Readers respond to Pink Pistols article in SF Newspaper


PDA






QuarterBoreGunner
June 24, 2003, 02:27 PM
Hopefully this thread won't fall apart like the one that preceded it.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25792&highlight=pink+pistols

But here are two diverging responses from the public to the article:

http://www.sfbg.com/37/38/x_talkback.html

From San Francisco Bay Guardian, June 18, 2003

Why guns work
In his otherwise excellent article, David A. Kulczyk poses the question: "Should queers be shooting people in the streets, fearing they could be bashers?" ["Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed," 6/4/03]. I do hope he's joking.

The Pink Pistols doesn't advocate shooting anyone, no matter how homophobic, just because they "could" be bashers. We believe that the best use of firearms is the deterrent effect they have. In cities where gun control has virtually eliminated the access of law-abiding citizens to weapons for self-defense, instances of murder, rape, muggings, queer-bashing, and other violent crimes are on the rise. In contrast, cities without these restrictive laws tend to have fewer such crimes.

While estimates may vary, it is believed that up to two million crimes of interpersonal violence, from mugging to murder, from robbery to rape, are prevented each year in the United States simply by the victim being armed. In most of these cases, merely displaying a gun is enough to cause the perpetrators to cease and desist.

It is not necessary for all queers to pack heat, just enough to make those who would do us violence change their minds.

Jen Grace

Boston, Mass.

Guns aren't the answer
I was saddened and disturbed by David A. Kulczyk's article on the Pink Pistols. It is disheartening to me to think that one would feel so threatened in any location, especially the liberal haven of San Francisco, that s/he would feel it necessary to arm her/himself with a gun. Firearms don't solve anything. They just continue the horrific cycle of violence ensconcing our society.

As a queer woman, I have dealt with my share of violence. I have been verbally debased and physically assaulted on the basis of my gender and sexual orientation. In the past, I have been scared into staying home rather than braving the threat of the streets alone. After my second assault, I began to carry pepper spray, and sometimes a knife. Thankfully, I never had to use either of them.

Rather than making me feel safer and more able to repel potential attackers, these two items of self-defense made me feel even more threatened and unsafe. That I was carrying them all the time meant that I felt threatened all the time!

If you are afraid of attack, learn to talk and fight. Carry a whistle. Take some Krav Maga. Learn self-defense, but learn from within yourself, not from a firearm. Firearms are tools of the cycle of violence we are so desperately fighting against.

Harvey

San Francisco
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting views on both sides, unfortunately, fairly typical of the opposing view- "Firearms are tools of the cycle of violence we are so desperately fighting against. ", though I do agree with the writer in the need to utilize various types of self-defense and tools. Firearms, in the hand of a trained competent individual just seems to be the most effective tool for self-defense. I don't see why the writer doesn't perceive this as a logical progression, that is, communication to defuse a situation, a whistle, pepper-spray, martial arts, knife and finally a firearm. Seems like a fairly straight forward escalation of force to me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Readers respond to Pink Pistols article in SF Newspaper" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dj53
June 24, 2003, 02:35 PM
The writer advocating non-firearm self defense seems not to object to the idea of SELF-DEFENSE. She just seems to have the idea that defending yourself with Krav Maga is morally superior to defense with a firearm (Which IMHO it is not!). Even if it were, there is the practical fact that most people are never going to have the time, physique, and mentality to develop and maintain unarmed self-defense skills sufficiently to serve as their SOLE option.

For the rest of us, developing skill at arms combined with a defensive mind set, is the only practical alternative.


Sometimes, two .45 to the COM is the only option available.......

Cosmoline
June 24, 2003, 02:36 PM
"After my second assault"

Yeah, sure sounds like SF is safe and secure :rolleyes:

braindead0
June 24, 2003, 02:38 PM
The second writer thinks that because she can't handle the responsability.. then nobody can. This is the same anti-gun rubbish the MMM and others promote. Because they can't be trusted with firearms..nobody else can.

DJJ
June 24, 2003, 02:41 PM
So guns are part of the "cycle of violence" but knives and martial arts aren't? :rolleyes:

Mastrogiacomo
June 24, 2003, 02:53 PM
As a woman I've trained in martial arts -- and plan to return to it when I'm working. I'd advise everyone to get involved because the benefits -- in addition to self dense -- are wonderful. I also don't rely on the police to move like the speed of light which is why I'd bring a couple of friends with me at all times -- Beretta, Glock, Smith, Wesson...:D

James Castilla
June 24, 2003, 03:36 PM
"After my second assault" Yeah, sure sounds like SF is safe and secure
It mightve happened before she moved to SF...

