25% of People Think A Woman Is To Blame For Being Raped

[king mob]

A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests.
The Amnesty International poll of 1,000 people also found over 25% believe she is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk.

Amnesty says the "shocking" findings show government policies are failing.

And the director of public prosecutions told the BBC the report "highlights some areas of real concern".

Ken Macdonald QC, who is in charge of prosecutions in England and Wales, spoke to BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour.

"The idea that a third of our people think that if a woman flirts she has only herself to blame if she is raped is, I think, quite shocking," he said.

"These are jury trials. The jury is the community in the courtroom and it is reasonable to suppose the jury brings into the courtroom a lot of the attitudes we have been reading about."

The Home Office says it has changed the law to try to improve conviction rates.

"We have made a number of changes to the legal system and to how the police and Crown Prosecution Service work, to put victims needs first and to make it easier for cases to get to trial and secure convictions," a spokesman said.

"We are determined to close the gap between the increasing number of rape cases reported and the low number of convictions."

However, the Amnesty poll, carried out by ICM, found that most people in Britain had no idea how many women were raped every year in the UK or how few of the cases reported to police resulted in a conviction.

Almost all, 96%, said they either did not know the true extent of rape or thought it was far lower than the true figure. Just 4% thought the number of women raped exceeded 10,000.

The number of recorded rapes of women in 2004/5 was 12,867 - up 4% on the year before - although police estimate that just 15% of rapes come to their attention. Only 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction.

'Disturbing attitudes'

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen said the poll, part of its Stop Violence Against Women campaign, had uncovered "disturbing attitudes".

She said: "It is shocking that so many people will lay the blame for being raped at the feet of women themselves and the government must launch a new drive to counteract this sexist 'blame culture'."

The research exposed the scale of public ignorance over rape as well as the "dreadfully low" conviction rates, she added.

"The government has an international duty to prevent this gross human rights violation yet it's clear that the government's policies on tackling rape are failing and failing badly."

Joanna Perry, policy manager at Victim Support, said it was alarming to read that so many people appeared to believe that a woman was responsible for inviting a rape or sexual assault.

'Devastating effect'

"Rape is an appalling crime and has a devastating effect on victims and those close to them. In other words, nobody asks to be raped," she added.

And Ruth Hall, from the support group Women Against Rape, criticised "prejudices" in the court system.

"They still put the woman on trial, including her sexual history with other men, which is supposed to be banned and blame the woman for what happened to her and hold her accountable," she said.



Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm)

The full survey can be found here. (http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2005/Amnesty%20International%20-%20Sexual%20abuse/Amnesty%20International%20-%20Sexual%20Abuse.asp)

It greatly disturbs me that anyone can lay the blame upon a rape victim, let alone the possibility that a sizable chunk of the UK population thinks that.

[StoneGold]

That whole poll is a farce.



British aren't people.

[BlairH]

I hate the UK. One of my friends was raped several years ago, and the rapist's defense lawyer basically said that "she was just asking for it!" (because she looked nice apparently). She then comitted suicide because of the humiliation.

Oh yeah! The rapist bastard was in/out of prison in just under 2 years. 2 years for rape/indirect murder. He's now a "reformed character" in that he doesn't just rape people now. He also sells date rape drugs.

The justice system here rocks

[heretic]

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm)

The full survey can be found here. (http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2005/Amnesty%20International%20-%20Sexual%20abuse/Amnesty%20International%20-%20Sexual%20Abuse.asp)

It greatly disturbs me that anyone can lay the blame upon a rape victim, let alone the possibility that a sizable chunk of the UK population thinks that.
'Old Fashioned' values I suppose....

HTG

[Royal]

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~foo/wtf.jpg

[venuscameback]

I heard about this on the radio, thanks for posting the full info


It's terrifying stuff.


one-third of respondents though the victim partially repsonsible for the rape is she had previously flirted with the attacker :eek:



and depressing.


so how do we even begin to influence/change such attitudes?


venus

[king mob]

I hate the UK. One of my friends was raped several years ago, and the rapist's defense lawyer basically said that "she was just asking for it!" (because she looked nice apparently). She then comitted suicide because of the humiliation.


Sadly that isn't a too uncommon story, the amount of rape cases which reach court are tiny and those who reach a conviction and pathetically small.

[Nate C.]

Depends on what the word "blame" means.

I don't blame a woman whose been raped. At all. So when I get misquoted later on in this thread, see the above. And below.

I do not blame a woman whose been raped. No means no. Even after saying "yes, yes, yes."

But, if by blame, people mean "cause" as in cause and effect. Then I see where some people get that from.

For example, my daughter (when she's old enough) will understand that there are certain places she should not go and certain clothes she should not wear. To do so is to invite harm. To do so is to put herself at risk. In that sense, she would be to "blame" for harm by putting herself in harm's way.

Tricky, and not PC, but there it is.

[Dom]

I read about a survey where 25% of people are stupid.

I think this might be the same one.

[Dom]

Depends on what the word "blame" means.

For example, my daughter (when she's old enough) will understand that there are certain places she should not go and certain clothes she should not wear. To do so is to invite harm. To do so is to put herself at risk. In that sense, she would be to "blame" for harm by putting herself in harm's way.



So where does it end?

Am I at fault for getting mugged because I walked down a dark alley at night?

Am I inviting a carjacking because I had to drive down a seedy neighbourhood?

How does a woman wearing whatever she wants, wherever she wants invite an attack? It's bullshit. It's an easy way to explain the grotesque.

I can't fathom what would cause a man to rape a woman. My mind can't go there. I imagine that most people's minds can't go there, so we need to break it down into something we understand.

No, sorry, completely disagree. I think that nobody ever invites or should expect anything like that to happen to them. It's not their fault someone else is psychotic.

[BlairH]

I can't fathom what would cause a man to rape a woman. My mind can't go there. I imagine that most people's minds can't go there, so we need to break it down into something we understand.

Some people are evil sociopaths who can not be rehabilitated. These people must be destroyed/locked up forever.

[Charles RB]

25% of people are sodding idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

[StoneGold]

Some people are evil sociopaths who can not be rehabilitated. These people must be destroyed/locked up forever.
I swear, if you graduate, it would be hillarious if the only work you could find was as a defense attorney.

[Gaz]

I swear, if you graduate, it would be hillarious if the only work you could find was as a defense attorney.
He'd be like Daredevil, but he wouldn't have the lie-detector sense, so he'd mess up and get guilty clients aquitted.
And I would laugh, as long as they weren't killers.

[BlairH]

Ignore my post. Used too many copy/pastes that it became unreadable and I can't be bothered to rectify it

[BlairH]

I swear, if you graduate, it would be hillarious if the only work you could find was as a defense attorney.
If that happens then I'll be the most incompetant defense attorney ever!

[cactusmaac]

Depends on what the word "blame" means.

I don't blame a woman whose been raped. At all. So when I get misquoted later on in this thread, see the above. And below.

I do not blame a woman whose been raped. No means no. Even after saying "yes, yes, yes."

But, if by blame, people mean "cause" as in cause and effect. Then I see where some people get that from.

For example, my daughter (when she's old enough) will understand that there are certain places she should not go and certain clothes she should not wear. To do so is to invite harm. To do so is to put herself at risk. In that sense, she would be to "blame" for harm by putting herself in harm's way.

Tricky, and not PC, but there it is.


Yeah, that's how I see it.

It's a dangerous world and you simply have to be careful.

[Nate C.]

So where does it end?

Am I at fault for getting mugged because I walked down a dark alley at night?

Am I inviting a carjacking because I had to drive down a seedy neighbourhood?

How does a woman wearing whatever she wants, wherever she wants invite an attack? It's bullshit. It's an easy way to explain the grotesque.

I can't fathom what would cause a man to rape a woman. My mind can't go there. I imagine that most people's minds can't go there, so we need to break it down into something we understand.

No, sorry, completely disagree. I think that nobody ever invites or should expect anything like that to happen to them. It's not their fault someone else is psychotic.

Dom, you don't see a "link", a "cause and effect" between say, a drunk girl in a mini with no panties at a frat house at three in the morning with her potential to being raped being higher to a sober girl surrounded by friends at the mall in the afternoon?

All I'm talking about is the victim increasing her chances of being harmed, not that she deserved the rape.

[Tages]

So where does it end?

Am I at fault for getting mugged because I walked down a dark alley at night?

Am I inviting a carjacking because I had to drive down a seedy neighbourhood?
No, but it's common sense not to do those things if you can avoid them. And I notice that people are already ignoring what Nate said about the victim not being at fault. *checks post times* 16 minutes. That was quick.

Though, I'm not sure just how many women were raped because they wore suggestive clothing. It'd be nice to see some statistics on that. I know that you're more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know (at least on a surface level) than by a stranger, but I'm not sure if the attire involved enters into it.

[BlairH]

Though, I'm not sure just how many women were raped because they wore suggestive clothing.
The defense lawyer that I made reference to tried to labour this point. He even showed the girl's underwear in court. A moot point considering the rapist didn't see the underwear untill he started yo assault her.

[Dom]

Dom, you don't see a "link", a "cause and effect" between say, a drunk girl in a mini with no panties at a frat house at three in the morning with her potential to being raped being higher to a sober girl surrounded by friends at the mall in the afternoon?

All I'm talking about is the victim increasing her chances of being harmed, not that she deserved the rape.

I see a link between someone in a perilous situation and someone willing to take advantage of them.

