Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
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.
Quite right too. I agree with that entirely: if you have a gun at the time you are attacked, you ought to display it, and if the attacker backs down, you move him on. If he continues to threaten you, you must make a decision: is your life in real and imminent danger? If you can reasonably answer "Yes, I think so," then shoot. I will be the last to criticise. The same if you beat his head open with a handy rock. But if you cannot show that you reasonably believed your life to be in danger, and you fire, then that is manslaughter at the very least. So, here we can find a point of agreement - my only problem is, how come you happened to have a gun ...

Quote:
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.
If you live in such an uncivilised place that there are hoardes of villains out on the prowl looking for propety to smash into and victims to murder then, take my advice, move to a civilised country - Canada's quite handy to the north, and Mexico's to the south. Both seem reasonably pleasant places, but every other person you meet on the street isn't to be feared as a killer.

I do sympathise with you, however. It was like that in this country a thousand years ago, when vikings pillaged and plundered our costal areas.

But, to answer your question, if you pick up a handy gun and display it - however it got there - you are intimating to the intruders that you will kill them: that is a positive decision. It better be a right one, or you're a killer and possibly liable to whatever penalty your state exacts on killers.

Quote:
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'm not sure I follow your argument here. I would suggest that a greater proportion than 3% of rapists are more powerful than their intended victims. But if that's your explanation for the small number of successful rapes where the woman has a gun, then I won't argue with it. I suppose there are some statistics that show that less than 100% of falling objects hit the ground, too.

My point - to speak plainly, is that it is (almost) meaningless to say that 97% of attempted rapes failed where the woman had a gun, and it cerainly does not justify the carrying of a gun to protect yourself from rape, although that it my understanding of the summary I read about the reasearch denuseri quoted. It does not justify the carrying of a gun because the same research showed that any form of resistance will deter the rapist, as to which, see below ...

Quote:
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 don't think I can disagree with that. But it justifies nothing.


Quote:
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.
No: it is wrong to make the blanket assumption that everyone is a killer. It's atitudes like that which make Americans afraid of their own shadows. It's why everyone thinks unknown males are likely to be rapists or a child molesters. It the stupid reason advanced by organisations like NRA that everyone is in danger of meeting an armed assassin every time they go out to buy a newspaper, or that a motley crew of gunslingers would be able to prevent an organised coup d'etat. The key is reasonable belief. If it is reasonable for you to believe your life is in jeopardy, you may do anything that is necessary to save it. "Anything" is subject to a requirement to use the minimum force necessary, of course. That is a judgement that can only be made on a case by case basis.

Quote:
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.
And I too would rejoice in her escape/survival. But you misinterpret me, and I have stated my position absolutely clearly many times before, so I suspect your misunderstanding is deliberate. A rapist deserves to be killed if that is the only way the victim reasonably thinks she can prevent herself duing at his hands. If she does that, it would not be too late at all, would it?

However, if the rapist did kill his victim, I would want him to go to gaol for life. I do not support capital punishment for any crime.


Quote:
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.
My position is, a ban for guns in private hands unless licenced. The licence to be issued to people with a genuine reason: farmers need shotguns for pest-control, for example. Huntsmen need guns to shoot game. I would allow that. The fact that I consider hunting an unspeakably cruel and unnecessary way to amuse yourself is neither here nor there. I would allow competitive shooters to use guns in a designated shooting range. Collectors could have them if they were rendered unusable. Other than that, I see no reason for guns to be in private hands - and there should be severe penalties for possessing them. I would not baulk at sentences of up to life in prison in certain cases.

Private security firms are the same as private individuals, and should not carry arms.

Guns are necessary for the police if they encounter a situation where weapons are being used, and they should be issued in those circumstances only. The army, navy and air forces would be fully armed at all times, obviously.

I believe there are very few human lives that should be destroyed, and they should only be eliminated if there is no alternative. Hitler and Stalin spring to mind as examples. To say that people who are stupid should be exterminated is a very frightening suggestion, and it is just that sort of thing that Hitler actually did.

I agree there are people who will take anything they want regardless of the cost. I don't remember ever meeting anyone who would kill me for it, however. How many have you met? Did you have to kill them to get away? Demons of modern society, maybe, but there are other demons telling you that EVERYONE is just like them and you will die if you turn your back on them. Be careful which devil you finally cast your vote for. Paranoia is the worst devil of all. It ends up devouring itself.