I began to carry pepper spray, and sometimes a knife.
These sound more inhumane than a firearm. In "self-defence", inflict incredibly painful chemical burns to the eyes and lungs and stab them repeatedly? Why not just shoot once (twice, si vous prefiere)? Stabbings sound more like they would "continue the horrific cycle of violence ensconcing our society. ":mad:

Shawn Dodson
June 24, 2003, 04:12 PM
That I was carrying them all the time meant that I felt threatened all the time! Will she stop wearing seat belts?

Throw out the fire extinguisher?

Take the battery out of the smoke detector?

If it feels good, do it?

Henry Bowman
June 24, 2003, 04:16 PM
James! Welcome back!

Mute
June 24, 2003, 04:25 PM
"Cycle of violence." Where do these people come up with this crap? What cycle? If I center punch the miscreant attacking me and put one in the ocular window, he ain't coming back around to continue the cycle. And how exactly does crushing the same creep's testicles with a Krav Maga knee strike instead not contribute to this same "cycle?"

And no, I don't believe in bad karma. What an idiot.

MK11
June 24, 2003, 04:27 PM
Interesting logic. Wonder how she feels about the call in Great Britain to ban martial arts like Muy Thai.

Waitone
June 24, 2003, 05:53 PM
I am amazed at the number of arguments from the control side that center around "some matter is evil."

Guns are evil
Pepper spray is not evil
Knives are not evil.
Unarmed combat skills which can kill are not evil.
Clubs are not evil.

Theologians call it "selective depravity"

wingnutx
June 24, 2003, 06:01 PM
Take some Krav Maga

My Krav Maga instructors would probably be the first to tell not to bring KM to a gun fight. The national training center in LA even partners up with tactical shooting schools on occasion.

Learn self-defense, but learn from within yourself, not from a firearm. Firearms are tools of the cycle of violence

Uh, let's see: using a gun to deter an attacker is part of the cycle of violence, but learning to punch people in the throat and kick them in the balls isn't?

Using a gun is simply working smarter rather than harder.

Penforhire
June 24, 2003, 06:02 PM
I don't know, but to me it is implied in her response that hand-to-hand combat is usually non-lethal and that is why she finds that not as repulsive as a gun. It may also be that it takes more skill (training) to become lethal using no tools, and that extended effort implies some ethical superiority.

Her particular response IS intriguing because she is not a turn-the-other-cheek pacifist. It would be worth knowing what it is, exactly, about firearms that maintains the "cycle of violence" while unarmed self-defense does not.

Why shouldn't anyone use the best tool for the job? Or if that's not the argument, why isn't a gun the best tool? Maybe she doesn't realize that you are not forced to draw your weapon on every perceived threat and , even while carrying a gun, lesser responses are frequently appropriate.

There is the whole line of reasoning that says John Q. Public should not be armed because they are idiots. I say that with regard to driving privileges every day. So the right answer, for those pople, is just raise the standards for gun ownership. I only wish they would raise the standards for a driver's license...

50 Freak
June 24, 2003, 06:43 PM
People fall under two categories, Victims and Non-Victims.

Given her mindset, it comes down to one thing. The Pink Pistols seem to want to join the latter and the second author seems to fall under the former category

Boats
June 24, 2003, 06:52 PM
Strike and reverse.

The Pink Pistols seem to not to want be victims and letter writer number 2 does.:D

BowStreetRunner
June 24, 2003, 07:21 PM
come on, why would you carry a knife (a deadly weapon) for self defense and condemn someone for carrying a gun for the same purpose
just because they choose to use a more efficient tool than you for the same job doesnt mean they are wrong
crimeny
BSR

Byron Quick
June 24, 2003, 07:31 PM
The "cycle of violence" is perpetuated by two things: 1) Some people decide to become predators with other humans as their chosen prey. 2) A sufficient number of humans decide to act in ways that, in fact, make them prey.

I know of no effective means to break the "cycle of violence" in the first instance,i.e, I know of no reliable method to persuade folks not to be predators before the fact.

I do know how not to be prey. And that breaks the "cycle of violence." If you're a dead predator...you will not be involved in any active cycle of violence-just the cycle of decay.

TekChef
June 24, 2003, 09:04 PM
Breaking the cycle sometimes involves punching the bully square in the nose.

And once the bully takes a good beating, the bully usually stops.

I think the way to break that cycle is when would be preadtors are in fear of law abiding, polite, armed citizens.
I don't know about you, but if a good number of those would be prey are armed and know how to use it, and I did not know which ones were...I would think twice!

