TexasCHLforum.com

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?"

I would provide links to youtube videos for anyone that hasn't seen that episode but it looks like they took them down.

What an awsome message. I am so glad she is being vocal about what she is doing to prevent being a victim again. I pray that other women will hear her.

It is just too bad that it takes such a horrible thing happening to get women to wake up.

CompVest wrote:What an awsome message. I am so glad she is being vocal about what she is doing to prevent being a victim again. I pray that other women will hear her.

It is just too bad that it takes such a horrible thing happening to get women to wake up.

I've noticed this as well, and I'm very saddened by it. I hate that she didn't have a gun and the knowledge of it's use when he attacked the first time. It might have prevented not only her rape, but the rape of many other women.

Venus Pax wrote:

CompVest wrote:What an awsome message. I am so glad she is being vocal about what she is doing to prevent being a victim again. I pray that other women will hear her.

It is just too bad that it takes such a horrible thing happening to get women to wake up.

I've noticed this as well, and I'm very saddened by it. I hate that she didn't have a gun and the knowledge of it's use when he attacked the first time. It might have prevented not only her rape, but the rape of many other women.

We can only hope that her unfortunate encounter and telling of the story will be the catalyst to prevent future rapes.

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. And, unless the women carrying get training in its use AND learn to change the way society has programmed the woman's thinking, she is likely to have it used against her.

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.

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.

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.

That is exactly what I said, just not so eloquently. ;)

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.

I agree. Since she HAS been assaulted, it is likely that she now has the resolve to fight if it were to happen again.

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.

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

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.

Of course this theory is open to debate but that's what it has to do w/ my previous statement.

Likewise if we lived in a society where it was as common for everyone to start carrying when you're 18, 21 or whatever as it is to start driving when you're 16 I believe there would be a lot less crimes committed.

I do not believe based on my studying the issue that women are more prone tp having their guns taken from them and used on them then men! I find that if they have gone so far as to get a gun and then point it at a bad guy they will use it. The more times this is said the more likely women are to say why even get a gun. I say more power to women that get them.

I do without reservation say that training is the correct and smart thing to do. Everyone that has access to a gun should having good training.

What we all need to do is let women know that they are responsible for their safety. That it is not unwomanly to protect themselves. That their life is more important then the bad guys.

CompVest, I've never liked the "gun will be used against you" argument as I've never read a single news story where that happened. Always just seemed to be largely hypothetical fear mongering to me. Since you say you've studied this I was wondering, do you have any links to resources documenting the frequency of how often that actually occurs?

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.

No, as that chance already exists now. And even IF it is true that Germany was afraid of the armed citizenry of Switzerland, that is NOT equal to a criminal choosing a victim. A 50% chance is not the same as full knowledge.

atxgun,

My knowledge is based on reading as many mags, Newspapers, and books as I can find on the topic of defensive shootings. Talking to as many ladies as I can that have been in situations. And surfing the web for any stories.

Quite frankly I have been unble to substantiate the claim that gun ownership with or without training by either sex leads to the guns ending up in the hand of the BG during a confrontation. Note: there is quite a bit of evidence to show police guns end up in the hand of the BG.