Theli

I just watched this sketch 15minutes ago, (I have it on VHS) and I started thinking about this thread.
In the end, the Sargeant shoots a person armed with a banana in self defence, and I couldn't stop to wonder... Can a using a gun ever really be self defence?
I would say that if you, in order to stop a crime commit an even worse one, you shouldn't.

Theli

Although I have the greatest concern for people's personal safety, what you have writen here doesn't even remotely register as moral for me. Isn't the assailant's safety also compromised in an assault?
If you take away a person's rights, if it is by force or by law you are causing just as much damage. So, why should one action lead to punishment or moral condemnation while the other should not?



Emotions are the natural enemy of morality... any thoughts?

Justice

Theli

Of course the assailant's safety is also compromised, and I have absolutely no problem with that. Quite frankly, I can't understand how anyone can have concern for the safety of a morally depraved criminal who wants only to hurt another human being--for no justifiable reason. And the extent of the hurt involved in a rape (on so many levels) is so horrific that worrying about the well-being of the rapist who is hell-bent on destroying someone else's well-being (unprovoked) seems wrong to me. It sounds like laying blame on people who've done nothing but defend themselves.

The way I see it, a rapist's attack is unprovoked--if he chose to try to rape a woman, to rob her of dignity and her own personal physical safety, not to mention the emotional and psychological trauma associated with a rape, he should not have the expectation that she won't fight back. He shouldn't think that it would be wrong for the victim to hurt him!!! No one should expect that a victim shouldn't fight back or that she's morally wrong for hurting a violent attacker.

A woman defending herself would most likely mean hurting a rapist to make him stop attacking her. Some people understand nothing less than force. A simple "No" is obviously not enough to stop rapists, otherwise rape wouldn't be the evil fact of life that it is for women. And if force is all a rapist understands, then she should use it, as any woman (or man) should feel justified in doing to protect themselves from assailants who would inflict bodily harm on them.

To explain my words that you quoted, there is a difference in using force as an aggressor and using force as a defender. There's a HUGE difference between a victim's use of force (deadly force, if need be) and a rapist's use of force, and consequently, a difference in the morality of the two actions. The difference is PURPOSE. The victim's use of force is in her own defense and it is provoked by the assailant. If she doesn't use force, she will be raped, and potentially killed. Her use of force is justified. The assailant's use of force is to commit a crime--an unprovoked attack--against another human's body, for his own gratification. That's not a NECESSARY use of force, it's not a moral use of force, and it's unjustifiable. I believe the law would recognize the significant difference.

What if in her attempts to stop a rape, she hit him on the head with a paper weight and he died? What if she punched him in the trachea and he suffocated and died? Are you saying that she would be wrong to have done that? How would you suggest handling a rapist? I can not think of a single non-violent way for a woman to "convince" a rapist not to rape her. What would you suggest? And please explain the moral equivalence between the two uses of force (victim's and assailant's) that, if I understand you correctly, you are proposing.

As for emotions being the natural enemy of morality...I can't think of how much more wrong this statement could be, in my opinion. I take the completely opposite view. Emotions are very much a part of what help us recognize right from wrong. What disgusts us, infuriates us, makes us feel violated, etc. help us see that some of the things that make us feel these ways are wrong. For example, (to stick to the topic), rape infuriates me. It produces countless torturous emotions in victims and victims families and friends and complete strangers who hear about it...from these emotions, we know that the action that caused them is wrong. It is immoral. I'm not saying that anything that causes these emotions is immoral, but the emotions we feel because of certain actions that we do, or that others do to us, help us make a judgement about their morality level. Another brief example--we feel guilt after certain behavior--many times we recognize the emotion as being the result of our "wrong" behavior. Of course, sometimes guilt is not a telltale sign of immoral behavior on our part--take for example, the guilt some rape victims feel. Why? Hard to say, but they certainly didn't do anything wrong.

Anyhow, my point is, emotions are KEY to morality--so is sound reasoning, but emotions are very much a part of it too. Consider criminals for a moment--rapists in this case--do you think their emotions are not relevant to their lack of morality? Think if a rapist could feel positive emotions like empathy he'd be raping women? Emotionless people are often dangerous. Of course, people who feel only certain emotions such as rage and hate, etc., but not others such as empathy, are often dangerous too, but "emotions" in general can not truthfully be called "the enemy of morality," unless you have some kind of awesomely convincing explanation lurking somewhere...?

