. I'm not blaming either of us, but we could have made different choices that would have lead to different outcomes.

    However... Decades ago I worked with a woman who was shaped approximately like Jessica Rabbit. She always dressed appropriately, blouses and shirts that didn't reveal cleavage, tucked into or extending well beyond the waistband of her lower garments. None of her clothes were particularly tight, everything was always styled business-appropriate, but you (I?) could not help but to notice the shape under the clothes.

    Notice, yes.

    Many of our coworkers, and this was in the days before such things became an actionable issue, couldn't help but to comment on her attributes either. Dunno what she could have done differently, since as far as I knew everything she had was the result of genetics and exercise.

    Anyway, that's about what I've got to say about that...
     
    BayView likes this.
  2. mashers

    mashers Contributor Contributor Community Volunteer

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,369
    Likes Received:
    3,071
    Actually it did. I grabbed their arm and pulled it away from mine. They looked at me with a shocked expression, and when I asked them "what the fuck do you think you're doing?" they backed away, then squared up and appeared to be about to become aggressive, then they started becoming verbally aggressive and saying things like "I was just trying to look, don't overreact", to which I responded "don't ever fucking grab people without asking, you cunt". So yes, it did get me "out" of the situation in that it stopped them touching me, and if they ever see me again they would be fucking stupid to try it again.

    Exactly. There are no guarantees. But it's an interaction at the end of the day. One person initiates it, the other responds, and then you respond to each other. Of course you don't go into that interaction knowing what the outcome will be. But the alternative to my course of action (just letting them do what they want with my arm) would have been worse for me, as it would have prolonged the amount of time their hands were on my body.

    Well, "appropriate" is a matter of opinion. People usually become defensive, trying to justify why they think it's ok to grab somebody and pull them to where they can get a better view.

    No.

    No.

    Funnily enough, before I was self-employed a manager did actually try to pull up a sleeve to have a better look. My response was, "would you allow me to pull up parts of your clothing to look at your skin?" She was very embarrassed and had seemingly not realised the double standard. Most of the people who do this are bigger than me - guys with arms bigger than mine who are also tattoo enthusiasts. I don't really care if they're bigger than me. I would rather confront inappropriate behaviour and deal with any consequences than accept it as part of life. As for someone with a "crazy look", I don't really know what this means and probably wouldn't recognise it if it happened. But if I did think that somebody looked "crazy" then I would be more inclined to react to them trying to grab me, to end the experience as soon as possible.

    Yup, in the work situation I was more diplomatic.

    I think if anybody gets grabbed by anybody else without permission then pulling away and asking them to stop would be an entirely reasonable response.

    I think the non-verbal communication would speak for itself in this situation.

    This is a specific scenario. Of course if somebody has been traumatised and goes into a freeze response I am not going to describe that as "inappropriate". But I'm also not going to agree that it is necessarily helpful.

    If their reaction really is innocent then they should have nothing to fear by defending themselves.

    Of course. I accept that. I'm not saying that there is only one specific and correct reaction.

    Well, I'm not the one using the word "appropriate" and "inappropriate" to describe reactions. I haven't used those words in that context in this thread, so I'm not sure why you seem to be implying that that is how I view things.
     
    T.Trian likes this.
  3. CoyoteKing

    CoyoteKing Good Boi Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Kennel
    @mashers :

    Bayview asked you a couple specific questions and you said “no” to them.

    Even though you personally have not been in those specific situations...

    You can still understand they’re things that happen, right? You understand that other people might get into situations where they feel socially pressured to remain silent, or might be too tired from dealing with constant bullshit to push back that particular day?

    This kind of reminds me of our conversation about LBGT safe spaces. I asked you if you, as a gay man, ever felt any kind of need at all for a safe space, and you said no, never. So I listed off reasons other LGBT people in other situations might need a safe space... I remember I had a specific example about being transgender. You responded by reiterating that those things hadn’t happened to you personally, told me you weren’t transgender and didn’t know, and repeated that you didn’t think safe spaces were necessary.

    But you still understand that other people DO have those problems. Right?

    Even if you personally haven’t encountered the issue?
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
    BayView likes this.
  4. Edward M. Grant

    Edward M. Grant Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    292
    Location:
    Canada
    Throughout history, polygamous societies have generally been violent and backward, because most men have no access to women without fighting for them, and no need to produce anything to support a family. Personally, I can't think of any exceptions to that, but I don't know the history of every culture in the world so maybe there was one somewhere.