What I don't see is a basis to say that the girl was inviting it.

I grant that Nate did not say "fault", that's on me. But you shouldn't teach women that they can invite rape, because they're just as likely to be raped if they aren't.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Wow.....this is just..horrible news. 25% of people believe this ? Its 25% of people I hope I don't share the worlds air with really.

[smartalek]

Dom, you don't see a "link", a "cause and effect" between say, a drunk girl in a mini with no panties at a frat house at three in the morning with her potential to being raped being higher to a sober girl surrounded by friends at the mall in the afternoon?

All I'm talking about is the victim increasing her chances of being harmed, not that she deserved the rape.
Well actually, most rapes are done by people the victim knows. I think people tend to this of rape as something that is done by some unknown guy jumping out from behind a bush and forcefully attacks a girl. most rapes are done by people the victim knows and forcefully has sex with them.

[Nate C.]

But you shouldn't teach women that they can invite rape, because they're just as likely to be raped if they aren't.

I still say there are some situations that put women at much higher risks for rape than others, and this just seems like good old fashioned common sense to me.

Spring Break thong contests on the side of the road where a girl is shaking her booty surrounded by guys and suddenly finds herself groped comes to mind.

[Dom]

I still say there are some situations that put women at much higher risks for rape than others, and this just seems like good old fashioned common sense to me.

Spring Break thong contests on the side of the road where a girl is shaking her booty surrounded by guys and suddenly finds herself groped comes to mind.

Sure, but avoiding those situations doesn't make a woman any safer.

[Nate C.]

Sure, but avoiding those situations doesn't make a woman any safer.

Sure it does.

If I don't get in a car, my chances of being in an automobile accident go dramatically down.

[Gaz]

Sure it does.

If I don't get in a car, my chances of being in an automobile accident go dramatically down.
Yes, but does that mean you should never set foot in one again?

[Nate C.]

Yes, but does that mean you should never set foot in one again?

nope, but I should probably buy car insurance and wear a seat belt. ;)

[Tages]

Yes, but does that mean you should never set foot in one again?
If not being in a car wreck is more important to you than having readily available transportation.

[Dom]

Sure it does.

If I don't get in a car, my chances of being in an automobile accident go dramatically down.


You could still be hit by a car.

My point is you can't avoid danger, and you can't avoid people who just don't give a shit about the rules.

You do have to be smart about it, but you should never not do something because something might happen.

[Tages]

You do have to be smart about it, but you should never not do something because something might happen.
Be careful of blanket generalities involving the word "never." I could think of a hundred examples that might make you think twice about that statement.

[Gaz]

nope, but I should probably buy car insurance and wear a seat belt. ;)
OK, so take martial arts classes and carry pepper spray/taser/novelty ax. :p

[venuscameback]

sure there are things we can do to make ourselves less likely to be victims of assault and rape. We could never leave the house or let anyone in it.


Sometimes we put ourselves in situations and circumstances that make us easier prey; so what? That shouldn't reduce by one jot the responsibility of the attacker for what subsequently happens


We should have a basic, essential right to walk where we want when we want dressed how we want without fear of attack. It's the people who contravene this we need to be critical of not the people who become their victims.


because however safe you are, however careful you are, you are not safe from attack.

venus

[BlairH]

OK, so take martial arts classes and carry pepper spray/taser/novelty ax. :p
I have athsma and hence pepper spray is of no use to me.

Methinks I'll pack my glock...if they were legal anyways.

[Tages]

OK, so take martial arts classes and carry pepper spray/taser/novelty ax. :p
Or a Derringer in your front pocket...

Ahem. Carry on.

[Dreadstar]

You do have to be smart about it, but you should never not do something because something might happen.

Tages is right: There are far too many examples of not doing something due to the threat risk. I think that quoted sentence above is a bit conflictory. Being smart about a situation VERY OFTEN means not doing something because something might happen.

[BlairH]

Or a Derringer in your front pocket...

Tsk! How uncivilised!
Real pros use the HK USP tactical!

[Dreadstar]

Tsk! How uncivilised!
Real pros use the HK USP tactical!

Bah, real men just let it all hang out and wear it on the hip...

[Gaz]

Tages is right: There are far too many examples of not doing something due to the threat risk. I think that quoted sentence above is a bit conflictory. Being smart about a situation VERY OFTEN means not doing something because something might happen.
We're talking clothing, not throwing yourself in front of traffic.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

We're talking clothing, not throwing yourself in front of traffic.

Besides dont' matter what they wear; they will always say they were askin for it and rapists are likely to go for a grandma as somebody in their twenties.

Alot of its more about power than sex.

[Dreadstar]

We're talking clothing, not throwing yourself in front of traffic.


Actually, we're talking about a full spectrum of behavior, like walking down dark alleyways in a rough part of town, or getting drunk in a group of folk readilly willing and able to take advantage of you.

Making "iffy" decisions does not mean you're deserving of predatory behavior, however predatory behavior can be reduced by NOT MAKING "iffy" decisions.

[west3man]

I couldn't get through the whole article, but the beginning said a third of the people felt the woman was to blame or partially responsible, while the title of the thread says a quarter of them felt she was responsible. *scratches head*

33% > 25%



I agree that it's about how one defines "blame."
school bus hit my car. It probably would've hit it, anyway. But the amount of damage I suffered is probably partially dependent on my decision to wear or not to wear that belt.

That "partially dependent" part is the kind of "blame" or "responsib[ility]" I'd be willing to assign.


That said, that responsibility truly PALES in comparison to that of the horrible human beings who deliberately assault another human being. I still believe that a woman ought to be able to walk down the street bukkit nekkit without a man laying a single finger on her.

It probably wouldn't be the smartest move on her part, but attitudes like his are the real problem, not hers.

[Nate C.]

Actually, we're talking about a full spectrum of behavior, like walking down dark alleyways in a rough part of town, or getting drunk in a group of folk readilly willing and able to take advantage of you.

Making "iffy" decisions does not mean you're deserving of predatory behavior, however predatory behavior can be reduced by NOT MAKING "iffy" decisions.

well, Dread, Tages, and others get it.

That's enough for me.

[Ed Cunard]

well, Dread, Tages, and others get it.

That's enough for me.

I get it. I just don't agree.

I mean, if we govern our lives by fear, the terrorists win. Or something.

[Nate C.]

I get it. I just don't agree.

I mean, if we govern our lives by fear, the terrorists win. Or something.

You don't agree that sometimes women put themselves at risk for rape?

[west3man]

I get it. I just don't agree.

I mean, if we govern our lives by fear, the terrorists win. Or something.
I guess twins don't always agree... or triplets, or quadruplets, or whatever the hell all you av-clones are.

[Gaz]

Besides dont' matter what they wear; they will always say they were askin for it and rapists are likely to go for a grandma as somebody in their twenties.

Alot of its more about power than sex.
Bingo. How many of those stories involving elderly women have we heard? :(

[Dreadstar]

I get it. I just don't agree.

I mean, if we govern our lives by fear, the terrorists win. Or something.

If you walk down that dark alley, the muggers win.

...and the health provider, most likely.

I'm not afraid of walking down the alley, I'm just smart enough to know to walk AROUND it.

[west3man]

Bingo. How many of those stories involving elderly women have we heard? :(
How many of those involved them being in their own homes or something?

There goes the slutty clothing and the wrong place, wrong time/drunkasfuck finger-pointing. Clearly, the problem was with the demented bastard who attacked them.


To be clear, I agree with the "partial responsibility" thing. I just think it's a fine line between that and assigning blame on the scale most people think of when they hear the word. What do I mean? Basically, "blame" sounds like some shit that someone might bring up in court to make the victim seem like she was asking for it. That's fucked up.

There's a way of recognizing responsibility without coming anywhere NEAR absolving the perpetrator of blame and fault.

[Nate C.]

To be clear, I agree with the "partial responsibility" thing. I just think it's a fine line between that and assigning blame on the scale most people think of when they hear the word. What do I mean? Basically, "blame" sounds like some shit that someone might bring up in court to make the victim seem like she was asking for it. That's fucked up.

There's a way of recognizing responsibility without coming anywhere NEAR absolving the perpetrator of blame and fault.

I agree.

That's why I used the words "cause and effect" and "risk for" which aren't blaming.

[Ed Cunard]

You don't agree that sometimes women put themselves at risk for rape?

No, not really--especially by what they choose to wear. "Slutty" clothes, or what have you, are no more of an invitation for rape than humming Nirvana's "Rape Me"--whenever someone mentions attire as "asking for it," it strikes me as a sneaky way of attacking the "declining morals" of our youth or whatever. But that might just be me.

On to the other point regarding settings where it's more likely to occur... I mean, couldn't the same argument be made in the case of date rape at college parties that the guys shouldn't be there because they're putting themselves in a social situation where it might make sense* to take advantage of a drunk girl?

I get the "walking down a dark alley in a bad part of town alone" is more dangerous than mall-walking at noon, but that's why I'm a big advocate of self-defense courses and the like--if you think you can do it, kill that fucker, you know?



*To a fucking idjit, mind you.

[Michael P]

I couldn't get through the whole article, but the beginning said a third of the people felt the woman was to blame or partially responsible, while the title of the thread says a quarter of them felt she was responsible. *scratches head*

33% > 25%

Two different questions. 33% believe flirting makes her responsible, 25% believe drinking or wearing sexy clothes makes her responsible.

