British crime philosophy: Submit quietly...you thought I was joking........

[hipeter924]

I carry a knife. I have always carried a knife. My British friends call me a barbarian. One young woman asked if she could carry it for one day. It made her feel entirely differently. She wasn't a victim. She didn't think of herself as a victim. No matter how ineffective she might be, there was the ability to fight back.

The feeling was so uncomfortable that she gladly gave the knife back promising to never do that again. This young woman would beg for her life and hope that an attacker would let her live. Unfortunately she expects mercy from someone who would kill a puppy without a thought.

What would they think if you carry a gun?

Buy a bigger gun.

 

[Katzndogz]

I carry a knife. I have always carried a knife. My British friends call me a barbarian. One young woman asked if she could carry it for one day. It made her feel entirely differently. She wasn't a victim. She didn't think of herself as a victim. No matter how ineffective she might be, there was the ability to fight back.

The feeling was so uncomfortable that she gladly gave the knife back promising to never do that again. This young woman would beg for her life and hope that an attacker would let her live. Unfortunately she expects mercy from someone who would kill a puppy without a thought.

What would they think if you carry a gun?

Buy a bigger gun.

It doesn't appear to matter. Britian has no Constitution and no concept of natural rights. Historically, rights are given or taken by the crown. The crown no longer has that power, but the idea remains. There is no natural right to self defense.

We are moving in that direction but from a different place. We are moving into a system of restorative justice. The criminal is just as much of a victim as the person that was victimized. Both sides must understand how the other was wronged. This would of course eliminate all forms of self defense or defense of any property. To harm the criminal would victimize the criminal twice. Once with the unfair motivation to commit the crime and again by being physically harmed during the commission of the crime. Each side must understand and forgive the other.

 

[Andylusion]

You realize that many businesses, schools, universities, and workplaces, if not airports don't allow you to carry in weapons.

Please explain how you will force places (most of them private) that ban weapons, for security and logistical reasons, to allow them to be easily carried.

The point is that you can't be armed 24/7 everywhere, and that is usually when rapists strike - where they know you will have a hard time fighting back.

My wife and my uncle carry. Both are armed pretty much all the time...and you could be standing next to them, and never realize it.

Note also that open carry is legal here...and nobody so much as raises an eyebrow.

One problem with open carry, is that it is only effective if EVERYONE open carries.

If you are the one dude on the block that open carries, then the criminals know exactly who to target.

When a criminal walks up, pulls a gun, and shoves it in your face. You have no time to do anything. And since all the lemmings around you are unarmed, all they do is watch the criminal walk off with your gun.

The reason conceal carry is so effective, is because everyone could potentially be armed. That makes criminal activity risk. Can't plan for threats you don't know about.

 

[2aguy]

You realize that many businesses, schools, universities, and workplaces, if not airports don't allow you to carry in weapons.

Please explain how you will force places (most of them private) that ban weapons, for security and logistical reasons, to allow them to be easily carried.

The point is that you can't be armed 24/7 everywhere, and that is usually when rapists strike - where they know you will have a hard time fighting back.

My wife and my uncle carry. Both are armed pretty much all the time...and you could be standing next to them, and never realize it.

Note also that open carry is legal here...and nobody so much as raises an eyebrow.

One problem with open carry, is that it is only effective if EVERYONE open carries.

If you are the one dude on the block that open carries, then the criminals know exactly who to target.

When a criminal walks up, pulls a gun, and shoves it in your face. You have no time to do anything. And since all the lemmings around you are unarmed, all they do is watch the criminal walk off with your gun.

The reason conceal carry is so effective, is because everyone could potentially be armed. That makes criminal activity risk. Can't plan for threats you don't know about.

Open carry is needed so the cops can't simply arrest you if your jacket falls open or your t-shirt pulls up a little and exposes your pistol......otherwise the best tactical option is concealed carry.....

 

[Andylusion]

Main problem with getting support after rape, is bad attitudes in the police force, schools, universities and in the justice system.

When victims report a rape, in a lot of cases they are treated as if they deserved it for 'being a slut', especially in universities where the administration want to cover up rape and silence the victim.

Having a gun might help, but most rapes happen when you are unprepared or at risk, and in case of gang rape there is no way to fight them off easily.

Worse than the rape, is the response you get from authorities, who make it difficult to prosecute the rapist, and lay blame on the victim - just because a small number like 0.01% of cases are made up for revenge.

Actually Hipster, guns are the best way to stop a rape.....I suggest you go to thetruthaboutguns, gunssavelives, and Thearmedcitizen to read actual stories of people using guns in self defense situations...there is also a CATO paper on the subject that collected 5,000 of these stories

Here are 4 articles on how guns stop rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

********************

So, again a woman's best chance for stopping the rape and ultimately surviving the situation is to use a gun.....

