Ann Coulter, For womb the bell tolls...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Fair use, educational blah blah blah...

For womb the bell tolls

Ann Coulter

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- THE LAST TIME liberal women got the idea to use their wombs as an argument for gun control, Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., were uttering such prattle as "women find they have a maternal instinct" for gun control. A reporter for The New York Times observed at the time that the congresswomen "seem(ed) to miss the irony that the same political party that claimed ownership of the position that women could be more than mothers is, in this instance, casting them primarily in that role."

The Million Mom March (which infected the nation's capital on Sunday) was poised to set women's workplace gains back about 100 years. (The Moms' Web page adorably notes that the time for planning this event was nine months -- and "(a)s a mother, I know what can be created in this amount of time.")

I'm all for motherhood, but as Bill Maher, host of "Politically Incorrect," is forever pointing out, it's not that hard to become a parent. (In fact, it is because having children can be accomplished by the weak-minded and incompetent that Maher is constantly lobbying for a licensing requirement for parenthood.) But somehow, merely the status of being a "mom" is supposed to trump facts and linear thinking. That was the theme of the Million Mom March: I don't need a brain -- I've got a womb.

The Moms' Web page idiotically explains: "While we acknowledge that guns may be necessary for hunting, law enforcement and national security, the proliferation of firearms intended for one purpose only -- killing another human being -- has become untenable."

It's sporting of them to allow the military and cops to have guns and all, but -- how does one put this? -- the reason the military and police have guns is precisely because their guns are intended for "killing another human being." That's why cops and soldiers carry guns, rather than, say, daisies. (And just for the record, a gun that can kill a deer can surely kill a human, too.)

The fact that guns can kill another human being is the whole point. That's why they're so darn good at deterring violent criminals. By analyzing 18 years of data for more than 3,000 counties, the inestimable professor John Lott found that violent crime drops significantly when citizens are permitted to carry concealed guns. The greatest beneficiaries of concealed carry laws -- whether they personally choose to carry -- are women and the elderlyEconomist David Friedman explained the economic theory supporting the statistics in his book "Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life." (Of course, Friedman is not a "mom," only an economist, so take his crazy linear thinking with a grain of salt.)

Friedman begins by accepting the hysterical, counterfactual claims of the anti-gun crowd that 90 percent of the time criminals will wrest guns from law-abiding citizens (which, for the record, is false). "Suppose," he says, "one little old lady in 10 carries a gun. Suppose that one in 10 of those, if attacked by a mugger, succeeds in killing the mugger instead of being killed by him -- or shooting herself in the foot."

Even though the mugger will come out better on average than the little old lady, Friedman notes that "also on average, every hundred muggings produce one dead mugger." Mugging becomes an unprofitable profession because "not many little old ladies carry enough money to justify one chance in a hundred of being killed." Thus, even on implausible anti-gun assumptions, muggings will decline because muggers will have "rationally sought safer professions."

Indeed, without a gun, crime victims may as well take the advice of Peter Shields, former head of Handgun Control Inc., who recommends that women faced with a rapist or robber "give them what they want." Maybe it's my womb talking, but I'm tempted to say, I don't care what the statistics are; I'm not sitting back and taking it.

As luck would have it, the statistics do not support passivity in the face of a criminal assault. As John Lott has pointed out, studies purporting to show that women are more likely to be injured in a crime if they resist do so only by lumping all forms of "resistance" together, from bare-knuckled fighting to brandishing a gun.

The most dangerous action a woman can take when faced with a criminal is to resist with her fists: That tends to annoy violent criminals, and the woman will very likely be seriously injured. But a woman who takes the advice of Handgun Control Inc. and passively submits is 2.5 times more likely to be injured than a woman who resists with a gun. So if you don't want to lie back and enjoy it, get a gun. Otherwise you may never become a mom.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000

Answers

I can't imagine anyone, other than someone on drugs, drunk, or mentally retarted who would attack Ann Coulter.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), May 16, 2000.

Ann Coulter is simply the Dr. Laura WANNABE of JWR. She'll never be as popular until her nekkid photos show up on the internet. Then, she TOO can purport that she represents the mothers of this country, and close examination of the spread-eagle shots will confirm that there might just be a womb up there.



-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 16, 2000.


I see.

The logic is air-tight, thus, attack the writer.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000.


Coulter:

"Suppose," he says, "one little old lady in 10 carries a gun. Suppose that one in 10 of those, if attacked by a mugger, succeeds in killing the mugger instead of being killed by him -- or shooting herself in the foot." Even though the mugger will come out better on average than the little old lady, Friedman notes that "also on average, every hundred muggings produce one dead mugger." Mugging becomes an unprofitable profession because "not many little old ladies carry enough money to justify one chance in a hundred of being killed."

I've known a few dregs who mugged for fix money. The above doesn't apply to them. The only mugger who would be put off by the 1% chance of catching a bullet is one who's not an addict AND who values his life. That's a small percentage of muggers, in my experience.

Also known a few that had to mug for the gang, for the image. Likewise they wouldn't be put off by the granny scenario. Pure BS.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 16, 2000.


BTW, I agree with Bill Maher (figuratively speaking). It all comes back to personal responsibility. Don't spit out a kid if you can't raise it with love. If you can't support it adequately.

I better stop. The Laura (Dr.) is rising to the surface.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 16, 2000.



That's more like it. Thanks Bingo.

If I may, what would be the cut-off point? If one in ten ended up dead? One in five? The point is that muggers will think twice about attacking a person who may be armed. Studies have shown conclusively that CCW permit to carry laws have lessened crime in states that have passes such laws. That is fact, not fiction.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000.