And, of course, 100% of those people are assholes.

I agree that it's about how one defines "blame."
school bus hit my car. It probably would've hit it, anyway. But the amount of damage I suffered is probably partially dependent on my decision to wear or not to wear that belt.

That "partially dependent" part is the kind of "blame" or "responsib[ility]" I'd be willing to assign.


That said, that responsibility truly PALES in comparison to that of the horrible human beings who deliberately assault another human being. I still believe that a woman ought to be able to walk down the street bukkit nekkit without a man laying a single finger on her.

It probably wouldn't be the smartest move on her part, but attitudes like his are the real problem, not hers.

I agree with this 100%. Let's compare this with the other big "Thou Shalt Not:" A man walks through a dangerous neighborhood at night, stumbles upon a gang fight, and gets knifed. Should he have been there? No. Does that fact make his killer any less guilty of murder? No. Shake your head sadly at the first, and let the courts exact justice for the other. And resolve to apply every lesson the incident has to teach in your own life.

[K'Nort]

Avoiding high-risk situations reduce your odds of being attacked.

Some attacks occur in low-risk situations, so you're SOL there. But avoiding the high-risk situations in the meantime improve your odds of avoiding assault.

And frankly, although I realize I'd feel much better after the fact if the guy was convicted than if he got away with it because of some twisted blame thing, it's still going to totally suck to enough of an extent that the priority really needs to be on proactive personal safety. And these girls now saying "I have a right to walk down a dark alley and those guys just need to learn to control themselves," were sold a really lousy bill of goods.

[Gaz]

How many of those involved them being in their own homes or something?

There goes the slutty clothing and the wrong place, wrong time/drunkasfuck finger-pointing. Clearly, the problem was with the demented bastard who attacked them.


To be clear, I agree with the "partial responsibility" thing. I just think it's a fine line between that and assigning blame on the scale most people think of when they hear the word. What do I mean? Basically, "blame" sounds like some shit that someone might bring up in court to make the victim seem like she was asking for it. That's fucked up.

There's a way of recognizing responsibility without coming anywhere NEAR absolving the perpetrator of blame and fault.

I get the point, but is me getting slugged for wearing a Knicks shirt in Boston and saying "Knicks rock!" reason for me to stop wearing said shirt or expressing my preference in basketball teams in that town?

[Ed Cunard]

I agree.

That's why I used the words "cause and effect" and "risk for" which aren't blaming.

I'm going by the words of the study, though--or, at least, the headline of the thread.

[Dreadstar]

--if you think you can do it, kill that fucker, you know?

Hey, look, you're talking to one of the bigest advocates of retalitory force in self-defense on these boards. Seriously.

And I STILL think avoidance is a better choice than macho confrontation.

No, I don't always make the better choice. I sometimes intentionally make the wrong choice. It doesn't negate the fact that one implies less risk.

Like a girl going to a frat party with a girlfriend and wearing more than 3 flimsy pieces of cloth and keeping an eye on her drinking versus going without a support net, dressed provocatively and staying by herself till 3am doing tequila shooters till she passes out.

NEITHER ONE OF THESE implies acceptance of predatory behavior. And yet one carries less risk.

[Winslow]

I agree.

That's why I used the words "cause and effect" and "risk for" which aren't blaming.

Actually, you have to be careful . . .

Demonstrating "cause and effect" can shift or assign blame in a court of law. I just gave expert testimony regarding cause and effect in order to assign liability for additional costs ina construction case.

I'm more comfortable with the idea of risk . . . a woman can mitigate risk. But she's never the "cause" . . unless she's in some wierd masochistic role play and asks for it. That's really the only example I can think of where the woman would be the "cause."

And from a doctrine of sin standpoint - sin comes from within. A rapist is never forced to do anythign but that which his inner man compels him to do.

[macul]

Tsk! How uncivilised!
Real pros use the HK USP tactical!

I have an HK USP. I love it.

[Ed Cunard]

No, I don't always make the better choice. I sometimes intentionally make the wrong choice. It doesn't negate the fact that one implies less risk.

Like a girl going to a frat party with a girlfriend and wearing more than 3 flimsy pieces of cloth and keeping an eye on her drinking versus going without a support net, dressed provocatively and staying by herself till 3am doing tequila shooters till she passes out.

NEITHER ONE OF THESE implies acceptance of predatory behavior. And yet one carries less risk.

Believe me, Dread, I'm agreeing that putting yourself in risky situations isn't the brightest thing a person can do--but, from the implications of the linked poll, I'm still not buying it. Particularly in relation to the perceived thinking behind some respondents:

"They still put the woman on trial, including her sexual history with other men, which is supposed to be banned and blame the woman for what happened to her and hold her accountable," she said.

This is fucked thinking. It's more of a tragedy if a virgin is raped than if someone who has been around the block gets raped? I don't buy it--it strikes me very much as a "well, if you'd be more moral and chaste, these things wouldn't happen" method of converting people to a way of thinking.

Nate's put forth that it's "cause and effect." He's not blaming the victim--I get that. But at the same time, "three flimsy pieces of cloth" or someone seeing someone walking alone in an alley isn't going to make me go, "Hey, let's rape this girl! Woo!" Why? Because I don't suck that bad. Rapey McRapeypants, he sucks that bad. The cause is him sucking. He's not more prompted by a short skirt than more demure clothing. He's thinking, "Hey, here's someone I can rape."

[Gaz]

Hey, look, you're talking to one of the bigest advocates of retalitory force in self-defense on these boards. Seriously.

And I STILL think avoidance is a better choice than macho confrontation.

No, I don't always make the better choice. I sometimes intentionally make the wrong choice. It doesn't negate the fact that one implies less risk.

Like a girl going to a frat party with a girlfriend and wearing more than 3 flimsy pieces of cloth and keeping an eye on her drinking versus going without a support net, dressed provocatively and staying by herself till 3am doing tequila shooters till she passes out.

NEITHER ONE OF THESE implies acceptance of predatory behavior. And yet one carries less risk.

I think there's also a gulf between what you think is being considered "provocative" clothing/behaviour, and what Ed and I are thinking of.

[K'Nort]

Nate's put forth that it's "cause and effect." He's not blaming the victim--I get that. But at the same time, "three flimsy pieces of cloth" or someone seeing someone walking alone in an alley isn't going to make me go, "Hey, let's rape this girl! Woo!" Why? Because I don't suck that bad. Rapey McRapeypants, he sucks that bad. The cause is him sucking. He's not more prompted by a short skirt than more demure clothing. He's thinking, "Hey, here's someone I can rape."

It's not 0% vs 100%. There will be some guys in some situations who will think "I bet I could get away with this one."

There seems to be a fear that any sort of acknowledgment of a risk scale equals assumed blame and no conviction and that's just not true.

[Gaz]

It's not 0% vs 100%. There will be some guys in some situations who will think "I bet I could get away with this one."

There seems to be a fear that any sort of acknowledgment of a risk scale equals assumed blame and no conviction and that's just not true.
And there's a belief that her actions can absolve the assailant of some blame. I'm 90% sure no-one here is advocating that, but it happens "He couldn't help it, she was asking for it" :mad:

[Dreadstar]

Believe me, Dread, I'm agreeing that putting yourself in risky situations isn't the brightest thing a person can do--but, from the implications of the linked poll, I'm still not buying it. Particularly in relation to the perceived thinking behind some respondents:

The quote you had following that in no way relates to the train of thought I was pursuing.

Nate's put forth that it's "cause and effect." He's not blaming the victim--I get that. But at the same time, "three flimsy pieces of cloth" or someone seeing someone walking alone in an alley isn't going to make me go, "Hey, let's rape this girl! Woo!" Why? Because I don't suck that bad. Rapey McRapeypants, he sucks that bad. The cause is him sucking. He's not more prompted by a short skirt than more demure clothing. He's thinking, "Hey, here's someone I can rape."

...and then you have the gray areas of predatory thinking that fall between Ed Cunard and Rapey McRapeypants.

No, the cause is NOT the provocative clothing. But I NEVER said it was, OK? We were (or at least I was) talking about relative risks in behavior.

[Nate C.]

Actually, you have to be careful . . .

Demonstrating "cause and effect" can shift or assign blame in a court of law. I just gave expert testimony regarding cause and effect in order to assign liability for additional costs ina construction case.

I'm more comfortable with the idea of risk . . . .

Good call, Winslow.

I'll stick to "risk" and leave "cause and effect" behind.

[Dreadstar]

I think there's also a gulf between what you think is being considered "provocative" clothing/behaviour, and what Ed and I are thinking of.

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what we consider provocative, we're NOT the predators in question. (well, I know I'm not, anyways)

[Dreadstar]

It's not 0% vs 100%. There will be some guys in some situations who will think "I bet I could get away with this one."

There seems to be a fear that any sort of acknowledgment of a risk scale equals assumed blame and no conviction and that's just not true.

Yes, exactly what I was trying to clumsily convey, thanks.

[west3man]

I get the point, but is me getting slugged for wearing a Knicks shirt in Boston and saying "Knicks rock!" reason for me to stop wearing said shirt or expressing my preference in basketball teams in that town?
Maybe I'm the wrong one to ask because I think you oughta be able to sit where you want in a stadium, even if you're cheering for the other team... or whatever.

Much like the bukkit nekkit scenario, that wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, if you know the likely outcome (and don't want it), but I still blame those doing the assaulting.