    Monogamous societies took over the world because monogamy took violent young males and turned them into husbands and fathers, who had to be productive to support their families.

    Now we've almost reached the end of the process of rolling all that back. And tomorrow's disgruntled, violent young men won't just have pointy sticks and rocks for weapons. They'll have drone armies and bio-engineered plagues.

    Heck, now I'm going to have to write a book about it.
     
    Foxxx and John-Wayne like this.
  5. CoyoteKing

    CoyoteKing Good Boi Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Kennel
    I’m not trying to be rude, so forgive me if my tone comes across wrong, @mashers.

    I’m just trying to establish “this is a basic thing we can both acknowledge and agree on.” Even if this is not a Mashers experience, it’s something he can empathize with. Right?

    I remember we had this whole discussion (in the LGBT safe space conversation) about how human beings can empathize with each other, support each other, and understand each other’s problems even if they personally haven’t experienced those problems.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
    making tracks and BayView like this.
  6. I.A. By the Barn

    I.A. By the Barn A very lost time traveller Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    975
    Location:
    Tomorrow
    I feel like I missed something interesting here :/
     
  7. CoyoteKing

    CoyoteKing Good Boi Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Kennel
    It was in this thread.

    https://www.writingforums.org/threads/writers-of-color.158909/

    We derailed into talking about LGBT groups. I might be mis-remembering what Mashers said. You’re welcome to read it.
     
    I.A. By the Barn likes this.
  8. T.Trian

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    These posts were from a couple pages ago but I feel it's important to address them regardless for posterity's sake. I realize this isn't all that closely tied to feminism and more to self-defense, but considering how we've been talking about responses to sexual assault, harassment, rape etc, I figured I'd just post this here for now (might create a separate topic for self-defense later if the discussion related to it continues).
    Pardon the length but these are extremely complex subjects, so even though I tried to be conscise, I couldn't make my arguments in a couple of sentences.

    First, I'd like to move away from the "appropriate" vs. "inappropriate" -paradigm because there are an almost unlimited amount of options in almost every scenario, some have a higher chance of success, some have lower, but many fall outside of said paradigm.

    E.g. I'm out with my wife and we're accosted by 2 guys with knives who tell me to lay down and my wife to strip. Let's say I choose to attack pre-emptively in the hopes that I can buy my wife enough time to run to safety and call the police, and let's say I succeed in doing that but the thugs manage to kill me in the process. Did I achieve the desired outcome? Sort of; the desired outcome would have been both of us getting home safely. Were my actions appropriate? I'd certainly say so, but the outcome, i.e. my untimely death, was very much undesired, so my failure to stay alive kinda makes the label of "appropriate" sound inappropriate.


    First, about adrenaline: with knowledge and training, you can learn to deal with adrenaline. Obviously it will always be there but there's a world of difference between freezing and being able to harness the adrenaline dump for your benefit regardless of whether you choose to fight or flee. While we can't prevent the release of adrenaline, we can definitely learn to cope with it.

    Anyway, on what data do you base your assertion that doing nothing/going dormant is usually the best choice when attacked by someone bigger/stronger/armed? Because that sounds incredibly counter-productive. I'm not going to assume sexism here but I'll explain my confusion and you can correct me if I've misread what you meant:
    You're specifically referring to women who are being assaulted by men, yes?
    My question is, how is that scenario any different from a small/weak/frail/old man being assaulted by a bigger/stronger man or even a few assailants at once? If one guy with a knife or two unarmed guys assaulted you, would you go dormant and let them harm your body to the extent of their wishes? What if a guy bigger than you and armed with a knife told you to lay down while he raped the woman you're with?

    How do you know they won't do any serious damage? How do you know they won't kill you?
    Leading questions, I know, and I'll get to the point: how does the woman know the man assaulting her will not kill her? Or that he won't cause her serious bodily harm? Rape in and of itself can cause significant damage to the body (not to mention the mind) but what's to guarantee the rapist won't pull a knife and use it on her? Or a gun? Or just choke her because it's his kink? Or a myriad of other situations where the woman will suffer grievous bodily harm or death at the hands of her assailant. How do you know?

    Of course you don't because nobody does. Since there's no way to know what the man willing to rape a fellow human being will be satisfied with, whether he's armed or not, whether he desires to kill her or not, how is going dormant in any way the preferable alternative to fighting back?
    Note that I'm asking questions specifically because I'd like to know what knowledge you're basing your statement on, rather than assuming it's based on e.g. anecdotal evidence.

