Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

[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:



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.

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.

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.

[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.

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?

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?