Daleth

Yes, that's a lifetime stat. Also, it includes sexual assault, if it's the statistic from the US DOJ, which was based one phone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men. (This is unclear... in the document title they say rape or sexual assault and in another place they say rape or attempted rape. While an attempted rape is a sexual assault, so is having your bum grabbed, so it matters which they meant.) However some pages I've found say the rape rate reported by the US is 13 times higher than the rate reported by GB. Since they don't say any more (not a word more), I don't know how accurate or meaningful that stat is.

Well put. That's really all I was saying about fear. The things that I've read actually suggest that fear works against us, makes us look like good victims. FWIW, I don't imagine anyone here can decide not to feel afraid of rape any more than I can decide not to be afraid to drive a car. Some people have told me my fear would probably make me a better driver, but I've seen timid drivers and these people are a hazard. In both cases, alertness serves a person better than fear. The only use in mentioning it at all is that while we probably can't decide what we feel, we can still decide what we teach. I've never meant to say anybody is wrong for being afraid, and I hope I haven't come across that way.

viscousmemories

This thread is fascinating to me. I hope to contribute something more to it soon. Until then... I haven't read this book so I don't know if it's completely relevant to this discussion, but a sociologist friend of mine recommended it to me recently and it seems like it might lend some ideas to the debate.

The Culture of Fear

vm

Amen-Moses

13 times.

Doesn't this sort of suggest that gun ownership may not be the answer?

Amen-Moses

Theli

This is a very late reply to the opening (not a reply to any recent) post.
I don't see how introducing a deadly weapon in an already bad and dangerous situation such as assault would not make it worse. It would be like police officers handing out automatic weapons at a riot.
If the idea is to protect someone from being victimized, who will protect the assailant?
I bet such a law would be passed in USA if anywhere. I mean, it's the wild wild west isn't it?

MzNeko

As an alternative to or in addition to carrying a gun, here's kind of an interesting self-defense exercise I read about somewhere…

Whenever you enter a place, scan the room – how many items can you see that you could use as a weapon at need? Don't be shy about fighting dirty, either.

Let's see, I'm in my office… Hmmm… I'm not strong enough to pick up the computer monitor to bash someone in the head, but someone else might be. Stapler? Nah… Boxcutter? Now there's some possibilities… Hand sanitizing solution? Well, it would hurt A LOT if thrown in the eyes… same goes for the Windex and the copier toner… Sharp pencils/pens could be used to stab… I suppose that I could clock somebody with the phone… Hey, is that a glass bottle over there? Smash it against a desk and you have a nice sharp pointy thing…

See? It's even kind of fun in an atavistic way.

It's good even for people who do carry guns, because there are situations where you won't have it with you.

Hey, let's wander into the kitchen. Oooooooh! Lotsa good stuff here!

You get the idea. I think it's not a bad habit to get into, especially for folks who don't want to (or shouldn't) carry a gun.

keyser_soze

Actually, it shows no correlation, since few women carry weapons here. Few men for that matter. Most guns are in peoples homes, but we have a terrible urban violence problem...to be honest, it seems that mostly the outlaws have guns. Of the dozens of people I know well enough to know if they have guns in their possession, there are probably only 2 that own a firearm. You can't really go by our newscasts, they would sensationalize a dental visit(NEXT ON MAURY!!!!). Yes we have a terrible crime rate, but it's more of a cultural thing, guns just make it easier. Peronally, I think it's because on average americans are immature as hell, and we only grow up in our 40's(of course that is an illegitimate generalization).

viscousmemories

Wait, you're saying that you don't believe that the proliferation of guns in this country in any way contributes to the exagerrated crime rate here compared to the rest of the world? Carrying a firearm without a permit is a crime. If there were no guns, that law would never be broken. And that's just one example. With that in mind, how could you logically conclude that the crime rate would experience anything but decline if guns were not available to the populace?

vm

Daleth

That's what a few pages said, but I need to point out that it was a completely unqualified single sentence every time I saw it. They didn't say what exactly was being compared, when it was compared, or who was responsible for the study. It might be a perfectly valid statistic, but then again it might be something someone scraped off the bottom of their shoe. I added it here only because I found the same number in several places and if it's true or close to true, it could explain a lot.

yguy

If guns are not available to the populace, they are available only to the government, a situation which the founders thought unacceptable - hence the second amendment.

Daleth

Agreed, although given the state of technology today their thinking no longer applies; there is no way in hell the people could defend themselves against the government if the government snapped on us, guns or no. It's not enough to make me stop defending people's rights under the second amendment, but is enough that I'd feel OK about disregarding that outdated reasoning in supporting a new amendment that would alter the second, depending on what it said exactly. And if such a thing ever happens, watch out for pigs in flight.