    Sure, if someone is pointing a gun at you and demands your phone, you give him your damn phone; it's replaceable, but when we're talking about your body, your life, I always see trying to escape as the preferable option and should that fail, fighting back as the secondary option because from what I've read about the subject, rapists aren't looking for a challenge but, rather, easily subdued, submissive victims, and should a woman fight back, even if without training, many will abort the assault to avoid getting caught.
    And that's assuming the woman will be ineffective in her self-defense; if she's capable, her chances of survival will rise exponentially.


    On this I agree; it's difficult to land a kick in the nuts and it's incredibly irresponsible to bet your safety on any one technique/target since self-defense scenarios are so multi-faceted, you need more consistently effective and versatile options.
    That's why learning about local self-defense laws, how criminals choose their targets, how to handle adrenaline, how to de-escalate or escalate impending assaults according to need, how to cultivate the principles of awareness and avoidance etc.


    A couple issues I have with the above (and bear with me since I have to lay a foundation for my argument):
    1. Regarding the challenges of an ambush attack - why were you ambushed in the first place? Obviously if I'm walking down a street and a guy casually passes me by and after passing me, pulls a gun and blasts me in the back of the head, there's nothing I could do.
    However, that kind of assassination-style attacks are rare, especially against your average civilians. The vast majority of time, if you're aware of your surroundings (think of a similar level of awareness you'd cultivate while driving), you'll see suspicious behavior or shady characters a mile away and can either choose to take precautions to avoid them or ignore the warning signs at your own (calculated) risk.

    If we're talking about women in specific, we know from statistics that the majority of violence they face is sexual. When talking about sexual assault/rape, you can divide them into two main categories:

    1. The perpetrator is someone they know
    If we talk about sexual assault between intimate partners, friends etc, it's a bit different because often the assaults start when the two (or more) people are e.g. sitting on a couch or bed, i.e. the victim is not only close to the assailant, they're usually indoors (both factors make escape much more complicated), and the victim is usually relaxed and doesn't expect an assault.

    2. The perpetrator is a stranger
    While the former type are the majority of sexual assaults, in recent years, especially in Europe, "random rapes" that take place outside and are committed by complete strangers have been on a dramatic rise, to the point where they represent a significant portion of sexual assaults. Such assaults share several parallels between attempted mugging/robbery/murder because in those scenarios, the crime usually happens away from home and is committed by strangers.

    And now I get to my point: in the former type of sexual assault, it's not as common to benefit from a firearm simply because most people don't carry at home, most keep their guns stashed away (in a locked safe, in the nightstand etc), and most don't expect to be assaulted by a loved one/friend. The environment also matters: if we're talking about e.g. marital rape that takes place at night in the couple's bed, the woman doesn't really have the opportunity to stay far enough from the perpetrator to be able to benefit from a firearm (even if we assume she can access it in the blink of an eye). If the man has already grabbed the woman and the gun safe is five feet away, getting to the gun is next to impossible.

    However, I take issue with the claim that it's inadvisable to carry in preparation to assaults committed by strangers (be it sexual in nature, a mugging, murder attempt etc). First, why shouldn't/wouldn't the woman train the use of her concealed carry firearm? Every friend of mine who carries trains the defensive use of firearms regularly. Why would I expect less from a random female gun owner since that's the responsible thing to do if you choose to own a gun?
    Second, as I stated earlier in the post, there's no way of knowing how severe the assault will be until it's over, and by that time it may well be too late, so once again I object to the idea of just letting it happen being the default choice.

    Sure, it's possible the assailant takes the gun from her and uses it against her, but according to e.g. Self-Defensive Gun Use by Crime Victims (2009) and Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013), when civilians used guns defensively, their chances of survival as well as the chances of successfully averting the crime were improved rather than reduced. That kinda goes against the "he'll just take it from you and use it against you" -argument.

    Lastly, if you faced a guy bigger and stronger than you or maybe two guys, would you rather be armed or unarmed? Would you actually practice using your gun defensively? Would you do whatever you could to ensure your survival? If I were to tell a woman "that guy approaching you will try to rape you. Do you want this gun to fight back with or would you rather stay unarmed?" How many do you think would accept the gun and do whatever they could to avoid the rape? I doubt I know a single person who'd prefer to remain unarmed in such a situation.

    Again, sorry about the length.
     