***********************

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

And for 19.95 you can read Southwick's 2000 study on guns that talk about rape.....

Self-defense with guns The consequences

This one gives the actual percentages of how rapes are stopped...guns come out on top...

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf

That wasn't what I said at all. If you read my post I was talking about how weapons cannot stop rape 24/7, especially because in many places having weapons isn't permitted.

Explain to me how you will stop rape in places where weapons are banned or restricted, like private businesses, stores, airports, schools, universities,etc.

Your entire argument is illogical.

We say "having a weapon can help deter crime".

Your response "How will having a weapon deter crime if your are not allowed to have it?"

DERP..... ? Ok, go back to our claim....... Having a weapon....... deters crime.

Obviously if you are not allowed to have the weapon, it can't deter crime. Our entire point is that people should be allowed to defend themselves.

One of my close friends worked at a job, where the owner specifically allowed all employees to get Conceal and Carry permits, as a company benefit. Literally, he hired a retired police officer to have the course in the company building.

He ran a sign making company. They made all kinds of LED signs. (only pointing that out to say he wasn't an arms dealer or something).

Even having a weapon doesn't guarantee anything, and we never claimed it did. If you are looking for something 100% guaranteed in life, it's that you will die someday. Other than that, it's all about odds.

If you are confronted by a criminal, I can promise you that without a weapon, you will be helpless and pathetic in the face of an armed criminal. With a weapon, you might be able to defend yourself.

Which one do you choose? Helpless sheep? Or a man that can defend himself? I'm the man. Which are you?

In other words you have no answer, just more nonsense about how if everyone carried a gun 24/7 all rape would stop.

Your entire plan to stop rape is give people guns, and where they can't take them, they are meant to just take them in illegally and go to jail for taking assault weapons through the metal detector. You must be fun at airports.

If you don't have a weapon, and can't take a weapon into public buildings, schools, universities, airports, malls, and stores,etc, then you are screwed, literally.

Only way to stop rape, is go to the source of rape, which is cultural influences that promote it, just giving people guns won't stop rape.

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

 

[hipeter924]

Main problem with getting support after rape, is bad attitudes in the police force, schools, universities and in the justice system.

When victims report a rape, in a lot of cases they are treated as if they deserved it for 'being a slut', especially in universities where the administration want to cover up rape and silence the victim.

Having a gun might help, but most rapes happen when you are unprepared or at risk, and in case of gang rape there is no way to fight them off easily.

Worse than the rape, is the response you get from authorities, who make it difficult to prosecute the rapist, and lay blame on the victim - just because a small number like 0.01% of cases are made up for revenge.

Actually Hipster, guns are the best way to stop a rape.....I suggest you go to thetruthaboutguns, gunssavelives, and Thearmedcitizen to read actual stories of people using guns in self defense situations...there is also a CATO paper on the subject that collected 5,000 of these stories

Here are 4 articles on how guns stop rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

********************

So, again a woman's best chance for stopping the rape and ultimately surviving the situation is to use a gun.....

***********************

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

And for 19.95 you can read Southwick's 2000 study on guns that talk about rape.....

Self-defense with guns The consequences

This one gives the actual percentages of how rapes are stopped...guns come out on top...

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf

That wasn't what I said at all. If you read my post I was talking about how weapons cannot stop rape 24/7, especially because in many places having weapons isn't permitted.

Explain to me how you will stop rape in places where weapons are banned or restricted, like private businesses, stores, airports, schools, universities,etc.

Your entire argument is illogical.

We say "having a weapon can help deter crime".

Your response "How will having a weapon deter crime if your are not allowed to have it?"

DERP..... ? Ok, go back to our claim....... Having a weapon....... deters crime.

Obviously if you are not allowed to have the weapon, it can't deter crime. Our entire point is that people should be allowed to defend themselves.

One of my close friends worked at a job, where the owner specifically allowed all employees to get Conceal and Carry permits, as a company benefit. Literally, he hired a retired police officer to have the course in the company building.

He ran a sign making company. They made all kinds of LED signs. (only pointing that out to say he wasn't an arms dealer or something).

Even having a weapon doesn't guarantee anything, and we never claimed it did. If you are looking for something 100% guaranteed in life, it's that you will die someday. Other than that, it's all about odds.

If you are confronted by a criminal, I can promise you that without a weapon, you will be helpless and pathetic in the face of an armed criminal. With a weapon, you might be able to defend yourself.

Which one do you choose? Helpless sheep? Or a man that can defend himself? I'm the man. Which are you?

In other words you have no answer, just more nonsense about how if everyone carried a gun 24/7 all rape would stop.

