I thought it would be understood that when I'm talking about every woman, I meant every mentally stable woman. Rapists usually do arm themselves, but they cant shoot and try to rape at the same time. Rapists are cowards, they never put themselves in danger, that's why they only attack defenseless women, and most of the time use brute strength, but a gun is a great equalizer in that case. I know a couple of women who gone through that, one is a very peace loving girl who refuse to hold a gun, until this day they didn't find the guy who raped her. Another one is a bit different, 2 guys tried to rape her, after face of one of them was under her fingernails and two of her bullets were in the stomach of the other, they fled, but of course easily found. Now tell me, which of those scenarios turned out better? one in which a girl was raped and the rapist is on the lose, or the other, where the girl wasn't raped, one rapist died, another serving a long time.
"Rapists are cowards, they never put themselves in danger, that's why they only attack defenseless women, and most of the time use brute strength"
Uh, no. Most rape is acquaintance rape, which means that it's done by someone the victim knows. Manipulation and an element of surprise can be just as important as force, if not more so, in such cases. Sometimes people are taken by force by strangers, but that's not the reality of most rape cases.
Also, when you tell women to carry a gun to prevent rape, you're placing responsibility on the victims. Instead of saying "don't rape", you're saying "don't get raped". Stop it.
I know that most rapes happen by someone a girl knows, that's why this someone wont have any problems being alone with her, where she is not protected, he wouldn't try it if he knew another man or any other dangers might be around, thus your element of surprise because the victim didn't expect anything and she is unprotected in any way. As for responsibility, everyone has responsibility, you can't rely on others to protect you, of course in a perfect world there would be no rapists, but our world is not perfect, and people will try to use force against you, and you must learn to protect yourself. Of course its the police job to protect you, but they will MIGHT arrest the guy AFTER the victim got raped. I'm not saying that if a woman got raped she is the one to blame, but I want women to be strong and defend themselves as much as possible instead of going like cattle to slaughter.
That line of argument will justify arming everybody with a gun; which scenario is better, the one where an innocent guy walking along the street gets stabbed by a gang member mistaking him for a rival, or where an innocent guy walking along the street having seen his assailant pull out a knife shoots him and kills him before he has a chance? Therefore all young men should carry guns because they are the most likely to be victims of violent assaults, right?
Don't get me wrong. I think the common physiological superiority in terms of strength and size of men over women means that a man intending to rape a women will probably be able to overpower her, especially if she isn't trained in self-defense.
But I think arming and training all women to use lethal weapons to defend against attacks that are often non-lethal is ethically questionable. I think training to use weapons such as stun guns, pepper spray, batons etc. - weapons which can incapacitate usually without fatal consequences - makes a lot more sense.
I think it's everybody's prerogative to learn how to best defend themselves if they feel there is a likelihood they may one day be in a situation where it's necessary to do so. That goes for men as well as women. I think it's an individual's choice. But the way you declare "Every woman should carry a gun and know how to use it" makes it sound like it should be something legislated, like the government should arm its women because around every corner there lurks male rapists! Or families should make sure every daughter, before their 21st birthday, knows how to use a pistol, and is later bought their very own. It just sounds a little absurd to me, and I think that kind of broad justification for carrying around a lethal weapon could lead to a lot more violence, accidental deaths and murders instead of reducing rates of rape and sexual assault.
You give me hypothetical situations while I gave you two stories that happened. A misfire happens when a person is not trained to use a weapon yet they have it. Of course before getting a weapon every person should have a psychological test to determine if they are stable. Never pull out your weapon unless being attacked by someone you can't handle in any other way. When someone wants to murder somebody, they can easily get a gun illegally, its the innocent victim who is usually unarmed. There would be much less assaults because the criminals would be afraid that this assault might be their last. You don't have to kill the one that attacks you, a shot in the leg will be sufficient to make them run away, and the police could collect their blood sample, thus making it much easier to identify the person. Stun guns and tasers are not effective when you are attacked by more then one person, you take down one of the attackers, but the others will jump you and disarm you, however if one of them is shot and dying, they wont take a chance. Remember during WW2 USA dropped the a-bomb on japan, two of them actually, but during the cold war, neither the Americans nor the Soviets would dare to attack because both understood the possible consequences, same situation here, when one person doesn't think they have strength superiority over the other person, they hesitate before attacking.
