Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

[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 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 of women report being sexually assaulted over the course of their lifetimes (and sexual assault is notoriously under-reported). Also, 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'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.