Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

: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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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/for...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

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I'm really starting to like you.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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.

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?'

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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. 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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's a really cool Bullsh*t episode about numbers which explains that point better than I could in this short little post.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I was just kidding with my stlukes comment.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

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

---

Glad to see some humor here!:biggrin5:

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.

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

It makes them feel more "manly".

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

It seems obvious to me.

Alex,

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

Tony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babyguile

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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:

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?

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/article...e3/v02/v02.htm

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

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.