A lot of people disagree with that, but *shrugs*



EDIT: I'll add, though, that the sympathy I feel for the victim will diminish if I find that they made some really dumb choices that contributed to the assault. Again, that doesn't mean the lion's share of the blame doesn't fall on the bad guys.

[Nate C.]

Nate's put forth that it's "cause and effect." He's not blaming the victim--I get that. But at the same time, "three flimsy pieces of cloth" or someone seeing someone walking alone in an alley isn't going to make me go, "Hey, let's rape this girl! Woo!" Why? Because I don't suck that bad. Rapey McRapeypants, he sucks that bad. The cause is him sucking. He's not more prompted by a short skirt than more demure clothing. He's thinking, "Hey, here's someone I can rape."

Let's go with "risk for" instead of "cause and effect", Ed.

And I discounted the article and the poll right off. I'm just talking about how people may have interpreted the word "blame" and giving some of my own thoughts.

[Gaz]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what we consider provocative, we're NOT the predators in question. (well, I know I'm not, anyways)
Very true. And I think that's what's not being considered. Your comment about "3 flimsy pieces of cloth" implies something far more extreme than I've seen is usually held up as "provocative" in these cases.
I am however, with west on the "She should be able to walk down the alley buck-nekkid and stay untouched" point. Not naive enough to believe it can happen, but it's what SHOULD be the case.

[Ed Cunard]

The quote you had following that in no way relates to the train of thought I was pursuing.

I went off on a tangent (or not--is it a tangent if you go back to the original source?).

...and then you have the gray areas of predatory thinking that fall between Ed Cunard and Rapey McRapeypants.

No, the cause is NOT the provocative clothing. But I NEVER said it was, OK? We were (or at least I was) talking about relative risks in behavior.

I was responding to the more "in general" rather than the specific "Dreadstar." Sorry for crossing wires. On the relative risks of behavior, I'm with you on that. I guess I'm just hung up on my perception of some of the respondents to the original poll based on hearing people say or write "well, she ______, so she deserved it"--not from here, obviously, but historically.

[Dreadstar]

Much like the bukkit nekkit scenario, that wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, if you know the likely outcome (and don't want it), but I still blame those doing the assaulting.

A lot of people disagree with that, but *shrugs*

Quite likely there are folk who DO think that way, and possibly a good many of the folk in the 25% of the original post's survey.

I haven't seen it in this thread though.

[Ed Cunard]

Let's go with "risk for" instead of "cause and effect", Ed.

And I discounted the article and the poll right off. I'm just talking about how people may have interpreted the word "blame" and giving some of my own thoughts.

See, we're coming together now. I was still reacting to the original poll when I posted, not you or Dread.

[Gaz]

It's not 0% vs 100%. There will be some guys in some situations who will think "I bet I could get away with this one."

There seems to be a fear that any sort of acknowledgment of a risk scale equals assumed blame and no conviction and that's just not true.
It's not untrue either. People sadly DO exist who think that way, just as there exist those who don't.

[Dreadstar]

Very true. And I think that's what's not being considered. Your comment about "3 flimsy pieces of cloth" implies something far more extreme than I've seen is usually held up as "provocative" in these cases.
I am however, with west on the "She should be able to walk down the alley buck-nekkid and stay untouched" point. Not naive enough to believe it can happen, but it's what SHOULD be the case.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with idealism. I have a number of thoughts that would be considered idealistic. We just have to remember that idealism is the world we'd LIKE to live in, whereas the world we *do* live in is governed by realism.

[Gaz]

Oh, there's nothing wrong with idealism. I have a number of thoughts that would be considered idealistic. We just have to remember that idealism is the world we'd LIKE to live in, whereas the world we *do* live in is governed by realism.
I'm very cynical in some things, and ridiculously idealistic in others... :)

[K'Nort]

Very true. And I think that's what's not being considered. Your comment about "3 flimsy pieces of cloth" implies something far more extreme than I've seen is usually held up as "provocative" in these cases.
I am however, with west on the "She should be able to walk down the alley buck-nekkid and stay untouched" point. Not naive enough to believe it can happen, but it's what SHOULD be the case.

Of course it technically should in utopia and all, but that's totally beside the point. A pure fact is that someone walking buck-nekkid down an alley etc WILL be attacked. The only possible question is whether the assailant is still 100% legally liable for his actions.

[Gaz]

Of course it technically should in utopia and all, but that's totally beside the point. A pure fact is that someone walking buck-nekkid down an alley etc WILL be attacked. The only possible question is whether the assailant is still 100% legally liable for his actions.
And therin lies the problem. I'm betting you're saying "Not 100%"
I say "Yes, totally, 100%".

[K'Nort]

And therin lies the problem. I'm betting you're saying "Not 100%"
I say "Yes, totally, 100%".

Are you insane?

[warspite1805]

I have athsma and hence pepper spray is of no use to me.

Methinks I'll pack my glock...if they were legal anyways.

British law as far as I know forbids the carrying of any type of weapon and you would stand getting in more trouble than the person who attacked.

[Dreadstar]

A pure fact is that someone walking buck-nekkid down an alley etc WILL be attacked.


heheheheheh...

I'm betting that seeing a woman walking naked down a dark alley would set off warning flags and alarms on even the most hard-bitten predator.

He'd be like: "Wait, that can't be right! It's a TRAP!"

All the while looking here and there for observers.

[west3man]

See, I think increasing the risk of danger or of not being able to cope with the danger, matters. I'd take this further than some.

For example, I don't want to get drunk. I want to be prepared, at all times, to respond to a situation with the benefit of my full faculties. The more fucked-up I get, the less I think I'm prepared to help or defend myself or others.

That's typically an unacceptable risk, for me. Others disagree.

We all draw our lines in different places.

[Nate C.]

And therin lies the problem. I'm betting you're saying "Not 100%"
I say "Yes, totally, 100%".

"at risk for" (nekkid in an alley) is not the same as "blameworthy" (deserved it.)

[Dreadstar]

British law as far as I know forbids the carrying of any type of weapon and you would stand getting in more trouble than the person who attacked.

If he's any good with a Glock, I can almost guarantee that the attacker wouldn't be finding much hassle with the law...

[K'Nort]

"at risk for" (nekkid in an alley) is not the same as "blameworthy" (deserved it.)

Not on Gaz's planet. Apparently I'm pro-rape.

[west3man]

Of course it technically should in utopia and all, but that's totally beside the point. A pure fact is that someone walking buck-nekkid down an alley etc WILL be attacked. The only possible question is whether the assailant is still 100% legally liable for his actions.
I don't see how that's even a question.

[Nate C.]

Not on Gaz's planet. Apparently I'm pro-rape.

well, in his defense, you had it coming.


your jacket is wide open.

[west3man]

Not on Gaz's planet. Apparently I'm pro-rape.
Gaz said "not 100%," which is quite a ways from 0%.

0% would be rape. From what I see he never claimed you were pro-rape.

[Ed Cunard]

"at risk for" (nekkid in an alley) is not the same as "blameworthy" (deserved it.)


But what of the legal issue, then? Shouldn't the attacker--from the legal standpoint--still be 100% to blame? Let's take it another way--if you're shouting epithets at me on the street, and I beat you up and put you in a coma, should I be judged less harshly for putting you in a hospital because you instigated?

Back to the topic at hand--I'm not a legal guy. Are there degrees with rape like there are with murder? Is there, like, a 3rd degree, heat-of-the-moment rape and a 1st degree pre-meditated rape, from a legal standpoint?

I still think, in the end, the attacker is responsible for his/her actions, but I could be persuaded to think otherwise--this thread has already given me some food for thought from the other side of the discussion.

[Dreadstar]

But what of the legal issue, then? Shouldn't the attacker--from the legal standpoint--still be 100% to blame? Let's take it another way--if you're shouting epithets at me on the street, and I beat you up and put you in a coma, should I be judged less harshly for putting you in a hospital because you instigated?

I think the actual wording of the epithets can be considered mitigating circumstances. Verbal threats of physical violence, for example.

[ocelotrevs]

(haven't read the entire thread 1-3)
When did 1/3 = 25%. I always thought it was 33.3% .
Although that is considerable, 66.6% of people don't think it's ok. I wouldn't say that this represent of the whole poplace either 1000 out of 6000000.
Some girls when they go out do dress a certain way, some do get drunk, but what right does anyone have to rape anyone (men get raped as well).

[warspite1805]

As far as I am concerned it is making excuses for the criminal and blaming the victim, all too common in todays society.

A lady should be allowed to where what she likes and go where she likes, without the fear of some shit raping her. The samething with individuals should beable to go down the streat with their wallet on show without fear of being robbed. The law is too lax on criminals and I have had enougth of criminal being treated like a victim when it is they who committed a crime. Just look at the riots in Paris, those rioters were breaking varios laws such as arson and attemped murder yet many people see them as the victims, instead of looking at the victims of their crimes.

There is no excuses for rape, I would like to see all rapists stripped of their citizenshoip and dropped off the back of a Hercules into the middle of the Atlantic.

[Nate C.]

But what of the legal issue, then? Shouldn't the attacker--from the legal standpoint--still be 100% to blame? .

My gut reaction is to say, yes, attacker, 100% legally to blame. (I've already placed moral blame on attacker)

I'd have to see a lot of persuasive reasoning to make me decrease that number. (no, I'm still going 100% to blame on attacker.)