Your entire plan to stop rape is give people guns, and where they can't take them, they are meant to just take them in illegally and go to jail for taking assault weapons through the metal detector. You must be fun at airports.

If you don't have a weapon, and can't take a weapon into public buildings, schools, universities, airports, malls, and stores,etc, then you are screwed, literally.

Only way to stop rape, is go to the source of rape, which is cultural influences that promote it, just giving people guns won't stop rape.

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

*yawn*

No, I am only holiday, and in holiday vs an political forum contest, holiday wins every time.

Keep going if you want, as it is so easy to attack someone that isn't there to rebutt, all I said to begin with was that guns alone won't stop rape.

Then you took offense and took me off on a tangent, leading me to point out that culture has a lot to do with it, and I don't have the interest right now to quote and link studies on male masylgony and rape.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually Hipster, guns are the best way to stop a rape.....I suggest you go to thetruthaboutguns, gunssavelives, and Thearmedcitizen to read actual stories of people using guns in self defense situations...there is also a CATO paper on the subject that collected 5,000 of these stories

Here are 4 articles on how guns stop rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

********************

So, again a woman's best chance for stopping the rape and ultimately surviving the situation is to use a gun.....

***********************

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

And for 19.95 you can read Southwick's 2000 study on guns that talk about rape.....

Self-defense with guns The consequences

This one gives the actual percentages of how rapes are stopped...guns come out on top...

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf

That wasn't what I said at all. If you read my post I was talking about how weapons cannot stop rape 24/7, especially because in many places having weapons isn't permitted.

Explain to me how you will stop rape in places where weapons are banned or restricted, like private businesses, stores, airports, schools, universities,etc.

Your entire argument is illogical.

We say "having a weapon can help deter crime".

Your response "How will having a weapon deter crime if your are not allowed to have it?"

DERP..... ? Ok, go back to our claim....... Having a weapon....... deters crime.

Obviously if you are not allowed to have the weapon, it can't deter crime. Our entire point is that people should be allowed to defend themselves.

One of my close friends worked at a job, where the owner specifically allowed all employees to get Conceal and Carry permits, as a company benefit. Literally, he hired a retired police officer to have the course in the company building.

He ran a sign making company. They made all kinds of LED signs. (only pointing that out to say he wasn't an arms dealer or something).

Even having a weapon doesn't guarantee anything, and we never claimed it did. If you are looking for something 100% guaranteed in life, it's that you will die someday. Other than that, it's all about odds.

If you are confronted by a criminal, I can promise you that without a weapon, you will be helpless and pathetic in the face of an armed criminal. With a weapon, you might be able to defend yourself.

Which one do you choose? Helpless sheep? Or a man that can defend himself? I'm the man. Which are you?

In other words you have no answer, just more nonsense about how if everyone carried a gun 24/7 all rape would stop.

Your entire plan to stop rape is give people guns, and where they can't take them, they are meant to just take them in illegally and go to jail for taking assault weapons through the metal detector. You must be fun at airports.

If you don't have a weapon, and can't take a weapon into public buildings, schools, universities, airports, malls, and stores,etc, then you are screwed, literally.

Only way to stop rape, is go to the source of rape, which is cultural influences that promote it, just giving people guns won't stop rape.

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

*yawn*

No, I am only holiday, and in holiday vs an political forum contest, holiday wins every time.

Keep going if you want, as it is so easy to attack someone that isn't there to rebutt, all I said to begin with was that guns alone won't stop rape.

Then you took offense and took me off on a tangent, leading me to point out that culture has a lot to do with it, and I don't have the interest right now to quote and link studies on male masylgony and rape.

Which changes nothing.

How are you going to change culture, if you believe in mult-culturalism?

How are you going to change culture, when the media is free?

How are you going to change culture, if you don't believe in absolutes? Rape is only wrong because you claim it is? Well others claim it isn't. Are they wrong? Is that an absolute?

And why should we follow your absolutes?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You realize that many businesses, schools, universities, and workplaces, if not airports don't allow you to carry in weapons.

Please explain how you will force places (most of them private) that ban weapons, for security and logistical reasons, to allow them to be easily carried.

The point is that you can't be armed 24/7 everywhere, and that is usually when rapists strike - where they know you will have a hard time fighting back.

My wife and my uncle carry. Both are armed pretty much all the time...and you could be standing next to them, and never realize it.

Note also that open carry is legal here...and nobody so much as raises an eyebrow.

One problem with open carry, is that it is only effective if EVERYONE open carries.

If you are the one dude on the block that open carries, then the criminals know exactly who to target.

When a criminal walks up, pulls a gun, and shoves it in your face. You have no time to do anything. And since all the lemmings around you are unarmed, all they do is watch the criminal walk off with your gun.