Theli

That's abit black and white, isn't it? I'm not trying to lay the blame on anyone, or say that one person deserves to be hurt more than the other.
Before I go on, I would like to ask what your stance is on free will.
1. Does human beings have a soul (or natural substitute) wich is the prime cause for that person's actions? or...
2. Are our actions merely a product of our genetic/physical makeup, our memories/past experiences and the situation when the action is taken.
If an action as extreme as raping another person should be solely blamed on the rapist, then people must have an equal chance of restraining themselfs from taking this action. But I can tell you from personal experiences, I haven't even for so much as a second really wanted to rape someone. So, there must be something different about this person that is outside his free will. Weither we call it "being depraved" or lacking sympathy for his victim it is something not caused by him. Wouldn't you say that he, as any other person is a victim of circumstances?
I'm sure you can relate to this as you yourself seem completely ok with devaluing another human being given the situation. That's what I meant by emotions being the natural enemy of morality, they are breeding ground for prejudice.
If a gun however could be used to scare the assailant off that would be an ideal outcome of a really bad scenario.
Ofcourse she will and should fight back, who wouldn't?
To judge the actions taken against a person differently based on a label you give him/her is prejudice.
Even more labels... what does the different intentions matter when the outcome is the same?
You do realize that most people do assault others based on an emotion. Emotions may cause us to do good by protecting someone in need of help but more often it (along with devaluing other people, and labels) spawn hates such as racism. And they are shallow too, it's much easier to feel sympathy for a panda cub than for a great white shark even if they both has just as much to loose from harm or death. We feel more sympathy for the victim and hate for the assailiant if we see the victim all bruised and bloody than if we just read about it in a paper, I just don't think emotions are reliable.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in this? You are blaming the rapist for not having empathy for his victim and thus not caring for her well being, and in the same time you admits to lack empathy for the rapist and not caring for his well being.

Anyway, this is a sensitive topic and there are bound to fly sparks whenever debating it. But that's how I like it. I hope you reply.

viscousmemories

The problem I have with this argument is that most people who use it don't carry it to the logical extreme. You seem to think that all women should carry guns because "The average female is no match, physically, for the average male". I think there are a number of holes in this argument. For one, carried to the logical extreme all women should carry guns all the time. Does that really seem like a reasonable expectation? Also, does this reasoning only apply to women? What about the minority of men who are physically inferior to the majority of women? Should they also carry guns to balance the scales?

And lastly, a basic 9mm makes you about 1000x more physically powerful than the average male. So shouldn't he at least have a .22 to balance things out? I mean, if you need to carry a gun to compensate for the fact that you're not as strong as the average male, shouldn't the average male carry a weapon that makes him as strong as you are with a gun? I know these examples sound ridiculous, but unless you're willing to say that only women need to carry guns to protect themselves, you have to use a more effective argument than physical inferiority.

vm

Justice

Theli:

True, this is a very sensitive topic, and even tho I find it hard to understand how you hold some of your ideas, I’m willing to discuss it.

Re: how I feel about free will…
I am of the opinion that people make decisions to perform or not perform an action, decisions are not made for people by something outside of themselves (I’m excepting from this description mentally unsound people—different topic, I think, so I’ll stick to the general mentally sound populace). I don’t know that I’d call each person’s unique personality/character (for lack of a better word) that is a part of her/his decision-making process a “soul”... maybe. I do believe each person is unique. But I believe that whatever it is that allows people to make decisions—it is the person’s responsibility—no one else’s. I don’t believe each unique person is controlled by a unique “other” (whatever that might be) that makes a person behave a certain way.


I’ve read about DNA playing a part in people’s emotional makeup. For ex., it’s been said that depression is genetic. So, if that’s true, members of a family with those genes would have a higher likelihood of being depressed—a condition obviously very much based on emotion. Similarly, could anger be genetic? Could any # of the emotions that would “make” someone more likely to rape be carried in genes? I would believe that certain emotions are genetic if someone could convince me. (I just don’t know much about any studies that have been done in that area). But as of right now, I don’t know that they are, and even if someone is more prone to violence, I still maintain that each person has a choice—to control his/her actions.

