Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

[osho]

This is a somber issue and yet I often think I should share what I really feel inside me since subjugating the doubt erupting inside me is likely to end up in a repressive state. Sometimes I do not want to blame the raper alone for his malicious act and the victim too becomes responsible since she becomes irresistibly inviting. The temptress in her is overpowering and the onlooker cannot withdraw. It is not always males who rape, women too become rapacious when they find the situation in tune with her urge. I have seen cases old women molesting their young servants.

This is a contentious issue and yet remains one of the must –be – discussed / addressed topics and I think this does not violate the forum's rule to bring this issue into the front

[Whifflingpin]

No No No

If a woman walked naked down a dark alley, she might be foolish but that would not remove one iota of responsibility from the rapist.

[osho]

No No No

I do not always believe in the idea of freewill. Freewill is not necessarily always free and there are some other factors influencing the way we behave. For example if a man is left with a woman alone in a room and the woman is in filmy apparels and he can see some of her private parts through her robes cannot wish away the desire of molestation. He may be swayed by his impulses, kind of primeval desires that led males to aggressively molest women and this is often found in the animal kingdom too. Of course the man molesting the woman must account for the act yet to some extent the chemistry of the external environment and the woman creating the situation must bear the accountability

[loe]

No No No
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed!

It is absolutely unacceptable to push off the responsibility of one's own actions!
Human beings usually claim to be different from animals or at least to be the most intelligent animals, so that they have overcome their pure instincts resp. have learned to keep control.

In my opinion the negation of freewill is one of the most convenient (and cheap) excuses for the refusal to accept responsibility.

[osho]

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed!

It is absolutely unacceptable to push off the responsibility of one's own actions!
Human beings usually claim to be different from animals or at least to be the most intelligent animals, so that they have overcome their pure instincts resp. have learned to keep control.

In my opinion the negation of freewill is one of the most convenient (and cheap) excuses for the refusal to accept responsibility.

Is the root of freewill not in biblical sources born of the medieval period by the Christians domineered societies?

[Lokasenna]

No No No


Completely and utterly agreed.

This has nothing to do with Christianity, or any other form of dogma - in the kind of situation you describe in the OP, no one sane could seriously argue that the victim is in any way culpable.

[YesNo]

Is the question whether we have free will or not?

If we don't have any free will, I don't see how we are responsible for anything, but I think it is more reasonable to assume that we have enough free will to accept responsibility for our actions.

[Calidore]

Is the root of freewill not in biblical sources born of the medieval period by the Christians domineered societies?

No, the root of free will is our sentience.

Nobody else is ever responsible for your actions, and you are never responsible for anyone else's. You can influence or be influenced, but at the end of it the decision to act is yours alone. Even in your ludicrous and appalling attempt above to create a situation in which you can justify rape.

[JamCrackers]

The impetus is with the aggressor. Sexual predators like what they like. To them, the woman, the panties, the leather boots, didn't the Red Dragon see a 'shine' on the women that attracted him to go attack them? It is all colors of crazy. Crazy people see auras that they can't resist. Blaming the victim is outrageous. Crazy sex perverts sometimes stalk people. I don't blame their victims for being too shiny.

[cacian]

No No No

If a woman walked naked down a dark alley, she might be foolish but that would not remove one iota of responsibility from the rapist.

I somehow don't think this is entirely true because one is to take repsonsibility for one's action and if one is going to walk in the nude without a care in the world for possibile dangers lurking around then in a way there is a part in this person that is almost inviting danger.
It takes two to tango.
This needs be said in case one is reading this and thinking it is ok to walk naked anytime anywhere. Taking care of one's appearance especially in public can help prevent sexual harassement and rape at times.

[tonywalt]

No No No

If a woman walked naked down a dark alley, she might be foolish but that would not remove one iota of responsibility from the rapist.

...Or if a man walked naked, let's not be sexist about this.

[blazeofglory]

While I do not agree that the victim is accountable for the act of the victimization , I do not think osho is trying to justify the seducer.

Sometimes we should think differently, coming outside the box. Why theft happens? It is because there is unequal economic distribution. Today's society wherein nakedness is considered synonymous with beauty. Women particularly want to expose their bodies, I apologize to women for this abrogation, and there is some hidden, unconscious longing and maybe this desire is accountable for showing the part of their bodies. Men do not do so mostly. In India for instance girls choose to go out in miniskirts and they want to expose their thighs and they do it in retaliation too since their traditional cultures tried to keep them suppressed. Women in the past or even in most villages are expected to veil their faces. It is vulgar or obscene to expose any bodily parts in public which is never the case with their male counter parts. But today open societies in metropolis are teeming with young women who follow the Bollywood culture like to expose their bodies and fashion designers customize their products tailor-making their clients specific choices. Of course such modern, half -naked women are likely to stimulate their counterparts. And at times this lead to acts of rape. Are not women dancing in nightclubs or in dance restaurants accountable for all that happens there?

[stlukesguild]

I don't buy into the notion of the negation of free will one iota. This is the same argument (different scenario) as we had concerning whether Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. It is the same used by Liberal extremists (and I say this as someone who largely embraces Liberal ideals) to excuse the guilt of the robber or murder who had a tough childhood. Certainly the woman who walks naked down a back alley (or dresses in an excessively provocative manner, acts in an excessively flirtatious manner, and gets drunk at a party) is inviting trouble no less than a man walking down the street flashing a wad of cash and a lot of expensive jewelry in the bad side of town is inviting trouble.... but ultimately it is the rapist or the mugger... the one who crossed the line of legality... that is to be held responsible. I might be stupid for strutting through the "hood wearing an Amarni suit and flashing a wad of cash... but I didn't break any laws.

[blazeofglory]

It is a matter that needs a redressal. In fact our mental frames are wielded or designed by those preceding us and we are behaving submissively. This is a variant of slavery. We are slaves of the situation and to the few fabricators of the norms and standards.

Think a little bit cooly and unorthodoxly and you become averse we to your previous nature.
Uiu

[Varenne Rodin]

Women in all manners of dress get raped. It has nothing to do with the way we are dressed. It has to do with a sickness in someone's mind that would lead them to try to take something by force that doesn't belong to them.

As for flaunting our assets, some women cannot help looking attractive, unless you're suggesting that we should voluntarily mutilate ourselves to avoid being raped. If a person has a nice figure, that's hard to hide even in ugly clothes or a big, uncomfortable sack. There's no right to rape status that gets activated if someone strolls on a beach in a bikini, or wears a light airy sun dress when it's warm out.

If I saw a naked guy in a dark alley, I wouldn't think to myself, "ooohhh. I want to have sex with him whether he likes it or not." That idea is crazy. CRAZY. I would be repulsed. If any readers of this thread think rape is the fault of the victim, you need mental help. Serious problem.

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't buy into the notion of the negation of free will one iota. This is the same argument (different scenario) as we had concerning whether Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. It is the same used by Liberal extremists (and I say this as someone who largely embraces Liberal ideals) to excuse the guilt of the robber or murder who had a tough childhood. Certainly the woman who walks naked down a back alley (or dresses in an excessively provocative manner, acts in an excessively flirtatious manner, and gets drunk at a party) is inviting trouble no less than a man walking down the street flashing a wad of cash and a lot of expensive jewelry in the bad side of town is inviting trouble.... but ultimately it is the rapist or the mugger... the one who crossed the line of legality... that is to be held responsible. I might be stupid for strutting through the "hood wearing an Amarni suit and flashing a wad of cash... but I didn't break any laws.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.


...Or if a man walked naked, let's not be sexist about this.

Thank you, Tony. :)

[Dark Star]

I don't buy into the notion of the negation of free will one iota. This is the same argument (different scenario) as we had concerning whether Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. It is the same used by Liberal extremists (and I say this as someone who largely embraces Liberal ideals) to excuse the guilt of the robber or murder who had a tough childhood. Certainly the woman who walks naked down a back alley (or dresses in an excessively provocative manner, acts in an excessively flirtatious manner, and gets drunk at a party) is inviting trouble no less than a man walking down the street flashing a wad of cash and a lot of expensive jewelry in the bad side of town is inviting trouble.... but ultimately it is the rapist or the mugger... the one who crossed the line of legality... that is to be held responsible. I might be stupid for strutting through the "hood wearing an Amarni suit and flashing a wad of cash... but I didn't break any laws.

I agree with this wholeheartedly with the exception of the section that I placed in bold, and the disagreement with that section is likely a matter of semantics rather than a true disagreement. (I doubt you really meant to argue that robbing or raping someone is wrong just because it breaks a law, rather than causing unnecessary harm to another person, as that statement implies.)


EDIT: I don't intend to get into an argument over the existence of free will here (primarily because a serious debate on the subject would require extensive knowledge of neurology and leave most of us, myself included, out of our depth), but even if we were to assume that the theoretical rapist or thief had no choice in the matter as a result of genetics and environmental conditions, it does not have a practical effect on the end result: The person has still caused serious harm to another person without just cause, may cause serious harm again in the future, and thus needs to be removed from general society to prevent further harm. (Please note that I'm intentionally making this argument without diving into the issue of punishing the person to make the victim feel better, because that's a much more sticky subject with a pretty large grey area.)

[qimissung]

I don't buy into the notion of the negation of free will one iota. This is the same argument (different scenario) as we had concerning whether Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. It is the same used by Liberal extremists (and I say this as someone who largely embraces Liberal ideals) to excuse the guilt of the robber or murder who had a tough childhood. Certainly the woman who walks naked down a back alley (or dresses in an excessively provocative manner, acts in an excessively flirtatious manner, and gets drunk at a party) is inviting trouble no less than a man walking down the street flashing a wad of cash and a lot of expensive jewelry in the bad side of town is inviting trouble.... but ultimately it is the rapist or the mugger... the one who crossed the line of legality... that is to be held responsible. I might be stupid for strutting through the "hood wearing an Amarni suit and flashing a wad of cash... but I didn't break any laws.

Exactly. While you have an obligation to behave in a manner appropriate to the situation if you don't wish to draw unwanted attention to yourself, you are in no way responsible for bringing violence upon yourself if you have not broken any laws.

In private of course you have to look at how you behave and interact with others and the results of such behavior-is it getting you the results you want? But that doesn't seem to be what you are asking.

[BookBeauty]

The impetus is with the aggressor. Sexual predators like what they like. To them, the woman, the panties, the leather boots, didn't the Red Dragon see a 'shine' on the women that attracted him to go attack them? It is all colors of crazy. Crazy people see auras that they can't resist. Blaming the victim is outrageous. Crazy sex perverts sometimes stalk people. I don't blame their victims for being too shiny.

I couldn't have wrote it better myself.

Actually, there was a story in the news a few months ago about a group of women who decided to parade downtown, it was either naked or scantily clad bikinis, trying to make some kind of 'statement' against rape. Patrolling to protect other women, or some such nonsense. Utter foolishness, and fruitless, in my opinion.

Just because we can wear what we like, doesn't mean we necessarily should. Especially at certain times of day. It's common sense. Sadly, a woman must either have an escort, if she wishes to dress down, or she must dress more modestly.

Dressing scantily, and walking alone in the dark doesn't put the responsibility of rape upon the victim. Never. But, it is foolish, as someone else said.

[The Comedian]

Yeah -- the raped is not responsible for the crime. The rapist is for pretty much all of the reasons here. At best you could accuse the hypothetical victims here of acting foolishly, but they committed no crime. Just as, if I were to leave my wallet or credit card on my desk at school and later find that it was taken. I could rightly be accused of foolishness, but I played no part in the theft.

[Desolation]

I'm not going to say that victim-blaming is as bad as rape...However, I'd say that it ranks pretty high on the list of absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable things for civilized people to do.

When you think about it, it comes across as less of a negation of free-will, and more an extreme reading of free-will. It posits that "You should know better, and you made a certain decision, so you're responsible for anything that happens to you." And it's wrong. Very, very, very wrong. I had a friend who got attacked a few months ago...Thankfully, she got away. But everyone around her felt perfectly comfortable saying that if she didn't want to be attacked, she shouldn't have walked around by herself at night. At that moment, those people all sunk as low in my estimation as the attackers.

There are terrible people out there, and we should be aware of that and be careful. But, I will always believe that human beings have the right to walk around wherever they want however they want without having to fear for their safety. In America, we believe in the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and along with that comes the responsibility not to violate anyone else's basic rights. Sadly, it's still deeply ingrained in our society that we should have to yield to terrible people, and we're responsible for everything that happens to us...Maybe if that idea were done away with, less people would get the idea that "Hey, if she didn't want me to forcibly insert myself into her, than she wouldn't have dressed like that."

These terrible bastards need to learn that their desires are less important than the rights of other human beings. Not the other way around. Have you ever looked at a woman in revealing clothing, and suddenly felt like she deserved to be mounted right then and there whether she likes it or not? I hope not.

[OrphanPip]

Just because we can wear what we like, doesn't mean we necessarily should. Especially at certain times of day. It's common sense. Sadly, a woman must either have an escort, if she wishes to dress down, or she must dress more modestly.

Dressing scantily, and walking alone in the dark doesn't put the responsibility of rape upon the victim. Never. But, it is foolish, as someone else said.

I think the problem with locating this debate on the idea of women walking around scantily clad is that it ignores the reality of how and when rapes occur. Most cases of rape involve men the women know. The masked attacker in the park is relatively rare occurrence.

[miyako73]

There are disabled girls, boys, women, and men who are bedridden, mentally unstable, and physically deformed. They are not sexually inviting, yet they can be victims of rape as many cases will show. This makes me believe that rape is an issue of two powers: the power of lust over its victim, the rapist, and the power of the lustful over his/her victim, the raped. I cannot blame the raped although I can accept that the rapist is a victim too.

[Easter]

I think the problem with locating this debate on the idea of women walking around scantily clad is that it ignores the reality of how and when rapes occur. Most cases of rape involve men the women know. The masked attacker in the park is relatively rare occurrence.

To go off of this idea, I think there's a general misinformation that the majority of rapes are about unbridled lust/attraction. I would put forth that a great many are about control, anger, and dominance.

Therefore it would not be a matter of a woman (or man) dressing provocatively and therefore "asking" for it, as the original poster seems to insinuate.

Rape is a violation and ultimately a violent act... it's not about the kind of passion or lust that dressing or acting provocatively could engender.

[tonywalt]

Thank you, Tony. :)


And I might add that I have walked naked down many alleyways, without so much as even a whistle. Weirdly disappointing.

[Dark Star]

I'm not going to say that victim-blaming is as bad as rape...However, I'd say that it ranks pretty high on the list of absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable things for civilized people to do.

When you think about it, it comes across as less of a negation of free-will, and more an extreme reading of free-will. It posits that "You should know better, and you made a certain decision, so you're responsible for anything that happens to you." And it's wrong. Very, very, very wrong. I had a friend who got attacked a few months ago...Thankfully, she got away. But everyone around her felt perfectly comfortable saying that if she didn't want to be attacked, she shouldn't have walked around by herself at night. At that moment, those people all sunk as low in my estimation as the attackers.

There are terrible people out there, and we should be aware of that and be careful. But, I will always believe that human beings have the right to walk around wherever they want however they want without having to fear for their safety. In America, we believe in the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and along with that comes the responsibility not to violate anyone else's basic rights. Sadly, it's still deeply ingrained in our society that we should have to yield to terrible people, and we're responsible for everything that happens to us...Maybe if that idea were done away with, less people would get the idea that "Hey, if she didn't want me to forcibly insert myself into her, than she wouldn't have dressed like that."

These terrible bastards need to learn that their desires are less important than the rights of other human beings. Not the other way around. Have you ever looked at a woman in revealing clothing, and suddenly felt like she deserved to be mounted right then and there whether she likes it or not? I hope not.

Hear, hear!

[Paulclem]

There is of course a solid and correct concensus about this issue by westerners here. I wonder where Osho comes from? I remember this argument playing out years ago in the UK - it must have been the 70s or 80s - but no-one would now even ask the question, and it seems grotesque to do so.

I wonder what the situation is like in the East and whether they are raising the same debates. Perhaps it's to do with the status and rights of women where Osho comes from.

[Calidore]

Rape is a violation and ultimately a violent act... it's not about the kind of passion or lust that dressing or acting provocatively could engender.

This is probably the most important point: Rape is an act of violence, period. Sex is the tool, just as a gun is the tool in a shooting. The victim's state of dress/manner of walk/style of dancing is nothing more in the end than an excuse by a coward, as all bullies are at their core.

[aliengirl]

There is of course a solid and correct concensus about this issue by westerners here. I wonder where Osho comes from? I remember this argument playing out years ago in the UK - it must have been the 70s or 80s - but no-one would now even ask the question, and it seems grotesque to do so.

I wonder what the situation is like in the East and whether they are raising the same debates. Perhaps it's to do with the status and rights of women where Osho comes from.

This is currently a very burning issue in Indian society. A month or so ago a woman was raped in a moving car and when she lodged a report about it the Chief Minister of that state who happens to be a woman too alleged that it was only a plot to malign her government. This is the kind of mentality which Indian women are facing and unfortunately some women upheld the idea that a rape victim is responsible for the rape.
Rape has nothing to do with dressing provocatively. Women dressed in sari and salwar suit with long dupattas are targeted every day. A few years ago a woman was thrown from a local train 'cause she resisted the criminals. This issue was hotly discussed back then in Indian media. I don't know what happened to those criminals. As for the woman whom I mentioned earlier, she was helped by a responsible female police officer who was later punished for her kindness by being transferred to some paper pushing job.
As some others said here the rape victim can be foolish or careless but never ever responsible for the crime. Holding them as co-criminals may be possible by the same logic which the wolf used to eat the lamb in a fable we all read as kids. When a society fails to redress a social evil it tries to use such logic.

[aliengirl]

And I might add that I have walked naked down many alleyways, without so much as even a whistle. Weirdly disappointing.

Poor, poor Tony! :biggrin5:

[tonywalt]

It is definitely a Western perspective that is dominant here.

I can say that rape and certainly domestic violence is both higher and much more lightly regarded by the the larger community of West Indians. And rape of young girls by older men is more common and treated more casually by the larger community of West Indians.

There is a British judicial system here (thank God) which acts with strength and autonomy, but the problem lies at the community level. It is my opnion that these behaviours may have existed for hundreds and years, so it is hard to force an evolution.

[papayahed]

This is a somber issue and yet I often think I should share what I really feel inside me since subjugating the doubt erupting inside me is likely to end up in a repressive state. Sometimes I do not want to blame the raper alone for his malicious act and the victim too becomes responsible since she becomes irresistibly inviting. The temptress in her is overpowering and the onlooker cannot withdraw. It is not always males who rape, women too become rapacious when they find the situation in tune with her urge. I have seen cases old women molesting their young servants.

This is a contentious issue and yet remains one of the must –be – discussed / addressed topics and I think this does not violate the forum's rule to bring this issue into the front


Would you ever justify the robbing of someone because you were overcome with jealousy and want for their belonging had to have it?

[Delta40]

Exactly. While you have an obligation to behave in a manner appropriate to the situation if you don't wish to draw unwanted attention to yourself, you are in no way responsible for bringing violence upon yourself if you have not broken any laws.

In private of course you have to look at how you behave and interact with others and the results of such behavior-is it getting you the results you want? But that doesn't seem to be what you are asking.

Your behaviour however will be raised in court and it will affect a jury's decision, even if you didn't break any laws. A woman's behaviour, dress and location will be considered whether she likes it or not.

[Paulclem]

This is currently a very burning issue in Indian society. A month or so ago a woman was raped in a moving car and when she lodged a report about it the Chief Minister of that state who happens to be a woman too alleged that it was only a plot to malign her government. This is the kind of mentality which Indian women are facing and unfortunately some women upheld the idea that a rape victim is responsible for the rape.
Rape has nothing to do with dressing provocatively. Women dressed in sari and salwar suit with long dupattas are targeted every day. A few years ago a woman was thrown from a local train 'cause she resisted the criminals. This issue was hotly discussed back then in Indian media. I don't know what happened to those criminals. As for the woman whom I mentioned earlier, she was helped by a responsible female police officer who was later punished for her kindness by being transferred to some paper pushing job.
As some others said here the rape victim can be foolish or careless but never ever responsible for the crime. Holding them as co-criminals may be possible by the same logic which the wolf used to eat the lamb in a fable we all read as kids. When a society fails to redress a social evil it tries to use such logic.

Yes. It's very difficult for women under those circumstances. I think it comes down to a kind of equality - the right of a woman to stand up to a man - whatever his social status - and say no, mean no, and for them to be able to accuse them under the law. Whilst inequalities linger you'll get all kinds of arguments, and the OP has highlighted one. It's basically a very thin excuse, but one that in the past was given a cetain credibility because of the status of men who were claiming this.

When equality comes, then there's just the view of the law which should see all citizens as equal. That includes married couples.

[JuniperWoolf]

Sometimes I do not want to blame the raper alone for his malicious act and the victim too becomes responsible since she becomes irresistibly inviting. The temptress in her is overpowering and the onlooker cannot withdraw.

This view of yours is primitive and nauseating. Luckily the judicial system in my country doesn't agree. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation is stupid, but we punished everybody who was ever stupid by raping them then everyone would be a rape victim (no exceptions). There's no crime more disgusting, I'd rather be murdered. People who try to make excuses for rapists are tempting me to punch them in the face, and according to your argument if I did so, I couldn't be held accountable. Yeah, that's a great way to run a society.


Sadly, a woman must either have an escort, if she wishes to dress down, or she must dress more modestly.

Or, she could carry a gun. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE)

[Desolation]

People who try to make excuses for rapists are tempting me to punch them in the face, and according to your argument if I did so, I couldn't be held accountable. Yeah, that's a great way to run a society.

Quite right, quite right. Isn't it strange how people only feel comfortable saying stupid things like that when it applies to violence against women?