Which doesn't change my belief that some women put themselves needlessly at risk for rape.

[Xetal]

Sadly, the belief that a woman is partly to blame runs very deep in some very old religions with strong views about chastity, and that what was good for ancient societies is good today. It's wrong, but I'm prepared to bet that the vast majority of those who hold that belief would never dream of raping anyone themselves.

The problem is, they sit on juries, as was pointed out. Until you get to the legally dubious point where jury selection is affected by the likely religious/old-fashioned views of the potential jurors, you have a pretty compelling explanation for the amazingly low number of rape charges brought, let alone successfully.

Education, education, education, didn't Tony Blair say?

Plus, of course, it takes only a very small number of malicious rape charges against celebrities to turn every juror sceptical about every case, leading in turn to the accuser having a harrowing time in court for no better reason than standing up for her rights. It is damnably difficult to prove the act wasn't consensual, especially if the woman submitted at the threats stage (as many do, to avoid even worse expected suffering.)

[K'Nort]

But what of the legal issue, then? Shouldn't the attacker--from the legal standpoint--still be 100% to blame? Let's take it another way--if you're shouting epithets at me on the street, and I beat you up and put you in a coma, should I be judged less harshly for putting you in a hospital because you instigated?

Well in theory, that was my point.

The fact somebody gets provoked does not automatically give them legal leeway.

[K'Nort]

A lady should be allowed to where what she likes and go where she likes, without the fear of some shit raping her. The samething with individuals should beable to go down the streat with their wallet on show without fear of being robbed. The law is too lax on criminals and I have had enougth of criminal being treated like a victim when it is they who committed a crime.

No law can be written to eliminate those first two scenarios.

[BlairH]

There is no excuses for rape, I would like to see all rapists stripped of their citizenshoip and dropped off the back of a Hercules into the middle of the Atlantic.
I'd rather they be dropped from a space shuttle actually.

[Ed Cunard]

Well in theory, that was my point.

The fact somebody gets provoked does not automatically give them legal leeway.

Ah. I read your comments differently--I thought you meant there was a question whether provocation can diminish the attacker's level of blame, and I don't think it can be diminished.

I'm misreading a lot today.

[warspite1805]

I'd rather they be dropped from a space shuttle actually.
My method is cheaper and almost as effective :evilsmile

[west3man]

I'm misreading a lot today.
Take heart. It's not an exclusive club.

[Gaz]

Gaz said "not 100%," which is quite a ways from 0%.

0% would be rape. From what I see he never claimed you were pro-rape.
Give the man the washer-dryer.
Say there's 100% responsibility. I say it's all his. You say it's 2% hers. He's still at fault, it's still bad, but it's a different view.

[west3man]

Which doesn't change my belief that some women put themselves needlessly at risk for rape. Bingo.

This could (and in my opinion should) be extended to other scenarios and genders, as well.

[Ed Cunard]

Take heart. It's not an exclusive club.

I know--no velvet rope at this club! It lets all us bridge-and-tunnellers in, unlike that snooty Studio I-Can-Read-And-Understand.

[K'Nort]

Give the man the washer-dryer.
Say there's 100% responsibility. I say it's all his. You say it's 2% hers. He's still at fault, it's still bad, but it's a different view.

I never said any of it was hers, f--- you very much.

[Nate C.]

Bingo.

This could (and in my opinion should) be extended to other scenarios and genders, as well.

Sure.(I think Ed brought up the situation about cussing out a guy.

Gotta know who you can do that to.)

[Nate C.]

I never said any of it was hers, f--- you very much.

Gaz. K is angry because:

1. You're speaking for her.
2. And you misunderstood/misrepresented her point of view.

(and now that I'm speaking for her, I'll run away. :p )

[Gaz]

I never said any of it was hers, f--- you very much.
I apologise, I assumed something was implied within the question that obviously wasn't intended. :(

[K'Nort]

I apologise, I assumed something was implied within the question that obviously wasn't intended. :(

That's fine. Sorry I wigged out.

But a fundamental issue in all this is whether provocation or whatever else folks want to call it automatically translates into reduced liability. It doesn't. People are supposed to be able to rise above and ignore things like a short, gyrating skirt or a guy yelling insults across the street. Sometimes they can't. But they're still going to jail for that failure. Or at least in theory. But instead, there have many many cases where judges and juries decided "well he couldn't help it." He can always help it. He may be really really tempted. Things can happen to increase that temptation. But that doesn't equal an excuse. He still chooses to give in.

People forget how totally irrelevant the 'shoulds' become. Kind of like "well if I get hit by that guy he's totally liable and I'll get millions." If you're eating through a tube the rest of your life, you'll be unpleasantly surprised by how much those millions don't make it worth it.

[Charles RB]

As far as I am concerned it is making excuses for the criminal and blaming the victim, all too common in todays society.

The "she was asking for it" view was around long before today's society.

[howyadoin]

It greatly disturbs me that anyone can lay the blame upon a rape victim, let alone the possibility that a sizable chunk of the UK population thinks that.I hope that 25% stays the fuck away from me and mine, then.

[warspite1805]

The "she was asking for it" view was around long before today's society.

But it would be nice in a so called enlightened society if wre could move away from that type of shit.

[west3man]

Gaz. K is angry because:

1. You're speaking for her.
2. And you misunderstood/misrepresented her point of view.

(and now that I'm speaking for her, I'll run away. :p )
Gaz said, "I'm betting you're saying 'Not 100%'." Her response was not to correct him, but to respond to his entire statement with "Are you insane?"

He just guessed. He didn't say it was so.

[Gaz]

Gaz said, "I'm betting you're saying 'Not 100%'." Her response was not to correct him, but to respond to his entire statement with "Are you insane?"

He just guessed. He didn't say it was so.
West? Shut up. I apolgised, I made a mistake.
You: Beater.
This issue: Deceased equine.

[howyadoin]

a so called enlightened societyThere's the crux of the issue right there.

[BlairH]

I guess it's about time I post my usual propaganda:

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4808/sdont2al.jpg
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/639/possums8cw.jpg
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4199/sfoam6bx.jpg

[Iangould]

I read about a survey where 25% of people are stupid.

I think this might be the same one.

It needs to be remembered that unless you're very careful about conducting the survey (most people aren't) you get 5-10% of people so stupid they answer incorrectly.

That's why if you ask a question like "Would you like to be tied a sack with a rabid badger" you generally only get 98-99% of respondents saying "no".

[Gaz]

I guess it's about time I post my usual propaganda:

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4808/sdont2al.jpg
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/639/possums8cw.jpg
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4199/sfoam6bx.jpg
Yes, ladies, why wound and let him actually stand as an example that rape CAN be reported and prosecuted, when you can kill him and have to defend your own actions instead?

[Iangould]

I swear, if you graduate, it would be hillarious if the only work you could find was as a defense attorney.

Actually most of the practicing lawyers, social workers and psychiatrists I've met subscribe to the same theory as BlairH.

Thing is they probably think 1% of offenders fall into the "shoot them or jail them for life" category. Blair seems to be more in the 99.999999% category.

[Charles RB]

I guess it's about time I post my usual propaganda:

All of which ignores that it is illegal to carry firearms in Britain and if you get caught you're up Shit Creek, and that being able to use firearms properly in the heat of the moment requires training, and that carryining a gun only defends you against rape if you're attacked by an assailant in an alleyway and not if you're drugged/drunk/otherwise incapacitated or attacked by someone you know (and who you're not armed around).

[BlairH]

Yes, ladies, why wound and let him actually stand as an example that rape CAN be reported and prosecuted, when you can kill him and have to defend your own actions instead?
Oh yes. So he can be let out in a years time...great.

[Iangould]

Dom, you don't see a "link", a "cause and effect" between say, a drunk girl in a mini with no panties at a frat house at three in the morning with her potential to being raped being higher to a sober girl surrounded by friends at the mall in the afternoon?


How about a woman in a Burqa who only leaves the house when accompanied by male relatives?

[BlairH]

All of which ignores that it is illegal to carry firearms in Britain
Well, the law clearly needs changed.

being able to use firearms properly in the heat of the moment requires training.
Then train yourself. It's certianly something that requires skill I agree, but it could mean the difference between life/death.

[Gaz]

Actually most of the practicing lawyers, social workers and psychiatrists I've met subscribe to the same theory as BlairH.

Thing is they probably think 1% of offenders fall into the "shoot them or jail them for life" category. Blair seems to be more in the 99.999999% category.
Yay! I'm the exception! I'm not a pessimistic, authoritarian bastard!



(Please note, that is a tongue in cheek comment, not a 100% serious statement.)

[BlairH]

Thing is they probably think 1% of offenders fall into the "shoot them or jail them for life" category. Blair seems to be more in the 99.999999% category.
I think it's about 20-35%.

[Dreadstar]

Yes, ladies, why wound and let him actually stand as an example that rape CAN be reported and prosecuted, when you can kill him and have to defend your own actions instead?


I'm reading this as you think it's preferable to have the rape occur and let the courts decide to punish the criminal rather than preventing the rape with probable lethal force.

I don't agree with that.

[BlairH]

Yay! I'm the exception! I'm not a pessimistic, authoritarian bastard!

You're not the exception, because:
a) You are not a lawyer, social worker, or a psychiatrist (yet)
b) I would certianly not say that most of the aforementioned professionals subscribe to my viewpoint. (perhaps about half do) Ergo, "exception" isn't really the word to use in your case, if not "rule", then certianly "popular sentiment".

