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.