Say a kid runs up to his father and says "Daddy, this mean boy at school just punched me because he thinks I have a stupid face."
The father responds, "Well, son, it sounds like this is your fault. If you didn't want to get punched, then you shouldn't have had such a stupid face."

We'd think that was absurd. Yet, somehow women "had it coming" when something horrible happens to them. It makes me really sick.

[Basil]

You have to admit, the stupidly faced are kind of asking for it.

[JamCrackers]

The rape argument is secondary to the power argument.
I have a shotgun and you don't, therefore you looked too sexy in them tight pants.
Piracy. Brigandage. Armed robbery. Murder. Wife beating. Child abuse.
There is the DNA side of it. I have always known a lot of humans are less evolved. Their 'ability' not to rape things is not fully developed. We can and do define right and wrong through fiction. Rape is wrong. Batman does not rape. Superman does not rape. The hero is not Josh Rape. It is a villainous behavior. As Judge, 'blaming the woman' makes me increase the punishment.

[miyako73]

Osho's view is beautiful as a piece of literature, only if the rapist is as hot as the raped, and both thank each other in the end and live happily ever after.

[BienvenuJDC]

Osho's view is beautiful as a piece of literature, only if the rapist is as hot as the raped, and both thank each other in the end and live happily ever after.

Rape is not just sex. Sometimes it's not sex at all. Rape is physical and emotional abuse. It is NEVER a beautiful thing. Rough sexual intercourse between consenting adults (or any kind of behavior between consenting adults) is not rape. Neither is there a happy ending for rape victims.

[BienvenuJDC]

This view of yours is primitive and nauseating. Luckily the judicial system in my country doesn't agree. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation is stupid, but we punished everybody who was ever stupid by raping them then everyone would be a rape victim (no exceptions). There's no crime more disgusting, I'd rather be murdered. People who try to make excuses for rapists are tempting me to punch them in the face, and according to your argument if I did so, I couldn't be held accountable. Yeah, that's a great way to run a society.



Or, she could carry a gun. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE)

I agree on BOTH accounts. And if I were on the jury that was trying you for punching any such individual in the face for making excuses for a rapist, you most certainly would not be found guilty of any wrong doing (except for stopping at just punching them in the face...knee them in the groin as well).

[miyako73]

Rape is not just sex. Sometimes it's not sex at all. Rape is physical and emotional abuse. It is NEVER a beautiful thing. Rough sexual intercourse between consenting adults (or any kind of behavior between consenting adults) is not rape. Neither is there a happy ending for rape victims.

I was talking about rape as a literary theme/subject not as a real occurrence.
Rape as love has been a literary genre under Romance for awhile now. Manga still uses it to intensify love made stronger by regret, atonement and forgiveness.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeStockholmSyndrome?from=Main.RapeIsLove

No real life rape please. Fear does not make anyone feel sensual and sexual.

[BookBeauty]

Or, she could carry a gun. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE)

True enough! :D

[aliengirl]

People who try to make excuses for rapists are tempting me to punch them in the face, and according to your argument if I did so, I couldn't be held accountable. Yeah, that's a great way to run a society.


Rightly said.



Or, she could carry a gun. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE)

Depends on the country where you live. It is not easy to keep a gun where I live. Lots of legal obstacles. But wherever it is possible women should do so.

[Alexander III]

Would you ever justify the robbing of someone because you were overcome with jealousy and want for their belonging had to have it?

I think you have hit the nail on the head, the victim cannot be blamed. It is the rapist who is abnormal, not the victim, by begining to think of the victim as abnormal (because she dresses in a certain manner) the natural conclusion is that the behavior of the rapist is less abnormal and becomes dependant on the other.

Once again to turn to male rape, if a man gets raped in jail, is it his fault in part because he has a slim and feminine body and he should have gone to gym more and become bigger?

Why should we hold a double standard for women and men.

[tonywalt]

I think you have hit the nail on the head, the victim cannot be blamed. It is the rapist who is abnormal, not the victim, by begining to think of the victim as abnormal (because she dresses in a certain manner) the natural conclusion is that the behavior of the rapist is less abnormal and becomes dependant on the other.

Once again to turn to male rape, if a man gets raped in jail, is it his fault in part because he has a slim and feminine body and he should have gone to gym more and become bigger?

Why should we hold a double standard for women and men.

There should be no double standard and it is just as vile. Unfortunately, prison justice is an oxymoron.

[Delta40]

Your basing your argument on the provocativness of women and the strength of male desire alone.

In court the defence will bring a woman's character into question in a bid to suggest that some, if not all of the responsibility lies with her. As said before, A burglar would not be blamed less if the doors and windows to a house were left unlocked. The judge would not consider that the homeowner was 'asking for it' The burglar would still be solely responsible for his actions alone and be sentenced just as if he had to break in to the property to steal what was not his. I hate the double standard here.

[osho]

It lies in the owner also to secure her or his assets. If the asset is unguarded it can be thieved. We must believe that no society or system impeccable. There are fissures in every social structure and system. Nobody unimpeachably follows a system and we all are kind of breaking some forms or types of laws. Rapists cross the line. They are liable to be punished by the law of the land but the state must forge certain order.

Recently a pair got detained by a patrol of police officials on the bank of a river having sex. The woman complained that she was drunk and half-conscious and the man coerced her to have sex with him against her will.

Police raided a bar and teenagers stripped of their clothes were detained red-handedly. Later on some girls' parents lodged complaints that their daughters were too small and the men persuading and blackmailing them into such acts must be punished.

There are variants of rape, self – induced rapes or forced or situational. I agree this is a criminal act and there is force in most cases if not all. But we must reform our society too and teach people to guard their assets too.

[osho]

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc. Yet he is interesting to speak up what he really thinks candidly unlike those who choose to be pretentious. Our culture has taught us to be stuck-up. It is a challenge to be a social-analyst and to examine why things happen as they happen. When rape happens we stick with what our systems, laws have taught us or our conventional thinking patterns have trained us to look at things through a particular lens. I often like to challenge such indoctrinations and want to have a fresh and un-quirked look at all that happens. It is easy to blame somebody and it is easy to reproach osho but to comprehend between the lines of what he said demands of us a little bit of thinking or being outside the box. There is comfort sitting on a heap of old thoughts and that is why one in billions turn up as a genus and shape the course of history. Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

[Paulclem]

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc. Yet he is interesting to speak up what he really thinks candidly unlike those who choose to be pretentious. Our culture has taught us to be stuck-up. It is a challenge to be a social-analyst and to examine why things happen as they happen. When rape happens we stick with what our systems, laws have taught us or our conventional thinking patterns have trained us to look at things through a particular lens. I often like to challenge such indoctrinations and want to have a fresh and un-quirked look at all that happens. It is easy to blame somebody and it is easy to reproach osho but to comprehend between the lines of what he said demands of us a little bit of thinking or being outside the box. There is comfort sitting on a heap of old thoughts and that is why one in billions turn up as a genus and shape the course of history. Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

I don't know what or where your system is, but the concensus on the forum does not see any shades of grey in the argument. They are actually completely revised from 20-30 years ago, and are developing still. These reflect the independance and status of women which has grown over that period, so that the crime is judged in a fairer way - though there are things to tighten up. Far from creating havoc, your post indicates you are out of touch with wider opinion.

[JuniperWoolf]

Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

You really are behind the times, aren't you?

[YesNo]

Recently a pair got detained by a patrol of police officials on the bank of a river having sex. The woman complained that she was drunk and half-conscious and the man coerced her to have sex with him against her will.

That situation sounds like the main issue is false accusation of rape rather than admitted rape.

People blame their victims to protect themselves from the consequences of their own actions. The best thing to do is to not create victims in the first place.

[malayang-diwa]

Nah, it's the rapist's fault.

Because there are some instances where someone who is dressed modestly but still gets victimized.

I think the issue with rape is really control of the individual's power. Rapists cease their moments. When you look at realistic scenarios such as walking along a dark alley in the middle of the night alone, being drunk in a party, or getting molested by the superior (whether it be a boss, priest or an elderly lady); they all point to the opportunity of the moment and the position of the rapist to prey on victims. They are conscious of the situation and they know that they are in a level of power: ex. Sober vs drunk, boss vs. employee, priest vs. altar boy, teacher vs. student, Elderly person vs. young person, (and for the dark alley scenario, which the factors in the surroundings) aware vs unaware.

[tonywalt]

.......

[Dark Star]

You really are behind the times, aren't you?

Indeed!

If I may pile on, I feel this quote my Stephen Jay Gould is relevant:

"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right."

[billl]

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc...

I can't help but wonder if osho forgot to log out and log back in again here.

[tonywalt]

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc. Yet he is interesting to speak up what he really thinks candidly unlike those who choose to be pretentious. Our culture has taught us to be stuck-up. It is a challenge to be a social-analyst and to examine why things happen as they happen. When rape happens we stick with what our systems, laws have taught us or our conventional thinking patterns have trained us to look at things through a particular lens. I often like to challenge such indoctrinations and want to have a fresh and un-quirked look at all that happens. It is easy to blame somebody and it is easy to reproach osho but to comprehend between the lines of what he said demands of us a little bit of thinking or being outside the box. There is comfort sitting on a heap of old thoughts and that is why one in billions turn up as a genus and shape the course of history. Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

Osho, you are in full agreement with Osho. :goof: Remember to log on with your other name.

[Delta40]

Freud is not the modern thinker of the day

[LitNetIsGreat]

Whereas I completely agree with the majority here certainly, I do think that there are some complex situations that can arise. For example take a look at the following story which is big news here today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842

OK, so taking advantage of a girl because she is too intoxicated is no excuse. However, does it not throw open questions of what constitutes too much intoxication to some degree? I mean if a man has sex with a women who has been drinking can she not then turn around and prosecute for rape? What constitutes too much alcohol? One glass of wine, two, one on a light stomach etc, etc? I think that this can be potentially difficult.

Also, can anybody please explain to me how one man has been found guilty and the other not guilty in this case. Surely it is both or none? I have watched and read several articles on this case and so far nobody has mentioned this obvious disparity and I can't work out why. If anything the other one was more guilty having picked her up and taken her back to the room. It doesn't make sense to me.

[OrphanPip]

It's up to a court to determine what constitutes consent in difficult cases. It's not possible to legislate for every possible accusation and situation, it would be up to the discretion of a jury and judge to consider things on a case by case basis. Of course, it's potentially difficult but the court system is built to handle ambiguities as best as possible.

Hard to say if such a split conviction is fair without being privy to the same evidence and testimonies as the jury was.

[KCurtis]

Just the fact that a few people who posted on this thread feel they have to say that the rapist is to blame makes me queasy. Really, no kidding. Men who rape women are extremely angry at them, and want to hurt. There is something WRONG with them. They are sexually satisfied by hurting others, and view women as inferior.
And yes, if I was in a situation where I was in continuous danger, or someone was stalking me I would not become helpless, I would carry a gun and learn how to use it. The only reason I don't is because I am fortunate enough to live in a beautiful, safe place in the country with my husband, and we are pretty street wise. But I wish I had, as a younger person, learned how to physically defend myself-it would have made me feel quite independent.

[JamCrackers]

Adults are here. No need for you to lie. Rape has ALWAYS been a human means of reproduction. Women EVOLVED to be raped. That is how their biology works. Women require zero willing participation. In the last million years, I suspect you, you personally, you reading this, have MANY ancestors who raped your other ancestor. You have lots of ancestors. Some were kings and some were rapists. Rape is mean? Duh! Men don't like being raped either. People rape for an orgasm. People always have to doll reality up into this hyper drama for the kids. I have noticed especially atheists. How is it atheists are unaware we are animals? Humans do LOTS of nasty animal things.

Where the topic has merit, is in how people define rape. In this utterly collapsed human age, an age where men 'stop to wonder because they don't know' if they should tell their 4yr old daughter that a man in a dress is a female, that surely many people couldn't even define rape. Plenty of women deserve to be slapped. Crack Hookers are women and they steal everything in sight. If you see one, feel free to slap her; she needs it. FORCED MARRIAGE? Arranged Marriage? Both super ancient standard practice for the human animal. Are those rape? From many points of view. Everyone knew this was too much topic for here. Real life and pretend world where all humans male and female evolved to be equal in ability and temper - don't really fit together. Not that it matters. There are two kinds of people. There are those who conform to the mass of people around them and become 'regular', and those who run away from ape humans and their monkey civilizations. Get used to rape. It is not going anywhere.

[OrphanPip]

Adults are here. No need for you to lie. Rape has ALWAYS been a human means of reproduction. Women EVOLVED to be raped. That is how their biology works. Women require zero willing participation. In the last million years, I suspect you, you personally, you reading this, have MANY ancestors who raped your other ancestor. You have lots of ancestors. Some were kings and some were rapists. Rape is mean? Duh! Men don't like being raped either. People rape for an orgasm. People always have to doll reality up into this hyper drama for the kids. I have noticed especially atheists. How is it atheists are unaware we are animals? Humans do LOTS of nasty animal things.

I'm getting tired with having to correct your misunderstandings of biology and your continuous use of platitudes mixed with naturalistic fallacies.

Let's take the claim that "women evolved to be raped." First this is one of many reproductive strategies that could and can exist in humans, so it doesn't make sense to say women evolved for one form over any other just by stating that one form exists. This is one of the common misunderstandings of evolution, that it is progressive and directional, which it simply isn't, it is reactive to circumstances. Moreover, it is very simplistic to reduce complex behavioural aspects of a species to simple models of selection, which you haven't even done you've just drawn an anthropic purpose from a misunderstanding of female anatomy and then used that to draw broad-reaching societal conclusions. Your basic hypothesis is that women "evolved to be," which should rather be termed as traits favouring female rape in women were selected by being more adaptive than other strategies. However, this has problems satisfying the conditions of natural selection as we understand it, given what we know of human biology.

First of all, you would have to address the problem of intraspecies inter-sex competition. Such a rape trait would seemingly be highly maladaptive for women, who have a higher energy input into reproduction, and thus a much stronger interest in mate selection. It would also be maladaptive for most men, who have an interest in making sure the children the invest in are actually theirs.

Secondly, female reproductive physiology is actually built to accommodate object choice. One, they have reproductive cycles which limit their vulnerability to pregnancy from non-maintained sexual relationships. Two, they are relatively infertile for mammals, in general it requires more than one sexual experience to get pregnant (although it can happen incidentally as well without too much rarity) (compare to many insects that have nearly 100% conception rates from sexual encounters). Third, sexual reproduction is favoured by arousal and orgasm. Fourth, their reproductive strategy relies on partnership for raising the child.

The above evidence would suggest that rape has been strongly selected against in female biology. There is a reason why it is also taboo in most societies, since it runs counter to male mate exclusion as well. So, we have a dominant female and male reproductive strategy in humans that would run counter to rape as a primary reproductive strategy in humans.

Nor does it follow that all aspects of human behavior derive from a direct relationship to an adaptive trait. Traits can be side-effects of other traits. Male tendency for rape can certainly be explained within an evolutionary framework (although not in the idiotic way you have done it), but that doesn't mean men evolved to rape, nor does it mean women evolved to be raped.

I really wish you would stop talking about evolution because you don't understand it at all. I have seen no evidence in any of your post that you understand even the basics of natural selection, or the complexities of genetics and environment that make your conclusions laughably childish.

[JamCrackers]

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.

My two favorite atheist quotes: (After hearing the fable of Sour Grapes) the atheist said sincerely, "But.. but I'm not a grape."

The other great one was, 'Atheists despise all three of the great religions, Christians AND Muslims.' (atheists are too busy DEFENDING the bloody woman-hating war God of Israel to complain about it. Funny how that works.)

[Delta40]

Whereas I completely agree with the majority here certainly, I do think that there are some complex situations that can arise. For example take a look at the following story which is big news here today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842

OK, so taking advantage of a girl because she is too intoxicated is no excuse. However, does it not throw open questions of what constitutes too much intoxication to some degree? I mean if a man has sex with a women who has been drinking can she not then turn around and prosecute for rape? What constitutes too much alcohol? One glass of wine, two, one on a light stomach etc, etc? I think that this can be potentially difficult.

Also, can anybody please explain to me how one man has been found guilty and the other not guilty in this case. Surely it is both or none? I have watched and read several articles on this case and so far nobody has mentioned this obvious disparity and I can't work out why. If anything the other one was more guilty having picked her up and taken her back to the room. It doesn't make sense to me.

May I point out that OP was implying that a woman needs to take responsibility for the act of rape - that is when a man forcibly takes that which does not belong to him. You can go into grey areas and ask whether a situation constituted rape but that isn't the question being discussed.

[KCurtis]

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off.

:rolleyes5: I AM better off not understanding you.

[LitNetIsGreat]

May I point out that OP was implying that a woman needs to take responsibility for the act of rape - that is when a man forcibly takes that which does not belong to him. You can go into grey areas and ask whether a situation constituted rape but that isn't the question being discussed.

Yes I know what the OP said, I already said that I don't agree with that by saying that I agree with the majority, I just wanted to share that particular case and also to suggest other grey areas into the discussion. Must I open another rape thread because it veers slightly from the OP. How many rape threads do we need?

[Delta40]

Jam Crackers, I like the 'You' statements throughout. This implies that you preclude yourself from such accusations and because of this, nobody is willing to give your statements much credit. Now if you want to change the 'you' to 'we' and admit your so called evolution - say for example that you rape women then maybe someone will listen...

[Paulclem]

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.

My two favorite atheist quotes: (After hearing the fable of Sour Grapes) the atheist said sincerely, "But.. but I'm not a grape."

The other great one was, 'Atheists despise all three of the great religions, Christians AND Muslims.' (atheists are too busy DEFENDING the bloody woman-hating war God of Israel to complain about it. Funny how that works.)

Fortunately we have the law.

[OrphanPip]

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

Evolution doesn't like anything because evolution is simply a process of genetic change over time. Maybe you should stop anthropomorphising natural processes. Does gravity want us to scrape our knees, break our necks when we fall from high places, prevent us from floating off in a million different directions?

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that you actually understand evolutionary theory, and how evolution works. Evolution doesn't want anything, evolution is merely change over time. Evolutionary theory explains how this occurs in terms of genetics and natural selection.

All you are repeating is a trite platitude, nature is red in tooth and claw. The fact that you think this observation somehow ground breaking is absurd. And your attempts to usher a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to support gross generalizations which have no bearing in reality or any relevance to the discussion just betrays how asinine your observations are.



What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.


What does infidelity have to do with your entirely baseless assertion that women evolved to be raped? Why can't you write a single post without blathering off onto tangential rants. I didn't even say rape doesn't have a place being accommodated within evolutionary psychology, if one wanted to be a reductionist about complex behavior it would be easy to explain as part of many related behaviours. However, your assertions were baseless, not supported by evidence, and display a sincere lack of understanding of basic evolutionary science.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall, a wall with some sort of severe personality disorder.

[Varenne Rodin]

Crackers, please don't rape women. That is all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

How does atheism have any relevance whatsoever in this conversation?

For all the Christians complaining about being bullied by atheists in religious arguments, it sure seems said Christians just love to get the argument started.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes.

I think presenting yourself as pro-rape just makes you feel special and edgy, and you're trying to use a science that you don't understand to justify your own misogyny and racism (derp, like that's never been tried before and completely failed to hold up to scientific rigour). You're right about one thing, the very idea of rape nauseates most people - which indicates that it isn't in our nature and that we EVOLVED to feel revulsion. Morality has a basis in WHAT'S GOOD FOR SOCIETY because humans NEED SOCIETY TO SURVIVE, it's our greatest asset. Our species can't survive if all the females are raped and then bleed to death or die from infection in a pre-steralization world.

Females, with how rarely they reproduced and how easily they died in pregnancy and child birth, were a valued comodity in all early societies. One nice fertile male could knock up fifty females in one month so it's not so detrimental to the society if a high number of males die (in war or hunting for example, which is why in pre-history males were the best people for those tasks). Any act that risks KILLING females in your own society (such as violent, vagina-tearing rape, for example) would be extremely detrimental, and the male who has the genetic propensity for rape would have been selected against. His genetics won't be passed on if the women he breeds with all die, and his society would have killed him for raping female members.

...You don't even know what natural selection is, do you? Go on, explain it and use it to justify the following claims:


Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing.

They're sophistry and it's easy to counter each one. We're humans, not hamsters. We have rational minds and live in complex societies. Socially mal-adjusted people (like rapists, and you) are shunned and excluded for a reason.


Must I open another rape thread because it veers slightly from the OP. How many rape threads do we need?

:frown2: Oh please no.

[Delta40]

Rape is already being discussed in the Feminism thread!

[tonywalt]

Crackers, please don't rape women. That is all.


When you are wooing or courting a women that interests you it may be good idea not to mention the whole "women are designed for rape''. I am sure you are as roguishly charming as you sound, and would never blow up your chances by expressing those views.


Crack Hookers are women and they steal everything in sight. If you see one, feel free to slap her


Also, and again only a suggestion, don't go around slapping crack hookers. Although I have limited experience with that particular genre, I do know they often have very angry pimps who would likely give you a first hand experience in darwinian behaviour.

[stlukesguild]

...don't go around slapping crack hookers. Although I have limited experience with that particular genre, I do know they often have very angry pimps who would likely give you a first hand experience in darwinian behaviour.

:iagree::nod:

[blazeofglory]

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.

My two favorite atheist quotes: (After hearing the fable of Sour Grapes) the atheist said sincerely, "But.. but I'm not a grape."

The other great one was, 'Atheists despise all three of the great religions, Christians AND Muslims.' (atheists are too busy DEFENDING the bloody woman-hating war God of Israel to complain about it. Funny how that works.)


Though I have reservation against what osho has said yet reading your comments / observation I did not find osho too uninteresting.