The reason conceal carry is so effective, is because everyone could potentially be armed. That makes criminal activity risk. Can't plan for threats you don't know about.

Concealed carry is also legal (and common) here.

 

[hipeter924]

That wasn't what I said at all. If you read my post I was talking about how weapons cannot stop rape 24/7, especially because in many places having weapons isn't permitted.

Explain to me how you will stop rape in places where weapons are banned or restricted, like private businesses, stores, airports, schools, universities,etc.

Your entire argument is illogical.

We say "having a weapon can help deter crime".

Your response "How will having a weapon deter crime if your are not allowed to have it?"

DERP..... ? Ok, go back to our claim....... Having a weapon....... deters crime.

Obviously if you are not allowed to have the weapon, it can't deter crime. Our entire point is that people should be allowed to defend themselves.

One of my close friends worked at a job, where the owner specifically allowed all employees to get Conceal and Carry permits, as a company benefit. Literally, he hired a retired police officer to have the course in the company building.

He ran a sign making company. They made all kinds of LED signs. (only pointing that out to say he wasn't an arms dealer or something).

Even having a weapon doesn't guarantee anything, and we never claimed it did. If you are looking for something 100% guaranteed in life, it's that you will die someday. Other than that, it's all about odds.

If you are confronted by a criminal, I can promise you that without a weapon, you will be helpless and pathetic in the face of an armed criminal. With a weapon, you might be able to defend yourself.

Which one do you choose? Helpless sheep? Or a man that can defend himself? I'm the man. Which are you?

In other words you have no answer, just more nonsense about how if everyone carried a gun 24/7 all rape would stop.

Your entire plan to stop rape is give people guns, and where they can't take them, they are meant to just take them in illegally and go to jail for taking assault weapons through the metal detector. You must be fun at airports.

If you don't have a weapon, and can't take a weapon into public buildings, schools, universities, airports, malls, and stores,etc, then you are screwed, literally.

Only way to stop rape, is go to the source of rape, which is cultural influences that promote it, just giving people guns won't stop rape.

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

*yawn*

No, I am only holiday, and in holiday vs an political forum contest, holiday wins every time.

Keep going if you want, as it is so easy to attack someone that isn't there to rebutt, all I said to begin with was that guns alone won't stop rape.

Then you took offense and took me off on a tangent, leading me to point out that culture has a lot to do with it, and I don't have the interest right now to quote and link studies on male masylgony and rape.

Which changes nothing.

How are you going to change culture, if you believe in mult-culturalism?

How are you going to change culture, when the media is free?

How are you going to change culture, if you don't believe in absolutes? Rape is only wrong because you claim it is? Well others claim it isn't. Are they wrong? Is that an absolute?

And why should we follow your absolutes?

I haven't said whether I believe in multiculturalism, and is it so wrong to 'change culture'?

It was once part of the culture of war to rape, pillage, take prisoners of war as slaves, and loot cities. That dark age cultural mentality has returned with the rise of ISIS.

Changing bad aspects of culture to protect the human rights of the 20-21st century against the 6th or 7th is hardly an issue - honor killings and rape are almost universally condemned by governments and religious groups.

 

[Andylusion]

Your entire argument is illogical.

We say "having a weapon can help deter crime".

Your response "How will having a weapon deter crime if your are not allowed to have it?"

DERP..... ? Ok, go back to our claim....... Having a weapon....... deters crime.

Obviously if you are not allowed to have the weapon, it can't deter crime. Our entire point is that people should be allowed to defend themselves.

One of my close friends worked at a job, where the owner specifically allowed all employees to get Conceal and Carry permits, as a company benefit. Literally, he hired a retired police officer to have the course in the company building.

He ran a sign making company. They made all kinds of LED signs. (only pointing that out to say he wasn't an arms dealer or something).

Even having a weapon doesn't guarantee anything, and we never claimed it did. If you are looking for something 100% guaranteed in life, it's that you will die someday. Other than that, it's all about odds.

If you are confronted by a criminal, I can promise you that without a weapon, you will be helpless and pathetic in the face of an armed criminal. With a weapon, you might be able to defend yourself.

Which one do you choose? Helpless sheep? Or a man that can defend himself? I'm the man. Which are you?

In other words you have no answer, just more nonsense about how if everyone carried a gun 24/7 all rape would stop.

Your entire plan to stop rape is give people guns, and where they can't take them, they are meant to just take them in illegally and go to jail for taking assault weapons through the metal detector. You must be fun at airports.

If you don't have a weapon, and can't take a weapon into public buildings, schools, universities, airports, malls, and stores,etc, then you are screwed, literally.

