Is this the way to treat a Mugger?

[MMI]

Of course the discussion brought out the people who think gun control is wrong. I do and I wanted the handful of people here who agree to voice their opinion while amusing themselves at the attempts of the pro-gun lobby to justify their position. So far as I am concerned, no-one has come close - except, perhaps, denuseri.

You see, there's no getting away from the fact that, if you have a gun, you must intend to kill someone, and the only possible justification for that is self-defence. Production of a gun in self-defence is justifiable only when you are attacked by someone you know is about to kill you. It is not justifiable for any other reason.

So if you plan to go somewhere where you need to have a gun to "defend" yourself, then the obvious choice is to stay away. Otherwise you have made a positive decision to go there and to kill anybody you want. Doesn't that amount to pre-meditation?

TwistedTails, are you telling me that, after Dodge City became gun free, it was the fault or the foolhardiness of the citizens on the "right" side of the tracks that the killers you referred to came into the town? Not the fault of the killers at all? Maybe they couldn't help themselves, or they had to uphold their constitutional right of self-defence perhaps? You explain it to me.

Denuseri: I have seen those statistics you have quoted before, but as I do not subscribe to the journal in which the research was published, I have not read the paper and I cannot say I understand the conclusions completely. You obviously have the advantage over me: perhaps you could send me a copy? I did find a synopsis of the research on the internet, and I have to rely on that. The summariser appeared to consider the statistics supported your position.

However, I do want to make a couple of observations about the conclusions that have been drawn.

The reasearch appears to have been based on a small number of female students in an American university. I'm not sure university students reflect the whole population of rape victims in USA or even the perpetrators.

But setting that aside, is it not surprising that even 3 men in a hundred go through with the rape when the woman is pointing a gun at them? I should have thought that no attempted rapes would have been completed if a gun was pointed at them. I would have expected a 100% failure to complete under those circumstances, and I consider that this statistic is about as revealing as a survey of the number of falling objects that hit the ground.

I note that the survey also demonstrates that any form of resistance is likely to deter the rapist, and I consider that to be more significant than any further study as to how the resistance was effected, whether a slap across the face, or a bullet in it. To me, the research may justify resistance - any form of resistance, including guns, but the fact remains, a gun should only be used if you are truly in fear of your life.

I imagine it is quite easy for a woman who used a gun to protect herself from rape to show that she really was afraid she would die, but if she wasn't, then she was wrong to use it. If she shot the rapist dead, knowing that she would not have died if she resisted in some other way, she murdered him. But if she has a gun in her possession, isn't she more likely to use it than to scream or run away or protect herself some other way?

I can hear people saying, if she shot the rapist, he damn well got what he deserved. I disagree, and I believe that there is now no juridicition in America that imposes the death penalty for rape, so I am not alone. So people who rejoice in the rapist's death are, in fact, calling for exemplary retribution at the hands of the mob rather than upholding law and order in their society.


As for the suggestion that the haphazzard possession of arms by some citizens guarantees the nation that there will be no more tyranny over the country is simply ludicrous. Besides, I believe the "liberty" was granted to protect the criminal elements of society that foisted a republican government on at least two thirds of the population who did not want it in the first place.




It is hard for me to avoid the equation, no gun control = no civil society, especially when expressed as gun control = civil society. As I have said before, I am vehemently anti-gun/pro-gun control. In other threads, I may be just having fun, but I am sincere about this topic. I know many Americans - and other people too - believe there are circumstances where private gun ownership is justifiable: I cannot. It is beyond my understanding. I believe that the freedom to own guns is an empty freedom. It does not save life, it destroys it. It does not uphold justice, it rides roughshod over it. It does not lead to a stable constitution, it encourages "fringe" lunatics to uphold antiquated liberties. It does not reduce crime, it turns victims into perpetrators and encourages viglanteism and lynch-mob attitudes.

I believe Diaz was phenominally brave and good. What he did was an urban miracle. America has lost control over society because its people seem to believe (ultimately) in taking the law into their own hands. They want to enforce summary justice that makes the executioners feel grand and powerful, at the expense of the law and humanity. They will eventually become the victims of their own reactionary attitudes, however.

[Thorne]

You see, there's no getting away from the fact that, if you have a gun, you must intend to kill someone, and the only possible justification for that is self-defence. Production of a gun in self-defence is justifiable only when you are attacked by someone you know is about to kill you. It is not justifiable for any other reason.