I would definitely never excuse a rapist’s actions by calling him a “victim of circumstances”. The only “victim of circumstances” in a rape situation is the rapist’s victim who happens to be the one he chooses to attack. Just b/c you have never wanted to rape someone doesn’t lead to the conclusion that something outside of your free will makes you act the way you do. Even if you had felt like raping someone, you had the choice whether or not to actually do it. The responsibility lies with you. While I doubt that you (or anyone) choose to feel turned on (horny) by certain people, you probably do sometimes. Is horniness outside of you—an urge (I don’t know that I’d call it an emotion) brought on by someone else (not necessarily intentionally)? I’d say people don’t have much control over that feeling, but regardless of what instigates an emotion or urge in someone, how that person acts on that emotion or urge is his/her responsibility. Your “victim of circumstances” explanation has often been used by criminals in attempts to evade accountability and prosecution for their crimes.
If a person chooses to commit an action, that person is responsible for that action. For ex., (this is the best one I can think of at the moment, so forgive me if it’s a poor one), consider an alcoholic. It’s been said that alcoholism is genetic. If that’s true, I don’t think drunk drivers who are alcoholics should be less accountable for causing an accident than any other drunk driver. And I don’t know that the law makes any exceptions for that either, as in, “Driving while intoxicated is illegal and you will be prosecuted if you do so, unless you are an alcoholic, in which case, we understand that it really wasn’t your fault b/c you almost had to do it.” Similarly, I don’t think that even if someone was more prone to whatever emotions would supposedly “make” him rape, that the law would be tolerant of that, as in “Rape is illegal and you will be prosecuted if you commit it, unless you are more prone to raping (or falling prey to emotions that would “cause” you to rape), in which case, we understand it wasn’t your fault b/c you almost had to do it.”

I don’t know that these two situations match up---I’m thinking an alcoholic is more likely to drink alcohol, but he/she can take steps to control those urges and his/her behavior (AA, counseling, for ex.). A person supposedly more prone to whatever emotions might “make” him more likely to rape can take steps to control those emotions/urges and his behavior (anger management counseling, for ex.). I realize that alcoholism is not an emotional disorder, but being more prone to certain emotions that supposedly might “make” someone more likely to engage in certain behavior obviously would be. However, neither of these two people is justified in blaming his actions on his emotions or urges. I also think that doing so undermines a person’s free will by basically equating that person with a puppet—slave to some “other” outside of himself. I don’t believe it.
The point I am trying to make: that PEOPLE are responsible for their actions, regardless of the circumstances (emotions?) in their lives. I’m not exactly sure what you meant by “circumstances”, so if you could clarify, I might be able to better answer you. Ultimately, each individual is accountable for what she/he does and there is no excuse for unprovoked violent attacks on others.

If rapists are more angry people, more greedy people, more [insert emotion here] people, that does not excuse their behavior. Does it explain it? Maybe. But it doesn’t make it any less moral for a woman to hurt him in order to defend herself. And it doesn't make the crime any less punishable.
If by “devaluing another human being given the situation” you mean, killing a rapist in my own self-defense, then yes—I’m “completely ok with devaluing a human being given the situation” (clarification: given THAT situation). Would I intentionally “devalue” anyone, unprovoked (like rapists do)? No. Would I intentionally “devalue” someone in a self-defense situation by inflicting bodily harm on him to protect myself? Yes. As far as I’m concerned, a rapist’s life isn’t worth much. So yes, if this is what you are getting at, I place different values on different lives. I see value in the lives of most law-abiding citizens (esp. all those who don’t attack other people). I don’t value the lives of violent criminals b/c I believe that most of them CHOOSE to engage in evil behavior that’s harmful to others. And they’re a threat to society’s safety.

My words you quoted:

Consider criminals for a moment--rapists in this case--do you think their emotions are not relevant to their lack of morality? Think if a rapist could feel positive emotions like empathy he'd be raping women?