Only way to stop rape, is go to the source of rape, which is cultural influences that promote it, just giving people guns won't stop rape.

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

*yawn*

No, I am only holiday, and in holiday vs an political forum contest, holiday wins every time.

Keep going if you want, as it is so easy to attack someone that isn't there to rebutt, all I said to begin with was that guns alone won't stop rape.

Then you took offense and took me off on a tangent, leading me to point out that culture has a lot to do with it, and I don't have the interest right now to quote and link studies on male masylgony and rape.

Which changes nothing.

How are you going to change culture, if you believe in mult-culturalism?

How are you going to change culture, when the media is free?

How are you going to change culture, if you don't believe in absolutes? Rape is only wrong because you claim it is? Well others claim it isn't. Are they wrong? Is that an absolute?

And why should we follow your absolutes?

I haven't said whether I believe in multiculturalism, and is it so wrong to 'change culture'?

It was once part of the culture of war to rape, pillage, take prisoners of war as slaves, and loot cities. That dark age cultural mentality has returned with the rise of ISIS.

Changing bad aspects of culture to protect the human rights of the 20-21st century against the 6th or 7th is hardly an issue - honor killings and rape are almost universally condemned by governments and religious groups.

You tell me. I'm ok with changing culture, and controlling media, and absolute truth.

But here's the kicker... if you don't believe in that, then you can't change the culture.

You can't tell people that morals are relative... and then say "rape is wrong". Those are contradictory statements.

You talk about "human rights", but human rights can only exist in G-d based moral code. The Terrorists believe in human rights... just not the human rights you do.

And if you claim that their human rights beliefs are just man-made, like your human rights are man-made..... who are you tell them, that their human rights beliefs are wrong?

Just like who are you to tell people that rape is wrong, while at the same time denying absolute truth? Is it wrong because you say so? And who are you again?

See I don't have a problem with any of this, because I'm a Christian. So I believe in the superiority of G-d's word over man's made up rules. So I have no problem changing culture. Do you?

 

[hipeter924]

In other words you have no answer, just more nonsense about how if everyone carried a gun 24/7 all rape would stop.

Your entire plan to stop rape is give people guns, and where they can't take them, they are meant to just take them in illegally and go to jail for taking assault weapons through the metal detector. You must be fun at airports.

If you don't have a weapon, and can't take a weapon into public buildings, schools, universities, airports, malls, and stores,etc, then you are screwed, literally.

Only way to stop rape, is go to the source of rape, which is cultural influences that promote it, just giving people guns won't stop rape.

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

*yawn*

No, I am only holiday, and in holiday vs an political forum contest, holiday wins every time.

Keep going if you want, as it is so easy to attack someone that isn't there to rebutt, all I said to begin with was that guns alone won't stop rape.

Then you took offense and took me off on a tangent, leading me to point out that culture has a lot to do with it, and I don't have the interest right now to quote and link studies on male masylgony and rape.

Which changes nothing.

How are you going to change culture, if you believe in mult-culturalism?

How are you going to change culture, when the media is free?

How are you going to change culture, if you don't believe in absolutes? Rape is only wrong because you claim it is? Well others claim it isn't. Are they wrong? Is that an absolute?

And why should we follow your absolutes?

I haven't said whether I believe in multiculturalism, and is it so wrong to 'change culture'?

It was once part of the culture of war to rape, pillage, take prisoners of war as slaves, and loot cities. That dark age cultural mentality has returned with the rise of ISIS.

Changing bad aspects of culture to protect the human rights of the 20-21st century against the 6th or 7th is hardly an issue - honor killings and rape are almost universally condemned by governments and religious groups.

You tell me. I'm ok with changing culture, and controlling media, and absolute truth.

But here's the kicker... if you don't believe in that, then you can't change the culture.

You can't tell people that morals are relative... and then say "rape is wrong". Those are contradictory statements.

You talk about "human rights", but human rights can only exist in G-d based moral code. The Terrorists believe in human rights... just not the human rights you do.

And if you claim that their human rights beliefs are just man-made, like your human rights are man-made..... who are you tell them, that their human rights beliefs are wrong?

Just like who are you to tell people that rape is wrong, while at the same time denying absolute truth? Is it wrong because you say so? And who are you again?

See I don't have a problem with any of this, because I'm a Christian. So I believe in the superiority of G-d's word over man's made up rules. So I have no problem changing culture. Do you?

*yawn*

First, you claim that I said morality is absolute, then you claim I said it was 'relative', when I never used either word myself.

Then, this nonsense about 'human rights' being based on God, when it was based not on people's religious views but their genuine concern for the welfare of human life. This is why the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), can be signed by even religious states - as it isn't built from any one religion.