Your idea of evolution is insuperable, some emerging preconceived ideas notwithstanding. There seems a form of rape in nature too. Ma n too is kind of bullish on woman in most cultures or religions. If we take the side of religion, say Hinduism, there was polygamy and one man having multitudes of women and how can there could be justice, understanding. Of course male jingoism was predominant and women had to surrender before the muscle power of their counterparts.
Of course I abhor rape. This is totally an inhuman activity; even osho raising this topic has not supported it though some people sounded intolerant. Yet events whether we like them. And we dread truth to the extent that we fear to see it and of course Crackers sounded bolder and he is not the herd but the one who breaks the peripheries or peal the veneers to observe the core of the truth.

We must learn such analytic ideas though it sounds bitter or goes against our taste.

[Dark Star]

I would like to be frustrated with JamCrackers, but I must admit that observing quality trolling is a guilty pleasure of mine, and this is some Grade-A material.

That said, based on the post here and few posts in other threads, there does seem to be a common thread in his seemingly incoherent ranting: He seems to be making a Dostoevskian "Without God, everything is permitted" argument through use of some pretty extreme argumentum ad absurdum. Anyone attempting to argue with him should keep that in mind.

[Alexander III]

I believe juniper mentioned that rape is inherintley abhorent to most people. I agree, that most people living in cities or tows or what not troughout history have found rape abhorent. But if we look at not the context of the civilian but that of the soldier, rape from the begining of history up too present day war, is almost normal. In the olden times they would pillage and rape and that was just and normal and many soldier did it. Now it is frowned upon but in war they rape and pillage just the same, but the generals instead of cheering it on now, rather close a blind eye to that part of soldiery which cannot be fought against and won.

I have always wondered why soldiers rape, I mean it is common almost normal, my grandfather who was an Italian leftenant in the war once told me that when they captured a greek village, every woman in the town above the age of 12 was raped by the soldiers, and some officers also indulged, and the officers let it all happen because they knew that they could not prevent it. And that is why they were all fighting and scared because, they knew the allies would inevitably rape their woman.

He told me all the Americans who came were gentlemen, and it was rare for an american soldier to rape and harm a woman during the war, because they were all mostly volonteers and they came to fight the war because of ideals. But the German soldiers who were all conscripts forced into the war, most of them from the lower classes, raped a lot, and the english also raped but to a lesser extent.

He told me also that in the 1st world war, it was expected that when the austiarns took a village, there would be rape and looting.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I think war in itself is a pretty messed up thing. It's a situation in which people do all kinds of things they don't want to do, mainly killing other people. The vast majority of people who fight a war and kill someone most likely would never have done so outside of war. I doubt it's far-fetched to say that killing another person is unpleasant and traumatic, and I would think it can mess someone's mind up, so maybe rape no longer seems such a big deal. I also think a lot of soldiers regret a lot of things they do in a war when they're out of it. War changes people. Of course, I have no scientific basis, or any basis other than my own thoughts, for these ideas.

I'm glad to hear that about American soldiers, though. At least that's one self-aggrandizing idea of ourselves that holds true. I wonder if we were as noble in Vietnam, when we were drafted? Hopefully we were too stoned to be too cruel.


When you are wooing or courting a women that interests you it may be good idea not to mention the whole "women are designed for rape''. I am sure you are as roguishly charming as you sound, and would never blow up your chances by expressing those views.



Also, and again only a suggestion, don't go around slapping crack hookers. Although I have limited experience with that particular genre, I do know they often have very angry pimps who would likely give you a first hand experience in darwinian behaviour.
:lol: Oh man, well played Tony. Funniest post I've read in a while.

[Desolation]

Unfortunately, it seems that US soldiers have lost a lot of their "gentlemanly" behavior in recent years.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/

http://www.salon.com/2007/03/07/women_in_military/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html

http://couchtripper.com/rapedbysoldiers/?tag=iraq-war

It's shameful, disgusting, and abhorrent beyond words.

[Paulclem]

Though some people sounded intolerant. Yet events whether we like them. And we dread truth to the extent that we fear to see it and of course Crackers sounded bolder and he is not the herd but the one who breaks the peripheries or peal the veneers to observe the core of the truth.

We must learn such analytic ideas though it sounds bitter or goes against our taste.

If you're going to be intolerant of anything, be intolerant of such violent and negative actions.

He's neither bold nor truthful nor analytical. The poster above who thinks he's a troll is probably right.

[Delta40]

I met a guy in England who had fought in the Falklands who told me that their captain engaged in raping women in the villages that they went through. His comment was 'That's war innit?' You don't question your captain's actions. His opinion on the matter wasn't relevant because you don't get to think in the army, you just follow orders.

[Desolation]

And we dread truth to the extent that we fear to see it and of course Crackers sounded bolder and he is not the herd but the one who breaks the peripheries or peal the veneers to observe the core of the truth.

We must learn such analytic ideas though it sounds bitter or goes against our taste.

There seems to be a great deal of interest here for fighting the status quo, being bold, thinking deeply, and expressing shocking/unpleasant truths for the sake of doing all of those things instead of coming from a place of right and wrong.

Fair enough, I suppose. How about this for an unpleasant truth...Rape and misogyny ARE the status quo. The views being expressed by a select few here fall firmly into the "herd" mentality. If you're interested in fighting the status quo, then fight against THOSE terrible injustices.

It's not bold to stand with bullies, it's easy and cowardly. Justice takes courage.

[Zee.]

I haven't read any of the posts in this thread but the first one, but here is my piece.

RAPE HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH SEXUAL ATTRACTION.

And I would like to note that the notion of someone being responsible for something because they are a certain 'way' is absolutely twisted and ignorant. No offence OP but your first post is disturbing. Just because someone is attractive does not mean they are responsible for something as horrific as that. Sick suggestion.

The point I just realised however, is irrelevant, because rape has very little to do with sexual attraction.

Rape is about the attacker, not the victim. Rapists look for people they identify as 'victims'.. have you heard of cases where elderly women are raped? That has nothing to do with attraction, and everything to do with power. Rapists find power in the act of rape, often rapes believe themselves to be 'powerless' to some degree, either they feel socially inept or sexually inept. And I guarantee, if you want to understand why a rapist commits such acts, all you'd need to do is examine their childhood. Be it the nature of their childhood or a particular event.

So many people are misinformed about rape. Sex, is an act in which both parties are vulnerable. It requires a great deal of trust. The act of rape violates this trust, and gives the rapist power.

Nothing to do with beauty, sexual attraction or the way a woman is dressed.

Ridiculous notion.

I think if you want to learn more about these kind of things you examine the psychological aspects behind the actions of a rapist.

[NikolaiI]

...don't go around slapping crack hookers. Although I have limited experience with that particular genre, I do know they often have very angry pimps who would likely give you a first hand experience in darwinian behaviour.

:iagree::nod:

or chasing waterfalls.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

or chasing waterfalls.

I get it! Unfortunately.

[NikolaiI]

I get it! Unfortunately.

I'm going to laugh, not apologize. :)

[mtpspur]

A more depressing subject I haven't seen in quite awhile. I have had the very sad misfortune of knowing three ladies in my life thta had been raped. One was a lady I considered marrying way back in the day BUT the psychological trauma was beyond my maturity and ability to cope with. She received NO support from the church and for awhile seemed to think she was a ruined lady and went on a course of self-hatred and sexual adventures hating men in general. The second lady basically became a whore who liked to punish men with her body. The third I did not know very well but was the most stable of the three. The first one finally stopped her behavior and married another--the falling out we had was a step in the right direction BUT no credit should be given to me over me. I wish her nothing but happiness. So long story short--victms of rape are very much changed and I completely blame the rapist. I do not care what they thibnk their sick little minds entitle them to--they are wrong and it really is that simple. Don't even think to dignify it with a discussion. Trust me being very restrained here.

[malayang-diwa]

A more depressing subject I haven't seen in quite awhile. I have had the very sad misfortune of knowing three ladies in my life thta had been raped. One was a lady I considered marrying way back in the day BUT the psychological trauma was beyond my maturity and ability to cope with. She received NO support from the church and for awhile seemed to think she was a ruined lady and went on a course of self-hatred and sexual adventures hating men in general. The second lady basically became a whore who liked to punish men with her body. The third I did not know very well but was the most stable of the three. The first one finally stopped her behavior and married another--the falling out we had was a step in the right direction BUT no credit should be given to me over me. I wish her nothing but happiness. So long story short--victms of rape are very much changed and I completely blame the rapist. I do not care what they thibnk their sick little minds entitle them to--they are wrong and it really is that simple. Don't even think to dignify it with a discussion. Trust me being very restrained here.

What I had in mind as well. I actually received a message from a friend last night asking for help and advice. His girlfriend was molested by her own father. And for me that is just unacceptable and downright vile. So I still stand on my point and opinion - I don't care if the person is sane or twisted, the rapist is at fault because the victim was in a vulnerable position.

[JuniperWoolf]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

[Darcy88]

A man does not rape. If a male rapes a female then he is not a real man. He's a sick punk. Simple as that.

[NikolaiI]

... Don't even think to dignify it with a discussion. Trust me being very restrained here.

I understand what you mean. How do you discuss with someone who says things like that? It's quite simple for us... "No, it's an evil act, one of the few that are there are no shades of grey." It's kind of confusing to run into a position like this. Even when 100% of the replies say, "no.. um, no," the person still thinks it's controversial, so, what can you do? But I'll bet we're making some difference, even if small.

[Darcy88]

I understand what you mean. How do you discuss with someone who says things like that? It's quite simple for us... "No, it's an evil act, one of the few that are there are no shades of grey." It's kind of confusing to run into a position like this. Even when 100% of the replies say, "no.. um, no," the person still thinks it's controversial, so, what can you do? But I'll bet we're making some difference, even if small.

There is no shade of grey. There is good and there is evil and its pretty obvious on which side of the line the act of rape falls. The ambiguity, the so called "grey," is accounted for in the power of change, of repentence and forgiveness.

[NikolaiI]

There is no shade of grey. There is good and there is evil and its pretty obvious on which side of the line the act of rape falls. The ambiguity, the so called "grey," is accounted for in the power of change, of repentence and forgiveness.

That's what I said, eh? I guess my English was off, though.

[Darcy88]

That's what I said, eh?

Yeah probably. Its late and when its this late I get a little retarded. When it comes to intelligence I got a bit of a Jekly and Hyde thing goin on.

[NikolaiI]

Don't you mean Jekyll? :p

[NikolaiI]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

Yeah, it's a strong argument. I used to think that it'd possibly be a good idea to end the lives of many people who do those kinds of things. Since then I've grown or moved out of that line of thinking, but I might think differently if I had lived a different life. Or, I definitely would. I don't know. Personally I think the only long-term solution is for, well, for everyone to wake the **** up. Wake up in the sense that nothing is really worth worrying over, fearing or doubting, etc. But - preliminarily, if you have desires there are certain ways to go about satisfying them that are okay, and certain ones that are never okay. That's kind of a basic human social skill.

And the question of how is it possible that so many people don't possess this basic skill, which is ultimately grounded in empathy, is difficult to comprehend; although I think the answer lies in that we learn from our parents and environments. When people are unable to emotionally grow, they may end up doing atrocious things.

[malayang-diwa]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

What if the woman doesn't have a gun? What if she's not even a "woman" yet, but an innocent child? Heck, let's say she's poor and ignorant. And a person who is from a certain class of "superiority." And this person takes advantage of his/her position to take control of the poor/innocent child.

Your problem is that you are looking at this from a financially-able point of view which is biased towards the middle class society. I have heard far too many stories of maids getting raped by their boss, overseas workers getting sexually harassed by their employers, and children getting abused sexually, even by their parents.

[JuniperWoolf]

I used to think that it'd possibly be a good idea to end the lives of many people who do those kinds of things.

Woah, slow down Jethro. I'm not talking about "ending the lives of many people." The very vast majority of Americans who have licences to carry firearms never, ever, in their entire lives, remove them from their holsters except for target practice. Two points though:

1. The simple fact that potential "victims" either may be or certainly are armed is almost always enough to scare away criminals.

2. Better to wear a gun and keep it snug in it's holster every day for the rest of you life and never need it, than to need it one day and NOT have it, when someone starts following you home and acting agressively towards you after night classes which has actually happened to me, (pull it out, hold it up, shout "I have a gun!") or when a random stranger stands up at the front of your University class or at the mall and starts picking people off one by one.


Personally I think the only long-term solution is for, well, for everyone to wake the **** up. Wake up in the sense that nothing is really worth worrying over, fearing or doubting, etc.

Do you know the rape statistics in North America? Maybe if you had a vagina, you wouldn't think that "nothing is really worth worrying over."

[JuniperWoolf]

What if the woman doesn't have a gun? What if she's not even a "woman" yet, but an innocent child? Heck, let's say she's poor and ignorant. And a person who is from a certain class of "superiority." And this person takes advantage of his/her position to take control of the poor/innocent child.

If she's a child in that situation then alterations to the gun laws can't help her and don't affect her at all. Poor children aren't who I'm talking about, I'm talking about people with enough money to afford a gun (and if you're able to afford a cell phone, you're able to afford a gun) and who are old enough to take the courses and get registered. Just the CHANCE that the woman Shadowy Rapist Guy is stalking MIGHT have a gun in a society which allows Right to Carry is enough to act as a deterrance, so even if the woman chooses not to carry a gun (which is her right) or can't afford one, she benefits if Right to Carry laws are passed. Right now in Canada, rapists know that any woman he sees is helpless and not armed.

And yes, I know that most rapes happen in the home and are carried out by people that the victim knows. Not all of them though. There was a brutal rape in the ally behind my friend Khyrsten's house in the days before she lived there. Six rig guys followed a woman, shouting sick comments at her, until she passed before the mouth of the ally and then they grabbed her. It was so brutal that it's one of my small town's few immortal stories. When I lived in Edmonton, there was a rapist going around the Whyte ave area watching houses to see which ones had a woman either living alone or alone during most of the day, then he'd break in right in the middle of the day and rape her in her own house. I think it happened to about twenty women over the course of six months. I lived in the Whyte area, and Canadians have the right to have guns in their homes and my dad's a hunter, I've known how to shoot since I was seven. I felt much safer with a shotgun by the door.


Your problem is that you are looking at this from a financially-able point of view which is biased towards the middle class society. I have heard far too many stories of maids getting raped by their boss, overseas workers getting sexually harassed by their employers, and children getting abused sexually, even by their parents.

1. Define "middle class."
2. Are you saying that Right to Carry laws do not prevent rape, ever? Because if so, you should do some research.

[malayang-diwa]

If she's a child in that situation then alterations to the gun laws can't help her and don't affect her at all. Poor children aren't who I'm talking about, I'm talking about people with enough money to afford a gun (and if you're able to afford a cell phone, you're able to afford a gun) and who are old enough to take the courses and get registered. Just the CHANCE that the woman Shadowy Rapist Guy is stalking MIGHT have a gun in a society which allows Right to Carry is enough to act as a deterrance, so even if the woman chooses not to carry a gun (which is her right) or can't afford one, she benefits if Right to Carry laws are passed. Right now, rapists know that any woman he sees is helpless and not armed.

And yes, I know that most rapes happen in the home and are carried out by people that the victim knows. Not all of them though. There was a brutal rape in the ally behind my friend Khyrsten's house in the days before she lived there. Six rig guys followed a woman, shouting sick comments at her, until she passed before the mouth of the ally and then they grabbed her. It was so brutal that it's one of my small town's few immortal stories. When I lived in Edmonton, there was a rapist going around the Whyte ave area watching houses to see which ones had a woman either living alone or alone during most of the day, then he'd break in right in the middle of the day and rape her in her own house. I think it happened to about twenty women over the course of six months. I lived in the Whyte area, and Canadians have the right to have guns in their homes and my dad's a hunter. I felt much safer with a shotgun by the door.

I see your point, ok? It's just that it's biased towards countries that do have Right to Carry Laws.


1. Define "middle class."
2. Are you saying that Right to Carry laws do not prevent rape, ever? Because if so, you should do some research.

Well, I can give you a relative definition from where I live, which is the class that live in concrete houses and can eat at least 3 times a day.

No, I am not saying that. As a matter of fact, yes they have prevented rape cases. All I am saying is that it doesn't solve the issue all the time.

[JuniperWoolf]

I see your point, ok? It's just that it's biased towards countries that do have Right to Carry Laws.

Of course it is, that's why I'm arguing (strongly, continuously, and in many formats) that my fellow Canadians should fight for Right to Carry laws.



Well, I can give you a relative definition from where I live, which is the class that live in concrete houses and can eat at least 3 times a day.

No, I am not saying that. As a matter of fact, yes they have prevented rape cases. All I am saying is that it doesn't solve the issue all the time.

To occasionally prevent rape is good enough for me.

[Delta40]

What about stats that show people often have their own weapon used against them? Now I only ask that out of ignorance. Living in Australia where guns are not common at all, we hear all sorts of crazy stats about America and the right to bear arms. I admit that its not clear to me what is credible and what isn't but I would believe that a woman or a man stricken with fear could quite easily find their weapon in the hands of the attacker

[JuniperWoolf]

What about stats that show people often have their own weapon used against them?

That's a common concern. It's very rare. You always get a few grieving parents who's kid found their gun and shot himself, and it's always really tragic and you can understand why they'd be pro-gun laws but taking into account the huge population of Americans and Canadians who own guns and the absolutely tiny number of children who have died, it could really be considered a freak accident. Sometimes the parent leaves a loaded gun with the safety off in the cookie cabinent or something, and in those situations you really can't help but blame the parent for not taking proper procautions in a house with a child around.

As for the criminal taking the gun and then shooting the victim: if the assailant is willing to shoot the victim and was going to kill him/her anyway, than how could arming the victim put him/her in worse odds? Furthermore, most states that have Right to Carry legislation specify that anyone who would be permitted to carry a firearm in public must pass various courses on gun use and safety, courses that teach them their own legal rights and courses on how to act in dangerous situations. This means that not only do they have the right to protect themselves (as ALL people do, which the Canadian government is currently denying us), they're also taught how.

[PoeticPassions]

I wonder if there is a way, within societies, to actually work on preventing (reducing) rape (not through carrying guns or even increasing sentences for rapists) but through education, the shifting of norms, and empowering victims of such crimes...?

Look, rape seems to occur across cultures, space, and time. However, it does seem that certain places have much higher rape percentages than others. I wonder if this has to do with culture, the laws of the state, or the mentality of the people (I would venture to say that more machismo societies with very strong patriarchal structures would have higher percentages of rape). There was a survey completed in South Africa and it is alleged that 1 in 4 men have raped a woman. That statistic is staggering. It makes me wonder what it is in South African laws, society, etc that has made this type of behavior either acceptable or even encouraged?? Why such a high rate of rape, especially as compared to other places?

Anyway, I am not trying to stray from the original post and question (as I concur with most posters here that the raped is never to blame for the act of rape and that using excuses such as 'she wanted it and was asking for it' because she was dressed too provocatively or whatnot, are just rationalizations of our wayward actions and behaviors). Rape is mainly about power and control (the prison example someone mentioned is actually the best illustration of this fact). Rape has also been used a tool of war and ethnic cleansing... as a way to 'infect' the 'other,' and also to dehumanize. So in some sense rape isn't as deviant as it may seem, in that it occurs relatively often and sometimes systematically, but it is abhorrent nonetheless and in most countries seen as illegal.

I will add, however, that sometimes the rapist is not fully to blame... Think about a child soldier in the DRC, for example, who is abducted at age 9... forced to fight and kill, drugged, raped by his adult males... and then grows older, remains in the system, and ends up raping other boys or girls. Sure, he is still responsible... but to what degree should he be punished?

This entire discussion has had a very Western flare... and ideas of forgiveness, collective culpability, shared humanity, etc have not really been brought up, but I do think they merit some consideration. I generally do believe that we are all connected to one another and that we are responsible for each other's actions as well as our own. If I sin, you sin too (this stems from Desmond Tutu's philosophy and the South African notion of 'ubuntu,'--which may be slightly ironic given my previous statements about rape in that country). In any case, I actually think that communities and societies as a whole need to take more responsibility for criminal actions, and seek to empower women (and men) instead of always prescribing the label of 'victim' (which in some sense robs one of agency and deems them helpless).

[PoeticPassions]

I wonder if there is a way, within societies, to actually work on preventing (reducing) rape (not through carrying guns or even increasing sentences for rapists) but through education, the shifting of norms, and empowering victims of such crimes...?

Look, rape seems to occur across cultures, space, and time. However, it does seem that certain places have much higher rape percentages than others. I wonder if this has to do with culture, the laws of the state, or the mentality of the people (I would venture to say that more machismo societies with very strong patriarchal structures would have higher percentages of rape). There was a survey completed in South Africa and it is alleged that 1 in 4 men have raped a woman. That statistic is staggering. It makes me wonder what it is in South African laws, society, etc that has made this type of behavior either acceptable or even encouraged?? Why such a high rate of rape, especially as compared to other places?

Anyway, I am not trying to stray from the original post and question (as I concur with most posters here that the raped is never to blame for the act of rape and that using excuses such as 'she wanted it and was asking for it' because she was dressed too provocatively or whatnot, are just rationalizations of our wayward actions and behaviors). Rape is mainly about power and control (the prison example someone mentioned is actually the best illustration of this fact). Rape has also been used a tool of war and ethnic cleansing... as a way to 'infect' the 'other,' and also to dehumanize. So in some sense rape isn't as deviant as it may seem, in that it occurs relatively often and sometimes systematically, but it is abhorrent nonetheless and in most countries seen as illegal.

I will add, however, that sometimes the rapist is not fully to blame... Think about a child soldier in the DRC, for example, who is abducted at age 9... forced to fight and kill, drugged, raped by his adult males... and then grows older, remains in the system, and ends up raping other boys or girls. Sure, he is still responsible... but to what degree should he be punished?