The mistake I made there was using the word “could” as in “if a rapist COULD feel positive emotions like empathy…” I don’t believe we can control all the emotions that we feel. But emotions themselves are not really “good” or “bad”. As I said above, I think it is how we act upon them that determines good and evil. I probably should have said a rapist “doesn’t care” how a victim feels. It’s not that he can’t relate. He knows that he will cause all kinds of damage and it’s not as though he’s not capable of feeling terror and pain, etc., but he chooses to be selfish and arrogant by ignoring those feelings in another person that he knows will result from his action. His lack of caring—his choosing to ignore the pain and hurtful emotions that he knows he will inflict by raping—are what make his action immoral. If he chose to recognize a victim’s potential pain and cared not to inflict it, obviously, there would be a different situation—there would be no rape.

Regarding “emotions being the breeding ground for prejudice”
I don’t think that really applies to my situation b/c if you really want to get into semantics again, the dictionary (my American Heritage dictionary at least) attaches a negative connotation to the word “prejudice” and defines it as (1) “an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand without knowledge of the facts and (2) irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
I have made a judgment and formed an adverse opinion about rapists before even knowing the details of their particular rape situations, I hate them, but I have knowledge of the most important fact--what rape is in every situation. But since I believe that rape is wrong in all situations and that the most important fact is always the same—there was no consent (regardless of details such as where, when, what she was wearing, etc), I feel that I know enough about any “particular” rape situation to make a judgment and form an opinion of rapists. I hate this group of people. But given the nature of their crime, I’d hardly call my suspicion or hatred of them “irrational” by definition two. On the contrary, I find hatred and suspicion of rapists to be perfectly rational. You won’t hear (read) me say that I hate many groups of people. One group of people that I have no problem lumping together and saying “I hate them” are criminals, violent criminals, and rapists in particular. But “labelling” me “prejudiced” against rapists is not something I take offense at.

This is the crux of my argument so if you don’t understand what I’m saying when I say that INTENT is critically important in determining the morality of an action, in light of its consequence, this debate will get really redundant really quickly. But I’ll try to explain it again, although I think my first explanation wasn’t too shabby.
First, re: labels… I don’t know what exactly you mean by this, but I’m thinking you mean making judgments? In that case, I think labels are necessary, not irrational labels, but there are labels put on people and situations that are perfectly rational. People “label” things and other people all day every day. It’s a part of living. It’s sometimes a matter of self-preservation (for ex., making a judgment about a sole shady drunk guy shouting obscenities at me from a dark alley. I label him “shady” and “possibly dangerous” and avoid him). I see no problem with that. I think most labels I use are particular to a certain situation like that. I keep my labelling of groups to rapists (not races, colors, nationalities, etc): rapists are a group of people of all different races and ages and nationalities. I think they’re evil. That’s a label that I think is accurate for every single one, b/c I don’t see any exception to that label for that group of people—I lump them together under the label “rapists” b/c of actions they all chose to engage in. I see no way to honestly say, well, he’s a rapist, but he’s not like the others (as far as why he’s in that group of nefariously-labelled people)…

Now, regarding different intentions and similar outcomes…
This point is, for me, the point at which morality of an action is decided. For ex., consider the same setting, from two different perspectives and morality levels:
Scenario One: a man enters a home with the intention of raping the sleeping woman inside. He beats the shit out of her while she resists and fights back. He realizes he’s not going to get what he wants without more noise and struggle and he thinks the noise might wake a neighbor and so he continues to beat her into submission and eventually he kills her (by whatever means). His action was a violation of her basic human right to be free from unprovoked violence. If he was angry, horny, feeling like he wanted to conquer someone and be dominant—he didn’t have to act on those feelings by violating the rights of another human. It was unjustified, it was immoral.
Scenario Two: a man enters a home with the intention of raping the sleeping woman inside. He beats the shit out of her while she resists and fights back. She’s already in pain but still fighting, she’s terrified and realizing there’s no way for her to use her own body strength to stop him, and that she will eventually be raped and/or killed if she doesn’t find a way to stop him, so, acting on those feelings and the ongoing assault, she reaches her one free hand under her bed for her loaded gun and shoots him. He dies. Her action was in self-defense, it is justified b/c it saved her from more unprovoked grave bodily harm, and possibly death. It is morally acceptable.

Maybe I'm confused about your point, but are you saying that her killing the rapist is as morally contemptible as the rapist killing her?

As I said before, I don’t think emotions themselves are necessarily good or bad, but how they are acted upon is what determines good from evil. And the same action—violence (even killing) can be justifiable depending on the intent behind it. Using violence to aggress against someone, unprovoked is unjustified. Using violence to stop an unprovoked violent attack against your body is justified.