If you need a religious text to tell you who to love, and who to kill, then you never got the point of religion or of secular democracy.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but if need a text to understand that hate and violence is wrong, or that rape is wrong for that matter, then you have embraced sin or abandoned your instictional programming.

I didn't read the bible till I was 9-10, and only the bible stories in class. But by your logic, mankind has no built in programming and no programming from its environment - so explain how I wasn't a serial killer or psychopath for all those years, as I was 'godless', though baptized.

Either I am 'denying' absolute morality, or 'denying' moral relativism, it is impossible to do both - as the premise of absolute morality is that there are one or more common values (regardless of religious or secular views) shared by all.

 

[2aguy]

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

*yawn*

No, I am only holiday, and in holiday vs an political forum contest, holiday wins every time.

Keep going if you want, as it is so easy to attack someone that isn't there to rebutt, all I said to begin with was that guns alone won't stop rape.

Then you took offense and took me off on a tangent, leading me to point out that culture has a lot to do with it, and I don't have the interest right now to quote and link studies on male masylgony and rape.

Which changes nothing.

How are you going to change culture, if you believe in mult-culturalism?

How are you going to change culture, when the media is free?

How are you going to change culture, if you don't believe in absolutes? Rape is only wrong because you claim it is? Well others claim it isn't. Are they wrong? Is that an absolute?

And why should we follow your absolutes?

I haven't said whether I believe in multiculturalism, and is it so wrong to 'change culture'?

It was once part of the culture of war to rape, pillage, take prisoners of war as slaves, and loot cities. That dark age cultural mentality has returned with the rise of ISIS.

Changing bad aspects of culture to protect the human rights of the 20-21st century against the 6th or 7th is hardly an issue - honor killings and rape are almost universally condemned by governments and religious groups.

You tell me. I'm ok with changing culture, and controlling media, and absolute truth.

But here's the kicker... if you don't believe in that, then you can't change the culture.

You can't tell people that morals are relative... and then say "rape is wrong". Those are contradictory statements.

You talk about "human rights", but human rights can only exist in G-d based moral code. The Terrorists believe in human rights... just not the human rights you do.

And if you claim that their human rights beliefs are just man-made, like your human rights are man-made..... who are you tell them, that their human rights beliefs are wrong?

Just like who are you to tell people that rape is wrong, while at the same time denying absolute truth? Is it wrong because you say so? And who are you again?

See I don't have a problem with any of this, because I'm a Christian. So I believe in the superiority of G-d's word over man's made up rules. So I have no problem changing culture. Do you?

*yawn*

First, you claim that I said morality is absolute, then you claim I said it was 'relative', when I never used either word myself.

Then, this nonsense about 'human rights' being based on God, when it was based not on people's religious views but their genuine concern for the welfare of human life. This is why the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), can be signed by even religious states - as it isn't built from any one religion.

If you need a religious text to tell you who to love, and who to kill, then you never got the point of religion or of secular democracy.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but if need a text to understand that hate and violence is wrong, or that rape is wrong for that matter, then you have embraced sin or abandoned your instictional programming.

I didn't read the bible till I was 9-10, and only the bible stories in class. But by your logic, mankind has no built in programming and no programming from its environment - so explain how I wasn't a serial killer or psychopath for all those years, as I was 'godless', though baptized.

Either I am 'denying' absolute morality, or 'denying' moral relativism, it is impossible to do both - as the premise of absolute morality is that there are one or more common values (regardless of religious or secular views) shared by all.

You were raised by parents who were raised in a society based on Christian teachings........you were surrounded by the moral teachings of Judaism and Christianity.....that's how....

 

[Andylusion]

So in other words, you are so incompetent at debate, your only response is to make up a false claim that I didn't say, and then attack the claim that only you have ever said. Straw man anyone?

Grow up stupid. No one anywhere on this forum, has ever even attempted make a plan to end all rape. For you to make that up, just makes you look like an idiot that we are wasting our time talking to.

In fact, if anyone has attempted to make a plan to end rape, it's you in that post....

Really... so you want to end rape by "going to the source which is culture that promotes it".

How exactly do you plan to do that? Censorship? I thought you supported free-speech, which includes the media which glorifies objectifying women?

You going to enforce culture on people? I think you people supported "diversity" and "multi-culturalism"?

You going to indoctrinate people with moral code? I thought you people supported relativism, and 'what's wrong for you, is not wrong for me', and denied absolute truth?

So there is absolute truth? There is bad culture and good culture? Freedom of speech isn't universal?

Because I agree with all that, but then I'm a right-wing conservative Christian. You support that?

*yawn*

No, I am only holiday, and in holiday vs an political forum contest, holiday wins every time.

Keep going if you want, as it is so easy to attack someone that isn't there to rebutt, all I said to begin with was that guns alone won't stop rape.

