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
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.