Surely, how someone acts on emotions is what's important. But if you don’t trust emotions at all in order to evaluate how you will act, I’m curious as to how you live your life. How do you decide how you feel about a person or a situation and how you should act and what is moral? How do you decide if an action is moral without considering the emotions of all people involved? How do you equate the actions of a rape victim defending herself with the actions of a rapist who's attacking her? I don’t think “reasoning” thru situations can be done without taking emotions into account.

Justice

Viscousmemories:

No it doesn't on the grounds that it's not legal. As far as all women carrying guns all the time, if that situation were legal (it's not), I'm not against the idea. Who knows when and where a rapist will attack? But unfortunately, there are strict rules, and many of them regarding where a person can carry a gun b/c society is worried about criminals (as tho criminals would heed the law anyhow...). But the decision for a woman to carry a gun should of course, be her own. If she doesn't want to, for whatever reason--obviously, that's her decision. I'm certainly not advocating forcing someone to be armed.

I believe in my earlier post that I said that both women and men should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense. Even if a man is an equal physical match for a male attacker, he should not have to risk his own life and health to go hand-to hand with an assailant, who might or might not have his own weapon. Woman or man, people are entitled to defend themselves--at the expense of an attacker. I advocate women especially carrying guns b/c they are at a greater disadvantage if an attack does go hand-to hand, requiring her to try to physically overwhelm a male attacker, who I would say, would most likely be stronger than her. In addition, although I can't give you stats, women are more often targets for rape-- heinous violent attacks on their bodies, whereas men aren't usually targeted this way. I'd say men, who are certainly victims of many violent crimes, are more often assualted for their $ or property (car, watch, shoes, etc. ), and they are often beaten and/or shot in the perpetration of the crime, and they have the right to defend themselves. But women face not only the robbers and muggers, but the rapists as well.
However, no one, regardless of sex, should be denied the right to defend her/himself from attack.

I'm not willing to say that "only women need to carry guns", and I never did say that. Nor did I use physical inferiority as my only argument. I used it as my primary argument to defend my advocacy of women carrying guns. As I stated above, I think both women and men should be allowed to carry guns for personal protection b/c regardless of the size of the attacker, a targeted person shouldn't have to endure an unprovoked attack on her/his person. Even if a small physically weak man or woman has a means of inflicting serious bodily harm on a victim (i.e. with a weapon), the victim is morally justified in defending her/himself at the attacker's expense.
I don't think I understand your question about balancing firepower between men and women. When I wrote about the average male, in terms of physical strength, I was referring to rapists. And I said that women and men are morally justified in using a gun to defend themselves from attack, and that a gun would be useful for women b/c I belive they have less of a chance of physically overpowering a man who's trying to rape them, and finding another means to effectively stop an attack that wouldn't require close combat.
Are you asking if the average male--meaning, every male--not rapists as I was referring to--should carry a gun to defend himself against a woman if she were to try to use a gun against him? If so, my position is that regardless of the sex of the individual who does the attacking, a victim is justified in defending her/himself. If a woman threatened a man with a .22 or a .9 or a .45, the male victim (just like a female victim) has a right to defend his or her life, by hurting the assailant to stop an attack if need be, including using any caliber of firearm.

viscousmemories

Well, I applaud you for acknowledging that the logical end of your argument is that all women should carry guns all the time. But I find it completely mind-boggling that you would prefer to live in a society where that was the case. If you think all women carrying guns around all the time is a preferable social condition to the one we have today, our opinions are far enough apart that discussion of whether or not women should carry guns for self-defense is probably pointless.

I never suggested that it was your only argument. I said that it isn’t a valid one. Your other arguments may have merit, but that one doesn’t. Because really, if it’s about comparing physical strength, there is only one person in the world who is bigger and stronger than everyone else, so if that argument means anything it means that everyone except he or she who is the biggest and strongest should carry a gun.

