TexasCHLforum.com

atxgun wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: What has that to do with criminals breaking into homes and attacking random women?

It has to do with the fact that criminals are still people as well. While we've all seen and read the Dumbest Criminal shows and stories, for the most part their targets are chosen in a cost/benefit thought process. They will look for the easiest targets. Knowing there is this hypothetical 50/50 chance of their target fighting back with a gun is what will dissuade them from attacking a woman to begin with.

atxgun wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

atxgun wrote:I'm reminded of Penn & Teller's BullEDIT episode on gun control "What if every woman was issued a pistol. They didn't have to carry them, so lets say only half would. Do you think someone's going to try and rape a woman when there's a 50/50 chance she has a gun?"

The chance is that now. It would not change a thing about attempts, only the potential outcome.

Well the point they were putting forward is that it very much was about reducing the number of attempts. While I generally hate using Nazi comparisons in any argument, keep in mind they never invaded Switzerland b/c they knew the populous was armed to the teeth.

swiven wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: This is because most women believe if the cooperated, are reasonable and do not antagonize the attacker that the attacker will respond and not hurt them.

Sexual Assault is a crime of violence, not sex.

I don't think it works like that exactly. This survivor did not appear to have any plan in the event of a home invasion. It's hard to blame her though - our society teaches women that victims are attractive and desirable. For instance high heels (can't run, hard to balance) and supermodels (tiny, tiny women without the musculature to threaten anyone). Powerful women are seen as emasculating or homosexual. If you'd been trained from infancy to be a beautiful victim, you might not have a plan either.

When you don't have a plan, you have to wing it. And women are trained to solve problems by being compliant and using empathy. Thus, we attempt to solve the problem of assault in the same way. The fact that LEOs of various stripes advise compliance to prevent further harm to ourselves doesn't help any, of course. This suggests that there is no better option than to "hide under the blankets" and hope the nasty rapist goes away.

I think she is to be commended for realizing that she had a non-optimal solution to this problem when it happened and seeking a better one. I wish that we, as a society, could do as good a job of learning from our mistakes.

atxgun wrote:I'm reminded of Penn & Teller's BullEDIT episode on gun control "What if every woman was issued a pistol. They didn't have to carry them, so lets say only half would. Do you think someone's going to try and rape a woman when there's a 50/50 chance she has a gun?"