    Foxxx likes this.
  9. pyroglyphian

    pyroglyphian Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    179
    I understand how Feminism could come to exist in a patriarchal society, but struggle to see how a sexist ideology could rectify systemic sexism.
     
    Foxxx and S A Lee like this.
  10. CoyoteKing

    CoyoteKing Good Boi Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Kennel
    This is one of the reasons I don’t like the word “polygamy.”

    The whole “high-status men hoard all the wives” thing is a legitimate problem... but the things is, you’re talking out a really old school conservative kind of polygamy called polygyny. IE the kind that takes place in old Mormon societies and some specific Muslim countries. You’re talking about sexist societies where women have less rights than men... and only men are allowed to have multiple spouses. Women are removed from the dating pool when they marry; men are not.

    Actual, equal-minded polygamy — where both men and women are allowed to have multiple legal spouses of either sex — is not legal in any country in the world. There are no bad (or good) examples of it, because it’s never been a thing.

    There is a liberal polyamorous community in the United States right now. It doesn’t include legal marriage (obviously) but it might be a better example for how poly relationships could work in a modern-day liberal society. The whole “high-status men hoard the women” thing doesn’t happen— because women are able to take multiple partners themselves.

    Just food for thought. I’m not advocating for or against it, just saying there’s a lot of different models, here.

    EDIT: goddamn typos. On mobile. Sorry.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  11. S A Lee

    S A Lee Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    1,325
    Location:
    Greater London, England
    @T.Trian About the gun point in particular, moose, like myself, is from the UK, where self-defence is not a valid excuse for a firearm and hasn't been since the 60s. There's a big, and equally entrenched, difference between how a Brit sees a firearm and an American does, so you can go on forever on that one.
     
  12. Iain Sparrow

    Iain Sparrow Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    1,021

    You got that right!

    I'm first generation American, mom is Canadian, dad was Scottish.
    Growing up I wasn't allowed so much as a pellet gun, never mind a real gun. My brother and I, however, were taught how to fight. To use mind and body to protect ourselves when need be, and the defenseless when called on. There's an insane belief in America that guns are a reasonable solution to violence. Our homicide statistics show otherwise.

    Btw, my dad was a second pilot during WWII, stationed in Palestine and flying missions over Italy and Austria. He was at the business end of violence for three terrifying years. He may have been short in stature, but never was he short of manliness. Told me, if you can walk away, walk away. If you can't, than fight for all your worth. Good words to live by.
     
  13. John Calligan

    John Calligan Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    1,485
    England always sounded dangerous to me. Is any of this true (first thing I found on google, not vetted by me): http://igeek.com/w/U.S._vs_U.K._-_Crime/Murder
     
  14. Edward M. Grant

    Edward M. Grant Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    292
    Location:
    Canada
    I lived in England for a long time, though I left it over a decade ago. In my experience, violence was... less violent, but more prevalent. In America, most people can avoid being shot by not going to the bad areas, in England you can get beaten up anywhere. Or, these days, get permanently blinded with acid.

    The murder rate where I live in Canada is about 5x as high as where I lived in the UK, but I feel a heck of a lot safer because most of the crime happens in a small fraction of the city, where I don't go. And there are no chavs setting parked cars on fire.
     
    Foxxx likes this.
  15. Edward M. Grant

    Edward M. Grant Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    292
    Location:
    Canada
    I'd say it can only happen in a modern-day liberal society, because most men won't share women if they can just go over to the next tribe and kidnap one of their own. That obviously doesn't happen in the modern day because there are men with guns who'll turn up to stop them, but it happened all the time in historical tribal societies.

    And you don't get to have a modern-day liberal society for long with polygamy, because it eliminates the motivations that created that society.

    Is there any historical example of this ever happening at a society-wide level? I doubt the pool of men that will agree to share women if they have other options is very large, and few high-status men would agree to let lower-status men share their women, at least if they intend to keep those women around. Maybe the Khan would let his general shag one of his concubines as a reward for good service, but he won't share his wife.

    And I'm not sure there are many women who'd prefer to have a dozen low-status men when they could be part of the Khan's harem instead. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but I don't remember ever seeing a romance book called 'My Harem Of Six Accountants.' Six NFL players, maybe... but they have other options.
     