Is that seemingly helpless female ready to defend her person from me?

Standing Wolf
June 24, 2003, 09:13 PM
It is disheartening to me to think that one would feel so threatened in any location, especially the liberal haven of San Francisco, that s/he would feel it necessary to arm her/himself with a gun.

The so-called "liberal haven" of San Francisco is one of the most dangerous cities in the nation.

You can't beat women who shoot.

Nightfall
June 25, 2003, 12:37 AM
I was saddened and disturbed by David A. Kulczyk's article on the Pink Pistols. It is disheartening to me to think that one would feel so threatened in any location, especially the liberal haven of San Francisco, that s/he would feel it necessary to arm her/himself with a gun. Firearms don't solve anything. They just continue the horrific cycle of violence ensconcing our society.

It is disheartening to me as well that any peaceful citizen of our nation has a reason to fear criminal attack. Unfortunately, this is reality. She is certainly correct that firearms do not solve anything. Their skilled, proper use in a violent situation is what solves said problem. Funny though. I thought it was the violent criminals, many of whom are repeat offenders still roaming the streets, that continued the cycle of violence when they assaulted somebody. Little did I know, it was the handgun in the holster of the law abiding person who sought to interrupt that very ‘cycle of violence' while in progress.

Take some Krav Maga. Learn self-defense, but learn from within yourself, not from a firearm.

Yes, learn from within yourself. Naturally, all the training, skill, and practice people often go through learning how to effectively use their firearm doesn't come from disciplined action as with marital arts. No, these acquired skills come from the evil mind rays of the gun! :rolleyes:

Firearms are tools of the cycle of violence we are so desperately fighting against.

Whereas the knives you carried, and the physical assault of martial arts techniques are only the tools of the righteous! Never has a dastardly criminal employed a knife to cut a throat, or a kick to cave in a skull. No, only the wicked firearm has served villain and villain only. Why oh why do we allow these implements of criminal violence to flood our streets when only the evil of heart and mind can wield them?

*sigh* As with all the battles for our right to keep and bear arms, I hope the Pink Pistols can continue to help shed some light on those pour souls who've been so misguided as to when and why a firearm is carried and used.

Hawkman
June 25, 2003, 08:57 AM
"Harvey" is a woman?:p

goon
June 25, 2003, 10:29 AM
If you are afraid of attack, learn to talk and fight. Carry a whistle. Take some Krav Maga. Learn self-defense, but learn from within yourself, not from a firearm. Firearms are tools of the cycle of violence we are so desperately fighting against.


Firearms are tools of violence but your fists aren't?
What kind of an argument is that?

goon
June 25, 2003, 10:38 AM
If you are afraid of attack, learn to talk and fight. Carry a whistle. Take some Krav Maga. Learn self-defense, but learn from within yourself, not from a firearm. Firearms are tools of the cycle of violence we are so desperately fighting against.


Firearms are tools of violence but your fists aren't?
What kind of an argument is that?

A whistle?
My .357 makes much more noise than a whistle.

I will admit that I don't carry very often. But when I do, I don't recall any instances where my SIG caused any cycles of violence. Hell, it has never even been seen.

The best way to stop violent people is to shoot them. It is a small price to pay. One round of 9mm+p vs. a few human lives that are shattered or taken away by some peice of garbage.
I don't see where the debate is.
I may be a barbarian for saying that, but the people I care about will be safe.

Mostly Harmless
June 25, 2003, 04:30 PM
Not that I care really. It's just that I'm related to the author...

Guntalk
June 25, 2003, 07:04 PM
If Matthew Shepard, of Wyoming, had been armed with a handgun, the chances are that he would be alive today.

It is amazing that some would prefer that he die, rather than that he use violence to save his life.

A basic concept missed by many is that not all violence is bad.

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
June 25, 2003, 10:37 PM
Huzzah, Tom.

I doubt that any sane person, irregardless of politics, orientation, nationality, or creed considers it is more noble to lay down and die at the hands of predatory scum than to fight back when it comes time to put it out there and show your cards...

...no matter what they say in public or print.

The only time I'll turn the other cheek is when I moon the corpse.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Trisha
June 26, 2003, 03:22 PM
Violence is a genetic reality, a constant found in literally everything that lives, even when sentience and consciousness can be questioned. Plants attack other plants and likewise use an array of defenses, similarly so for the insect and reptilian world - and none can question birds - for the bald eagle is a symbol of our Republic no less clear and profound than Old Glory across the minds nearly any on this small planet. . .

