CDZ Rape and guns, and the women in your life....

[2aguy]

This is a question primarily directed at those who support extreme gun control, up to and including banning and confiscating guns, and ending carrying guns in public.

Would it be better if your wife, daughter, sister, or mother were violently raped, beaten and possibly murdered, or that they had the option to own and carry a gun to stop it?

Guns are the best tool for a woman to fight off a male criminal...actual research shows this. So, by opposing gun ownership, or making it extremely difficult for women to own and carry guns, those very laws make it easier for them to be raped by male criminals. Do you support women being helpless in the face of violent male attackers?

 

[aaronleland]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

 

[Pogo]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

 

[DandyDonovan]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

I assume you're in the multitude of threads about the two little brown kids who died saying similar? Oh, that's right.

 

[Pogo]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

I assume you're in the multitude of threads about the two little brown kids who died saying similar? Oh, that's right.

You ass-sume much. It's a chronic disease here.

 

[DandyDonovan]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

I assume you're in the multitude of threads about the two little brown kids who died saying similar? Oh, that's right.

You ass-sume much. It's a chronic disease here.

I was being sarcastic , of course, no one really thought you were going to post anything negative about a liberal.

 

[aaronleland]

Rape. Guns. Dead brown kids. And this is the Clean Debate Zone.

I love USMB.

 

[2aguy]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

So...you are saying women are not raped.....got it.

You are saying it is better they resist with their bare hands than with a gun...got it.

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.

 

[Pilot1]

I encourage all the women I know well enough to make suggestions to arm themselves, and get the necessary TRAINING to be safe, and proficient with a firearm.

 

[Pogo]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

I assume you're in the multitude of threads about the two little brown kids who died saying similar? Oh, that's right.

You ass-sume much. It's a chronic disease here.

I was being sarcastic , of course, no one really thought you were going to post anything negative about a liberal.

I have no idea where you're going here but I'm pretty sure that (a) the OP is rarely if ever described as "a Liberal" and (b) that I'm not required to jump into every thread there is.

 

[Pogo]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

So...you are saying women are not raped.....got it.

Oh, am I now

Here's an idea. Quote me instead of pulling it out of your ass.

 

[DandyDonovan]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

So...you are saying women are not raped.....got it.

You are saying it is better they resist with their bare hands than with a gun...got it.

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.

Have you seen the average liberal woman out there? My God man, her face does a FAR better job of preventing rape than a gun ever will.

 

[aaronleland]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

 

[2aguy]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

I can't help if the left wing posters ignore the sanctity of the CDZ....

 

[Pogo]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

You forgot to mention my memory goes back to at least thirty years, which is what this OP is rerunning.

Besides, I never said I "supported" rape; apparently I said that "rape doesn't exist". It's in the quote supplied by the OP. Uh, any minute now.

 

[Pogo]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit. Thinks he can just make shit up and nobody can do anything.

 

[aaronleland]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

There is the "Flame Zone". Oddly enough it's the nicest place on this forum.

 

[DandyDonovan]

This thread isn't nearly as sexy as the title suggested.

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

I assume you're in the multitude of threads about the two little brown kids who died saying similar? Oh, that's right.

You ass-sume much. It's a chronic disease here.

I was being sarcastic , of course, no one really thought you were going to post anything negative about a liberal.

I have no idea where you're going here but I'm pretty sure that (a) the OP is rarely if ever described as "a Liberal" and (b) that I'm not required to jump into every thread there is.

I was talking about you as the liberal, not the OP - who is clearly a one issue pony.

I've actually read your comments on several topics, and while I disagree with your opinions on quite a few things, you strike me as at least somewhat reasonable, so do try to not disappoint me in that regard.

Of course you are not required to be in every thread. No one said otherwise, but as illustrated in the "is something broken here thread" it's going to take reasonable people who call out their own much more often than they call out the "other side" for bad behavior to fix this country. So , I suggest to you that YOU could be one of those voices on the left here who says "that's stupid" when someone on the left does or says something stupid, rather than just attacking conservatives.

And yes , this thread is stupid. Opposing gun ownership no more means you want women to be raped than defending gun ownership means you want to see people get shot.

 

[2aguy]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit.

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......