    Foxxx likes this.
  16. big soft moose

    big soft moose All killer, no filler. Staff Supporter Contributor Community Volunteer

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    10,895
    Likes Received:
    12,442
    Location:
    East devon/somerset border
    Although I'm also ex army and firearms trained... if I was carrying and I was assaulted by two guys with knives and they were inside 10feet I wouldn't even try to draw down on them, because you don't have time to deploy a gun effectively in that scenario...you need to do something to create space first, and if you can create space you might as well run. If they were outside ten feet I'd draw on them if running wasn't an option, but a lot of crap is talked about firearms for self defence … the average range shooter will have all sorts of problems the first time they have to shoot at a human being. Our training was don't draw unless you intend to use it, and don't use it unless you intend to kill... intent to kill is a big red line for civilians (unless they are sociopaths)

    However the self defence point is a bit moot when it comes to sexual assault because stranger rape is a tiny tiny proportion, the vast majority is friends, relatives and dates ...if you look at Coyote's example was she supposed to shoot the guy when he 'playfully picked her up and carried her into his room' ...not many courts would rule that legitimate force... but after that once he'd actually pinned her to the bed carrying wouldn't have helped her
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
    Cave Troll and S A Lee like this.
  17. big soft moose

    big soft moose All killer, no filler. Staff Supporter Contributor Community Volunteer

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    10,895
    Likes Received:
    12,442
    Location:
    East devon/somerset border
    No its mostly bollocks … I was opposed to the handgun ban but that was never about reducing normal crime (because nearly all normal gun crime in the uk is with illegally held weapons anyway), it was because a chap called Thomas Hamilton who wasn't wrapped too snug (and should never have had a firearms certificate in the first place) took two semi automatic handguns and shot up a school.

    England is generally pretty safe … we've got a bit of a terrorism problem at the moment, but who hasn't ? … that aside most stranger to stranger violent crime is in the inner cities and the fast majority of knife crime is between gangs (the sort of gangbanging that would use handguns in the states). nearly all the rest is either domestics or fights outside pubs of a Friday night.

    theres an indepth debunk of the 4 times more violent thing here https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/ the TLDR version is that the US and the UK have widely different definitions of what a violent crime means so they aren't comparing like with like
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
    John Calligan likes this.
  18. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    1,797
    Location:
    United States
    No.

    This is why you cross-analyze, as I already mentioned. I think you're deliberately making this more complicated than it needs to be. So far nothing you've said seems to counter my assertion that every unique scenario can be prevented or dealt with, and responses that I call "appropriate" are ones that would result in the scenario being prevented or dealt with, or have the greatest chance of preventing / solving the problem.

    I'm not saying I'm the sole arbiter of what is appropriate and what isn't. Mashers already gave you some examples of what I would call appropriate responses, but just for the sake of keeping things straight, I understand he didn't use the words "appropriate".

    You might have noticed that my use of the words "appropriate" and "inappropriate" have an operational definition attached to them, and that I'm coming from a belief that there never needs to be a time where a victim is totally helpless and defenseless. That's not the same thing as "everybody is invincible".

    I never said nothing bad could ever happen to me. That has nothing to do with whether or not I try my best to prevent them from happening, or deal with them when they happen.

    I still don't think this has anything to do with the fact that each scenario has at least one appropriate response that would've either prevented the scenario, or will handle the scenario. It doesn't really matter how many gymnastic hoops you throw in there. If this wasn't the case, then all the advice and classes that are available for all of the scenarios we've been talking about would be useless. But they're not, because there are things you should and shouldn't do.

    Just out of curiosity, do you not see value in archetypes, trends, or any lower resolution thinking?

    I never said there is one, and only one, appropriate response for each scenario. There's at least one, and it's either preventative in nature, or a solution.

    I never said there is one, and only one, appropriate response for each scenario. There's at least one, and it's preventative in nature, or a solution.

    But it already is applied to the real world. It's why we have seatbelts, airbags, defensive driving techniques. This is the magic of cross analysis. Instead of doing what you would do, which is be unnecessarily baffled by the fact that people can crash into trees, other cars, animals, buildings with different materials, at different speeds, in different cars, on different road surfaces, from different angles, they said: wow, let's invent a safety belt and an airbag, and teach people to drive defensively by analyzing hundreds if not thousands of different scenarios, and cross-analyze them for commonalities.

    The trick here is that just because the airbag and seatbelt fails to save the life of a victim, that they were now suddenly the incorrect course of action. Objectively, they increase the chance of survival in a crash many times over.