This entire discussion has had a very Western flare... and ideas of forgiveness, collective culpability, shared humanity, etc have not really been brought up, but I do think they merit some consideration. I generally do believe that we are all connected to one another and that we are responsible for each other's actions as well as our own. If I sin, you sin too (this stems from Desmond Tutu's philosophy and the South African notion of 'ubuntu,'--which may be slightly ironic given my previous statements about rape in that country). In any case, I actually think that communities and societies as a whole need to take more responsibility for criminal actions, and seek to empower women (and men) instead of always prescribing the label of 'victim' (which in some sense robs one of agency and deems them helpless).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are mace and tazers against the law in Canada?

[tonywalt]

I wonder if there is a way, within societies, to actually work on preventing (reducing) rape (not through carrying guns or even increasing sentences for rapists) but through education, the shifting of norms, and empowering victims of such crimes...?

Look, rape seems to occur across cultures, space, and time. However, it does seem that certain places have much higher rape percentages than others. I wonder if this has to do with culture, the laws of the state, or the mentality of the people (I would venture to say that more machismo societies with very strong patriarchal structures would have higher percentages of rape). There was a survey completed in South Africa and it is alleged that 1 in 4 men have raped a woman. That statistic is staggering. It makes me wonder what it is in South African laws, society, etc that has made this type of behavior either acceptable or even encouraged?? Why such a high rate of rape, especially as compared to other places?

Anyway, I am not trying to stray from the original post and question (as I concur with most posters here that the raped is never to blame for the act of rape and that using excuses such as 'she wanted it and was asking for it' because she was dressed too provocatively or whatnot, are just rationalizations of our wayward actions and behaviors). Rape is mainly about power and control (the prison example someone mentioned is actually the best illustration of this fact). Rape has also been used a tool of war and ethnic cleansing... as a way to 'infect' the 'other,' and also to dehumanize. So in some sense rape isn't as deviant as it may seem, in that it occurs relatively often and sometimes systematically, but it is abhorrent nonetheless and in most countries seen as illegal.

I will add, however, that sometimes the rapist is not fully to blame... Think about a child soldier in the DRC, for example, who is abducted at age 9... forced to fight and kill, drugged, raped by his adult males... and then grows older, remains in the system, and ends up raping other boys or girls. Sure, he is still responsible... but to what degree should he be punished?

This entire discussion has had a very Western flare... and ideas of forgiveness, collective culpability, shared humanity, etc have not really been brought up, but I do think they merit some consideration. I generally do believe that we are all connected to one another and that we are responsible for each other's actions as well as our own. If I sin, you sin too (this stems from Desmond Tutu's philosophy and the South African notion of 'ubuntu,'--which may be slightly ironic given my previous statements about rape in that country). In any case, I actually think that communities and societies as a whole need to take more responsibility for criminal actions, and seek to empower women (and men) instead of always prescribing the label of 'victim' (which in some sense robs one of agency and deems them helpless).

I can appreciate this sort of effort, but cultures can only evolve slowly in my opinion and experience. As I stated earlier the broader west indian population views rape as much less serious than the narrower population at a community level, this goes back centuries even before arrival. I think the fact that we have a judicial system that is British and a majority of Court being British is very effective in offsetting the sort of base behaviour and the somewhat disturbing attitudes that are in place. Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of 'speaking softly and carry an big stick(strict and forceful application of the law) has shown to be effective.

[OrphanPip]

Are mace and tazers against the law in Canada?

Yes, but rape is rarer in Canada than in the USA, so I'm not sure weapons are really going to solve the problems. (Guns are legal but have to be kept in the home, or transported in a case, when they are not being used for sporting)

Certainly there are sociological problems to be addressed. Looking specifically at Canada, aboriginal women are 3 times more likely to be a victim of rape. Obviously, there are issues of vulnerability that I don't think will be helped by adding weapons to the mix.

I personally believe that arming the victims just makes the criminals arm themselves more, and then everyone is more at risk. If rapist start expecting women to carry guns, what happens to the women who aren't armed when they encounter a more agitated and violent rapist who expects to be dealing with a possible gun?

[stlukesguild]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

I know you love portraying yourself as the gunslinger of the Great Northwest, but you should get your facts strait. Only a few states had Conceal/Carry laws on their books until the late 1990s. It has only been with the rise of the Neo-Con movement that the majority of US states have had Conceal/Carry laws, and these have little to do with a fear of crime (a vast majority of the gun owners live in suburban and rural areas where violent crime is rare.) The push for Conceal/Carry laws has more to do with the Neo-Cons spreading the illusion of fear... fear of foreign terrorism, fear of a foreign invasion, fear of immigrants... and fear of the government... especially of the black, "Islamic" president who wasn't even born in the US.:rolleyes5:

The statistics on a decrease or increase in crime are largely conflicting (often biased according to who is paying for the study) and inconclusive. Violent crime in the US had been on a decline well before the passage of Conceal/Carry laws. According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children (not all that rare, eh?) and 18,000 suicides by handgun (makes you wonder how many might still be alive had they not had access to such a lethal choice). Draw your conclusions. I'm not certain that returning the US... let alone Canada to an armed state similar to what existed in the Old West is necessarily the best direction to be taking.

We've been following the case of the lunatic vigilante who shot and killed the poor black kid simply because he "looked suspicious". Just last week, another nutcase followed his wife, who had announced she was leaving him, to a family restaurant that both I and my wife frequent, where he shot her and their two daughters, and then was killed in a shootout with police in the parking lot. Only one of the daughters survived.

[BienvenuJDC]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

I know you love portraying yourself as the gunslinger of the Great Northwest, but you should get your facts strait. Only a few states had Conceal/Carry laws on their books until the late 1990s. It has only been with the rise of the Neo-Con movement that the majority of US states have had Conceal/Carry laws, and these have little to do with a fear of crime (a vast majority of the gun owners live in suburban and rural areas where violent crime is rare.) The push for Conceal/Carry laws has more to do with the Neo-Cons spreading the illusion of fear... fear of foreign terrorism, fear of a foreign invasion, fear of immigrants... and fear of the government... especially of the black, "Islamic" president who wasn't even born in the US.:rolleyes5:

The statistics on a decrease or increase in crime are largely conflicting (often biased according to who is paying for the study) and inconclusive. Violent crime in the US had been on a decline well before the passage of Conceal/Carry laws. According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children (not all that rare, eh?) and 18,000 suicides by handgun (makes you wonder how many might still be alive had they not had access to such a lethal choice). Draw your conclusions. I'm not certain that returning the US... let alone Canada to an armed state similar to what existed in the Old West is necessarily the best direction to be taking.

We've been following the case of the lunatic vigilante who shot and killed the poor black kid simply because he "looked suspicious". Just last week, another nutcase followed his wife, who had announced she was leaving him, to a family restaurant that both I and my wife frequent, where he shot her and their two daughters, and then was killed in a shootout with police in the parking lot. Only one of the daughters survived.

You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you've been swayed by the media as usual.

[BienvenuJDC]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

I know you love portraying yourself as the gunslinger of the Great Northwest, but you should get your facts strait. Only a few states had Conceal/Carry laws on their books until the late 1990s. It has only been with the rise of the Neo-Con movement that the majority of US states have had Conceal/Carry laws, and these have little to do with a fear of crime (a vast majority of the gun owners live in suburban and rural areas where violent crime is rare.) The push for Conceal/Carry laws has more to do with the Neo-Cons spreading the illusion of fear... fear of foreign terrorism, fear of a foreign invasion, fear of immigrants... and fear of the government... especially of the black, "Islamic" president who wasn't even born in the US.:rolleyes5:

The statistics on a decrease or increase in crime are largely conflicting (often biased according to who is paying for the study) and inconclusive. Violent crime in the US had been on a decline well before the passage of Conceal/Carry laws. According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children (not all that rare, eh?) and 18,000 suicides by handgun (makes you wonder how many might still be alive had they not had access to such a lethal choice). Draw your conclusions. I'm not certain that returning the US... let alone Canada to an armed state similar to what existed in the Old West is necessarily the best direction to be taking.

We've been following the case of the lunatic vigilante who shot and killed the poor black kid simply because he "looked suspicious". Just last week, another nutcase followed his wife, who had announced she was leaving him, to a family restaurant that both I and my wife frequent, where he shot her and their two daughters, and then was killed in a shootout with police in the parking lot. Only one of the daughters survived.

Maybe you should investigate the facts about that "lunatic vigilante" and the "poor black kid". He wasn't shot because he "looked suspicious", that doesn't explain the blood and grass stains on the back of the one who was attacked (whom you call a lunatic). Don't turn this into a tangent.

I'm not going to make a political discussion here, but the right to bear arms have been good in the States since it was founded.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, StLukes, in a sort of defense of said lunatic vigilante, we don't really know what happened there. Plus, it looks like he may be telling the true story, especially with the release of that photo of his blood-drenched head.

And are mace and tasers really illegal in Canada? I was being semi-facetious when I asked....

And let me conceal my amazement that Bien is pro-gun (pro-gun Christians, one of America's greatest ironies).

All stlukes said that the studies are conflicting, which is true. You can find any number of studies to support either side of the argument, are you disputing the statistic he gives though? Maybe if so, you could gives us the real numbers.

I'm anti-gun because I don't think people needs to have safes filled with assault rifles.

[Delta40]

I think violence begets violence and what better way to do it than with a gun. People have them under the guise to protect themselves but so do the bad guys. It's their right just as much as the next guy. I also appreciate that you can't unring the bell on this issue. Guns are a culture in the US.

[Alexander III]

In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.

I do realize that there is a strong argument which sustains that gun only beget inter populational violence, and are not needed to fight against any tyranic goverment.

But I believe in precaution, I would live in a nation which is a bit more violent; like prety much all human history exept the last hundred or so odd years in the west(talking about civilian life not soldering here)), than risky living in a nation were I feel I am no longer in controll of my destiny and my beautifull patria may be reduced to ala souless totalitarian machine stalinist and moaist comunism or hitlerian fascism.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, StLukes, in a sort of defense of said lunatic vigilante, we don't really know what happened there. Plus, it looks like he may be telling the true story, especially with the release of that photo of his blood-drenched head.

And are mace and tasers really illegal in Canada? I was being semi-facetious when I asked....

And let me conceal my amazement that Bien is pro-gun (pro-gun Christians, one of America's greatest ironies).

All stlukes said that the studies are conflicting, which is true. You can find any number of studies to support either side of the argument, are you disputing the statistic he gives though? Maybe if so, you could gives us the real numbers.

I'm anti-gun because I don't think people needs to have safes filled with assault rifles.

You assume too much. While I do like primitive weapons for the historic value of learning, I do not (nor will I ever) carry a concealed weapon. I do believe that the right to carry should be upheld though. I'd like to know how a gun become an "assault" rifle? How is that defined?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are assault rifles not guns? Maybe my understanding of the issue is worse than I realized.

[BienvenuJDC]

Are assault rifles not guns? Maybe my understanding of the issue is worse than I realized.

I'm not sure what an "assault rifle" specifically is. There are many kinds of rifles though. A rifle is a firearm that has rifling in the barrel (which most firearms currently are these days). What makes it an "assault" rifle?

I guess if I use a rifle to assault someone? But what if I use that rifle for defense? I guess then it would be a "defense" rifle. Would it be alright if people had safes full of "defense" rifles?

[stlukesguild]

You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you've been swayed by the media as usual.

You, on the other hand, undoubtedly have your facts straight from the most irrefutable of sources... perhaps Rush Limbaugh himself.

As the media admits:

On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.

Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.

Media reports suggest that police found Zimmerman with grass stains on the back of his shirt, bloody bruises on the back of his head and other indicia that may support his contention that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the ground when Zimmerman shot him.

We don't know what Martin's body or clothing show, other than the fatal bullet wound. If there are no comparable bruises or grass stains and if the bullet wound and powder residue establish that the gun was fired at very close range, this too might support a claim of self-defense.

Then there is a recorded cry for help, which, if it turns out to be the voice of Martin, would undercut the defense -- if the voice analysis passes scientific muster and is deemed admissible into evidence.

There may be additional forensic evidence -- or witnesses -- of which we are now unaware, though it is unlikely there is a "smoking gun."

Finally, there is the overarching and historically painful reality that an unarmed black teenager lies dead at the hand of an armed Hispanic man who ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the "suspect," and who may have -- and this too is forensically unclear -- uttered a racial epithet while chasing him.

These "facts" give rise to several possible scenarios of what may actually have occurred on that dark rainy night. Under the Florida self-defense statute, it matters greatly what happened, most especially who "initially provoked the use of force," and who started the physical encounter.

If Zimmerman initially provoked the deadly encounter, then he cannot invoke any "stand your ground" defense. He would then be under a legal obligation to "exhaust ... every reasonable means to escape."

The fact that Zimmerman, ignoring the police dispatchers repeated orders not to follow or engage the individual whom he took as "looking suspicious"... based on ??? chose to follow this individual armed with a handgun is in itself enough to warrant his being called a "lunatic". The fact that this same unarmed teen ended up dead as a result doesn't bode too well either for assumptions of innocence.

Why you would immediately assume that it was the dead teen who was a fault I can only guess at... but I'll not throw out the most obvious reason.

As for my comments and statistics on guns in the US, they actually come from a conservative, pro-handgun site (Gunsafe.org) and are corroborated by the numbers sited by the FBI. Gunsafe's aim was to prove that deaths by handguns are no big thing (only half that of deaths by automobile if we include suicides).

http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)

[BienvenuJDC]

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)

Well, no need to worry...

"Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986."

From your link...

[Dark Star]

Rather than arguing over the definition of assault rifle, I think we should address the issue of why such guns should be banned. There is no rational reason for assuming that civilians shouldn't have a semi-automatic rifle, in particular if police and military are allowed to have them. (As someone noted earlier, people have a right to defend themselves against the government if it becomes necessary.) For that matter, there's not an ounce of evidence that banning assault rifles makes anyone 'safer.' It's purely a matter of paranoia about guns that are scary looking. I'm not going to touch the subject of fully automatic rifles given that 1. They're heavily regulated and very difficult to obtain and 2. You can count the number of murders caused by legally owned automatic rifles for the past 90 years or so on one hand.


On a related note, the idea that Canada has less rapes than the US is false. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes)

[stlukesguild]

And let me conceal my amazement that Bien is pro-gun (pro-gun Christians, one of America's greatest ironies).

Christian fundamentalists tend to be full of contradictions. They see abortion as an abomination, but once you're born, it's another story altogether. They often take the Neo-Con position on universal health care, ignoring the millions whose lives are affected by the lack of insurance. They are also quite commonly pro-gun and pro-death penalty.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, no need to worry...

"Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986."

From your link...

I have several friends who have plenty of assault rifles, legally. The only law around here is that they can't be automatic, which is silly, as it's possible to make them automatic on your own.

I feel the need to worry is warranted.

[stlukesguild]

In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.

Do you honestly think this has any bearing at this point in time? How long do you think a populace armed with handguns and rifles could hold out against the full forces of the US military?

[Dark Star]

In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.

Do you honestly think this has any bearing at this point in time? How long do you think a populace armed with handguns and rifles could hold out against the full forces of the US military?

Ask Al Qaeda that question. Guerrilla warfare is particularly effective, even when the side engaging in those tactics are under-armed compared to the opposition. For that matter, it's not rational to essentially argue, 'Well, **** it, we're going to lose, so we may as well give up our right to defend ourselves!'

[BienvenuJDC]

Why you would immediately assume that it was the dead teen who was a fault I can only guess at... but I'll not throw out the most obvious reason.


I didn't assume any one thing. But it seems that you already have passed judgment.

Are you insinuating that I'm racist? Totally uncalled for...

[stlukesguild]

Rather than arguing over the definition of assault rifle, I think we should address the issue of why such guns should be banned. There is no rational reason for assuming that civilians shouldn't have a semi-automatic rifle, in particular if police and military are allowed to have them.

Yes... and let's not stop there. Let's take this to the logical conclusion. Why aren't citizens allowed to own fully functioning tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear warheads? The government has them. I can't feel truly safe until I have one too.

:shocked::patriot::goof:

[Dark Star]

Again, provide an ounce of evidence that assault rifles should be banned instead of just using 'OOOOH, THOSE GUNS LOOK SCARY' fear tactics, and you might have a case. (Good luck. A team assembled by Bill Clinton to prove that the assault weapons ban was a Good Thing was not able to find evidence that it saved so much as a single life. The latest attempt by the Obama administration to prove the need for an assault weapons ban by forcing gun shops to sell to straw buyers so the guns could be sent to Mexico didn't work out well, either.) If you wish for something to be banned, the onus is on you to give reasons why it should be banned, not just assume it should be and act as if anyone who doesn't like the idea of giving up their rights or privileges is insane.

[stlukesguild]

Ask Al Qaeda that question. Guerrilla warfare is particularly effective, even when the side engaging in those tactics are under-armed compared to the opposition.

Is it really... or is it only effective if the Guerrillas are particularly driven to continue the fight... in spite of their losses, while the other side is not willing to employ the full capabilities of their forces (as a result of political pressure) and not willing to accept excessive losses? How long would the war in Iraq have lasted had the US employed the same strategies as WWII: carpet bombing, the complete obliteration of cities, etc...?

Of course what you are arguing in favor of is what we term as "terrorism" when employed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, the PLO, or the Irish.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's what I believe. I don't think people should have assault rifles. I see nothing wrong with people having a reasonable amount of handguns or hunting rifles/shotguns. An assault rifle's main purpose is to be a better killing instrument than your average gun. The average gun is enough--it's good enough at killing people.

[stlukesguild]

If you wish for something to be banned, the onus is on you to give reasons why it should be banned, not just assume it should be and act as if anyone who doesn't like the idea of giving up their rights or privileges is insane.

Where in the constitution is the right to bear fully automatic weapons, tanks, jet fighters, or nuclear weapons spelled out? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are documents that are 200+ years old. They were written based upon the world as it then existed. That not specifically spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of rights is dealt with by the body of laws at a federal, state, and local level. Common sense is usually enough reason for limiting, restricting, or banning any number of things ranging from the Smallpox virus, and Anthrax, to Heroin, Crack Cocaine, Plutonium, Uranium, child pornography, or machine guns and other fully automatic weapons.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ha, ha. From an outside perspective (of the US) to hear people in favour of "a reasonable amount of handguns" or that the onus is on other people to prove that "assault rifles" should be banned, is really quite hard to put into words how crazy all of that sounds.

Imagine someone genuinely arguing for the continuation of personal weapons of mass destruction/chemical weapons and you have about the same idea of how I feel when I see such often repeated thoughts, in regards to the US affinity with guns.

I saw a stat the other day, in the Guardian I think, that said for every 100 Americans there are 90 guns!?!

I'm not passing judgment. I just thought I'd share an outsider perspective on the argument, hope you don't mind? Take it or leave it. But it is all a bit crazy to me.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I tend to agree with StLukes when it comes to the constitutional issue (now I'll let you all conceal your amazement). One of the principle ideas of the constitution is that it was meant to be able to change. If it wasn't, blacks would still be seen as three-fifths of a person. Not everything written then is applicable to today. I can't help but think a lot of them would've rethunk the vague wording if the "arms" of the day weren't limited to muzzle-loaded muskets.

I'm not one of those all-guns-should-be-banned people, but, come on, let's use some common sense here. A person doesn't need a ton of guns. If one wants a handgun for the house to protect himself and his family, fine. Same with hunting. I don't think someone should have 30 guns, or some more extravagant number.

[Calidore]

Moving away from gun control back to the topic...


A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks

This is wrong. The problem is she may think she's stronger because she has a gun, but she's still a woman with a weapon, which could be taken away by the stonger man, if he's so inclined. Then you have a pissed-off man, inclined to rape anyway, with a weapon and a woman in front of him who dared to threaten him.


One loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running.

"Most"? I'd love to see some independent stats on the effects of armed female victims on would-be rapists and muggers: Attempt thwarted vs. dead/injured would-be offender vs. dead/injured victim.


The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

This is another one I'd like to see some independent corroboration on: Violent crime rates by year by state with date of carry law passage.

Sources?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This is wrong. The problem is she may think she's stronger because she has a gun, but she's still a woman with a weapon, which could be taken away by the stonger man, if he's so inclined. Then you have a pissed-off man, inclined to rape anyway, with a weapon and a woman in front of him who dared to threaten him.


Yes, Juniper, the woman is always weaker than the man, gun or not--men are faster than bullets, after all. It's much better for the woman to be unarmed and take a gentle raping rather than risk the raper's ire, obviously.

[OrphanPip]

On a related note, the idea that Canada has less rapes than the US is false. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes)

I checked their source, Canada's statistics categorize anything sexual in nature, including sexual harassment or any unwanted touching, within the statistics. Thus, that sites numbers on Canada are grossly inflated.

If you go to Statistics Canada's websites you can see that the reported number of Sexual Assault Levels 1 and 2 (which include rape) is 576 as of 2010. Which comes to about 1.7 per 100,000 Canadians. A small number of level 3 include rape where an individual was not harmed, which would probably bring Canada up to the same as European averages. But it is certainly not double the US's rate.

[Dark Star]

But it is certainly not double the US's rate.
I'm assuming that wasn't directed at me, but just in case, I never intended to argue that Canada's rape rates were double the US's.

[OrphanPip]

I'm assuming that wasn't directed at me, but just in case, I never intended to argue that Canada's rape rates were double the US's.

No, but that's what the link stated. The probably with just putting up crime stats from different organizations is that they all have different definitions of what can be included in a category. It is unlikely that Canada, with its lower rates of violent crime across all categories, would have more rape than the US.

[stlukesguild]

Well, you know, Pip... ya get a couple of Molsens in those horny Canuck oil riggers and next thing you know their trying to hump the first thing that comes into sight. No alternative 'cept for an innocent girl to have the right to carry a fully automatic AK-47. :biggrinjester:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, be careful with US statistics, too, because someone caught with a few pictures of 16-year-olds on his computer or a 19 year old convicted of statutory rape against his consenting 17 year old girlfriend are put in the same category (sex offender) as someone who violently rapes another person.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is another one I'd like to see some independent corroboration on: Violent crime rates by year by state with date of carry law passage.