Is it normal to want to kill rapists?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I thought it would be understood that when I'm talking about every woman, I meant every mentally stable woman. Rapists usually do arm themselves, but they cant shoot and try to rape at the same time. Rapists are cowards, they never put themselves in danger, that's why they only attack defenseless women, and most of the time use brute strength, but a gun is a great equalizer in that case. I know a couple of women who gone through that, one is a very peace loving girl who refuse to hold a gun, until this day they didn't find the guy who raped her. Another one is a bit different, 2 guys tried to rape her, after face of one of them was under her fingernails and two of her bullets were in the stomach of the other, they fled, but of course easily found. Now tell me, which of those scenarios turned out better? one in which a girl was raped and the rapist is on the lose, or the other, where the girl wasn't raped, one rapist died, another serving a long time.
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
disthing
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Rapists are cowards, they never put themselves in danger, that's why they only attack defenseless women, and most of the time use brute strength"
Uh, no. Most rape is acquaintance rape, which means that it's done by someone the victim knows. Manipulation and an element of surprise can be just as important as force, if not more so, in such cases. Sometimes people are taken by force by strangers, but that's not the reality of most rape cases.
Also, when you tell women to carry a gun to prevent rape, you're placing responsibility on the victims. Instead of saying "don't rape", you're saying "don't get raped". Stop it.
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know that most rapes happen by someone a girl knows, that's why this someone wont have any problems being alone with her, where she is not protected, he wouldn't try it if he knew another man or any other dangers might be around, thus your element of surprise because the victim didn't expect anything and she is unprotected in any way. As for responsibility, everyone has responsibility, you can't rely on others to protect you, of course in a perfect world there would be no rapists, but our world is not perfect, and people will try to use force against you, and you must learn to protect yourself. Of course its the police job to protect you, but they will MIGHT arrest the guy AFTER the victim got raped. I'm not saying that if a woman got raped she is the one to blame, but I want women to be strong and defend themselves as much as possible instead of going like cattle to slaughter.
That line of argument will justify arming everybody with a gun; which scenario is better, the one where an innocent guy walking along the street gets stabbed by a gang member mistaking him for a rival, or where an innocent guy walking along the street having seen his assailant pull out a knife shoots him and kills him before he has a chance? Therefore all young men should carry guns because they are the most likely to be victims of violent assaults, right?
Don't get me wrong. I think the common physiological superiority in terms of strength and size of men over women means that a man intending to rape a women will probably be able to overpower her, especially if she isn't trained in self-defense.
But I think arming and training all women to use lethal weapons to defend against attacks that are often non-lethal is ethically questionable. I think training to use weapons such as stun guns, pepper spray, batons etc. - weapons which can incapacitate usually without fatal consequences - makes a lot more sense.
I think it's everybody's prerogative to learn how to best defend themselves if they feel there is a likelihood they may one day be in a situation where it's necessary to do so. That goes for men as well as women. I think it's an individual's choice. But the way you declare "Every woman should carry a gun and know how to use it" makes it sound like it should be something legislated, like the government should arm its women because around every corner there lurks male rapists! Or families should make sure every daughter, before their 21st birthday, knows how to use a pistol, and is later bought their very own. It just sounds a little absurd to me, and I think that kind of broad justification for carrying around a lethal weapon could lead to a lot more violence, accidental deaths and murders instead of reducing rates of rape and sexual assault.
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You give me hypothetical situations while I gave you two stories that happened. A misfire happens when a person is not trained to use a weapon yet they have it. Of course before getting a weapon every person should have a psychological test to determine if they are stable. Never pull out your weapon unless being attacked by someone you can't handle in any other way. When someone wants to murder somebody, they can easily get a gun illegally, its the innocent victim who is usually unarmed. There would be much less assaults because the criminals would be afraid that this assault might be their last. You don't have to kill the one that attacks you, a shot in the leg will be sufficient to make them run away, and the police could collect their blood sample, thus making it much easier to identify the person. Stun guns and tasers are not effective when you are attacked by more then one person, you take down one of the attackers, but the others will jump you and disarm you, however if one of them is shot and dying, they wont take a chance. Remember during WW2 USA dropped the a-bomb on japan, two of them actually, but during the cold war, neither the Americans nor the Soviets would dare to attack because both understood the possible consequences, same situation here, when one person doesn't think they have strength superiority over the other person, they hesitate before attacking.