Displaying a gun does not necessarily mean you intend to kill someone. It should mean that you are ready to kill someone to protect yourself and your family. If I am threatened by a criminal and he turns away when I pull a gun out, I would not just go ahead and shoot him anyway.

So if you plan to go somewhere where you need to have a gun to "defend" yourself, then the obvious choice is to stay away. Otherwise you have made a positive decision to go there and to kill anybody you want. Doesn't that amount to pre-meditation?

And what about those criminals who seek you out? When they break down your doors to gain access to your home? Are you making the decision to kill them? Absurd! You are protecting your home, you person and your family.

But setting that aside, is it not surprising that even 3 men in a hundred go through with the rape when the woman is pointing a gun at them? I should have thought that no attempted rapes would have been completed if a gun was pointed at them. I would have expected a 100% failure to complete under those circumstances, and I consider that this statistic is about as revealing as a survey of the number of falling objects that hit the ground.

Just because a woman has a gun doesn't mean she was able to point it at her attacker in time to stop him. And since most men are physically more powerful than their victims she would be unlikely to be able push him off to give herself the time she needs once he's grappled with her.
But statistics are misleading under the best of circumstances. They can easily be manipulated to "prove" almost anything you want, including the idea that gun control does, or does not, work. Just remember, statistically 100% of the people who drink water are going to die.

I note that the survey also demonstrates that any form of resistance is likely to deter the rapist, and I consider that to be more significant than any further study as to how the resistance was effected, whether a slap across the face, or a bullet in it. To me, the research may justify resistance - any form of resistance, including guns, but the fact remains, a gun should only be used if you are truly in fear of your life.

Rapists are basically cowards, preying upon those they perceive as weaker than themselves in order to feel powerful in their own minds. Resisting them strongly will naturally tend to deter them, since you show them you are more powerful than they had hoped. But it doesn't always work that way, and as far as I'm concerned, any rapist is betting his life that his victim will submit.

I imagine it is quite easy for a woman who used a gun to protect herself from rape to show that she really was afraid she would die, but if she wasn't, then she was wrong to use it. If she shot the rapist dead, knowing that she would not have died if she resisted in some other way, she murdered him. But if she has a gun in her possession, isn't she more likely to use it than to scream or run away or protect herself some other way?

Not being a woman,and not personally knowing anyone who's been raped, I can only presume that any woman who is being attacked will tend to scream and try to run away, even as she is pulling the gun out of her pocket/purse. But regardless, there is no sure way you can be absolutely certain that an attacker is or is not going to kill you. You can, and probably should, assume the worst in order to protect yourself. And if a woman should happen to kill a man who tried to rape her, any jury I was sitting on would never convict her of any crime whatsoever.

I can hear people saying, if she shot the rapist, he damn well got what he deserved. I disagree, and I believe that there is now no juridicition in America that imposes the death penalty for rape, so I am not alone. So people who rejoice in the rapist's death are, in fact, calling for exemplary retribution at the hands of the mob rather than upholding law and order in their society.

There are few jurisdictions in America that still impose the death penalty for much of anything. In those places that do, it is true that rapists are not subject to the death penalty. Unless they kill their victim! So by your standards, the only time a rapist would deserve death is if he killed his victim? Kind of late for her to do anything about that, don't you think?
And I don't know about others but I, for one, would not rejoice in the rapist's death. I would, however, rejoice in his victim's survival, hopefully without having had to actually endure the rape.

It is hard for me to avoid the equation, no gun control = no civil society, especially when expressed as gun control = civil society. As I have said before, I am vehemently anti-gun/pro-gun control.

Except that you don't advocate gun control, but gun bans. You seem to want to remove any method honest, law abiding citizens might have to protect themselves. Gun control is a good thing. Control who can have guns, and make sure that criminals aren't among those who can. And let the government know just who has guns, and which guns they have. That is gun control. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who only want to defend themselves is controlling the wrong end of the stick.

I am not one of those people who believe that every human life is worth saving. There are far too many people who are too stupid or too evil to be allowed to live in a "civilized" society. Fortunately, many of the stupid ones do themselves in (look up the Darwin Awards). The evil ones are far more dangerous. These are the people who believe that they are entitled to take anything they want at whatever cost to their victims, without any shred of conscience. They will attack you without warning, will harm you without reason, will kill you for the loose change in your pocket. They have no respect for your life, or anyone's life but their own. They are the demons of modern society, and if it is "civilized" to allow them to walk freely among us, doing as they will with no fear of reprisal, then I vote for barbarism.