Sources?

You'd probably just find a way to discredit any statistics anyway. What's the point?

[Calidore]

Yes, Juniper, the woman is always weaker than the man, gun or not--men are faster than bullets, after all. It's much better for the woman to be unarmed and take a gentle raping rather than risk the raper's ire, obviously.

*cough* That wasn't Juniper, and your snark is showing.

The attacker doesn't need to be faster than the bullets, just the victim, who is more likely to have barriers against deliberately harming someone. She may shoot, she may not, but victimizers tend to be good at reading people (that's how they find prey in the first place).

And, I'm sorry, Mutatis, I like you, but your second sentence isn't even worth commenting on.

[Calidore]

You'd probably just find a way to discredit any statistics anyway. What's the point?

Oh, please. Not my style, as my first sig line should hint. I wouldn't blindly trust NRA-touted stats, no, but there should be some kind of official law enforcement statistics on violent crime available somewhere.

[BienvenuJDC]

Oh, please. Not my style, as my first sig line should hint. I wouldn't blindly trust NRA-touted stats, no, but there should be some kind of official law enforcement statistics on violent crime available somewhere.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9928

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

*cough* That wasn't Juniper, and your snark is showing.

The attacker doesn't need to be faster than the bullets, just the victim, who is more likely to have barriers against deliberately harming someone. She may shoot, she may not, but victimizers tend to be good at reading people (that's how they find prey in the first place).

And, I'm sorry, Mutatis, I like you, but your second sentence isn't even worth commenting on.

I was quoting you but addressing Juniper.

Honestly, for someone who's been asking for statistics, you're making a lot of pretty unprovable claims there. A woman who pulls a gun on a would be rapist is going to deter him--you make rapists sound like smart, physically unsurpassable foes that no woman has the chance of overcoming, even if she has a gun, which is preposterous.

As for my second sentence, that's pretty much what you said:


Then you have a pissed-off man, inclined to rape anyway, with a weapon and a woman in front of him who dared to threaten him.

I.e., it's better not to risk making the rapist angry. Just take it.

[BienvenuJDC]

I.e., it's better not to risk making the rapist angry. Just take it.

LOL, I was kind of thinking that you'd have a dead rapist...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

LOL, I was kind of thinking that you'd have a dead rapist...

Yeah, sort of my conclusion, too. That or a rapist who runs away when a gun is pointed at him.

[Varenne Rodin]

ARJIS is San Diego's crime database. I worked for them. All reported crimes are filed in their index. Most American regions have similar services.

From what I have seen, there are higher rape stats in impoverished areas and in areas with low education standards.

As for guns, gun crime always seems to be greater in areas with loose gun laws. Arizona is a prime example. The states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest reports of gun related homicide. This doesn't always apply to towns bordering Mexico. Cartels do bring in guns. Citizens react by arming themselves; regardless of gun laws in these areas. However, California has tighter gun laws than Arizona (by a lot) and the border crime is more rampant in Arizona, despite Arizona's heavy concentration of civilian gun carriers. Running an efficient border control system is better than allowing turf wars.

I'll state once again that Quebec has a zero gun policy and they enjoy zero gun related homicides.

If you're a woman and you're ever attacked, by all means fight back any way you can. Screaming immediately and loudly is very important if you're in a place where someone might hear you. Sadly, it's better to scream "Fire!" than "Rape!" most times. People are more likely to respond.

[NikolaiI]

Woah, slow down Jethro. I'm not talking about "ending the lives of many people." The very vast majority of Americans who have licences to carry firearms never, ever, in their entire lives, remove them from their holsters except for target practice. Two points though:

I didn't say you did, Juniper. I said I used to. Maybe it's a bad thing to admit to, but I really did think about it, at an earlier time in my life.


1. The simple fact that potential "victims" either may be or certainly are armed is almost always enough to scare away criminals.

2. Better to wear a gun and keep it snug in it's holster every day for the rest of you life and never need it, than to need it one day and NOT have it, when someone starts following you home and acting agressively towards you after night classes which has actually happened to me, (pull it out, hold it up, shout "I have a gun!") or when a random stranger stands up at the front of your University class or at the mall and starts picking people off one by one.

Well, gun control is sort of a side topic. Like I said, there's a strong argument for what you've said. Personally I wonder if extensive training in martial arts isn't a better substitute; but that may not be practical for most.


Do you know the rape statistics in North America? Maybe if you had a vagina, you wouldn't think that "nothing is really worth worrying over."

Yes, I do. I've been aware of them since I was a child. I had good parents. I was referring to the people who do those things - I am pretty sure we are not communicating very clearly. I was speaking of mentality; people who do that kind of thing are worried about a million things that don't matter, and caring about those things suffer. It's also a peer pressure. I'm sure if I'd grown up around gangs, I would be a gang member. The whole mentality involved, however, is totally ***-backwards. You don't achieve anything by hurting others. That was basically my point. And, to get to that point, where you want to hurt others, or make them suffer, you generally have to have a host of misconceptions about what will give you happiness or peace.

And yes, I know, happiness and peace are not everyone's goal. But I don't think anyone would be harmed if they took them up as goals.

[OrphanPip]

We don't have zero gun related homicides. Although, Quebec does have the strictest gun laws and only Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have lower homicide rates.

The highest crime rates in the country are in the prairie provinces, but I would blame that more on their lack of substantial social security programs, and issues of extreme poverty amongst Natives in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Winnipeg is a deserted **** hole that is pretty much a dead city, like Detroit, so that probably explains its homicide rates.

[Varenne Rodin]

We don't have zero gun related homicides. Although, Quebec does have the strictest gun laws and only Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have lower homicide rates.

The highest crime rates in the country are in the prairie provinces, but I would blame that more on their lack of substantial social security programs, and issues of extreme poverty amongst Natives in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Winnipeg is a deserted **** hole that is pretty much a dead city, like Detroit, so that probably explains its homicide rates.

Makes sense. I read that there were a handful of homicides in Quebec last year, but that none of them involved guns, and 4 out of 5 were resulted of domestic violence. I'm going to read more about it though, because I definitely trust you, an intelligent well read person who lives there, over any information I get from United States reporting. Thanks for the clarification. :)

[JuniperWoolf]

I’m glad, I was hoping my posts would spark a long discussion.


Are mace and tazers against the law in Canada?

Pepper spray is illegal and tazers are really illegal.


Yes, but rape is rarer in Canada than in the USA, so I'm not sure weapons are really going to solve the problems.

It won't solve them (actually, I don't think the "problems" can be solved - some people are just bad for various reasons), but it would save some people and give women the ability to protect themselves. I know the whole “at night and/or in an abandoned area” rape is comparatively rare to in-house rape, but it's not non-existent. Like I said, I've been stalked to my car after night class, twice. My aunt was attacked in an underground parking garage, she could see her assailant coming but had nothing to protect herself with or scare him away.


Certainly there are sociological problems to be addressed. Looking specifically at Canada, aboriginal women are 3 times more likely to be a victim of rape. Obviously, there are issues of vulnerability that I don't think will be helped by adding weapons to the mix.

No, Right to Carry laws don't affect people who are raped in the home by people they know and trust. That’s a completely different situation.


I personally believe that arming the victims just makes the criminals arm themselves more, and then everyone is more at risk.

Well, that's what I used to think until I researched the issue and really thought about it. I think a lot of people skip these steps (not saying you do, but it's something I think has to be said about the topic of gun control and now is as good a time as any) because this debate often tends to be heavily determined by political affiliation, which is a huge shame and I think very harmful. I won’t let myself be limited by something so ridiculous. I’ve recieved both sides of this issue with an open mind and I’ve come to the conclusion that legally allowing people the ability to defend themselves does more good than harm. Criminals don't care if you make a law against guns, they're criminals. They're already armed, and when they aren't it's because their victims are already defenseless enough.


If rapist start expecting women to carry guns, what happens to the women who aren't armed when they encounter a more agitated and violent rapist who expects to be dealing with a possible gun?

An agitated and violent rapist is pretty much going to try to rape anyway, isn't he? How is making it illegal for a woman to defend herself doing any good against particularly violent, agitated rapists?



I know you love portraying yourself as the gunslinger of the Great Northwest, but you should get your facts strait.

Personal insults in your first sentence of your first post, eh? I'd like to say that's a new record for you, but honestly it's in keeping with your usual trend of attempting to pigeonhole and belittle any opposition right off the bat, thereby detracting from the issue and degrading the thread into a mudslinging battle of parliamentary proportions. I'd like to point out once again that you don't know me from a hole in the head, so your personal insults consistently miss the mark (gun puns!). "Gunslinger of the Great Northwest?" And you're basing that on what? My nationality, my view on gun control and the fact that I'm rural? Way to stereotype, bigot. If anyone who actually knows me could have heard you say that, they'd laugh their *** off. This is me:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=876&pictureid=8134

Do I look like Annie Oakley, or do I look like a 90 pound kid who's played every single handheld version of Pokemon ever? But no, you're right, everyone who's pro-gun is a cowboy.


Only a few states had Conceal/Carry laws on their books until the late 1990s. It has only been with the rise of the Neo-Con movement that the majority of US states have had Conceal/Carry laws, and these have little to do with a fear of crime (a vast majority of the gun owners live in suburban and rural areas where violent crime is rare.) The push for Conceal/Carry laws has more to do with the Neo-Cons spreading the illusion of fear... fear of foreign terrorism, fear of a foreign invasion, fear of immigrants... and fear of the government... especially of the black, "Islamic" president who wasn't even born in the US.:rolleyes5:

Yeah, let's play right into this polarized left-right crap. That’s so narrow-minded, the whole "my team vs. yours" mindset. Get over it.


We've been following the case of the lunatic vigilante who shot and killed the poor black kid simply because he "looked suspicious".

So you're giving us one case which is far from clear-cut. Why don't you go ahead and look up how many stories there are of people simply scaring criminals who genuinely attempted to mug/rape away by flashing their firearm? They exist by the thousands.


In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.

:yesnod: This is a completely different angle to the debate, a very important one. It’s not my primary reason for being pro-gun, but it’s definitely up there. How could anyone think it would be fine just fine to have ONLY the military and police armed?


Again, provide an ounce of evidence that assault rifles should be banned instead of just using 'OOOOH, THOSE GUNS LOOK SCARY' fear tactics, and you might have a case.

Thank you.


This is wrong. The problem is she may think she's stronger because she has a gun, but she's still a woman with a weapon…

Yeah, I wasn’t speaking literally. "She" doesn't think she's literally stronger either, that doesn't make sense. "Just a woman with a weapon" is a person with a gun. You're implying that a person with a gun is completely helpless. And YOU talk about a skewed view of reality. Hey, maybe she'll faint under the pressure like the woman she is and drop said gun, or she won't understand how to operate such a complex piece of technology and she'll just start weeping in frustration.


…which could be taken away by the stonger man, if he's so inclined. Then you have a pissed-off man, inclined to rape anyway, with a weapon and a woman in front of him who dared to threaten him.

"The stronger man" is just going to overcome his fear of being shot which most humans share (note: rapists typically tend to choose passive targets who won’t fight back, there’s plenty to support that which I’ll provide once I get home – I think you’ll agree that a woman with a loaded gun pointed at you ISN’T a passive target), then he'll run the distance between him and the woman holding a gun on him WITHOUT her shooting him, then he'll snatch that gun right out of her hands? How’s he going to manage that? Why don’t you give people a bit more credit, let them analyze the dangerous situation they’re in and it’s nuanced particulars for themselves and come to their own decisions regarding their own personal defense.


Yes, Juniper, the woman is always weaker than the man, gun or not--men are faster than bullets, after all. It's much better for the woman to be unarmed and take a gentle raping rather than risk the raper's ire, obviously.

*snicker* Or maybe she could just ask her rapist to wait politely while she calls 911 and waits for the police to arrive.



The attacker doesn't need to be faster than the bullets, just the victim, who is more likely to have barriers against deliberately harming someone.

You’d be wrong there. First of all, anyone with a license to carry a sidearm should be made to take various courses teaching them how to use it, how to act in life-threatening situations, and what their legal rights are so they know what they're doing. Secondly, every woman that I know has considered the idea that one day, someone might try to rape her and almost every one would do anything to prevent that from happening. I've never met a woman who wouldn't be willing to shoot a rapist. That's the sort of thing people think about, especailly if they're’re walking alone after dark or in a deserted area and they go into defense mode. You expect an attack then no matter how unlikely you've heard it is, because that’s what human brains do in potentially threatening situations. If it's either fight or flight, then you KNOW you don't have a good chance if you run, you’re likely slower than your potential assailant, so if you don’t want to be raped you have to either try to scare him away or fight. If you have a gun, then you have the means to do so. If not, then you're literally ****ed.

The idea that the rapist might “get angry” if you pull a gun on him, that’s just a weak point and it's also condescending. I’ve often heard the idea espoused that “I would rather die than be raped.” If a woman would rather pull out a gun in the face of an oncoming attacker and risk “making him angry” than lay down and open her legs, I’d say that’s her right to make the decision for herself, SHE’S the one about to be raped. Who are you to say it should be against the law for her to make her own decisions (like a grown up) and defend herself?

[Jack of Hearts]

Honestly? You look like you love Pokémon.







J

[JuniperWoolf]

Honestly? You look like you love Pokémon.

:yesnod:

[NikolaiI]

I wonder if there is a way, within societies, to actually work on preventing (reducing) rape (not through carrying guns or even increasing sentences for rapists) but through education, the shifting of norms, and empowering victims of such crimes...?

This is my general thought as well. It really seems to be the only way to solve anything completely. Sure it's a very lofty goal, but I think the success is to always move closer.


I can appreciate this sort of effort, but cultures can only evolve slowly in my opinion and experience. As I stated earlier the broader west indian population views rape as much less serious than the narrower population at a community level, this goes back centuries even before arrival. I think the fact that we have a judicial system that is British and a majority of Court being British is very effective in offsetting the sort of base behaviour and the somewhat disturbing attitudes that are in place. Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of 'speaking softly and carry an big stick(strict and forceful application of the law) has shown to be effective.

Yes, but sharing ideas as we are doing more of now, may make it happen more quickly. With a population of billions, it's probable that we'll never reduce crime to 0%, but we are evolving as a race; with certain fits and convulsions perhaps, but also good strides at times. What I mean is I can envision a much more enlightened future, by degrees we can reach it. If happiness and perseverance are so helpful in individual development... well, we are figuring lots of things out.

I guess, I don't know or am not aware of the situation completely where you are, but I believe what you say, it makes sense.

[Alexander III]

In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.

Do you honestly think this has any bearing at this point in time? How long do you think a populace armed with handguns and rifles could hold out against the full forces of the US military?

Thats mighty fine talk considering you had a civil war just 150 years ago, and Italy had a civil war just a mere 70 years ago. Recently I have been reading Chateaubriand's works, and there is a mention to a mere year before the french revolution, Louis being warned about the pssibilities of revoultion and his reply went soemthing along the lines of "such things cannot happen any more, the nation and army are to powerfull for there to ever be a revolution"

Rather similar to you asnwer.

The most common mistake made throughout hsitory, is assuming that technological superiority is what makes an army truley great. Someone mentioned this before, but with all of America's technological superiority and invincible army, two wars against talibans (armed mostly with korans and 50 cent rifles) and Iraq (armed msotly with korans and 50 cent riffles) have not only held you army at bay for ten years, but helped bring it to an economic crisis which has put it on its kneen.

[Alexander III]

or do I look like a 90 pound kid who's played every single handheld version of Pokemon ever?

Wait, I have played every single handheld version of Pokemon ever, I fail to see how that is a con, Pokemon is only one of the greatest games ever....

[Calidore]

Why don’t you give people a bit more credit, let them analyze the dangerous situation they’re in and it’s nuanced particulars for themselves and come to their own decisions regarding their own personal defense.



Who are you to say it should be against the law for her to make her own decisions (like a grown up) and defend herself?

I've just gotten up and haven't even eaten breakfast yet, so I'll post longer later, but I want to correct a couple of assumptions you're making. I haven't said word one about whether it should be legal for a woman to be able to attempt to defend herself as she sees fit, or about gun laws in general.

And pepper spray is really illegal in Canada? That's ridiculous.

[tonywalt]

We have some of the tightest gun control in the world in the Cayman Islands, it's next to impossible to purchase a gun, and hard to even hold one that was grandfathered in years ago.

Having said that, given the demographics of the place and our location next to Jamaica I will forfeit that right happily.

I agree with it in some countries with a tradition of Rule of Law(not just law, even Haiti, Congo, and Siere Leone have well written laws-few pay attention to them). It would lead to chaos and we would likely turn into to a Jamaica lite version of Jamaica.

[BienvenuJDC]

I’m glad, I was hoping my posts would spark a long discussion.


:hurray:

I'm really starting to like you. I have no doubt that a girl with your spunk (and intelligence) can handle a gun just fine.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Pepper-spray and tasers are illegal? That's insane. How are you supposed to defend yourselves up there, anyways?

As for the gun control having influence over crime: as has been said, the studies on the impacts of gun control (or lack thereof) on violent crime are so varied it seems near impossible to come to a certain conclusion based in research. So, to me, it comes down to common sense: more guns, more violence; less guns, less violence.

Also, there are numbers that are credible. Why is it that a nation like the US that does allow people to have guns has so many more murders than nations with strict gun control laws?

And finally, a want to ask a question. Why does anyone need an assault rifle? I get handguns for protection and rifles/shotguns for hunting, but what would a person need an assault rifle for?


:hurray:

I'm really starting to like you. I have no doubt that a girl with your spunk (and intelligence) can handle a gun just fine.

This brought to mind a whole new issue. What about people who can't handle guns, like me? I can't physically operate a gun, it's impossible. I'd say it puts me at a bit of a disadvantage in a potential gun-toting country, no?

[Alexander III]

So, to me, it comes down to common sense: more guns, more violence; less guns, less violence.

Also, there are numbers that are credible. Why is it that a nation like the US that does allow people to have guns has so many more murders than nations with strict gun control laws?


I will get hell for saying this, but is more violence really that bad? In the 19th century amongst the nobility and the bourgeoisie, if you publicly insulted a man, you were likely to get shot or have to shoot the other man in a dual. Is this really so bad, if anything it created a society were people did not just casually behave without thought, but knew that their every action, they would be help accountable for. I don't think more violence is bad, mankind is violent, why must we always be trying to aspire to machines instead of aspiring to be Men.

As for the murders, New york is one of the states with the highest homicide rate, and yet guns are illegal there. There are many factors for murder.


And finally, a want to ask a question. Why does anyone need an assault rifle? I get handguns for protection and rifles/shotguns for hunting, but what would a person need an assault rifle for?

Here I agree with you, hunting riffle and pistols and shotguns suffice for protection, an asault riffle is superflous.




This brought to mind a whole new issue. What about people who can't handle guns, like me? I can't physically operate a gun, it's impossible. I'd say it puts me at a bit of a disadvantage in a potential gun-toting country, no?

Is that not like the tailess fox, demanding that all other foxes cut of their tails.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We should aspire to be less violent. That's all I'll say about that.



Is that not like the tailess fox, demanding that all other foxes cut of their tails.

I'm not saying no one should have guns because I can't use them, I'm just throwing the issue out there. This isn't a superfluous issue like the plethora of many other things I can't do--sports, hiking, any physically strenuous activity, really--we're talking about using instruments of life and death. As of now, I don't desire to use them, but if our society did revert to some sort of old-west mentality where everyone had guns and people got into duels over petty arguments (basically the society you advocate), what am I supposed to do?

[KCurtis]

I’m glad, I was hoping my posts would spark a long discussion.




Well, that's what I used to think until I researched the issue and really thought about it. I think a lot of people skip these steps (not saying you do, but it's something I think has to be said about the topic of gun control and now is as good a time as any) because this debate often tends to be heavily determined by political affiliation, which is a huge shame and I think very harmful. I won’t let myself be limited by something so ridiculous. I’ve recieved both sides of this issue with an open mind and I’ve come to the conclusion that legally allowing people the ability to defend themselves does more good than harm. Criminals don't care if you make a law against guns, they're criminals. They're already armed, and when they aren't it's because their victims are already defenseless enough.

Yep, you are so right. Political affiliation has nothing to do with it, or shouldn't. Criminals will ALWAYS have the guns, and women need to carry them more, to protect ourselves if we need to.


[/QUOTE]Personal insults in your first sentence of your first post, eh? I'd like to say that's a new record for you, but honestly it's in keeping with your usual trend of attempting to pigeonhole and belittle any opposition right off the bat, thereby detracting from the issue and degrading the thread into a mudslinging battle of parliamentary proportions. I'd like to point out once again that you don't know me from a hole in the head, so your personal insults consistently miss the mark (gun puns!)[/QUOTE]

I love your gun pun, and it rhymes

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=876&pictureid=8134

Do I look like Annie Oakley, or do I look like a 90 pound kid who's played every single handheld version of Pokemon ever? But no, you're right, everyone who's pro-gun is a cowboy.[/QUOTE]


Annie Oakley was actually as small as you, and me. She was fantastic.


[/QUOTE]
The idea that the rapist might “get angry” if you pull a gun on him, that’s just a weak point and it's also condescending. I’ve often heard the idea espoused that “I would rather die than be raped.” If a woman would rather pull out a gun in the face of an oncoming attacker and risk “making him angry” than lay down and open her legs, I’d say that’s her right to make the decision for herself, SHE’S the one about to be raped. Who are you to say it should be against the law for her to make her own decisions (like a grown up) and defend herself?[/QUOTE]

Juniper, I think you will be fine no matter where you walk

[stlukesguild]

Thats mighty fine talk considering you had a civil war just 150 years ago, and Italy had a civil war just a mere 70 years ago.