I'll ignore the reasonably distasteful "bastard" comment as you apologised in advance.

[west3man]

West? Shut up. I apolgised, I made a mistake.
You: Beater.
This issue: Deceased equine.
You're welcome.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I hope that 25% stays the fuck away from me and mine, then.

You know, back when I was tending bar, I read some survey in the newspaper that was pointing out how ignorant most Americans are. You know the one, they do it about every other year, ""75% of Americans can't find the United States on a map," "89% of Americans can't name 3 other countries in NATO," "54% of Americans think Mount Rushmore is made out of cottage cheese," etc.

And, as I was reading this survey aloud, somewhat increduously, one of my fellow bartenders, Mike, said, "Don't laugh. I probably couldn't answer those questions."

So, I said, c'mon, name 3 countries in NATO.

Mike says, "Uh, Russia?"

It was about this point where I became convinced that 57% of people are damned stupid. Unfortunately, they outnumber us.

[Iangould]

So Charles and Blair - why don't one of you go find statistics on the incidence of rape in the US and the UK and see if there's any actual statistical difference between the two countries which might be attributable to gun laws THEN continue this debate?

[Charles RB]

Well, the law clearly needs changed.

Because clearly the streets of Britain would be safer if everyone could carry weapons around with them. Everyone would always be responsible with them and never use them out of stupidity, and the criminals would never adapt to this by making sure they get to use their weapons first so you don't have to.

It's certianly something that requires skill I agree, but it could mean the difference between life/death.

Unless you get raped while drunk, drugged or otherwise incapacitated and unable to use a gun. Or get raped by someone you know, who you weren't ready to pull a gun on. Or get raped in a situation or place where you didn't bring your gun. Or if the rapist also has a gun and gets the drop on you.

[Gaz]

I'm reading this as you think it's preferable to have the rape occur and let the courts decide to punish the criminal rather than preventing the rape with probable lethal force.

I don't agree with that.
Not in the least. But I'd rather not get into what has previously been deemed a stupid adherence to a "no taking of human life" belief that I hold.
I just would rather they leave him alive to face the music for attemping the crime, than killing him and having to prove that they weren't at fault.

[Dreadstar]

So Charles and Blair - why don't one of you go find statistics on the incidence of rape in the US and the UK and see if there's any actual statistical difference between the two countries which might be attributable to gun laws THEN continue this debate?

PLEASE DON'T.

[Dreadstar]

Not in the least. But I'd rather not get into what has previously been deemed a stupid adherence to a "no taking of human life" belief that I hold.
I just would rather they leave him alive to face the music for attemping the crime, than killing him and having to prove that they weren't at fault.

Oh, I can understand that, yes.

[BlairH]

So Charles and Blair - why don't one of you go find statistics on the incidence of rape in the US and the UK and see if there's any actual statistical difference between the two countries which might be attributable to gun laws THEN continue this debate?

This is one subject where statistics are useless:
a) rape is hideously under-reported.
b) Statistical gathering/compilation is different in the 2 countries
c) statistical compilation for "the US" makes no allowance for different states (Florida has very good concealed carry laws. LA does not)

[Iangould]

I'm reading this as you think it's preferable to have the rape occur and let the courts decide to punish the criminal rather than preventing the rape with probable lethal force.

I don't agree with that.

I think that's a rather forced reading since the argument is between pepper spray or a taser and a handgun.

The question is how many MORE rapes would the handgun deter and how many additional accidental deaths would they cause?

If I turn a corner late at night and bump into a woman and she misinterprets my intent I'd much rather be maced than shot.

[Charles RB]

(Florida has very good concealed carry laws. LA does not)

I was wondering that- in how many states in the US is it legal to carry firearms anyway?

[Iangould]

You know, back when I was tending bar, I read some survey in the newspaper that was pointing out how ignorant most Americans are. You know the one, they do it about every other year, ""75% of Americans can't find the United States on a map," "89% of Americans can't name 3 other countries in NATO," "54% of Americans think Mount Rushmore is made out of cottage cheese," etc.

And, as I was reading this survey aloud, somewhat increduously, one of my fellow bartenders, Mike, said, "Don't laugh. I probably couldn't answer those questions."

So, I said, c'mon, name 3 countries in NATO.

Mike says, "Uh, Russia?"

It was about this point where I became convinced that 57% of people are damned stupid. Unfortunately, they outnumber us.


I can probably name 90% of the countries in NATO but if it came to pro sports or cars I suspect I'm far more ignorant than Mike.

Everybody's ignorant about some things. The trick lies in recognising this and being prepared to rectify it when necessary.

[Gaz]

I think that's a rather forced reading since the argument is between pepper spray or a taser and a handgun.

The question is how many MORE rapes would the handgun deter and how many additional accidental deaths would they cause?

If I turn a corner late at night and bump into a woman and she misinterprets my intent I'd much rather be maced than shot.
That too! :D
"Ow, my eyes, you bitch!" is much better than "Ooh, where'd my head go?"

[BlairH]

That too! :D
"Ow, my eyes, you bitch!" is much better than "Ooh, where'd my head go?"
In all honesty though. Compare the number of times THAT has happened (has there been any?) to:
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/9048/s2million0ly.jpg

Granted a small whack of that 2 million is police use, but even then

[warspite1805]

That too! :D
"Ow, my eyes, you bitch!" is much better than "Ooh, where'd my head go?"
That is a mute point over here as mace\pepper spray are illegal, because our Government does not trust us.

[Gaz]

In all honesty though. Compare the number of times THAT has happened (has there been any?) to:
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/9048/s2million0ly.jpg

Granted a small whack of that 2 million is police use, but even then
"Small" I'd bet at least half, given the US population.

[Michael P]

I was wondering that- in how many states in the US is it legal to carry firearms anyway?
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry)

37 U.S. states permit adults who have applied, have no criminal record, and (in some cases) meet training requirements to carry one or more handguns in a concealed manner; issuing officials may not arbitrarily deny a permit application, a practice known as "shall issue." A further nine states have "may issue" laws; typically specific "need" must be established, but in practice, this is a mechanism to prohibit most people from carrying. These "may issue" states range from "shall issue" in practice (Alabama and Connecticut are examples) to "at the whim of local officials" (such as New York and California; rural officials in those states liberally issue permits but officials in urbanized counties generally do not unless the requestor is rich and/or powerful.) to "almost non-issue" in states such as Maryland and Hawaii where even documented death threats are sometimes not sufficient to convince officials to issue permits. Two states (Vermont and Alaska) allow any non-criminal who has reached the age of 18, in the case of Vermont, or 21, in the case of Alaska, to carry without a permit of any kind. Alaska issues a permit; it is, however, optional, and is used by Alaska residents for gaining reciprocal carry rights in certain other states.

As of 2005, only four US States: Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Illinois have no provision whatsoever that would allow for the legal concealed carry of firearms by "ordinary" citizens. There are currently movements in each of these states to pass concealed-carry laws; in two of these states, legislation was passed in 2004, but vetoed by the respective governors.

[BlairH]

"Small" I'd bet at least half, given the US population.
Even then, it's a large number. Certianly more than the number of "oh noez! That man must be a rapist! (bang!)" incidents.

[Gaz]

Even then, it's a large number. Certianly more than the number of "oh noez! That man must be a rapist! (bang!)" incidents.
"Acceptable losses" then? :(

[Tages]

That too! :D
"Ow, my eyes, you bitch!" is much better than "Ooh, where'd my head go?"
Or, alternately:

"Hey, it's raining. Rape time!"
"AAAAAAAAAAGH!" *flailing arm grabs her face and strangles her/shoves her face into the wall/gouges her eyes*
"Mmmmn, spicy. Yeah, it works on most guys, but some of us have a resistance to it."
"OW! Oh, thanks, 300-lb. buddy. For a moment there I thought this one would go unraped."

I would much prefer either:


"Hey, I/we don't want no trouble lady!" *runs*

Or, alternately:

"That thing isn't loaded!" *BANG!* "Oops, guess I was wrong. Down I go." *THUMP*

[BlairH]

"Acceptable losses" then? :(
On balance, yes. Considering the amount of times firearms save innocent life.

[Charles RB]

[In all honesty though. Compare the number of times THAT has happened (has there been any?) to:

Where's that figure from; how much of that figure is from the police; how much of the rest of the figure comes from use of guns in homes or businesses instead of on the streets; and what's the figure of people killed by guns that were bought legally?

Also, where's the picture from?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry)

Ta muchly.

That is a mute point over here as mace\pepper spray are illegal, because our Government does not trust us.

I don't trust us either.

[BlairH]

Where's that figure from; how much of that figure is from the police; how much of the rest of the figure comes from use of guns in homes or businesses instead of on the streets; and what's the figure of people killed by guns that were bought legally?
Oleg (the artist that put them together, and a friend of mine) claims that the statistics he used were from a combination of David Kopel, the "Independance Institute" (whatever that may be) and the FBI crime reports.
[/QUOTE]

[BlairH]

I don't trust us either.
Yeesh! That reminds me of this:

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1949/smonopoly0iv.jpg

[Grazzt]

Or, alternately:

"Hey, it's raining. Rape time!"
"AAAAAAAAAAGH!" *flailing arm grabs her face and strangles her/shoves her face into the wall/gouges her eyes*
"Mmmmn, spicy. Yeah, it works on most guys, but some of us have a resistance to it."
"OW! Oh, thanks, 300-lb. buddy. For a moment there I thought this one would go unraped."

