Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

On a related note, the idea that Canada has less rapes than the US is false.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

*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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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.

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.