And the armaments at that time were a world apart from what now exists. At the start of the American Civil War the most common weapons were swords, bayonet, muzzle-loading rifles, and canon. An armed body of citizens was not grossly outgunned. Today the US military is a bit better armed: fighter jets, machine guns, attack helicopters, tanks, nuclear warheads, nuclear submarines, stealth fighters and bombers, etc... Do you really think that a group of irate citizens armed with handguns and even a few White Supremacists out in Montana or Wyoming who've stockpiled AK-47s and hand-grenade are going to stand much of a chance in a real conflict?

Recently I have been reading Chateaubriand's works, and there is a mention to a mere year before the french revolution, Louis being warned about the pssibilities of revoultion and his reply went soemthing along the lines of "such things cannot happen any more, the nation and army are to powerfull for there to ever be a revolution"

Rather similar to you asnwer.

Again... you are speaking of another time and place. The weaponry fielded by the French military was not exactly miles above what the average citizen had access to.

The most common mistake made throughout hsitory, is assuming that technological superiority is what makes an army truley great.

Its not a common mistake. It is reality. Why did Germany lose WWII? Why did the various Jewish rebellions against the Romans end in defeat? The Roman military was far better armed, trained, disciplined, and supplied? Why did the Germans lose World War II? They were grossly outnumbered by the Soviet forces while the Americans and British had complete control of the airwar.

Someone mentioned this before, but with all of America's technological superiority and invincible army, two wars against talibans (armed mostly with korans and 50 cent rifles) and Iraq (armed msotly with korans and 50 cent riffles) have not only held you army at bay for ten years, but helped bring it to an economic crisis which has put it on its kneen.

Again, you seem to miss the point. The American goal has been to control the the situation with the least possible casualties to both American forces and the Afghan and Iraqi citizen. Such an approach to warfare is historically doomed to failure. We should have learned this from our own Revolutionary War. Had the British really put forth their full effort in defeating the American forces, we'd still be a British colony... but the British were more concerned with developments in France and the war was highly unpopular at home. Ultimately... it wasn't worth the effort. The same occurred with Vietnam. If, however, the US approached the wars in the Middle-East as "total war"... as Sherman approached the destruction of the Confederates and as the allies approached the defeat of the Axis powers the results would be far different.

The wars in the Middle East or Vietnam never threatened to end in a defeat of the US and foreign occupation. Do you believe that the US military and government would be so likely to restrain itself from an enemy that threatens their actual existence?

[stlukesguild]

Personal insults in your first sentence of your first post, eh? I'd like to say that's a new record for you, but honestly it's in keeping with your usual trend of attempting to pigeonhole and belittle any opposition right off the bat, thereby detracting from the issue and degrading the thread into a mudslinging battle of parliamentary proportions. I'd like to point out once again that you don't know me from a hole in the head, so your personal insults consistently miss the mark.

Perhaps the reality is that most of that which you have to say is not worthy of a better response. personal experiences and anecdotes aren't of much worth when you are trying to convince others of your point of view. You're arguing for arming Canadians in the same manner as Americans based upon unrealistic fear-mongering and little else. Where is the logic or hard data behind your call for arms? Is Canada headed toward becoming the crime capital of the world? Are you seeing shoot-outs in the streets like Chicago in the 1920s? I assure you that I live in a far more armed and dangerous city... and yet have never found myself feeling that I need to go about with a handgun strapped to my thigh like Jesse James.

According to the statistics, Canada's murder rate is approximately 1.5 persons per 100,000. That places it among the safest nations in the world along with Austria, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany Australia, Morocco, New Zealand, Finland, Lebanon, Poland, Portugal, China, France, Slovenia, Iceland, Bahraine, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, etc... Now guess what? All of these nations share one thing in common: strict gun laws. The US, on the other hand, has a murder rate almost 4 times higher. The murder rate in the US is over twice as high as that of Israel... in spite of continual terrorism. Now certainly, there are nations with higher murder rates than the US... but most of these are located in Africa and Latin-America and are the result of weak central governments, on-going civil wars and power struggles, as well as drug wars.

But you would have us believe that Canadian women would be safer if the nation were to follow the example of the US.

[JuniperWoolf]

You're arguing for arming Canadians in the same manner as Americans based upon unrealistic fear-mongering and little else.

Unrealistic fear-mongering? You mean like "boy, them guns sure do look scary?" Like Dark Star said, if you're trying to ban something, it's up to YOU to provide reasons for why it should be banned. Since every American state except one legalized Right to Carry laws, has America devolved into the Wild West? Has crime even increased slightly? No, it hasn't. So where's YOUR logic?


Is Canada headed toward becoming the crime capital of the world?

It doesn't have to be, whether it IS the crime capital of the world or not doesn't matter to a woman who is being raped. All that matters to her is the crime that's currently occuring.


...and yet have never found myself feeling that I need to go about with a handgun strapped to my thigh like Jesse James.

Another attempt at pigeonholing all pro-gun people as cowboys, eh? How tired.


According to the statistics, Canada's murder rate is approximately 1.5 persons per 100,000. That places it among the safest nations in the world along with Austria, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany Australia, Morocco, New Zealand, Finland, Lebanon, Poland, Portugal, China, France, Slovenia, Iceland, Bahraine, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, etc... Now guess what? All of these nations share one thing in common: strict gun laws.

Yeah, I don't have time to research all of those other nations (some of which, such as China and Saudi Arabia, don't have governments which can be trusted to publish accurate statistics regarding crime, not to mention you want to talk about instances of RAPE and STONING WOMEN TO DEATH FOR BEING RAPED in Saudi Arabia? Don't use that as an example of a utopian gun-free society with me, maybe it might be better for that country if the murder rate did increase. Violence against women isn't even a crime in Saudi Arabia so yeah, no **** their crime rate is low), but I do off the top of my head know a thing or two about the gun laws in Switzerland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqbiAmkfgU), the country with the lowest crime rate in the world (and anyone who was wondering what use assault rifles could have might want to watch this short youtube video).

Also, has the murder and crime rates in the United States increased or decreased in the 10-15ish years since nearly every state passed concealed carry laws? On what are you even basing this assumption that the crime and murder rates in Canada will increase if we pass similar laws? That hasn't been the situation in a single one of the places where concealed carry laws were passed.

One more thing: bare homicide statistics are blind and don't really say much, which might be a moot point since they have decreased everywhere in North America, but this must be said because it's an important point. Criminals killing other criminals is by far the most common kind of homicide, and that isn't affected in the slightest by concealed carry laws. The concern here is rape, assault and a certain kind of homicide (innocent people being killed by criminals). If more criminals and rapists were killed in Canada by licensed people carrying perfectly legal firearms who are within their own rights and acting to protect themselves or their families or other innocent citizens, and as a result there were less good people being killed, assaulted and raped, I would be comfortable with that.


And pepper spray is really illegal in Canada? That's ridiculous.

Tell me about it. We're allowed to buy "bear spray" which is essentially the same thing, but we can't carry it in the city (that doesn't stop many women from doing so though, even though the cannister is huge - I know a girl named Shannon who carries one around in her gigantic purse everywhere she goes). Also here's a funny thing, the government does issue a very small number of concealed carry licenses to people who live in the woods to protect themselves from "wildlife" (to give you an idea of how rare these licenses are, our most populated province is Ontario and there are only thirteen people with concealed carry licenses in the entire province), but no where in the law is the concept of people protecting themselves from other people in an urban setting addressed. It's like the government thinks that if they just ignore it, it won't exist. "No, no, Canadians don't ever need to defend themselves from other Canadians, we're so polite after all, they just need to defend themselves from... bears! Yeah, that's it, bears!"


I'm really starting to like you.

Isn't it cool how things like that can change?



This brought to mind a whole new issue. What about people who can't handle guns, like me? I can't physically operate a gun, it's impossible. I'd say it puts me at a bit of a disadvantage in a potential gun-toting country, no?

Well, two things. First, the only people who know that you can't operate a gun are you and the people you tell. A criminal has no idea whether or not you have a concealed weapon on you, so it's strongly argued that even if you can't or choose not to carry a firearm there's a deterrence effect. Secondly, I'll give you an example. Say you're in a restaurant, and a guy pulls out a gun and starts shooting people. You might very soon be one of the people getting shot, there's not a cop to be seen and you don't have a gun to take him out - but maybe five other people in the restaurant do, good people with licenses to carry who have passed their background check and all of their registration courses, and who know how to use a handgun. Are you better or worse off in that situation than you would be if no one in the restaurant had a gun except the criminal? People can't rely on a police officer showing up during every situation in which a crime is occuring, we need to be able to protect ourselves and each other.

By the way, I didn't invent that scenario off the top of my head, it really happened. I'll post an article here when I'm off work.

[Delta40]

I would have to say, living in Australia it makes no sense to suddenly go all pro gun when the statistics don't support the argument. Will the introduction of guns decrease crime? I haven't seen any stats which show a gun carrying nation substantially decreases the crime rate, neither am I aware that sociologically people feel safer, securer, happier walking on the streets knowing that everyone is carrying a lethal weapon - that they have a right to blow the brains out of anyone who looks suspicious and call it self-defense. Sometimes its hard to see the wood for the trees. Its so absolutely foreign to me its unbelievable!

Why would a country that has strict gun laws want to 'fix what isn't broken?'

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Juniper-

I know how mich you and stlukes like to get in your squabbles, but aren't you kind of ignoring the numbers of countries with gun laws and the numbers that show ,oat nations with stricter gun control, like Canada, have a lower number of violent crimes? The US's crime rate may have gone down since so many states passed the conceal and carry laws, but it's still way higher than other nations without such laws.

As to me being able to use guns, interesting points, though I don't think a criminal is going to have trouble realizing I can't use a gun--it's pretty obvious.

[JuniperWoolf]

I know how mich you and stlukes like to get in your squabbles, but aren't you kind of ignoring the numbers of countries with gun laws and the numbers that show ,oat nations with stricter gun control, like Canada, have a lower number of violent crimes? The US's crime rate may have gone down since so many states passed the conceal and carry laws, but it's still way higher than other nations without such laws.

Again, Switzerland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqbiAmkfgU). Lowest crime rate in the world. Assault rifles abound, and while they don't have concealed carry laws, they have a similar system and I like it, it works. Show me a gun-free nation that's safer than Switzerland, and while you're at it show me a nation who's crime rate increased as gun laws became more lax (see how it works both ways?). Also, I was making these points before Stlukes tromped in here. I don't care about him, I care about human rights (namely the right to defend yourself and your family, and your potential ability to defend your nation from tyranical governments) and womens' safety.

And "lower number" is kind of ancillary, since we have less people, but anyway... I don't have time to research the other countries he's told me are "safer" than the United States, but I don't think I buy that a woman in Saudi Arabia is safer than a woman in the US. If he SO obviously obfuscated that truth, why should I automatically swallow that the other countries he's listed are "safer?"

Also, he didn't say "less violent crimes," he said "less homicides." As I've already said here, that's unclear and easy to misinterpret:


One more thing: bare homicide statistics are blind and don't really say much, which might be a moot point since they have decreased everywhere in North America, but this must be said because it's an important point. Criminals killing other criminals is by far the most common kind of homicide, and that isn't affected in the slightest by concealed carry laws. The concern here is rape, assault and a certain kind of homicide (innocent people being killed by criminals). If more criminals and rapists were killed in Canada by licensed people carrying perfectly legal firearms who are within their own rights and acting to protect themselves or their families or other innocent citizens, and as a result there were less good people being killed, assaulted and raped, I would be comfortable with that.

...Plus it's estimated that only 3/10 rape cases in Canada are reported. Numbers aren't solid, inarguable things in any case, and in this situation they aren't even clearly pointing in one direction or the other, BOTH sides have ample stats backing them up so we have to use something else to make a judgement. Actually, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rkSS6Y_7Y)'s a really cool Bullsh*t episode about numbers which explains that point better than I could in this short little post.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I was just kidding with my stlukes comment.

And, fine, Switzerland is the exception. That doesn't invalidate the other nations with strict gun-control laws with low crime (violent, homicide, whatever) rates. And I don't know about Saudi-Arabia. Didn't read where that was mentioned.

And I believe Canada has a lower number and lower percentage.

Anyways, like I said, I'm not completely against guns, just assault rifles, which no one has given a good reason for legalization, aside from oddball Switzerland.

[Alexander III]

Juniper-

I know how mich you and stlukes like to get in your squabbles, but aren't you kind of ignoring the numbers of countries with gun laws and the numbers that show ,oat nations with stricter gun control, like Canada, have a lower number of violent crimes? The US's crime rate may have gone down since so many states passed the conceal and carry laws, but it's still way higher than other nations without such laws.

As to me being able to use guns, interesting points, though I don't think a criminal is going to have trouble realizing I can't use a gun--it's pretty obvious.

Look on the brightside though, yes you can use a gun, but if America begins a new war and re-instates conscription (like in vietnam) you are exempt, and thus dont have to die for you country. So yea, you loose some you win some.

[JuniperWoolf]

I was just kidding with my stlukes comment.

*cringe* I hate it when I don't get jokes.


And, fine, Switzerland is the exception. That doesn't invalidate the other nations with strict gun-control laws with low crime (violent, homicide, whatever) rates.

It's not an exception, it's an example. This is the safest nation in the world and in 2001 there were 420,000 assault rifles stored in private homes. This clearly proves that the presense of assault rifles doesn't compromise the safety of a nation's citizens. The fact that other nations with strict gun-control laws also have low crime rates (but not as low) can be explained using the fact that MOST nations are experiencing lowering crime rates, and MOST nations have strict gun laws. The one nation that doesn't (barring the US, which also happens to have the largest income disparity, and violence is clearly associated with socioeconomic status - NOT the presence of guns) has the LOWEST crime rate. I'm not saying that it's low crime rate is a direct result of the presence of assault rifles (actually I'm saying that violence is due to income disparity), the implication here is that the presence of guns isn't to blame for violence. If it were, Switzerland would experience more violent crime.


And I don't know about Saudi-Arabia. Didn't read where that was mentioned.



That places it among the safest nations in the world along with Austria, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany Australia, Morocco, New Zealand, Finland, Lebanon, Poland, Portugal, China, France, Slovenia, Iceland, Bahraine, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, etc...

[Dark Star]

A quick note on the subject of nations with strict gun control laws having lower crime rates:

In most cases, these nations have not always had strict gun laws, yet they've typically always had lower crime rates than the US to a large number of sociological factors in play here that aren't in play there. There would be a much better case for arguing for gun control if one would look at the pre and post gun ban stats on these nations and see if there was an increase or decrease in murder rates, assaults, rapes, break ins, and other such crimes. If one doesn't do this they're simply harping away at a bad argument by ignoring the effect (or lack thereof) guns actually had on crime in those countries.

[Calidore]

As to me being able to use guns, interesting points, though I don't think a criminal is going to have trouble realizing I can't use a gun--it's pretty obvious.

Haven't you seen Evil Dead II? Strapped-on chainsaw!

[Dark Star]

Haven't you seen Evil Dead II? Strapped-on chainsaw!

Glad to see some humor here!:biggrin5:

[stlukesguild]

Unrealistic fear-mongering? You mean like "boy, them guns sure do look scary?" Like Dark Star said, if you're trying to ban something, it's up to YOU to provide reasons for why it should be banned. Since every American state except one legalized Right to Carry laws, has America devolved into the Wild West? Has crime even increased slightly? No, it hasn't. So where's YOUR logic?

Please do make an attempt to use some degree of logic on your own without having to have it all spelled out. Has the US devolved into the Wild West? Of course, such is an exaggeration... but the fact that the US... which has never been without the right to bear arms... guns... has a murder rate 4 times higher than Canada and most of Western Europe and much of Asia where guns are highly controlled suggests that there may just be a link between guns and the murder rate. Logic also suggests that you do not use the example of a nation with a higher murder rate than Canada's to argue that you should follow their example in order to decrease crime.

It doesn't have to be, whether it IS the crime capital of the world or not doesn't matter to a woman who is being raped. All that matters to her is the crime that's currently occuring.

Ooh, yeah... that's a real strong argument for arming the nation as a whole. It MAY deter some incidents of rape... but at the cost of a likely large increase in the murder rate, successful suicides, and accidental killings. Most laws are based upon some logic and even data looking at what is gained vs cost. Automobiles kill far more people per year than handguns, but this loss is measured against gain in mobility and increased productivity. Your argument in favor of the right to go about armed is based on nothing more than a personal desire to play Annie Oakley.

Also, has the murder and crime rates in the United States increased or decreased in the 10-15ish years since nearly every state passed concealed carry laws? On what are you even basing this assumption that the crime and murder rates in Canada will increase if we pass similar laws? That hasn't been the situation in a single one of the places where concealed carry laws were passed.

I had assumed (my mistake) that individuals participating upon a literature forum did have enough ability in reading comprehension to understand data without having to have it spelled out for them. Again, the US has never been without the right to bear arms. All that the Conceal/Carry laws have changed is the right to carry concealed weapons at all times. Many states have long allowed individuals to carry weapons as long as they were licensed and the weapon was kept in plain view (as in a gun rack on the back of a pick-up). We are not talking about a sudden switch from strong restrictions on handguns to suddenly having the right to bear arms. Most adults, barring a criminal record or mental illness have always been able to easily purchase a weapon. A good many of the States (especially is the North) have only recently adopted Conceal/Carry laws. The impact of these laws will undoubtedly take time to register. At the same time, most states have more restrictive laws than in the past including a 3 day waiting list, a database of those with a criminal background who are ineligible to legally purchase guns, required gun safety courses, etc... When I was a teen, we were able to buy guns the same day from the sporting goods department at K-Mart. They sold handguns off racks in plastic wrap like cap-guns. All of these facts go into impacting the statistics of gun deaths in the US.

One more thing: bare homicide statistics are blind and don't really say much, which might be a moot point since they have decreased everywhere in North America, but this must be said because it's an important point. Criminals killing other criminals is by far the most common kind of homicide, and that isn't affected in the slightest by concealed carry laws. The concern here is rape, assault and a certain kind of homicide (innocent people being killed by criminals). If more criminals and rapists were killed in Canada by licensed people carrying perfectly legal firearms who are within their own rights and acting to protect themselves or their families or other innocent citizens, and as a result there were less good people being killed, assaulted and raped, I would be comfortable with that.

Again... as a teacher all I can say is please give some degree of effort toward improving your reading comprehension:

According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children and 18,000 suicides by handgun...

Again, you are calling for arming the nation based upon little more than fear-mongering. Canada currently holds one of the lowest murder rates in the world. The US rate is 4 times higher. Rape? Canada again holds one of the lowest rates in the world: 1.6 per 100,000 vs the US rate of 27.5 per 100,000. You forget the fact that while you may purchase a gun to protect yourself, the robbers and rapists are quite likely just as well armed and likely more experienced in using their weapons.

[stlukesguild]

Why would a country that has strict gun laws want to 'fix what isn't broken?'

It makes them feel more "manly".

[stlukesguild]

violence is clearly associated with socioeconomic status

Ummm... what socio-economic factors are we speaking of here? The US, last I looked, was still the wealthiest nation in the world by far. Certainly, we have poverty... but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Western nation that doesn't have it's poverty and accompanying increase in crime. In spite of this, the murder rate and the rape rate in the US is far higher than it is is most of the rest of the modernized Post-Industrial world... and yet you are using the US as a model for Canada... calling for loosening of gun laws. It would be challenging to discern any logic behind that position other than a personal desire to play with guns.

[tonywalt]

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the US and has been for decades, but has now and continues to have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Also, from my experience, they have high gun ownership rates.

Violence is not associated with economic status, otherwise Appalachian areas would be as riddled with crime.

I have never had anyone explain (without studdering and fumbling all over the place) the reason for this.

Also, rural areas of Arkansas have/had high poverty rates and low crime - and again a tradition of gun ownership.

http://wvcommerce.org/people/liveability/default.aspx

[Alexander III]

violence is clearly associated with socioeconomic status

Ummm... what socio-economic factors are we speaking of here? The US, last I looked, was still the wealthiest nation in the world by far. Certainly, we have poverty... but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Western nation that doesn't have it's poverty and accompanying increase in crime. In spite of this, the murder rate and the rape rate in the US is far higher than it is is most of the rest of the modernized Post-Industrial world... and yet you are using the US as a model for Canada... calling for loosening of gun laws. It would be challenging to discern any logic behind that position other than a personal desire to play with guns.

As was aid before, America is rich yes, but the socioeconomic disparity between the poor and the rich is enourmous. In Europe post wwII, socialism was major, and because of this socialism there is far far less socioeconomic disparity in Italy France england Germany ect, compared to the united states. In europe health care is free, universities are subsidized by the state (in America undergrad can be as much as 40,000 a year in $ while in europe the highest it can be is roughly 10,000 Euros) Also in all european countries every has a pension granted by the goverment.

These socialist policies ahve resulted in two main things. Less socioeconomic disparity, and much less class warefare, but these ploicies have also bankrupted europe to a far greater extent than America. Greece has already gone down and Italy and Spain risky defaulting soon, only the EU could cover Greeces debts, but it cant cover Italy or Spains. Now there will be a huge rise in violence in europe, due to vastly growing socioeconomic differences.

[Alexander III]

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the US and has been for decades, but has now and continues to have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Also, from my experience, they have high gun ownership rates.

Violence is not associated with economic status, otherwise Appalachian areas would be as riddled with crime.

I have never had anyone explain (without studdering and fumbling all over the place) the reason for this.

Also, rural areas of Arkansas have/had high poverty rates and low crime - and again a tradition of gun ownership.

http://wvcommerce.org/people/liveability/default.aspx

Why does socio-economic disparity result in increased crime and violence?

It seems obvious to me.