I’m saying that (if I understand correctly) your argument is that people should carry guns to protect them from potential assailants who are more powerful than them. So, if you carry a gun you are necessarily much more powerful than me, and because I don’t know you, you may well be a potential assailant. Therefore, I should carry a bigger gun to protect myself from you.

vm

Justice

Viscousmemories:

I certainly prefer women to be armed and able to defend themselves than in the shitty social condition of today that has them defenseless and afraid of guns and afraid of hurting rapists and afraid of defending themselves and constantly being raped b/c of those things. If YOU think that leaving women defenseless prey to rapist predators is a preferable situation to giving them an effective means to defend themselves--then there is definitely a gargantuan difference in our opinions and discussing it further probably is pointless. So feel free to stop reading here.
I wonder tho what it is about guns that makes you so afraid of them? Their lethal ability? Or that fact that there are so many? Do you think that owning a gun makes a person more prone to criminal actions...I don't get it. Why NOT arm women? It's a sad situation that some women feel the need to arm themselves with guns just in case, but the social condition that convinced them of that need is pretty sickening too. Do you lament the state society is in as much as you do some people's attempts to protect themselves from it? B/c if you think things are just rosy with the crime rate these days, I'd have to say you have a perception problem.

What I'd PREFER is that people not attack one another. What I'd PREFER is that rape was not a fact of life. It happens too often, and I'm not naive enough to think it might not happen to me. And it happens too often to others. And since it will probably never stop happening, I see no reason why women shouldn't use any means possible to prevent it.
I'd be interested in knowing your idea of an effective rape prevention tool. And one that would be more effective than a gun, assuming the victim was in a position to use a gun.

And who might that be? THE strongest person in the world??? Are you referring to ONE person? Is that the only person we should be justified in defending ourselves from? Joe Shmoe on continent X is our only worry? I don't follow your reasoning.

"SHOULD" they--is up to them. (Certainly not if they're not comfortable with the idea). But if a person chooses to carry a gun, it is usually b/c the fear is of a potential assailant who is more powerful--not necessarily bigger--but more powerful, due to physical body size or the use of a weapon that can inflict bodily harm. I have no problem with law-abiding citizens carrying guns for self-defense. Hypothetically, b/c this would never happen, but if everyone carried a concealed gun, I wonder what the rape rate would be--if rapists knew most women carry guns...They'd be taking much bigger risk than they do today.

I couldn't care less how big the gun you carry is, as long as you don't use it to commit a crime, and incidentally, the size of the gun doesn't matter, and the size of the bullet (which might) might not even be important if all a woman has to do is unconceal a weapon--that alone might be enough to send a rapist packing. And if it doesn't, she'll hopefully be able to protect herself. The police can't be everywhere at all times to protect people from violent crime, so usually, it's up to the victim to protect herself.

If you think it is wrong or unreasonable for a woman, or all women, to carry a gun to protect themselves--why?

viscousmemories

Justice,

Let me start by saying I agree that rape is a heinous crime and I appreciate that you are passionate in your opinion of it. In my opinion rape is as serious a crime as murder, if not worse. It’s a small consolation, but at least murder victims don’t have to keep suffering nightmares, terror, depression and anxiety for 10-20-30 years after the attack. I have known a number of women who have been the victims of rape so I have seen the devastating emotional effects for myself.

I used to think the death penalty was too good for rapists; that they should be imprisoned and tortured mercilessly instead. The only reason I don’t think that way now is because I have come to question the morality of that position, not because I disagree that rape is a horrible offense, but because I’m unconvinced that our legal system is reliable enough to prevent innocents from undeserved punishment, and I’m equally unconvinced that any good could come from torture. I still think, however, that violent offenders should be punished severely, and repeat violent offenders removed from society permanently.

I think it’s worthwhile to mention that it has been mentioned previously that many rapes involve a person the victim knows and/or has some kind of relationship with. For the purposes of my contributions to this discussion, when I say “rape” I’m referring to rape by a stranger. Mostly because that seems to be the angle you are arguing from. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your statements.

That being said, let me respond:
I very highly doubt that women are constantly being raped because they’re afraid of guns or hurting rapists. On the first point I suppose you’re saying that a woman who fears guns won’t own one, and therefore when a rape attempt happens she won’t be able to defend herself. The problem with that argument is that having a gun is not a woman’s only method of defending herself, nor does it guarantee her protection. So it doesn’t logically follow that owning a gun will prevent her from getting raped. Therefore, you can’t causally link her fear of guns with her getting raped.