Then you took offense and took me off on a tangent, leading me to point out that culture has a lot to do with it, and I don't have the interest right now to quote and link studies on male masylgony and rape.

Which changes nothing.

How are you going to change culture, if you believe in mult-culturalism?

How are you going to change culture, when the media is free?

How are you going to change culture, if you don't believe in absolutes? Rape is only wrong because you claim it is? Well others claim it isn't. Are they wrong? Is that an absolute?

And why should we follow your absolutes?

I haven't said whether I believe in multiculturalism, and is it so wrong to 'change culture'?

It was once part of the culture of war to rape, pillage, take prisoners of war as slaves, and loot cities. That dark age cultural mentality has returned with the rise of ISIS.

Changing bad aspects of culture to protect the human rights of the 20-21st century against the 6th or 7th is hardly an issue - honor killings and rape are almost universally condemned by governments and religious groups.

You tell me. I'm ok with changing culture, and controlling media, and absolute truth.

But here's the kicker... if you don't believe in that, then you can't change the culture.

You can't tell people that morals are relative... and then say "rape is wrong". Those are contradictory statements.

You talk about "human rights", but human rights can only exist in G-d based moral code. The Terrorists believe in human rights... just not the human rights you do.

And if you claim that their human rights beliefs are just man-made, like your human rights are man-made..... who are you tell them, that their human rights beliefs are wrong?

Just like who are you to tell people that rape is wrong, while at the same time denying absolute truth? Is it wrong because you say so? And who are you again?

See I don't have a problem with any of this, because I'm a Christian. So I believe in the superiority of G-d's word over man's made up rules. So I have no problem changing culture. Do you?

*yawn*

First, you claim that I said morality is absolute, then you claim I said it was 'relative', when I never used either word myself.

Then, this nonsense about 'human rights' being based on God, when it was based not on people's religious views but their genuine concern for the welfare of human life. This is why the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), can be signed by even religious states - as it isn't built from any one religion.

If you need a religious text to tell you who to love, and who to kill, then you never got the point of religion or of secular democracy.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but if need a text to understand that hate and violence is wrong, or that rape is wrong for that matter, then you have embraced sin or abandoned your instictional programming.

I didn't read the bible till I was 9-10, and only the bible stories in class. But by your logic, mankind has no built in programming and no programming from its environment - so explain how I wasn't a serial killer or psychopath for all those years, as I was 'godless', though baptized.

Either I am 'denying' absolute morality, or 'denying' moral relativism, it is impossible to do both - as the premise of absolute morality is that there are one or more common values (regardless of religious or secular views) shared by all.

That's true. There is nothing in the environment that suggests some universal human rights. Nothing.

And there is no common values shared by all. Again, you can go to places in the world, even to this day where slavery is perfectly fine. Where rape is perfectly acceptable. Where murder is completely justified. There is no "shared by all".

There is just values that are shared by the majority. But that doesn't make it right.... does it? Are you suggesting that might, makes right? Since there are more of those with X view, than Y view, therefore X is correct?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The American left applauds this.

Your attacker could be an oppressed minority or an underprivileged anarchist college grad.

You must not violate their rights. Just shut up and take it.

You know, a very prominent, conservative Republican lost a gubernatorial race in Texas because of that very same philosophy.
"During the campaign, Williams publicly made a joke likening the crime of rape to bad weather, having stated: "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it".
As a result, he lost badly to a Democrat.
Clayton Williams - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

The American left applauds this.

Your attacker could be an oppressed minority or an underprivileged anarchist college grad.

You must not violate their rights. Just shut up and take it.

You know, a very prominent, conservative Republican lost a gubernatorial race in Texas because of that very same philosophy.
"During the campaign, Williams publicly made a joke likening the crime of rape to bad weather, having stated: "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it".
As a result, he lost badly to a Democrat.
Clayton Williams - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Here's the difference. Some idiot makes a dumb joke, and you scream about it.

Some leftists, forces women to be helpless and end up raped, and you applaud.

Which one between the two, caused real harm? The joke? Or the laws that cause women to be raped? Which one would your wife prefer?

 

[hipeter924]

That's true. There is nothing in the environment that suggests some universal human rights. Nothing.

Plenty of archaeological evidence to suggest the early origins of what would take shape into modern human rights (take Babylonian Law which was similar to other legal codes existing among the earliest recorded civilizations), the most obvious of which is the right to life (which took till the 20th century to be strictly defined as such).

Moral relativists like to point to cultures that ritually kill the old or weak, and to societies in chaos, to justify the premise that 'all societies are different' - even though exceptions cannot be reasonably used to claim that most in that society do so. In fact, when economic and political circumstances are improved, such ritual killings cease, undermining the premise that 'murder' is relative to any society.