[tonywalt]

Alex,

Sorry, my point was that there was no economic link, thus my West Virginia example. I might be misreading your post.

Tony

[Calidore]

Just a thought: The difference may be more socio than economic. On the on hand you have a "people of the earth" culture (hunters, farmers, etc.) with a tradition of legal and responsible gun ownership vs. disaffected and bored city and town folks with a tradition of, shall we say, illegal and irresponsible gun ownership.

[Babyguile]

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the US and has been for decades, but has now and continues to have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Also, from my experience, they have high gun ownership rates.

Violence is not associated with economic status, otherwise Appalachian areas would be as riddled with crime.

I have never had anyone explain (without studdering and fumbling all over the place) the reason for this.

Also, rural areas of Arkansas have/had high poverty rates and low crime - and again a tradition of gun ownership.

http://wvcommerce.org/people/liveability/default.aspx

Why do you have to take things to their extremes in order to try and devalue what was a solid point?

[tonywalt]

Just a thought: The difference may be more socio than economic. On the on hand you have a "people of the earth" culture (hunters, farmers, etc.) with a tradition of legal and responsible gun ownership vs. disaffected and bored city and town folks with a tradition of, shall we say, illegal and irresponsible gun ownership.

You are right "Country folk" have a tradition of legality and responsibility and "City folk" are bored, and have tendencies to do illegal things and act irresponsibly.

Having been to various inner cities in the US, I agree.

[tonywalt]

Why do you have to take things to their extremes in order to try and devalue what was a solid point?

I don't think that my view that there is no economic connection between crime and poverty is extreme. I just disagree with the whole socio-economic loophole that has crept into our culture as an excuse or reason to act criminally.

[BienvenuJDC]

Why does socio-economic disparity result in increased crime and violence?

It seems obvious to me.

Maybe there are other aspects to the demographics and culture of those areas that are being overlooked.

[tonywalt]

Maybe there are other aspects to the demographics and culture of those areas that are being overlooked.

True, there may be other aspects.

Anyway, we have these discussions and it is good to kind of disagree a bit, but I get a bit wrapped up in it. On reflection, I don't really wanted to argue with other Onliters. Eh, I'm just going to go down the street and have a few drinks with friends:wave:

[miyako73]

The anthropologist in me screams open-mindedness and cultural relativity. Cases of marriage by capture or bride kidnapping among Hmong traditionalists and those in Eastern Europe who practice it go against our negative notions about rape. Raped brides end up dutiful wives to responsible husbands. Who are we to dismiss such experience as violent and not cultural?

[OrphanPip]

Hold up a second.

There are some pretty loose use of poverty statistics going on here. Rural poverty does correlate with crime rates. However, the reason why largely urban states often have higher crime rates over all is because of, 1. the number of poor in absolute terms is much higher, 2. the concentration of poverty plays a major role, and 3. the presence of other mitigating factors.

There is ample research that finds that incidental poverty, like pockets of poverty amongst reasonably well to do people, do not lead to the social problems that poverty causes.

It's difficult to find data on specifically rural crime rates in the US.

I was able to find this on West Virginia:
http://www.erces.com/journal/articles/archives/volume3/v02/v02.htm

This paper finds that the same correlation between poverty and crime occurs in rural areas as well.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In all fairness, everyone, crime can hardly be blamed on one thing. Socio-economics, guns, social relations, culture in general--all are going to play a role in crime rates. To point to one thing and say "this is what causes crime" is a bit silly, isn't it?

Look on the brightside though, yes you can use a gun, but if America begins a new war and re-instates conscription (like in vietnam) you are exempt, and thus dont have to die for you country. So yea, you loose some you win some.
Don't think I haven't thought about that. Other upsides of being disabled: good parking spaces and an unreasonable amount of leeway when it comes to rules.


I think my feelings on rape and gun control have been pretty thoroughly expressed, but I will say one more thing about Switzerland. If my limited understanding is correct, everyone (or maybe every household) is required to have an assault rifle (just as everyone is mandated to serve to years in their military), so along with everyone having assault rifles they'll also have a very through understanding of them. Plus, I'm betting the one of the reasons they have the lowest crime rate is because everyone knows everyone else has a assault rifle; it's not even a choice for them, so they know whoever they're going to mess with is going to also have a big gun. It's like why Russia and the US didn't bomb each other during the Cold War--mutatually assured destruction. This isn't the case for the US, and won't be the case for other nations. Some people are going to have assault rifles, some people aren't; some people aren't
even able to afford assault rifles. Just becaus a nation has loss fun-control laws doesn't mean everyone gets a gun.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Switzerland's situation has a lot more factors than go into it than them just having assault rifles, and that's why it's a bit deceiving to try and use that one nation as proof that more guns equals less crime.

[stlukesguild]

The anthropologist in me screams open-mindedness and cultural relativity. Cases of marriage by capture or bride kidnapping among Hmong traditionalists and those in Eastern Europe who practice it go against our negative notions about rape. Raped brides end up dutiful wives to responsible husbands. Who are we to dismiss such experience as violent and not cultural?

I'm sorry... I don't buy it. There are African tribes who traditionally circumcise women. There are traditions in some other African cultures for the brothers of a deceased man to all rape his surviving wife. There are traditions in various American urban gangs to gang rape women as part of initiation into this group. That doesn't mean we must accept these behaviors as appropriate.

[KCurtis]

I knew this thread would get off track, the original argument was about rape, and then a discussion on how we, as women, can protect ourselves. Juniper is correct about Switzerland. Ofcourse the U.S. is different, more complicated, and a much larger country. But the question remains- in the U.S., I can legally carry a gun to protect myself, and I would if I needed to. This is our right as a citizen of the U.S. All Juniper is saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that it should be a personal right, regardless of what the rape statistics are. And there are no reliable sources that tell me that the murder rate goes up when responsible citizens own guns. You can make the laws more stringent, (they should be in the U.S.), and require people to take strict gun ownership responsibility classes, as is required in Switzerland.
And to expand on this a bit, just imagine if, in the 1960's in Alabama and other southern states, if black families did not own guns. More would have been killed. They were within their rights to protect themselves. They had neighborhood watches in Alabama during those awful killings of the students and 4 young girls, and these were organized and ARMED watches.

[Delta40]

KCurtis is right that it is an apples and oranges argument to compare countries. Western or not, we do still differ in our cultural values and outlook. However, rape is something which doesn't only occur in the US and given that not all women have the so called luxury of arming themselves with a gun. So what do we do in a more international practical way?

[Alexander III]

The anthropologist in me screams open-mindedness and cultural relativity. Cases of marriage by capture or bride kidnapping among Hmong traditionalists and those in Eastern Europe who practice it go against our negative notions about rape. Raped brides end up dutiful wives to responsible husbands. Who are we to dismiss such experience as violent and not cultural?

I'm sorry... I don't buy it. There are African tribes who traditionally circumcise women. There are traditions in some other African cultures for the brothers of a deceased man to all rape his surviving wife. There are traditions in various American urban gangs to gang rape women as part of initiation into this group. That doesn't mean we must accept these behaviors as appropriate.

To which the questions begs, why? I know you are not a moral relativist, and the entire premise lays on that: but I personally shall never understand why, who am I to say that my culture is superior to all other human ones. Are not our customs equally barbaric in their eyes. Not to look far, but take a 18th century man of education, and our society will appear completley repugnant in his eyes. Naturaly as men of our times we aught to procaliam that our morality is better, but I cannot, for I do not feel that it is true.

You say it is a custom in a tribe for a dead man's brother to rape his wife, if we were to look into it, the custom would have a reason, and I am sure we could all with a certain open eye find beauty in that custom.

As always I am foolish and childish in my beliefs, I suppose.

[Buh4Bee]

At least you know you are a fool. Get off your pedestal and look at the world- particularly, those who are suffering. Open your eyes and see, Prince or not, you're no different than anyone else. Arrogance isn't going to keep you from the grave.

It's not a matter of cultural superiority, it is a matter of education. We know from research the consequences of certain acts that lead to dire levels of oppression, rape, and destitution. This is based on humanitarian rights- the right to exist as a normal person in any society.

For example, women who are mutilated as a coming of age ceremony can spend he rest of their lives experiencing health problems, reduced libido, and pain. Women who are victims of these cultural practices and survive speak out against the practice.

[NikolaiI]

You say it is a custom in a tribe for a dead man's brother to rape his wife, if we were to look into it, the custom would have a reason, and I am sure we could all with a certain open eye find beauty in that custom.

There is no beauty in that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I knew this thread would get off track, the original argument was about rape, and then a discussion on how we, as women, can protect ourselves. Juniper is correct about Switzerland. Ofcourse the U.S. is different, more complicated, and a much larger country. But the question remains- in the U.S., I can legally carry a gun to protect myself, and I would if I needed to. This is our right as a citizen of the U.S. All Juniper is saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that it should be a personal right, regardless of what the rape statistics are. And there are no reliable sources that tell me that the murder rate goes up when responsible citizens own guns. You can make the laws more stringent, (they should be in the U.S.), and require people to take strict gun ownership responsibility classes, as is required in Switzerland.
And to expand on this a bit, just imagine if, in the 1960's in Alabama and other southern states, if black families did not own guns. More would have been killed. They were within their rights to protect themselves. They had neighborhood watches in Alabama during those awful killings of the students and 4 young girls, and these were organized and ARMED watches.
Too bad guns aren't restricted to responsible citizens. We try, but it doesn't work.

To which the questions begs, why? I know you are not a moral relativist, and the entire premise lays on that: but I personally shall never understand why, who am I to say that my culture is superior to all other human ones. Are not our customs equally barbaric in their eyes. Not to look far, but take a 18th century man of education, and our society will appear completley repugnant in his eyes. Naturaly as men of our times we aught to procaliam that our morality is better, but I cannot, for I do not feel that it is true.

You say it is a custom in a tribe for a dead man's brother to rape his wife, if we were to look into it, the custom would have a reason, and I am sure we could all with a certain open eye find beauty in that custom.

As always I am foolish and childish in my beliefs, I suppose.
Yes! I often ponder the elusive beauty of rape and brutal female circumcision. Who am I to judge, after all? Their cultures say women need to be circumcised, their women raped. That's food enough for me! It's so beautiful.

[stlukesguild]

Well hell... we already know Alex POV on the Holocaust: nothing wrong with cooking a few million Jews if that's your thing. I mean who are we to impose our standards upon others?

[Babyguile]

I don't think that my view that there is no economic connection between crime and poverty is extreme. I just disagree with the whole socio-economic loophole that has crept into our culture as an excuse or reason to act criminally.

So you are disagreeing with a fact because of a personal paranoia? I regard it as only a healthy thing if governments understand that poverty and inequality leads to crime. What I would be paranoid about is if we are actually living in a society where we see people who commit crime at certain points in their lives, things like petty theft and even fraud, as fundamentally "evil", and have a natural propensity to act criminally. It's a very convenient scape-goat already being used by our government to endorse the idea that "imperfections" among people are a matter of genetics and out of governing control and accountability. I'm not trying to justify crime; crime is wrong. But while crime exists let's actually get what causes it. it's not the whole story to claim it is in people's nature: the fact is society shapes individuals to a very large degree. Even genetics themselves can alter under neglectful circumstances. It's a really interesting field of research.

[cacian]

You say it is a custom in a tribe for a dead man's brother to rape his wife, if we were to look into it, the custom would have a reason, and I am sure we could all with a certain open eye find beauty in that custom.


You have to be kidding to think that there is beauty in sexual violence.
A custom that encourages rape because someone has just died especially between brothers is utterly repugnant and needs serious looking into.
The only conclusion I can deduct from this awfull act is lunacy. One has to be totally out of their mind to think this is a custom. Let it be dead and be done with it.
Just because it has a custom as its title does not make it right, I do not care where the idea comes from it is not custom. Acts like this undermine language and strip the word of its meaning.

[KCurtis]

KCurtis is right that it is an apples and oranges argument to compare countries. Western or not, we do still differ in our cultural values and outlook. However, rape is something which doesn't only occur in the US and given that not all women have the so called luxury of arming themselves with a gun. So what do we do in a more international practical way?

Good question. Physical self defense taught by a highly qualified instructor is all I can think of- I wish I had done this when I was young.

[KCurtis]

Too bad guns aren't restricted to responsible citizens. We try, but it doesn't work.


I know, there is no way we can get rid of this problem- the illegal gun trade will always be there.

[KCurtis]

You say it is a custom in a tribe for a dead man's brother to rape his wife, if we were to look into it, the custom would have a reason, and I am sure we could all with a certain open eye find beauty in that custom.



? I don't understand.

[KCurtis]

At least you know you are a fool. Get off your pedestal and look at the world- particularly, those who are suffering. Open your eyes and see, Prince or not, you're no different than anyone else. Arrogance isn't going to keep you from the grave.

It's not a matter of cultural superiority, it is a matter of education. We know from research the consequences of certain acts that lead to dire levels of oppression, rape, and destitution. This is based on humanitarian rights- the right to exist as a normal person in any society.

For example, women who are mutilated as a coming of age ceremony can spend he rest of their lives experiencing health problems, reduced libido, and pain. Women who are victims of these cultural practices and survive speak out against the practice.

I would hope that he already knows this, or could logically come to the conclusion that this is so..... maybe not.
Prince ?? The only Prince I am remotely interested in listening to changed his name to something like this; & give or take a few other lines and dots thrown in there.

[JuniperWoolf]

Has the US devolved into the Wild West? Of course, such is an exaggeration...

Then why do you keep making incessant cowboy references? Cowboys are lame, at least use some cool cultural gun reference to do your pigeonholeing. Steampunk, maybe.


but the fact that the US... which has never been without the right to bear arms... guns... has a murder rate 4 times higher than Canada and most of Western Europe and much of Asia where guns are highly controlled suggests that there may just be a link between guns and the murder rate.

Actually, that doesn't say anything, because:


In most cases, these nations have not always had strict gun laws, yet they've typically always had lower crime rates than the US to a large number of sociological factors in play here that aren't in play there. There would be a much better case for arguing for gun control if one would look at the pre and post gun ban stats on these nations and see if there was an increase or decrease in murder rates, assaults, rapes, break ins, and other such crimes. If one doesn't do this they're simply harping away at a bad argument by ignoring the effect (or lack thereof) guns actually had on crime in those countries.

And also, you can't infer a causal effect between the presence of firearms and violence. Go on, try. Try anything, besides petty insults and wild assumptions, which is all you've done throughout this entire thread. You can't even make a clear correlation, given the fact that the majority of countries with both lax and tight gun laws are experienceing decreasing crime rates in the present world.

Also, you're ignoring Switzerland's low crime rate despite their lax gun laws and the fact that you claimed that Saudi Arabia is "safe" for women because they have strict gun laws. If you ignore arguments, they don't just go away.


It MAY deter some incidents of rape... but at the cost of a likely large increase in the murder rate, successful suicides, and accidental killings.

"Likely" according to what? Another random assumption. The "likely large increase" in the murder and suicide rate (Suicide, are you serious? If I wanted to kill myself and it was illegal to carry a gun to the place I wanted to die, assuming I have an aversion to dying at home which is the only instance in which Concealed Carry laws would have any sort of bearing, what are they going to do, arrest me? What a poor argument) hasn't happened in the places where Concealed Carry laws have been allowed. They've decreased steadily over the last twenty years since they've been passed, as the crime rate has been doing for decades in all parts of the first world for VARIOUS reasons that don't have any correlational tie to gun laws, which I didn't think I'd have to mention again but apparently I was wrong. So what are you talking about?


Most laws are based upon some logic and even data looking at what is gained vs cost. Automobiles kill far more people per year than handguns, but this loss is measured against gain in mobility and increased productivity. Your argument in favor of the right to go about armed is based on nothing more than a personal desire to play Annie Oakley.

The irony that I'm the one who first brough up Annie Oakley to point out the ridiculousness of your stereotyping shouldn't be lost on anyone here, but anyway... actually the gain in this case would be the right for people to protect themselves and their families from criminals and also the right for citizens as a whole to protect themselves from a potentially tyranical government, and this is the third time I've said this.


All of these facts go into impacting the statistics of gun deaths in the US.

How? Proof? Anything implying a causal relationship?


Again... as a teacher all I can say is please give some degree of effort toward improving your reading comprehension.

And as a human all I can say is that when you act like a jerk, all you manage to accomplish is making yourself look like a jerk. I wasn't going to say anything, but you keep trying so hard that if I don't address it it'll look like avoidance, so I'll give it a go: you don't have the ability to hurt my feelings, you're some random stranger on the internet and my self esteem is through the roof at the best of times. You can keep trying, but it's a wasted effort. Also, what are you, twelve? Stick to the issue, like an adult.


According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children and 18,000 suicides by handgun.

And you're saying that all of those 14,180 murders of police officers via gun were done so by criminals who, while willing to kill a police officer, aren't willing to carry a gun without a license? The majority of those 14,180 murders were commited with legally-acquired firearms and in the hands of people who were legally allowed to carry them in public, were they? Yes, let's make guns illegal, that'll stop people from shooting each other. Ooh! I have an idea, let's make suicide, rape and murder illegal also, that'll put an end to it!

How many criminals were shot by legally posessed firearms which inhibited them from commiting a violent crime? How many were deterred?

re. Accidental deaths, they're tragic (and the majority of them could be prevented if people took proper care) but 1100 deaths in a country in which 42 million (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full) homes posess guns is scientifically insignifigant. Assuming that each home has, let's say, three people in it, that's a 0.00087% risk that someone in your house will end up being accidently shot. If harping on that likelihood isn't fear mongering, I don't know what is. Unknown assailant style rape might be rare, but not that rare, considering that 1/3 (http://www.crisisinterventioncenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67:sa-statistics&catid=37:sexual-assault&Itemid=77) of women report being sexually assaulted over the course of their lifetimes (and sexual assault is notoriously under-reported). Also, violent crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime) is through the roof no matter how you look at it. And you're saying that I'm the one basing my opinion on insignificant data. In any case, how is children accidently shooting themselves and each other in the home signifigant to Concealed Carry laws, or are you arguing that posession of firearms be abolished altogether? The bulk of your arguments would strongly suggest so.

Also, which FBI statistics are you using, and for which year? Not that it matters as it's still statistically microscopic, but you're usually supposed to post a link. Most reports that I've found report between 100-150 accidental child deaths/year from guns.


Canada again holds one of the lowest rates in the world: 1.6 per 100,000 vs the US rate of 27.5 per 100,000.

Why does that matter? Canada is a more stable country for a number of reasons (although it's never been tied to our gun laws, which by the way are comparatively lax when compared to those of many other statistically less safe nations, such as the UK), and your typical "dark alley" rape is rare - but it still occurs, so women should have the legal right to defend themselves. You're trying to tell my why they shouldn't have that right, and you're giving me the obviously disproven creative thought exercise that it will somehow cause rape and violent crime to become more frequent.


Why would a country that has strict gun laws want to 'fix what isn't broken?'

It is broken. If you're limiting people's rights and there's no benefit to it, that's a broken system. Freedom is important to me, but the main reason why I want concealed carry in Canada is because I know and love people who have been violently raped, kidnapped and assaulted, people who know how to use guns and who would have been carrying one if it wasn't illegal. If banning guns doesn't prevent rape and assault, and legalizing Concealed Carry doesn't increase criminal activity, then why do these laws exist? Being a victim is rare especially as our world advances in this relatively peaceful time (which again, is NOT due to strict gun control, but a multitude of other factors - for not only is the idea that "the legal public posession of guns leads to violent crime" illogical when you really stop to consider it, it is also important to note that if this sentiment were true than countries such as Switzerland and indeed Canada would have a higher crime rate than nations which are more strict on guns, such as the UK), and as a result people who have never been attacked on the streets are able to forget the unlucky ones.


You forget the fact that while you may purchase a gun to protect yourself, the robbers and rapists are quite likely just as well armed and likely more experienced in using their weapons.

Arguable and assumptive, since:


First of all, anyone with a license to carry a sidearm should be made to take various courses teaching them how to use it, how to act in life-threatening situations, and what their legal rights are so they know what they're doing.

I swear, this thread will get to the point that all I have to do is quote previous posts.


The US, last I looked, was still the wealthiest nation in the world by far.

The wealthiest nation, yes; and with the greatest income gap, which you know. EVERYONE knows. The US has infamous economic problems. Your obfuscation is getting ridiculous, you don't even care about this topic do you? You just want to win.


If my limited understanding is correct, everyone (or maybe every household) is required to have an assault rifle (just as everyone is mandated to serve to years in their military), so along with everyone having assault rifles they'll also have a very through understanding of them. Plus, I'm betting the one of the reasons they have the lowest crime rate is because everyone knows everyone else has a assault rifle; it's not even a choice for them, so they know whoever they're going to mess with is going to also have a big gun.

They aren't forced to have an assault rifle, as far as I know no one comes to their house and says "let's see it" to make sure they have one, but the government pays for their training and buys them a gun which they're then allowed to keep. Isn't that a beauty of a system? And it's all because of what they saw in WWII and how they applied their logic. No one's ever going to try to force those people from their homes, that's for damn sure.


This isn't the case for the US, and won't be the case for other nations.

It could be. Why not?


I guess what I'm saying is this: Switzerland's situation has a lot more factors than go into it than them just having assault rifles, and that's why it's a bit deceiving to try and use that one nation as proof that more guns equals less crime.

I wasn't. I was arguing essentially the same thing you're arguing, but the argument goes both ways. That's what I was trying to make clear here:


I'm not saying that it's low crime rate is a direct result of the presence of assault rifles, the implication here is that the presence of guns isn't to blame for violence.