Violence as conveyed to another person verbally is Occam's Razor away from being actualized physically to any and every degree, and telegraphs a predatory mindset, a marker for any who study self-defense to transition to the highest level or awareness, balance and "imminent threat" condition. Words empower deeds. . .

Violence is also a person's tool-box built and aquired through stury and training and discipline. In its' most comprehensive manifestation violence exists as an integral and peaceful facet of the peace-loving, limitless and unashamedly resourceful to instantly defeat the violent predator. It is a birthright that ties communities together in a common cause, one in which the most skilled becomes the most single-minded advocate of peace, to insure the heritage of strength and civil responsibility and resolute heart which stands guard to cherish and protect family, home and community against the chaos and anarchy of the dark; for none is so valued nor is there any who so values peace as the warrior. . .

That continually, a machine, a tool, a thing is assigned a disproportionate presence in this contemporary demarcation of liberal socialist vs constitutionalist/conservative as some possessed amulet, some icon of abject horror openly in the propaganda of the LSD is bearing fruit, as otherwise stable and intelligent people are externalizing real evidence or brainwashing.

That's why the media calls it programming , yes?

The politically correct-connected (read: bought-and-paid-for vassels) LBGT community cannot look away from the money, the ephemeral illusion of durable legitimacy promised by their keepers - and in some ways they have just cause to be so obsequious: without the pioneers of gay rights, we'd all likely still be in the closet. Gay rights and inclusion simply wouldn't exist.

But the tool weilded by the reformers past and present need not own the soul without inspection, without challenge. . .

With a larger perspective, we in the LBGT community have few other political dogmas to celebrate, both in the Beltway and in our neighborhoods. Conservative entities decry us with persistent vehemence (even to brutality in thought as expressed by word and criminal deed) as seen in NRA, many opportunities of employment, housing, and healthcare - and our life-partners/mates are not recognized.

This is unarguably relevant! I left Armed Females of America when I was told to " . . . keep what I do in the bedroom in the bedroom. It's a lifestyle choice!" As being gay isn't relegated to "immoral acts" in some bedroom, and my efforts to expand on that intellectually failed completely, I had no choice. And all my articles previously posted on AFA were purged, including their inclusion statement, as drafted by my friend David Codrea.

Do I digress? No.

You wonder why there is a 'blind spot' in the LBGT community to conservative values as pertain to 2A issues - and yet there is indeed a real and intemperate, almost inviolate "Straight Wall" that remains. I have posted pleas with you here to actively seek out and fight for inclusion in your local gun clubs - and it aparrently fell on deaf ears, as evidenced by the posted replies. I have asked you about volunteerism as a basic experience in your hearts as demonstrated openly in your communities - and out of the hundreds and thousenad of you, there was no predominance of even an acceptance of such a notion.

It would be effortless to deem such concepts as this as "your fight," contemptuously sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see what the LBGT community does.

To be sure, it is our fight, our crux of social and moral conscience to grow and emerge united. I anticipate that we will - but if we must do it alone, will you feel threatened. After all, you did nothing, learned nothing, risked nothing; and we are you.

Let your personal commission of violence be to risk knowledge and heart - because in my heart I am convinced we are stronger and better together than we are apart: and there is this socialist monster that needs us do absolute violence upon it resolutely with sure confidence.

We're finding our heart, even with such steps as determining a legitimacy to exist in defiance of the intolerant, notwithstanding the predator; and such is obvious in the initial post of this thread. Instead of ridicule, reach to these fledgling steps with peace and patience, for their battle is already more than half-won within them.

They just don't know it yet. . .

(I can sure write a lot after a couple cups of espresso. . .!)

:D

Trisha

DMK
June 26, 2003, 03:47 PM
I think most of you are missing the point on the second letter. This person is not saying that carrying a knife is better than a gun, she is saying do not carry any self defense weapons at all! Rather than making me feel safer and more able to repel potential attackers, these two items of self-defense made me feel even more threatened and unsafe. That I was carrying them all the time meant that I felt threatened all the time! The logic here seems to be that carrying weapons reminded the writer that violence was a distinct possibility and threat. It was probably a constant reminder of the previous two attacks. That reminder was obviously very upsetting.

So, the solution appears to be don't carry any weapons and don't worry about it. Then life will be carefree and fun. :rolleyes:

SIGarmed
June 27, 2003, 12:57 AM
"carry a whistle"

STOP mr. murderer I have a whistle!

:D :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Readers respond to Pink Pistols article in SF Newspaper" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!