    (Historically that isn't probably how the seatbelt and airbag went down, but it's a simple and viable demonstration of what I'm talking about here. This is why a lot of women carry mace, and don't go anywhere alone. Because instead of being stumped by the fact that there are "a million different variables" at play, they realized there are things women can do to be prepared and prevent, whether that be defensive weapons, safety in numbers, or taking self-defense courses. To me, these are all what I call appropriate responses or appropriate pre-emptive measures.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  19. Edward M. Grant

    Edward M. Grant Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    292
    Location:
    Canada
    If I remember correctly, the police had taken it away, but some politician or cop he knew intervened and got it back for him. Which is probably why the government rushed to ban handguns rather than have people delve too deeply into what happened.

    The general belief among the shooters I knew was that the official in question was probably a pedo and Hamilton had used that knowledge to get him to intervene. Then gone and murdered a bunch of kids.

    Certainly I only remember one mainstream news story about it at the time. I'm guessing someone probably issued a D-notice pretty fast after that.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  20. John Calligan

    John Calligan Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    1,485
    Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. I figured you would know something about it, having followed your posts.
     
  21. big soft moose

    big soft moose All killer, no filler. Staff Supporter Contributor Community Volunteer

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    10,895
    Likes Received:
    12,442
    Location:
    East devon/somerset border
    He was known to the police for having an improper interest in young boys and had been banned by the scout association for the same reason - that probanly wouldn't have been sufficient to lift his FAC but it might have been grounds for investigation … the evidence of his previous interaction with the police was sealed for a 100 years by a court closure order although this was partly lifted in 2005.

    In The UK you have to have a FAC for a specific weapon and prove a legitimate reason for wanting to own it.. e.g I was granted a FAC for .243 rifle for fox control, but refused one for a .308 on the grounds that I didn't have a legitimate need for the latter as the former was adequate for purpose. It therefore follows that the police could have refused Hamilton a FAC for example for a large bore handgun like a .45, without this meaning he couldn't own a 9mm for target shooting

    Things were tightened up a lot in '87 when another headcase called Michael Ryan when berserk on the streets of Hungerford with a semi automatic Ak47 /type 56, an M1 carbine and two pistols - at that stage they made it impossible to own a semi automatic centre fire rifle and limited the magazine capacity of semi automatic or pump action shot guns to 3, and tightened up on legitimate reasons for pistol ownership

    Since dunblane it is virtually impossible to own a handgun in the uk with the exception of single shot .22s for target shooting(which have very tight restrictions), historic weapons like flintlocks, and humane killers for vets and slaughter men. The only other exception is some police and soldiers who may be permitted to keep a weapon at home for self defence (ie if they are under specific threat from terrorists or organised crime)
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
    John Calligan likes this.
  22. Edward M. Grant

    Edward M. Grant Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    292
    Location:
    Canada
    Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that. 'Nothing to hide here, honest guv.'
     
  23. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    1,797
    Location:
    United States
    In the military I can see how "don't draw unless you intend to kill" is a legitimate stance.

    But for self-defense, isn't the whole idea that if you have a gun and are *prepared* to shoot them, that hopefully they'll back down? That doesn't always happen obviously, but I would suspect that the average criminal will be running the opposite direction when they're staring down the barrel of a gun.

    That's always been my understanding, anyway. If you just say "Stop, I have a gun" they might either think you're bluffing, or might take advantage of the fact that you haven't even drawn it yet.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
    John Calligan and John-Wayne like this.
  24. Edward M. Grant

    Edward M. Grant Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    292
    Location:
    Canada
    Another one who'd been reported to the police as unfit to own guns, but still had his license.
     
  25. John Calligan

    John Calligan Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    1,485
    I'm not an expert on this, or a lawyer, so don't take this as true without looking into it.

    As I understand it, there are four main things you need to prove self defense in most places in the states: you believe you were under serious threat, from someone who could carry out the damage, that the threat was immediate, and that retreating put you in further danger.

    When people shoot in self defense, it is usually because they believe that they had to immediately stop someone from continuing to attack. If you brandish a weapon and make threats, it appears as if you didn't really need to brandish it, because if you did you would have used it. Creating panic by brandishing a weapon is against the law, and the person you pointed the gun at can testify that your routinely illegal activity was actually illegal. It's a real hornets nest.

    This woman fired a warning shot in a stand your ground state and had the book thrown at her:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/marissa-alexander-released-stand-your-ground.html
     
    Foxxx and John-Wayne like this.

Share This Page