On the second point, I sincerely doubt that any woman being raped would have any qualms about hurting her attacker. I can imagine a woman being afraid that if she fights back it will only serve to make her attacker more angry and therefore more dangerous, but I can’t see her being overly concerned with hurting him beyond that. So, I think it’s also inaccurate to say that women are constantly being raped because they are afraid of hurting their assailants.

Your last point, that many women are afraid of defending themselves, may be a more accurate measure of why women get raped. Even still, I wouldn’t put it like that. I’d say not knowing how or not being able to defend herself is why some women get raped is probably a better way of stating it. Again, though, carrying a gun doesn’t ensure that a woman will know how to use it effectively, or that she’ll be able to use it effectively. So again you can’t logically conclude that women are constantly getting raped because they’re afraid of defending themselves.

I think there are a number of reasons why rapes happen (too many really to go into here) but suffice it to say that I don’t think “not carrying a gun” ranks very high on that list.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m questioning whether or not giving women guns is an effective means of defending themselves.
For one thing, that is a strawman argument. I never said I was afraid of guns. Am I afraid of guns “lethal ability”? Yes, rationally so. Does it bother me that there are so many? Absolutely. Do I think owning a gun makes a person more prone to criminal actions? In some cases, yes. For example I think most violent criminals are probably cowards, and would be less likely to commit certain violent crimes if they didn’t have a gun in their hand.
Because guns are dangerous, so therefore the more guns there are in circulation, the more danger there is. If rape and other violent crimes were as prevalent as you seem to think they are, I would say everyone should have a gun on them at all times. But I don’t believe the danger is as great as you seem to think it is. This isn’t the Wild West. In 34 years I have never needed a gun to protect myself or anyone I know. I have wished I had a gun, but in the end it really wasn’t necessary.
If you think violent crime is so rampant that you can’t walk to the store without a gun on you, then I’d suggest the perception problem is yours. Where do you live that the violent crime rate is so high that you are compelled to be armed at all times? I’ve lived all over America, from small towns to big cities, and I’ve never felt that I absolutely had to carry a gun for my own safety.
Yes, rape happens and yes, it’s not going to stop happening. There will always be violent people in the world, and they will always victimize others. However, you are dead wrong if you think that increasing the number of guns in this country by a few million is going to decrease the incidence of violent crimes. The more guns there are, the easier it is for criminals to get them. The easier it is for criminals to get them, the more likely it is that your assailant is going to have one.
Well the only think I can imagine being more effective than killing your assailant (which you should be able to do easily if you have and know how to use a gun and you’re in a position to use it) would be eliminating the threat before it presents itself. So it would be more effective to prevent all potential rapists from ever being able to rape. How about mandatory castration for all male babies?
Exactly. My point was that if your argument is that all people need a gun to protect themselves from those who are more powerful, then the only person who doesn’t need a gun would be the most powerful person in the world. As I said, I know it sounds ridiculous. That was my intention. Because I think the idea that everyone who isn’t the most powerful person in the world should carry a gun is ridiculous.
I’m not sure what you mean by law-abiding. Do you mean if someone gets pulled over for speeding they should lose their gun permit?
This is the kind of comment that just blows my mind. Do you really think having that many more guns in circulation would reduce the instances of rape? Rapists are violent criminals who enjoy hurting women. If every woman in the country was carrying a gun, rapists would just make sure they had a gun too. And I guarantee you it would be a hell of a lot easier for them to get one.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that the size of the gun doesn’t matter. I do have some experience with guns. I was the armorer for my Company in the Army. And you’re right, showing off your gun might be enough to send a rapist packing. Of course it might also send him flying at you with flailing fists so fast and furious that he has your gun pointed at your head before you know what hit you. Unfortunately I’m afraid the latter is the more likely scenario.
Again you suggest that I have to either be for guns or against women defending themselves, when in fact I am against guns and for women defending themselves. In my opinion the proliferation of guns in this country is a huge problem and the cause of much of the violent crime. As I said before, I believe guns embolden otherwise cowardly people and they obviously make killing people a lot cleaner and more efficient. I don’t have all the answers. I hate the fact that women get raped, and I wish there was something I could do to stop it, or some magic solution to the problem. I don’t have one. All I can say is that I think the many other suggestions I’ve heard in this thread are far more reasonable than arming everyone to the teeth.

vm