Stoic

I am a civilian, but have legally carried a concealed handgun for a number of years. If you don't have proper training and the willingness to use it, if necessary, then it is likely to be a liability instead of an asset.

In the United States, generally speaking, a person can only use deadly force to protect himself or others from "death or imminent severe bodily injury." In other words, you can't shoot someone who grabs your purse and runs away. You can't shoot someone who just spits at you. You can't shoot somebody who is having a pushing match with his ex-girlfriend. You can't even shoot someone who is threatening you with a knife if they aren't reasonably close enough to inflict injury with it. Juries have traditionally held that rape/attempted sexual assault is a type of "severe bodily injury," so you are okay if you use deadly force to protect yourself or another against rape.

Most good training programs draw upon police theory. You must have a heightened sense of awareness if you are toting a concealed weapon, much like a cop. The scenario of "a rapist comes up from behind and grabs you" is unlikely if you are constantly aware of your surroundings. If you are not the type of person to practice always being aware of your surroundings, then you should not be carrying a deadly weapon.

Almost all states have laws that prohibit possession of concealed weapons if you are at all under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This means you can't even have one beer if you are carrying a weapon. A weapon permit is not a valid defense.

So: should a woman be able to use deadly force (i.e., legally carry a handgun) in case of rape? I believe so. Should most people carry concealed weapons? I don't believe so -- and for no other reason than that most people will not take the time for training and reflection that is required to carry one effectively.

Rusting Car Bumper

This is not directly about your question but where did you get these numbers from?

The FBI Uniform Crime Report from 2001 (which is the latest with completed stats) does not list 241,000. It lists between 90 and 91 thousand.

Regarding your last point about who commits crimes against who gender-wise there was a study about three or four years ago if I recall correctly. It basically concluded that most victims of assault are assaulted by someone of their own gender. As it was many years ago I cannot recall who conducted it or what it was called.

DC

yguy

That's the mommy in you talking. You have too much sympathy for what's rotten in people. I realize that death is a high price to pay for robbery, but as John Wayne said, "Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."

keyser_soze

keyser_soze

Bingo!

Pyrrho

Your comments about drinking and having a gun are extremely important, so I will repeat them here:

"Almost all states have laws that prohibit possession of concealed weapons if you are at all under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This means you can't even have one beer if you are carrying a weapon. A weapon permit is not a valid defense."

This is extremely important because many women are raped after they have been drinking. Thus, they either are criminals when they go to bars, or they have left their guns at home when they are in one of the more likely situations leading to rape. And, of course, a drunken person with a gun is a very bad idea. So what this means is that one simply needs to be careful about what one does, where one does it, and with whom one does it, otherwise, one will not be safe.

Another statement worth repeating:

"The scenario of "a rapist comes up from behind and grabs you" is unlikely if you are constantly aware of your surroundings."

That is something that is quite independent of having a gun. Again, I strongly recommend being careful about one's surroundings, and avoid taking unnecessary risks.

I agree with your conclusion as well; I don't have a problem with a woman using deadly force against a rapist. And I agree with you that it is not a good idea for most women to get guns to protect themselves, but for more reasons than just the fact that most people who get guns don't receive the proper training (though that alone is enough that they should not have guns). There are too many situations in which a gun will not only be useless, but will provide another means of harming the victim when the attacker takes it. And there is too much of a chance that someone will be injured with the gun in some other situation. If, for example, a woman keeps her gun in her purse, she must NEVER set her purse down any time there is even a remote possibility that a child could get at it. True, children should not be digging around in women's purses, and properly trained children don't tend to do such things, but too many children are not properly trained. How would one feel when a 5-year-old takes the gun and kills another child accidentally? How much jail time should one get for one's participation in such dangers? Truly, for most people all of the time, and all people most of the time, a gun isn't a good idea. The best defense is to avoid those situations in which a rape is more likely to occur.

Daleth

keyser, could you please keep your comments outside of the quote brackets? When you don't, it's hard to quote your posts in return. Thanks.

No, I'm just saying if there's an alternative to killing, it should be taken. If there isn't or if it seems too big a risk, do whatever you need to do. People seem to agree on this as a good principle to live by in society, which is why vigilante justice is considered bad and self-defense laws have strict limits. (And just to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying self-defense is vigilantism.) It just seems when rape is the subject we suddenly stop not just expecting the person to take the non-lethal way out if possible, but start actually urging people to kill.

No, I don't. I don't forget that for a second. I'm not cold and I'm not stupid. I did not respond to your post to try to insult you, you know. I know you're angry, but I am trying to have a rational conversation about a very hard topic. Please, please don't do this. Don't accuse me of not seeing the completely obvious or not seeing the harm that's done. If I should just stop posting about it, say so. That'd be better, OK? I'm not here for a fight, especially not one about rape.

I'm not putting the criminal before the victim. I'm applying the rules that we usually think of as correct for other crimes to the particular crime of rape. Or at least I'm trying to.

OK, I exaggerated, but your first post on the thread gave 2 paragraphs of methods to attack and kill the rapist, and in the last 3 sentences mentioned getting training.