Unk:

I didn't see air-tight logic. I've NEVER seen air-tight logic in Coulter's stuff. She uses emotionalism and little quips from folks.

"The Million Mom March (which infected the nation's capital on Sunday) was poised to set women's workplace gains back about 100 years." HUH? THIS is airtight logic?

"But somehow, merely the status of being a "mom" is supposed to trump facts and linear thinking. That was the theme of the Million Mom March: I don't need a brain -- I've got a womb." WHO SAID THIS?

If these moms have a grievance, they have every right to march, scream, etc. Personally, I don't think this march accomplished anything of significance, but why is everyone so down on people who want to express their opinion?

Personally [again], I don't think carrying a gun while jogging in Central Park is a good idea. Where would one put it? I would think more emphasis should be placed on removing head-phones and concentrating on what's going on AROUND you. I won't say ALL, but a LOT of attacks are based on stupidity of the prey.

For women, there are a number of common-sense practices. NEVER pass in close proximity to bushes, trees, or other places where someone could jump out at the last minute. If shopping, ensure that at least one arm is free. Get your car key ready BEFORE you leave a store, etc. Be aware of your surroundings. Keep your eyes roaming from left to right, and even behind. Don't walk down a dark alley at 3am [common rape time/place where *I* grew up.] Never establish a pattern that can be discerned as your ROUTINE....meaning if you walk home each day, take a different route each time. There are TONS of "avoidance techniques" that make one less likely to be the prey. If one is STILL attacked, one can plow fingers into eye-sockets, stomp on an instep, kick or elbow the private parts, etc. Who said women should take the advise of Shields? "Indeed, without a gun, crime victims may as well take the advice of Peter Shields, former head of Handgun Control Inc., who recommends that women faced with a rapist or robber "give them what they want." Ah...Ann Coulter did.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 16, 2000.


I wrote up a brilliant reply but IE 5.0 ate it. Damn, I was really impressed with the logic & clarity of thought too.

The short of it was I support CCW permit availibility for the citizenry. Archie Bunker's idea of arming all airline passengers as they boarded in order to make highjackers think twice was comedic but the idea had a wee bit of merit.

The problem I have with the granny scenario is this. I've known my share of people who don't value life - theirs or yours. Doesn't matter what granny may be packing. Fracture her skull & the rest is easy.

Sounds ugly and it is.

Later Folks,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 16, 2000.


Anita,

"Personally [again], I don't think carrying a gun while jogging in Central Park is a good idea. Where would one put it?"

If I had to do anything in Central Park, I'd sure as heck feel better carrying a handgun. There are all sorts of creative carrying equipment these days, including fanny packs.

And if you didn't want to carry one yourself, it would be great to know that the nice guy next to you might be carrying his, and that any thugs would know this, too.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 16, 2000.


The air-tight logic thing was a quip meant to stimulate debate rather than name calling.

Also, when the spread eagle shots of her appear on the web, send me a URL please.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000.



Bingo,

The flaw I (think I see) in your logic is that each mugging would be carried out by a different person, whereas in reality each mugger mugs multiple people in the course of their careers. I'd think the chance of hitting a given mugger then would be at least tenfold what you do, if each mugger mugged ten people. (which probably isn't far from the truth).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 16, 2000.


So Frank, you're looking at body counts as opposed to determent? I don't argue with that. A dead mugger is no longer a threat to society.

I stated an occasional mugger whacked in the act wouldn't give pause to the fellows I've known. CCW on a massive scale would deter anyone except those who don't care about their lives &/or addicts who mug for a fix. Which type of citizen performs most of the muggings Frank? Take a wild guess.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 16, 2000.


Bingo,

I disagree. I doubt no matter how "high" on drugs someone is they'd go to a rifle range to mug someone, or try and mug a cop or soldiers (armed by definition). Criminals are *people*, and think about what they are doing. Maybe not "well" by your or my standards, but they do take risk/benefit into account. For example, if a mugger KNEW someone was flat broke and was the size of Arnold Shwartzenegger (sic) would they try and mug them? Or would they wait until they saw a little old lady with a handbag that MIGHT contain something valuable?

I think if you armed all the old ladies, most muggers would rather take up breaking into unoccupied houses or cars than risk getting shot.

And my point on the factor of ten was that a 10% chance of getting shot at is much more a deterrent than a 1%. Also, given these are usually repeat offenders, (and as you said) each one removed lowers the crime rate. As a cynical aside, it's also much *cheaper* to let some old lady plug these guys than it is to house them at 15k per year.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 16, 2000.


Frank,

A few quick thoughts.

Your first paragraph stacks the deck. Jeez Frank! Who could argue with any of those scenarios? Mug a soldier? Mug Arnie?

An addict who's stoned doesn't mug. An addict who's 'jonesin' mugs.

How do you know if I'm broke? How do you know what anyone has in their pockets short of following them from an ATM? Makes no sense. And don't tell me you can tell by how people dress!

Size doesn't matter. Awareness does. Case in point: My 'dharma buddy' stands 6'4" & 220 lbs. He's been mugged twice that I know of. Why? He walks around thinking deep thoughts, oblivious to the outside world for the most part. He's a prime target. Both times he got whacked in the back of the head. Lights out. One reason why he moved to the suburbs!

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 17, 2000.


Bingo,

Well, I didn't really mean for the scenarios to be realistic, but to illustrate that criminals are weighing their behavior to some degree. In truth someone who feels in desperate need might do anything, but these people can't be *deterred* by anything either. The people I'd like to stop are the ones who are still somewhat rational, and I *do* think they'd act that way.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 17, 2000.



Point taken, Frank. I have a limited experience with those who pilfer & plunder. Really. And I've never cracked anyone on the back of the head. Honest.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 17, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