Besides the resistance and rain one, how would these be any different with a handgun?

-If a person gouges out your eyes and shoves you against a wall, your chances of getting out a gun and putting a bullet somewhere where it will count are nil.
-By the time you realise they're going to try and rape you, they're going to be close. You have just as much chance of macing two people as you would have of shooting two people.

Also: how many people really have a resistance to mace? I thought that was just a bad joke from Family Guy.

[Charles RB]

Yeesh! That reminds me of this:

I don't trust the government either. On the plus side, I can vote for the government and, in theory, have a raving idiot replaced with someone who's less of an idiot, which is more than I can say for the general British public. I can't vote that the 25% of people who think women are to blame for being raped should go away and never come back.

[Iangould]

In all honesty though. Compare the number of times THAT has happened (has there been any?) to:
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/9048/s2million0ly.jpg

Granted a small whack of that 2 million is police use, but even then

Go to http://www.timlambert.org and look up the gun-control section.

[BlairH]

Go to http://www.timlambert.org and look up the gun-control section.
Gee! A left leaning web log.
www.guncite.com
It's a cheap shot right back at a cheap shot.

[Tages]

Besides the resistance and rain one, how would these be any different with a handgun?

-If a person gouges out your eyes and shoves you against a wall, your chances of getting out a gun and putting a bullet somewhere where it will count are nil.
Point being, they're not likely to even get to that point. More than nine-tenths of the time merely brandishing the gun causes the attacker to run away (and that's not Lott, Ian, that's Kleck, unless my memory's failing me). People shot with anything bigger than a .22 do not grab and attack you, they fall down and stay down.

-By the time you realise they're going to try and rape you, they're going to be close. You have just as much chance of macing two people as you would have of shooting two people.
A can of mace doesn't have stopping power. It also doesn't have the "Whoa, a step closer and my chances of dying in the next thirty seconds go up dramatically" factor.

Also: how many people really have a resistance to mace? I thought that was just a bad joke from Family Guy.
Me, for one. My sister nailed me once by accident showing it off. It hurt like HELL, but not enough to totally incapacitate. If she wasn't a girl I probably would have pried the can out of her fingers and clubbed her on the forehead with it.

[BlairH]

Everyone would always be responsible with them and never use them out of stupidity
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/787/soldtech2th.jpg

[Charles RB]

Gee! A left leaning web log.

Where, on the section on defensive gun use, we find as the two most recent posts:

Greg Booth said: "A 1979 US Justice Department study of 32,000 attempted rapes show that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%."

“Rape victimization in 26 American Cities” is indeed a US Justice Department study, so I can correct all the inaccuracies in the above paragraph.

1. 32,000 is the estimated number of rapes and attempted rapes by strangers in the 26 cities surveyed. The number of rapes and attempted rapes by strangers in the sample was about 1600.

2. The completion rate for rapes by strangers was 32%.

3. The 3% completion rate was when the woman “used/brandished gun or knife” (Response 1, Question 136 on the original survey.)

4. gun/knife was used for self defence in only 2% of the cases. The study marks the 3% statistic as “statistically unreliable” since it is based on less then 50 sample cases.

To give you an idea of how unreliable the 3% statistic is, the completion rate for white women who used a gun/knife is 14%, while the completion rate for white women who “resisted without force/took evasive action” was 6%.

and, quite crucially


The death rate from robberies is about 1.5 per thousand robberies. If the same death rate occurs in other crimes, then guns save 1.5*65, or about 100 lives per year.

Frank Crary said: "What makes you think that the death rate from robberies is typical? It certainly isn’t for, say, murders or attempted murders. I’d expect it to be much higher for other crimes, such as rape (although there is a selection effect, about half the rapes reported by the local news are rape/murders.) By selecting robberies, and using 1.5/1000 as the death rate, your estimate is low by possibly as much as a factor of ten."

About 2/3 of the crimes where guns are used for self defence are assaults[1], so this is the death rate that we should use. We can compute an upper bound to this by taking (1980 figures from [1]) 23,000 homicides / 4,000,000 assaults, or 6/100, assuming an impossible 100% of homicides are associated with assaults. This leads to an estimate of an upper bound of 65*6*(2/3) = at most 250 lives saved.

Also, there are far more that 65,000 violent crimes each year in the United States. I think the rate is several hundred per hundred thousand, or around a million total violent crimes each year. Your estimate is, therefore low by another factor of ~50.

Huh? 65,000 is the number of violent crimes prevented by guns. If I multiply (violent crime death rate)*(number of violent crimes), then I’m estimating the number of “violent crime deaths”. Let’s see: (6/1000)*(6,000,000)=36,000 — this is about 50% too many — that 6/1000 death rate is probably 50% too high.

I find the reaction to my estimate of 100-200 lives saved by defensive gun use a little odd. “That’s way too low.” “Tim’s pulling a fast one.” If anyone here believes the number is higher, I think they should ask themselves if their belief was based on actual evidence or wishful thinking.

[1] Kleck “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force” Social Problems 35 pp 1-21

And there's a lot under it. Sounds quite convincing.

[Charles RB]

Psychiatrists call that projection.

I call it "noticing that many people in Britain are stupid, and do we want stupid people carrying guns around? Like hell we do".

[Iangould]

Gee! A left leaning web log.


Actually it's a politically neutral blog by a professional statistician.

[Bloopinator]

Those 25% or what ever people are rapists :mad:

[BlairH]

I call it "noticing that many people in Britain are stupid, and do we want stupid people carrying guns around? Like hell we do".
And what about the rights of intelligent, law abiding citizens like my family?
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/8932/show3tb.jpg

PS: Do any of you like Oleg's photography? He's asking for commentary.

[Ed Cunard]

Holy crap, this has turned into a gun thread. I never saw that coming, no.

[BlairH]

Holy crap, this has turned into a gun thread. I never saw that coming, no.
That's what happens when I'm not properly restrained! :)

[Grazzt]

Point being, they're not likely to even get to that point. More than nine-tenths of the time merely brandishing the gun causes the attacker to run away (and that's not Lott, Ian, that's Kleck, unless my memory's failing me). People shot with anything bigger than a .22 do not grab and attack you, they fall down and stay down.

Oh really? So now guns come equipped with sensors that allow you to tell exactly who is a rapist, and keeps them from hiding in alleys? Or are you planning on simply shooting anyone who comes withing five feet of you?

A can of mace doesn't have stopping power. It also doesn't have the "Whoa, a step closer and my chances of dying in the next thirty seconds go up dramatically" factor.

Just because it can't kill them, doesn't mean it won't make them reconsider their actions. I'm sure a rapist would be willing to wait for a completely unarmed person, rather than attack a person who has a taser or a can of mace pointed at them.

[Dreadstar]

Holy crap, this has turned into a gun thread. I never saw that coming, no.

Post #131.


And with that, I'm out of here.

[Ed Cunard]

That's what happens when I'm not properly restrained! :)

I miss October.

[Gaz]

And what about the rights of intelligent, law abiding citizens like my family?
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/8932/show3tb.jpg

PS: Do any of you like Oleg's photography? He's asking for commentary.
Technical aspects are great.
I could do without the transparent attempts at rhetoric.

[Ed Cunard]

Post #131.


And with that, I'm out of here.

Yeah, yeah, you beat me to it.

But, um...

BUT I SAID IT LAST.

Phew--saved.

[BlairH]

Technical aspects are great.
I could do without the transparent attempts at rhetoric.
HAHAHAHA!
Aside from the "statistics" provided earlier, the anti-gun, anti-defense people here have posted nothing but rhetoric. Rhetoric and baseless speculation! (calling the British public "idiots" etc)

[Charles RB]

PS: Do any of you like Oleg's photography?

I like his photos, but the posters are shite.

As for rendering you defenceless- Britain has never allowed for concealed carry of guns, so the "rendering me defenceless" line is irrelevant and erroneous. Nothing's changed. And there are other ways of defending yourself when attacked in public, such as the old favourite known as running away really fast (and if your assailant is preventing you from doing that, is it likely you'd be able to get a gun out & ready in time?). Or learning various unarmed combat skills so you can hit him, then run away.

Generally, running away from dangerous situations is the smartest option.

[BlairH]

And there are other ways of defending yourself when attacked in public, such as the old favourite known as running away really fast (and if your assailant is preventing you from doing that, is it likely you'd be able to get a gun out & ready in time?).
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/6138/swheelchair2dc.jpg
Not everybody is physically able. Criminals prey on the weak.

[Ed Cunard]

Blair,

You know what's awesome? Comics from Fantagraphics. I mean, they published Black Hole when it was in single issues, they publish the gorgeous collected Peanuts editions, they've got Love & Rockets, which is still one of the greatest comics of all time, they're reprinting Herriman's strips in an attractive format... I mean, Kuperman's Tales Designed to Thrizzle? That's hot shit, my friend. Hot. Shit. And, of course, we can't forget The Comics Journal (though many would like to, I fear), which is still my favorite comics-related periodical.

[Charles RB]

(calling the British public "idiots" etc)

We're posting in a thread that was about a survey showing an estimated 25% of the British public are idiots.

[Grazzt]

http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/6138/swheelchair2dc.jpg
Not everybody is physically able. Criminals prey on the weak.