The reasons you gave for training were so that you'd know how to use your weapon and so you'd be prepared to react with force quickly. You made no statement about training providing you with better skills to determine when to use that force until now.

I am saying that rape sometimes happens because a boyfriend is drunk or high and completely loses his judgement about no meaning no. I hate to contradict the very important bit of information that rape is about power, because I believe that's true... but it's not ALWAYS true. The pathology of date rape is not ALWAYS the same as the pathology of stranger rape. And I am in no way excusing the rapist. So yes, I think there are situations in which I could judge the intentions of a man I know. Thee are also a lot of women who know damned well that their exes are violent and do mean them harm, so yes, they could judge the situation as well. I am NOT saying I could know the level of risk I was at in every situation. Only that I could in some.

I would urge taking the option to escape the rapist rather than kill if it were possible, yes. I don't mean look for every possible way to spare the bastard's life. But I find urging women to never go for the injury, always the kill to be going too far.

You mean the one he doesn't know whether she has a gun or knife vs. the other one he doesn't know whether she has a gun or knife? I look confident as well, and I've never been assaulted despite having working in some of the seediest possible places. I do know how to avoid trouble and how to carry myself.

I'm in no way saying rapists have rights to injure anyone, and I'm not trying to attack your position, except perhaps the mugger bit which really turns my stomach. I'm sorry about your anger issues but don't take it out on me. I'm neither a rapist nor an apologist for rapists.

Then perhaps we'd better not talk.

If I'm on the list of those who WON'T protect themselves, you can take me off of it. I absolutely would, and I'm not suggesting that any woman not protect herself. I'm objecting the 'absolute one correct response' sense that you've conveyed, that's all.

I never thought that. It's completely impossible to misread you and interpret anything of that sort.

Again, re-read your first post on the thread. You gave examples of how to kill, urged women not to try to injure and escape because doing that gets women killed every day (edit: sorry, that line was in your second post), and then gave a couple lines to the importance of training in which you did not mention training helping you to never need the weapon or to better judge the when to use the weapon. The reasons you gave for the training were to make you more ready to use force in an emergency and to know how to use the weapon.

This has always worked for me, even in some really shady places.

Again, you did not say that. Perhaps you meant it, but that's not what the words say. Now you've said it several times, and that's great.

And I'm saying it's a bad idea in the vast majority of cases in which no one is harmed. If you can get out of a situation without any blood, it's generally a better thing.

Where I'm going is that an "always kill your assailant" policy is going too far. If you've got a good chance at injure-and-escape, don't just veto that option and kill anyway. You said, "Never strive to injure, that kind of thinking gets women killed every day." and I think that goes too far. I do NOT have a problem with women killing would-be rapists. I do have a problem with it being promoted as the only way out.

You haven't answered the question I asked about that advice. It was: What I was asking was, does it really happen every day that a woman is murdered because she tries to injure her assailant and this pushes him into a rage that leads to her being murdered. That specific scenario that you said happens every day. It happens every day in movies, but how often does it happen in real life? Sincere question. And what percentage of rapes lead to murder (not which percentage of murders or women were subsequent to rape)?

And one more time... I'm not here for a fight. If this post just makes you angry, don't respond to it, and I'll that as a hint to bugger off. Or just say bugger off. But don't slam me or make me out to be someone who doesn't understand who's the criminal or make it sound like I just want women to leave their lives to the Fates. This is difficult enough for me to deal with without feeling verbally attacked, and as a woman I have a bigger stake in the matter than you have.

noli

From the DOJ website here scroll down to the section which discusses the methodology and parameters of the NCVS suveys (whih include street and ER interviews).

noli

Amen~

[holds up hand]

First, remember that it was another poster who used DOJ resources quoted from another website. I was merely trying to clarify with that poster about the source and statistics he posted. I am happy to help you understand these statistics within my limited ability, but I won't spend a whole lot of my time hunting and pecking the DOJ site when with the same effort you should be able to get these answers yourself.

I am not defining anything. We are discussing the BSJ definitions, 'kay?

Here you go:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstrac...itions.htm#top

Scroll to the bottom, but also check out the definitions of Rape, assault etc.

Good luck.

Amen-Moses

Sorry I should have been clearer, my questions were a rhetorical device designed to get people to question the stats they were using.

The problem in the stats is not so much how they were gathered but in the comparisons made, i.e one set of figures was from clinical sources of victims reporting an attempted rape, in this case the determination of whether they were injured or not came from a clinical source and for the most part medical treatment would be a standard practice, the determination of whether it was an attempted rape would have been made by the reporting officer. This was then compared with the results of a survey where the determinations are the completely subjective view of the person taking the survey probably long after the event they were reporting on.

Now go to my other post where I criticised the other stats, one set was from authoritative sources and the other from a survey, the difference between the figures was dramatic, i.e one if 300% larger than the other.

Now take into account the FBI figure which is less than a half of that lower figure again and you should be able to see that comparing all these things as if they are equal is impossible.

(also slightly off topic but over here in the UK we also have people wandering around claiming that only 10% of rapes are reported as if it is gospel, that then get's mixed up in the stats and others start multiplying figures by 10 all over the place, It does annoy me so. )

Amen-Moses