If we are go to back further, to early man, and even further to primitive apes and other non-sentient species, then one species killing another is an activity to acquire a resource (such as food), or to take a mate (if simple injury will not be sufficient), rather than a normal practice.

But to focus on this negative aspect of basic animals, would be to ignore instinctual reactions and altruism. Dolphins for instance save humans at sea, dogs will treat their owner as one of the pack, and most animals don't attack human children (as they would adults). All instances of shared social bonds, or environmentally derived impulses of a paternal or caring nature.

And there is no common values shared by all. Again, you can go to places in the world, even to this day where slavery is perfectly fine. Where rape is perfectly acceptable. Where murder is completely justified. There is no "shared by all".

Slavery and rape weren't always a constant (and fortunately most people these days do not support or engage in either), nor did it always exist, since you are not just talking about civilization, but the nature of the human species. So that is not a viable justification for claiming that there are no shared values.

There is just values that are shared by the majority. But that doesn't make it right.... does it? Are you suggesting that might, makes right? Since there are more of those with X view, than Y view, therefore X is correct?

The rule of law requires an authority with more influence than criminals, so technically yes in modern society, weapons in the hands of police (and the military) to maintain order, is morally preferable to a society where theft and murder go unchallenged.

In the context of the establishment of the United States, this initially took the form of armed militia, and then armed forces led by George Washington, as such this country was established by force of arms; therefore justifying the axiom that might or force is sometimes required to establish or defend liberties.

The US may have been established as a republic, rather than a majority rule system. But legal frameworks and the rule of law rely on the American public to make informed decisions in a jury*, and for elected or appointed officials and judges to make judgments to the best interests of the public - with the Constitution in mind.

*Drawn at random is the usual means of gathering a jury, so in all probability you are more likely to have the mainstream represented.

 

[Andylusion]

That's true. There is nothing in the environment that suggests some universal human rights. Nothing.

Plenty of archaeological evidence to suggest the early origins of what would take shape into modern human rights (take Babylonian Law which was similar to other legal codes existing among the earliest recorded civilizations), the most obvious of which is the right to life (which took till the 20th century to be strictly defined as such).

Moral relativists like to point to cultures that ritually kill the old or weak, and to societies in chaos, to justify the premise that 'all societies are different' - even though exceptions cannot be reasonably used to claim that most in that society do so. In fact, when economic and political circumstances are improved, such ritual killings cease, undermining the premise that 'murder' is relative to any society.

If we are go to back further, to early man, and even further to primitive apes and other non-sentient species, then one species killing another is an activity to acquire a resource (such as food), or to take a mate (if simple injury will not be sufficient), rather than a normal practice.

But to focus on this negative aspect of basic animals, would be to ignore instinctual reactions and altruism. Dolphins for instance save humans at sea, dogs will treat their owner as one of the pack, and most animals don't attack human children (as they would adults). All instances of shared social bonds, or environmentally derived impulses of a paternal or caring nature.

And there is no common values shared by all. Again, you can go to places in the world, even to this day where slavery is perfectly fine. Where rape is perfectly acceptable. Where murder is completely justified. There is no "shared by all".

Slavery and rape weren't always a constant (and fortunately most people these days do not support or engage in either), nor did it always exist, since you are not just talking about civilization, but the nature of the human species. So that is not a viable justification for claiming that there are no shared values.

There is just values that are shared by the majority. But that doesn't make it right.... does it? Are you suggesting that might, makes right? Since there are more of those with X view, than Y view, therefore X is correct?

The rule of law requires an authority with more influence than criminals, so technically yes in modern society, weapons in the hands of police (and the military) to maintain order, is morally preferable to a society where theft and murder go unchallenged.

In the context of the establishment of the United States, this initially took the form of armed militia, and then armed forces led by George Washington, as such this country was established by force of arms; therefore justifying the axiom that might or force is sometimes required to establish or defend liberties.

The US may have been established as a republic, rather than a majority rule system. But legal frameworks and the rule of law rely on the American public to make informed decisions in a jury*, and for elected or appointed officials and judges to make judgments to the best interests of the public - with the Constitution in mind.

*Drawn at random is the usual means of gathering a jury, so in all probability you are more likely to have the mainstream represented.

So racially based slavery, was in fact morally right, because the majority supported it. Might makes right.

Rape was always a constant in times past. It just wasn't called rape, because women were property. If you own your wife, then forcing her to have sex, isn't rape. And in some cultures, she didn't even have an option in the marriage to begin with.

Now rape external to marriage was lower in many cultures, but again, that's because women were property. The property owner would come and dismember you. Shockingly, that was a deterrent.