http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id={3E4CF6E4-1657-4603-ABF1-CE9905DAF940}&title=CO-Legislator-On-Gun-Feel-Like-Youre-Going-To-Be-Raped-You-May-Not-Be ......”From Revealing Politics: Late into the gun debate Friday, February 15th, Representative Joe Salazar
talked about concerns that women could have about self defense on college campuses.
"There are some gender inequities on college campuses, it is true. And universities have been faces with that situation for a long time. It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop [pause] pop around at somebody.” ....
RRD: Well no, you can't go around ”popping” anyone whenever you feel threatened. You must have a rational fear of grievous bodily harm. That includes a reasonable fear of rape, kidnapping,assault etc.
as determined by the ”reasonable man” standard . That standard is well developed in case law & it includes the context of the encounter; such as the difference in size & physical strength between the two people (e.g. an elderly woman would have a greater need to use a firearm to defend herself against a unarmed adult male attacker than a adult male would have to defend himself against a unarmed elderly female attacker).
Reading statements like Salazar's I wonder if people like him are being disingenuous or whether they really think that self-defense is some new & outlandish concept dreamed up by the NRA ,instead of being part of the legal code of nation states going all the way back to at least biblical times.
As for whistles,call-boxes etc, yes these things are certainly useful as part of a series of defensive measures but they are no more substitutes for guns than guns are for calling the police: if they fail what then? Do you let yourself be raped? What if the attacker is coming at you in the here & now? Do you call the police while he is stabbing you with a knife? Or do you take out your gun & then call the police if he stops or flees, & shoot if he continues to attack you?
I sometimes wonder if these people who say things like ”just call the police” understand that most sane people will do exactly that when they can:they carry a gun for when they can't. An attack can take place in seconds,if you are outside & cannot get to safety it is absurd to talk of ”just calling the police” while you are being strangled or stabbed by someone on PCP. ( Something less rare than you may think). Of course you should not limit yourself to the use of lethal weapons,you should also carry non-lethal devices such as a taser and pepper spray as part of a ”continuum of force ladder” *,but sometimes lethal force is necessary.
At its root the attack on lawful firearm ownership is a attack on the rights of the innocent to defend themselves against attackers ,the same arguments made against lawful firearm ownership can just as easily be made against the use of any weapon or any martial art that may have lethal results. ( Since people can die from tasers or from asthma attacks brought on by pepper spray).
It is not a coincidence that most of those who call for victim disarmament also favor a more ”humane” penal code. By ”humane” I do not mean that they oppose the death penalty for minors or favor preventing prison rape,I mean that they favor releasing murderers onto the streets instead of ”just locking people up”. They are then shocked that the innocent will not simply let themselves be murdered for the sake of their--the reformers-- selective ”humanitarianism”. *
Continuum of Force for Police and Civilians
http://www.turtlepress.com/articles/continuum_of_force.aspx
The Use-of-Force Continuum | National Institute of Justice http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/continuum.htm
talked about concerns that women could have about self defense on college campuses.
"There are some gender inequities on college campuses, it is true. And universities have been faces with that situation for a long time. It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop [pause] pop around at somebody.” ....
RRD: Well no, you can't go around ”popping” anyone whenever you feel threatened. You must have a rational fear of grievous bodily harm. That includes a reasonable fear of rape, kidnapping,assault etc.
as determined by the ”reasonable man” standard . That standard is well developed in case law & it includes the context of the encounter; such as the difference in size & physical strength between the two people (e.g. an elderly woman would have a greater need to use a firearm to defend herself against a unarmed adult male attacker than a adult male would have to defend himself against a unarmed elderly female attacker).
Reading statements like Salazar's I wonder if people like him are being disingenuous or whether they really think that self-defense is some new & outlandish concept dreamed up by the NRA ,instead of being part of the legal code of nation states going all the way back to at least biblical times.
As for whistles,call-boxes etc, yes these things are certainly useful as part of a series of defensive measures but they are no more substitutes for guns than guns are for calling the police: if they fail what then? Do you let yourself be raped? What if the attacker is coming at you in the here & now? Do you call the police while he is stabbing you with a knife? Or do you take out your gun & then call the police if he stops or flees, & shoot if he continues to attack you?
I sometimes wonder if these people who say things like ”just call the police” understand that most sane people will do exactly that when they can:they carry a gun for when they can't. An attack can take place in seconds,if you are outside & cannot get to safety it is absurd to talk of ”just calling the police” while you are being strangled or stabbed by someone on PCP. ( Something less rare than you may think). Of course you should not limit yourself to the use of lethal weapons,you should also carry non-lethal devices such as a taser and pepper spray as part of a ”continuum of force ladder” *,but sometimes lethal force is necessary.
At its root the attack on lawful firearm ownership is a attack on the rights of the innocent to defend themselves against attackers ,the same arguments made against lawful firearm ownership can just as easily be made against the use of any weapon or any martial art that may have lethal results. ( Since people can die from tasers or from asthma attacks brought on by pepper spray).
It is not a coincidence that most of those who call for victim disarmament also favor a more ”humane” penal code. By ”humane” I do not mean that they oppose the death penalty for minors or favor preventing prison rape,I mean that they favor releasing murderers onto the streets instead of ”just locking people up”. They are then shocked that the innocent will not simply let themselves be murdered for the sake of their--the reformers-- selective ”humanitarianism”. *
Continuum of Force for Police and Civilians
http://www.turtlepress.com/articles/continuum_of_force.aspx
The Use-of-Force Continuum | National Institute of Justice http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/continuum.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment