Dear Abby Backtracks???

[FPrice]

For many years the lady (ladies - "Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips") writing Dear Abby have been anti-gun and anti-self-defense. Several weeks ago she posted a letter in her column about two women who were being robbed. The younger (I think) woman turned on her attacker and drove him off. The other one was apparently upset with this, seemingly content with placing herself meekly at the mercy of the robber.

Todays column featured several letters who took Abby to task for this position citing evidence that people should be prepared to fight back.

http://www.uclick.com/client/jef/da/

Abby herself even admitted that this may be proper advice:

"DEAR GISELE: I agree that knowledge is power and that includes how to defend oneself. Sadly, although I was raised with the principle that violence is wrong, in instances like this, I now realize that it may be necessary to fight for one's life in order to save it."

Not a ringing endorsement of the Second Amendment of course, but a small breakthrough admitting this. The next step in her education is to show her how more effective methods of self-defense work more...effectively.

 

[2nd Amendment]

The whole mindset just leaves me baffled. Even the claim that "violence is wrong". Initiating violence is, usually, wrong. But how this ever got twisted into the mantra that defense is also wrong is beyond me. The only reason I can see that dwells in any reality at all is that it makes a good cop-out. If violence is wrong then one shouldn't do it. If one shouldn't do it then one is no longer responsible for one's self. Voila, one is relieved of most of the responsiblity of their lives, let alone anyone elses.

I'd really like to think there's something more complex to it than that but damned if I can see it if so. But anyway, I suppose even a slight concession from Dear ol'Blabby (I thought Abigail died and someone new was writing it?) is better than nothing.

 

[antsi]

the claim that "violence is wrong"

Depends on your definitions.
Some folks define violence as the unjustified use of force. That would be consistent with "violence is wrong" but it would still leave open self-defense as a justified use of force.

 

[hksw]

I think where Jeanne got her anti leaning was due to her mother Pauline (the original Dear Abby) who was very much a hard core anti. I think the change in columnists is the main reason for the slight change in the perception of Dear Abby, who was clearly anti on print, now becoming less so as Jeanne realizes that violent defence is sometimes necessary.

 

[DRZinn]

I don't remember which one it was, but one of the two ladies died recently, and her column is being written by a replacement.

 

[ProGlock]

Pauline and Jeanne were/are both idiots, and not just in regards to self-defense or 2nd amendment issues...it was anything from parenting to education to getting a job.

Taking Pauline/Jeanne's advice, the Jews were right to just go along with the Nazis plans...they should never have fought back and just tried to keep the peace.

 

[Daemon688]

If people want to be victimized let them be.

I refuse to be a victim.

 

[JPL]

She's old, she's senile, and she depends on Depends.

Why else would she change her message after 220 years?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Actually, the woman who wrote Ann Landers (not her real name) and the woman who founded Dear Abby were twin sisters. It was "Ann Landers" who died, and whose column is now being written by two of her former assistants (under the new name "Annie's Mailbox"). Pauline "Abby" is still alive but must be nearly 90 years old, so it's not a surprise that her daughter is writing the column for her.

 

[Guntalk]

Actually, they never think that violence is always wrong. If you call the police, and the police club, mace, pepper-spray, drag, shoot, handcuff, and otherwise are rude to the bad guy, THAT violence is okay.

Violence in uniform is somehow okay, unless they want to protest it (when they have a video tape), but individual violence in the form of self-protection is just not accepted.

It's a mental illness kind of thing.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...it may be necessary to fight for one's life in order to save it.

Only if one considers one's life of value.

Actually, they never think that violence is always wrong. If you call the police, and the police club, mace, pepper-spray, drag, shoot, handcuff, and otherwise are rude to the bad guy, THAT violence is okay.

Guntalk, I believe you've nailed it.

 

[twoblink]

God said "Thou shalt not murder", he did not talk about taking a life in defense of one.

Also, as said by others before me, God specifically left out parts about kneecaps..

 

[emc]

The liberal mindset towards self-defense can be amazing, and startlingly naive. Back when Gordon Liddy was still being broadcast in central Indiana, a woman called in who identified herself as a lower level attorney attached to the White House. This was during the Clinton regime. He had been discussing the right to defend yourself, and how this might involve the use of weaponry. She wanted to comment about how this was wrong, and how an individual, particularly a woman could be worse off for doing so. His question to her at that point (as near as I can recall the exact words):

Liddy: Let us say that you are in a parking garage, and you are going to be sexually assaulted. What would you do at that point?

Caller: I would try to reason with him.


Absolutely unbelievable mindset. To this day, it still astounds me that people actually think that you can have a discussion with evil.

I would hope that people of that ilk would have some sort of non-violent epiphany, but maybe we have to settle for a gradual chipping away of their positions until they finally realize the inherent errors in their thinking.

FWIW,

emc