The presence of guns doesn't have a causal relationship to LESS crime, and it doesn't have a causal relationship to MORE crime, so we have to take other values into consideration in order to make our decision. Here, I'm arguing that it should be their right for people to protect themselves and their families (since cops can't are notoriously hard to find when a crime is occuring, usually criminals make sure of that), and for people as a whole to defend their nation from a potentially tyranical government.

re. The United States: not everyone has a gun on them obviously, but no one knows if they do or not as it is a Concealed Carry nation. It's strongly argued that if a criminal doesn't know if a person is or isn't armed this acts as a deterrance. They've come to this conclusion by interviewing gangsters in prison (they love gun laws that inhibit law abiding citizens to carry weapons apparently - less risk). I learned about it a good five or six years ago in highschool Social Studies, but I'll look for some proof.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp)'s the wiki article for the woman who's situation I was basing my example on earlier. She became a pro-gun advocate after her family, along with twenty one other people, were shot to death in a restaurant, while she had a handgun in her car but wasn't allowed to carry it on her into the building due to restrictive gun laws.


All Juniper is saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that it should be a personal right, regardless of what the rape statistics are. And there are no reliable sources that tell me that the murder rate goes up when responsible citizens own guns.

BINGO!!!


The anthropologist in me screams open-mindedness and cultural relativity. Cases of marriage by capture or bride kidnapping among Hmong traditionalists and those in Eastern Europe who practice it go against our negative notions about rape. Raped brides end up dutiful wives to responsible husbands. Who are we to dismiss such experience as violent and not cultural?

As with all questions of morality, it all comes down to what you value. Do you value social progress, freedom, minimising human suffering and the prevention of social upheaval (the implication here being that when people are forced into submissive positions in which they suffer, they will rebel against their situation as methods of communication imporve, which we saw in the Western World at the time of the suffragettes), or do you value "cultural tolerance" above all things? Personally, I think that your idea is born of the modern mindset of political-correctness-or-die.

Also, what benefit is there to a woman being "dutiful" to her husband? It doesn't improve the home situation if the wife is beaten and submissive, and it has a negative impact on the national economy if the women don't work and are forced not to have personal aspirations or confidence. If everyone is trying to be their best in life, then only THE BEST will succeed. Adding more people to the game makes things better, and in most countries, women constitute over 50% of the population - well, in the countries in which they aren't indiscriminately killed anyway, such as Saudi Arabia (*cough*).


Well hell... we already know Alex POV on the Holocaust: nothing wrong with cooking a few million Jews if that's your thing.

Um, when did he say that?

[stlukesguild]

you can't infer a causal effect between the presence of firearms and violence. Go on, try. Try anything, besides petty insults and wild assumptions, which is all you've done throughout this entire thread. You can't even make a clear correlation, given the fact that the majority of countries with both lax and tight gun laws are experienceing decreasing crime rates in the present world.

Unfortunately, that fact works both ways. You cannot prove that by arming Canada you will decrease the murder or rape statistics... or crime in general. The reality is that Canada's murder and rape rates (as well as those of most of the modernized nations with strict gun control laws) are well below those of the United States... and yet you would argue in favor of liberalizing Canada's gun laws by pointing to the US as a great example. That makes absolutely no logical sense. What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

"Likely" according to what? Another random assumption.

Is it an assumption. Well I guess in the sense that there is no absolute way to prove that the reason that the US crime rate stands well above that of Canada and almost every other modernized nation that has strict gun control laws... but it would seem like something of a logical assumption, as opposed to the nonsense you've been flinging about.

The "likely large increase" in the murder and suicide rate (Suicide, are you serious? If I wanted to kill myself and it was illegal to carry a gun to the place I wanted to die, assuming I have an aversion to dying at home which is the only instance in which Concealed Carry laws would have any sort of bearing, what are they going to do, arrest me? What a poor argument) hasn't happened in the places where Concealed Carry laws have been allowed.

Please do some research on subjects on which you are completely ignorant rather than simply tossing about the first thing that pops into your head. Its rather embarrassing. Studies have repeatedly shown that one of the reasons that men success at suicide more than women is because they tend to use far more effective means, such as guns, than women. A great majority of suicides are intended as a cry for help (overdoses, etc...). Access to a gun makes it all the more likely that a suicide attempt made in the spur of the moment... during some deep depression... will end up as a fatality.

As for your argument that the murder and suicide rate hasn't increased where Conceal Carry laws are in place... I already addressed this, but owing to your issues with reading comprehension or simply your desire to avoid any fact that counters your argument (you'd make a good (ie. bad) politician) I'll repeat myself. Conceal Carry laws have not existed in the majority of the US for anywhere near 20 years. The majority of US states only passed such laws in the late 1990s and 2000s following the rise of the Neo-Con movement in the US. In spite of this, US citizens have had the right to own and carry weapons for most of their history. In the past, one needed to transport the weapon openly (such as in a gun rack) and could not bring it into most public and private spaces (parks, schools, restaurants, bars, etc...) With Conceal Carry one is now allowed to carry weapons concealed (in purses, hand bags, jacket holsters, etc...) and bring it onto public and private properties. A vast majority of property owners and public spaces such as parks and schools have dealt with this simply by posting signs banning possession of such weapons upon the property in question. States have also set restrictions on gun sales, often requiring a background check, and a three day wait, as well as a requirement that the purchaser pass a gun safety course. What you end up with is the fact that there has been no huge change in access or freedom of gun use in the US. We are not looking at a nation with strict gun control laws that suddenly liberalized these laws to allow all citizens the right to own weapons. As such, its not surprising that the data one way or the other is inconclusive. On the other hand... as another member from Australia asked, "if it's not broke, why fix it?" This seems to be the central question that you cannot answer?

...the gain in this case would be the right for people to protect themselves and their families from criminals and also the right for citizens as a whole to protect themselves from a potentially tyranical government, and this is the third time I've said this.

And again you have failed to prove that: A. Crime is so rampant in Canada that it warrants such action B. The right to bear arms as it exists in the US has led to less crime than exists in Canada or other modernized nations with strict gun controls C. The right to bear arms has led to a decrease in crime in the US. As for the rise of a potentially tyrannical government, that would seem to be your own little paranoia, but as we have already pointed out, it's highly unlikely that citizens armed with handguns and rifles are likely to win a war against any modern Western military force under government control. Of course I could suggest you look into Idaho and Montana and a few other Western states where various underground White Supremacist Militias are arming themselves against the rising invasion of blacks and immigrants.

And as a human all I can say is that when you act like a dick, all you manage to accomplish is making yourself look like a dick.

Discussion ended... and duly reported.

[JuniperWoolf]

Unfortunately, that fact works both ways.

Yes, it does. And when you're given an example of a ban which has no apparent benefit OR cost, the answer is always to NOT inhibit the rights and freedoms of the people, not to limit them regardless when there is no benefit to doing so.


The reality is that Canada's murder and rape rates (as well as those of most of the modernized nations with strict gun control laws) are well below those of the United States...

Nations which DO AND DON'T have strict gun laws have crime rates below those of the United States, for various reasons which have nothing to do with gun laws.


and yet you would argue in favor of liberalizing Canada's gun laws by pointing to the US as a great example.

Actually the nation which I obviously wish to emulate is Switzerland (which you're still steadily ignoring), because they have the LOWEST crime rate in the world and they maintain their freedom to defend themselves, their families and their nation. My argument included the United States because after all but one passed concealed carry laws, the crime rate didn't increase as predicted, which made them a fitting example of the notion that concealed carry doesn't increase crime. What's not logical about that? It doesn't mean I want Canada to copy the United States justice system.


Is it an assumption. ... but it would seem like something of a logical assumption, as opposed to the nonsense you've been flinging about.

An assumption based on nothing is worth nothing, and on what are you basing your assumption that limiting law-abiding citizen's access to firearms is somehow going to decrease violent crime? You're ignoring the rationale that criminals DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW. If you make a law against guns, they don't follow it because breaking laws is what they do. Disarming potential victims only makes things easier for criminals. What do you think would happen tomorrow if every store clerk in the United States was forced to give up their weapon? Well, I assume you'd see a lot more store robberies, based on the theory that people don't like getting shot.


Access to a gun makes it all the more likely that a suicide attempt made in the spur of the moment... during some deep depression... will end up as a fatality.

I could argue, but why should I bother? Your insistance on this point has no bearing on the debate. How is inhibiting someone from taking a gun outside of their home stopping them from shooting themselves in the head?


Conceal Carry laws have not existed in most of the US for anywhere near 20 years.

Yes they have, as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif) GIF from wiki shows. Some have been in place for longer than 20 years, the majority for about seventeen years (which kind of IS close to 20 years, in case you failed grade two math).

American gun laws previous to concealed carry were comperable to those which Canada currently has, they really aren't very strict. We can have guns in our houses (some of which don't require any sort of registration) and in our cars, my dad trudges his through the woods. You're arguing that if gun laws become more relaxed in Canada the crime rate will climb, and there's an example in existance which shows that it didn't do so in a nation with a very similar culture, a very close demographic and similar gun laws. Tell me how that's irrelevant. The fact that the United States had a comparably high crime rate and still has a comparably high crime rate is irrelevant: what matters is the degree of change (CHANGE! That's what matters when you're analyzing data, the dependant variable in relation to the independant) what matters is whether or not there's a noticable change in crime rate (dependant) with a change in the law (independant). The gun laws in America have become much more lax since the early 90's (a significant degree of change), yet crime did not increase.

And if you still disagree and insist that all of this is "inconclusive," then I refer you to my first point at the top of this post.


On the other hand... as another member from Australia asked, "if it's not broke, why fix it?" This seems to be the central question that you cannot answer?

Actually I have answered it, just a few hours ago. Ironically, you fail at reading comprehension.


And again you have failed to prove that. A. Crime is so rampant in Canada that it warrants such action

The rate of crime doesn't matter and shouldn't influence a decision on this issue, which I've said several times now:


Why does that matter? Canada is a more stable country for a number of reasons (although it's never been tied to our gun laws, which by the way are comparatively lax when compared to those of many other statistically less safe nations, such as the UK), and your typical "dark alley" rape is rare - but it still occurs, so women should have the legal right to defend themselves. You're trying to tell my why they shouldn't have that right, and you're giving me the obviously disproven creative thought exercise that it will somehow cause rape and violent crime to become more frequent.


B. The right to bear arms as it exists in the US has led to less crime than exists in Canada or other modernized nations with strict gun controls C. The right to bear arms has led to a decrease in crime in the US.

Actually I've said that gun laws have nothing to do with the crime rate, several times. Criminals will commit crimes, they're criminals. The fact that Canada is more stable than the United States is due to many factors, but gun laws have never been successfully correlated to crime rates in any capacity, and if banning guns doesn't make people more safe then guns shouldn't be banned and people should have the legal right to make the concious decision to fight back against assailants.


As for the rise of a potentially tyrannical government, that would seem to be your own little paranoia, but as we have already pointed out, it's highly unlikely that citizens armed with handguns and rifles are likely to win a war against any modern Western military force under government control.

Really? A nation in which 420,000 homes contain assault rifles would be helpless if ever a WWII-like event were to occur again? I fail to see the logic behind that. And you're saying that fearing a potentially tyranical government in times of future economic and social upheaval is "paranoia?" There are still people alive today who were forced into concentration camps during WWII and into labor camps during the Cold War. Even if resistance did fail, I'd rather have a chance of protecting myself, my family, my property and my nation than to just say "oh, alright" and go along with it. Your whole "resistance is futile" attitide is more than a little sad.


duly reported.

****, my loose tongue is always my undoing, and not just on litnet. I knew you were pushing me so that I'd say something back in order to get the thread closed or nail some IP to me (or to have an excuse to stop posting, *ahem*), and yet I did anyway (so congratulations, I guess). I should have used the word jerk, or even "disrespectful" to be on the uber safe side. My point (which you ignored, as you often do) would have been maintained and I wouldn't have gotten too close to forum rules - although, I should point out that I didn't call you anything but rather that I said you are "acting" like a dick and detracting from the topic, which you are.

So if any mods are watching: um... sorry. Again.

[KCurtis]

stlukesguild,
This could have been a wonderful debate, although I did enjoy this thread immensly. Instead, you chose to insult Juniper, who had done a superb job here with her arguments, actually if this was a debate I would say she won. I wonder if ageism is involved somehow; I've seen it here before, where a young person will post an argument and an older person will resort to belittling, or trying to. I don't like it, as an older person one of the reasons I come here is to hear from young people, and as a teacher I would think you would too.
And to keep it on topic- there is nothing I enjoy more when I am watching the news is to learn that either a store owner has pulled out a gun and scared a robber away, or that an old granny has beaten up one-which has happened more than a few times lately. :crash:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This isn't the first time StLukes and Juniper have gone at it--I'm not sure what the genesis of their dislike for each other is. Frankly, it's always baffled me; they seem like two members who should get along just fine. I think they got into one argument and never forgot it, so any time either of them sees the opportunity to disagree with the other, they jump on it. I've had my share of LitNet posters in which I've done the same.

Really, though, it's not like StLukes's insults were all that bad. He compared her to Annie Oakly, big deal--that's almost not even an insult depending on how you look at it. Still, reporting juniper was a bit lame. I'll be pretty pissed if she ever gets banned.



re. The United States: not everyone has a gun on them obviously, but no one knows if they do or not as it is a Concealed Carry nation. It's strongly argued that if a criminal doesn't know if a person is or isn't armed this acts as a deterrance. They've come to this conclusion by interviewing gangsters in prison (they love gun laws that inhibit law abiding citizens to carry weapons apparently - less risk). I learned about it a good five or six years ago in highschool Social Studies, but I'll look for some proof.

Well, if a criminal not knowing whether or not someone has a gun is a deterrent, it must not be much of one.


I should point out that I didn't call you anything but rather that I said you are "acting" like a dick and detracting from the topic, which you are.

The mods don't make that distinction. If they did, I would be just fine.

[stlukesguild]

If Juniper ever gets banned it will have nothing to do with me, and everything to do with her habit of pushing the boundaries concerning personal insults. I somewhat suspect if I were to suggest that she was acting like the female equivalent of what she has suggested I am acting like, I'd be in for some serious infraction points... and deservedly so.

[KCurtis]

This isn't the first time StLukes and Juniper have gone at it--I'm not sure what the genesis of their dislike for each other is. Frankly, it's always baffled me; they seem like two members who should get along just fine. I think they got into one argument and never forgot it, so any time either of them sees the opportunity to disagree with the other, they jump on it. I've had my share of LitNet posters in which I've done the same.

Really, though, it's not like StLukes's insults were all that bad. He compared her to Annie Oakly, big deal--that's almost not even an insult depending on how you look at it. Still, reporting juniper was a bit lame. I'll be pretty pissed if she ever gets banned.

Well, if a criminal not knowing whether or not someone has a gun is a deterrent, it must not be much of one.

But it is one- the more criminals who know that when they go in to a store to rob it knowing that people are beginning to retaliate is a good thing, and it is starting to happen.


If Juniper ever gets banned it will have nothing to do with me, and everything to do with her habit of pushing the boundaries concerning personal insults. I somewhat suspect if I were to suggest that she was acting like the female equivalent of what she has suggested I am acting like, I'd be in for some serious infraction points... and deservedly so.

I haven't seen this, and you need to acknowledge your part in it.

[Alexander III]

If Juniper ever gets banned it will have nothing to do with me, and everything to do with her habit of pushing the boundaries concerning personal insults. I somewhat suspect if I were to suggest that she was acting like the female equivalent of what she has suggested I am acting like, I'd be in for some serious infraction points... and deservedly so.

.......


Well hell... we already know Alex POV on the Holocaust: nothing wrong with cooking a few million Jews if that's your thing. I mean who are we to impose our standards upon others?

http://play.esea.net/global/media_preview.php?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.c om%2F-B3e2bFEGviQ%2FT1n_sdSZwpI%2FAAAAAAAAFTM%2FuJY89qvs PSI%2Fs1600%2Fdafuq-did-i-just-read-meme.jpg

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But it is one- the more criminals who know that when they go in to a store to rob it knowing that people are beginning to retaliate is a good thing, and it is starting to happen.

Or criminals are just going to go into situations more willing to commit violence.

[Delta40]

This really should be a thread on guns as far as I'm concerned.

Are women responsible for getting raped? Not if they live in the US and carry a gun!!!!!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This really should be a thread on guns as far as I'm concerned.

Are women responsible for getting raped? Not if they live in the US and carry a gun!!!!!

The discussion on rape went ad far as it could go, i.e., that a woman isn't responsible no matter her appearance. What else is there to discuss when it comes to the OP?

[Delta40]

The discussion on rape went ad far as it could go, i.e., that a woman isn't responsible no matter her appearance. What else is there to discuss when it comes to the OP?

I'm sorry. I'll trust your judgment. By all means carry on the US gun discussion (I so ****ing care about that btw) and the thrilling saga between Juniper and St Luke

[stlukesguild]

Nations which DO AND DON'T have strict gun laws have crime rates below those of the United States, for various reasons which have nothing to do with gun laws.

The vast majority of the nations with both strict gun control laws and higher crime rates than the US tend to be third-world nations lacking a government that is able to consistently enforce any basic notion of control.

Actually the nation which I obviously wish to emulate is Switzerland (which you're still steadily ignoring), because they have the LOWEST crime rate in the world and they maintain their freedom to defend themselves, their families and their nation.

OK... let's look at the Swiss:

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30. Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.

In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

This doesn't sound anything like what exists in the US, nor your concept of Conceal/carry laws that would allow the citizen to walk around town fully armed.

Yes they have, as this GIF from wiki shows. Some have been in place for longer than 20 years, the majority for about seventeen years (which kind of IS close to 20 years, in case you failed grade two math).

I never loved math, but I can read a map... perhaps you have a degree of difficulty there? According to your GIF... and the Conceal?Carry article from which it comes there was one state in 1996 that allowed "Unrestricted" Conceal Carry... or the right to carry a concealed weapon without any license. At the same time, there were 5 other states, all largely rural with the exception of Illinois, that were under Shall Issue law. A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits. The rest of the nation fell under May-Issue:

(A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police). The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met. While an applicant must qualify for a permit by meeting criteria defined in state law, local jurisdictions in May-Issue states often have locally-defined requirements that an applicant must meet before a permit will be granted, such as providing adequate justification to the approval authority for needing a concealed carry permit (self-defense in and of itself may not be sufficient justification in some areas where justification is required). Issuing authorities in May-Issue states often charge arbitrarily-defined fees that go well beyond the basic processing fee for a CCW permit, thereby making the CCW permit unaffordable to most applicants.)

And No Issue: A No-Issue jurisdiction is one that--with very limited exceptions--does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun in public. The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized).

The majority of the US states did not fall under "Shall Issue" or "Unrestricted" rights to carry concealed weapons until well into the mid-1990s and even then, most of the more populated and urban states did not follow suit.

what matters is the degree of change

Again, it is impossible to measure such "change" without a clearly defined "before and after". The US citizens have had the right to "bear arms" since the Revolutionary War. The difference between Conceal/Laws and the reality prior is that before if one were carrying a weapon it had to be kept in the open and in most instances, unloaded. Conceal/Carry allows me to wear a fully loaded .45 automatic under my jacket in a holster as I go out for the evening meal at the local restaurant or bar. Now there's a lovely picture... alcohol and handguns... and we all know alcohol has never led to hostility or irrational acts.

Actually I have answered it, just a few hours ago. Ironically, you fail at reading comprehension.

No... you haven't answered the question. What is broken? Where is this excessive crime rate in Canada that cries out for the right to go about armed?

As for your questioning my reading comprehension... :smilielol5:

The rate of crime doesn't matter and shouldn't influence a decision on this issue, which I've said several times now:

Canada is a more stable country for a number of reasons (although it's never been tied to our gun laws, which by the way are comparatively lax when compared to those of many other statistically less safe nations, such as the UK), and your typical "dark alley" rape is rare - but it still occurs, so women should have the legal right to defend themselves.

OK... in other words Canada should change its laws in order to assuage your personal paranoia? We know it has nothing to do with your concern for the rights of others... which you have made clear on more than one occasion that you have absolutely no concern for. This is really all about you.

Criminals will commit crimes, they're criminals.

And they will continue to rape and rob and murder regardless of whether you have a gun or not. One might point out that the highest rape and murder rates in the US are among the inner-city urban population... where handguns are far more prevalent than anywhere else.

Really? A nation in which 420,000 homes contain assault rifles would be helpless if ever a WWII-like event were to occur again?

Tell me just how many Japanese Zeros were brought down by citizens with handguns or rifles? The armaments carried by any modern military force of today is exponentially far more destructive than the weapons of WWII. It is highly unlikely that a US division of Abrams tanks, armored cars, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles supported by Apache and Black Hawk attack helicopters are likely to be brought down by a gang of citizens armed with pistols and rifles. But again... fear of the rise of a tyrannical government or even foreign invasion in no way justifies the desire for the right to carry concealed weapons. You might just as well stockpile your rifles and handguns at home waiting for the revolution.

Alex... my comments aimed in your direction obviously referred to your participation in the since locked thread on Hitler and the Holocaust. I think it was you who tried to justify Hitler's action based upon the culture he'd been born in... and considering this post:

You say it is a custom in a tribe for a dead man's brother to rape his wife, if we were to look into it, the custom would have a reason, and I am sure we could all with a certain open eye find beauty in that custom.

I suspect I'm right. But if I have mistaken you for another, my apologies.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

(I so ****ing care about that btw)
No one's forcing you to participate.

[Delta40]

Of course. This is an open forum where anyone can join in isn't it. Has it occurred to you that some members might not have an objective view of rape but rather a subjective view because they have been raped themselves. So while these heated debates go off topic, because some members are strong advocates for their own point of view and nothing else, the member who has already been silenced by the act of rape is silenced once again - since the jury of participants already reached their view and you decided there is nothing more to be said?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you or anyone else has something to say about it, I'd suggest saying it rather than talk about saying it. Seems simple enough.

[Delta40]

Not after this disgusting display of showmanship between members. I honestly can't imagine who has the biggest penis here.