1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Readers respond to Pink Pistols article in SF Newspaper

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by QuarterBoreGunner, Jun 24, 2003.

  1. QuarterBoreGunner

    QuarterBoreGunner Well-Known Member

    Hopefully this thread won't fall apart like the one that preceded it.


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


    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.


    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.
  2. dj53

    dj53 Active Member

    Sometimes a .45 is just more expedient...

    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.......
  3. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    "After my second assault"

    Yeah, sure sounds like SF is safe and secure :rolleyes:
  4. braindead0

    braindead0 Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. DJJ

    DJJ Well-Known Member

    So guns are part of the "cycle of violence" but knives and martial arts aren't? :rolleyes:
  6. Mastrogiacomo

    Mastrogiacomo Well-Known Member

    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
  7. It mightve happened before she moved to SF...

    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:
  8. Shawn Dodson

    Shawn Dodson Well-Known Member

    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?
  9. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    James! Welcome back!
  10. Mute

    Mute Well-Known Member

    "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.
  11. MK11

    MK11 Well-Known Member

    Interesting logic. Wonder how she feels about the call in Great Britain to ban martial arts like Muy Thai.
  12. Waitone

    Waitone Well-Known Member

    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"
  13. wingnutx

    wingnutx Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.
  14. Penforhire

    Penforhire Well-Known Member

    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...
  15. 50 Freak

    50 Freak Well-Known Member

    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
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2003
  16. Boats

    Boats member

    Strike and reverse.

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

    BowStreetRunner Well-Known Member

    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
  18. Byron Quick

    Byron Quick Moderator In Memoriam

    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.
  19. TekChef

    TekChef Active Member

    break the cycle....

    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?
  20. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    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.

Share This Page