You know, you can't really complain about the other sides arguments when yours relies almost solely on posters. :p

Where, oh where is Tages with an intelligent rebuttal?

[Charles RB]

Not everybody is physically able.

If you're not physically able to run because you're in a wheelchair or on crutches or are really old, I can't see you having much luck pulling a gun out and being able to use in time.

[BlairH]

You know, you can't really complain about the other sides arguments when yours relies almost solely on posters. :p
Pictures are worth 1000 words, and can illustrate what I'm trying to get to more than my insane ramblings ever could,

Where, oh where is Tages with an intelligent rebuttal?
I'm not sure I like your meaning.

[StoneGold]

http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/6138/swheelchair2dc.jpg
Not everybody is physically able. Criminals prey on the weak.
That last one, a little on the tacky side, really.

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/PBR-Dedication/images/photo-04-tn.jpg

[BlairH]

If you're not physically able to run because you're in a wheelchair or on crutches or are really old, I can't see you having much luck pulling a gun out and being able to use in time.
That's BS. Your arms work as fast as an able bodied person's. Heck, I saw a guy at shot show 2002 who was the fastest draw in the crowd with a revolver. He was mangled in a car accident, lost both his legs and one arm.

[Gaz]

Blair,

You know what's awesome? Comics from Fantagraphics. I mean, they published Black Hole when it was in single issues, they publish the gorgeous collected Peanuts editions, they've got Love & Rockets, which is still one of the greatest comics of all time, they're reprinting Herriman's strips in an attractive format... I mean, Kuperman's Tales Designed to Thrizzle? That's hot shit, my friend. Hot. Shit. And, of course, we can't forget The Comics Journal (though many would like to, I fear), which is still my favorite comics-related periodical.
Yay! Desperation!

[Gaz]

Pictures are worth 1000 words, and can illustrate what I'm trying to get to more than my insane ramblings ever could,

You mean "can provoke an emotional response thus making them ignore the lack of evidence"?

[Ed Cunard]

Yay! Desperation!

Well, yeah, you can find examples of desperation in Love And Rockets, but that's not the only emotional resonance you'll find.

Not much deperation in Tales Designed to Thrizzle, though--just lots and lots of funny.

[BlairH]

You mean "can provoke an emotional response thus making them ignore the lack of evidence"?
You guys are the ones wanting to disarm people (mostly law abiding people like me seeing as CRIMINALS IGNORE GUN-CONTROL LAWS) and hence change the status quo. You provide evidence. :D

[Charles RB]

That's BS. Your arms work as fast as an able bodied person.

If you're on crutches? You're holding onto those, how easy is it to drop one, get a gun and be able to use it whilst staying steady & upright and doing all that fast enough for it to count? If you're old? However fast you can go for your gun, you've got to do it faster than the attacker. Wheelchair-bound? OK, a guy who specifically trained himself for gun shows was able to pull off a quick draw- what about a normal guy in a wheelchair?

[Charles RB]

You guys are the ones wanting to disarm people

No we're not, because there aren't concealed carry laws in Britain. You're the one who thinks we need that changed. I'm not seeing any convincing evidence for why.

[BlairH]

If you're on crutches?
I said "wheelchair"

You're holding onto those, how easy is it to drop one, get a gun and be able to use it whilst staying steady & upright and doing all that fast enough for it to count?
Conversley, he's not exactly going to be able to "run away" as you suggested.
what about a normal guy in a wheelchair?
Has a more stable firing platform than able bodied folks as there is no disturbances from the legs.

[BlairH]

No we're not, because there aren't concealed carry laws in Britain. You're the one who thinks we need that changed. I'm not seeing any convincing evidence for why.
I said "disarm". Nothing to do with concealed carry. I can carry weapons freely in my home. I can deter robbers from attacking me in my home. Who said anything about "in the street"?

Are you in favour of me keeping a 22 calibre Ar15 assault rifle, a remington 700 sniper rifle and a WWII .303 lee enfield rifle in my home?

[Ed Cunard]

You guys are the ones wanting to disarm people (mostly law abiding people like me seeing as CRIMINALS IGNORE GUN-CONTROL LAWS) and hence change the status quo. You provide evidence. :D

I don't have a copy of Tales Designed To Thrizzle with me, but I can scan one tonight maybe, if I get time.

[Iangould]

Holy crap, this has turned into a gun thread. I never saw that coming, no.

See Post 114

[Iangould]

HAHAHAHA!
Aside from the "statistics" provided earlier, the anti-gun, anti-defense people here have posted nothing but rhetoric. Rhetoric and baseless speculation! (calling the British public "idiots" etc)

So apart from the posts providing facts, we've failed to provide facts?

Like you when you announce that rape statistics for the US are completely unreliable?

[BlairH]

So apart from the posts providing facts, we've failed to provide facts?
Well look at the "statistics" you posted. The guy admitted he made a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are NOT facts.

Like you when you announce that gun statistics for the US are completely unreliable? Except for that 2 million a year one, of course.
I said it was just as unreliable. A lot of that was police use.

If you want some research, go to www.guncite.com ignore the pro-gun diatribes and check out the links to the original research and you'll see how good your "facts" actually are.

[Charles RB]

I said "wheelchair"

You said "physically able". That doesn't just cover wheelchairs.

Conversley, he's not exactly going to be able to "run away" as you suggested.

That's right, he can't run away with great ease. But he can't defend himself with a gun with great ease either, so he's stuffed either way.

Has a more stable firing platform than able bodied folks as there is no disturbances from the legs.

He's still got to get his gun fast enough to use it.

Who said anything about "in the street"?

That was the whole point of the discussion- people defending themselves with guns from being attacked with guns in public. Y'know, people attacked in alleyways and stuff? The thing we've been talking about for a while here, with your first poster-post on page 8 talking about girls carrying handguns to ward off rapists?

Sounds like "in the street" to me.

Are you in favour of me keeping a 22 calibre Ar15 assault rifle, a remington 700 sniper rifle and a WWII .303 lee enfield rifle in my home?

What's that got to do with the topic at hand? Didn't all this stem from arguing over whether or not carrying guns would deter rapists?

[BlairH]

What's that got to do with the topic at hand? Didn't all this stem from arguing over whether or not carrying guns would deter rapists?
Lot of rapes occour in the victims home...

So, are you or aren't you in favour of me keeping my assault rifle, my sniper rifle and my WWII vintage battle rifle in my bedroom?

[Charles RB]

Lot of rapes occour in the victims home...

And a lot of those would require the victim carrying their gun at all times for it to help. If you know the assailant, a gun won't help unless it's right next to you and you're able to react fast enough to someone you know attacking you. And a gun doesn't help a victim who's drunk, drugged or otherwise incapable of using a gun at that time.

So, are you or aren't you in favour of me keeping my assault rifle, my sniper rifle and my WWII vintage battle rifle in my bedroom?
What's that go to do with the discussion at hand? (Though why do you have a sniper rifle in your bedroom?)

EDIT: While I'm at it, I'm being advised by someone on AIM that a pistol makes more sense for home defence as it's less awkward to use than rifles, being smaller, lighter and all that.

[BlairH]

And a lot of those would require the victim carrying their gun at all times for it to help. If you know the assailant, a gun won't help unless it's right next to you and you're able to react fast enough to someone you know attacking you. And a gun doesn't help a victim who's drunk, drugged or otherwise incapable of using a gun at that time.
What about the vast majority of people who aren't drunk, drugged etc? Obviously a gun isn't a device that fits EVERy situation, but it certianly has it's place.


What's that go to do with the discussion at hand?
Because I can defend my family from would be rapists. What's your answer to my question?

(Though why do you have a sniper rifle in your bedroom?)
To compensate...for the fact that criminals are often armed
I have a sniper rifle because it wins me money in target matches and is hella' fun to shoot.
Plus: Why not have a sniper rifle? I've wanted one ever since I saw Leon (or Leon:The Professional as it's sometimes called.)

[Charles RB]

While I'm at it, I'm being advised by someone on AIM that a pistol makes more sense for home defence than rifles, as it's less awkward to use due to being smaller, lighter, less recoil and all that.

[BlairH]

While I'm at it, I'm being advised by someone on AIM that a pistol makes more sense for home defence than rifles, as it's less awkward to use due to being smaller, lighter, less recoil and all that.
Illegal in the UK. As a law abiding citizen I don't have any handguns. In an emergency, I'd probably grab my Lee enfield .303 or my AR15 to be honest. My sniper rifle is just for fun (although so are the others)

The best home defense weapon is a lightweight carbine/assault rifle in .223 (5.56mm) caliber.

[Charles RB]

What about the vast majority of people who aren't drunk, drugged etc?

Are the vast majority not drunk, drugged etc? I'm unsure of the statistics on that. Either way, if it's an acquaintance/date rape, a gun won't help unless you always carry it with you wherever you go and are able to react really quickly to the sudden, unexpected threat of a person you know turning on you. It might help on violent rape in a home invasion situation, but how often does that happen statistically?

Because I can defend my family from would be rapists.

If rapists launch an invasion when you're there and they aren't armed, then yes, but if it's done by someone they know?

To compensate...for the fact that criminals are often armed

I'm willing to concede on being wrong here, but wouldn't sniper rifles be an incredibly crap weapon to use indoors at short range?

[Charles RB]

Illegal in the UK. As a law abiding citizen I don't have any handguns.

*checks Wikipedia* So I see. It also says that generally, you can only get a gun license if you have sport or work related reasons for owning