Women use guns to save themselves from their rapists

Woops, you sure didn't! Sorry, my bad!

But you have to admit the OP started this thread down that road!

 

"If a man is strong enough to rape a woman, it's more than likely he's strong enough to force the gun out of her hand and into his hands too."

Taxcutter says:
Not if she shoots him before he can get his hands on her.

 

Google up NRA. I'm not you errand boy.

 

I disagree.

 

Or maybe better security at the campsite.

 

Well if he can do that after she empties the mag into him, range time is in order.

 

Owning a car is not a fundamental right and there is not a cottage industry of far left politicians out there demanding car control and bans.

 

Too Easy

 

http://budk.com/Black-Skull-Fang-Keychain?

Two bucks. And every woman should have one. Much better than a gun- this gouges out eyes.

Why is this thread still running?

 

The usual reasons, people trying to tell people that they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves because they know best.

I don't want to force anyone to own a gun, nor even to kill someone trying to rape them. I just don't understand the knee jerk reaction of other people over the idea that someone would kill someone in self-defense. Every creature in nature is capable of this. I don't want to kill anyone, but I don't want to be raped and killed either. Nor do I want to be pulled into a vehicle to be taken somewhere and killed. If I can run, I'll run. If I can poke someone's eyes out, I'll do that instead. But if I have no other options...I would kill someone before I would let them force themselves into my body.

Question: do you liberal guys just cover your eyes and ears when the news tells you how your liberal anti-gun president has been drone killing American citizens without due process? Or do you lecture him, too?

Just curious.

 

Derp. Any man who is shot by a woman with the intent of preventing rape.

I'm not saying rape isn't a terrible crime. I'm very glad for any woman who is able to avoid it, whether it's by use of a gun or not. I just wouldn't want to someone to be shot dead over it.

 

Are you going to honestly sit there and tell me that you don't know the difference between a gun and a high capacity magazine?

One more try. Cite proposed legislation that would confiscate your GUN.

 

I just did...That you refuse to see what is intended is not the fault of the cite posted. The national Academy of Science study of the effectiveness of such gun control measures advised that particular idea had no statistical impact on violent crime, accidents or suicide at all. As it has no effect, why do it? You might also follow the path of common sense 'assault weapon' bans in California..

That the left pretends each incremental grab is the last and then follows with another 'common sense' measure. Gun owners know better.

Ms Feinstein was also rather infamous as the mayor of San Francisco that only approved one concealed carry permit...her own.

 

Having a gun increases your likelihood of using it considerably. That said, kudos to the OP woman who defended herself. Guy wants to rape you, shoot his dick off. Simple.

 

I think that "gun control" is very much NOT an either/or sort of proposition. The absolute fringes, where you're either trying to ban the carrying of any sort of potentially lethal object, or else you're trying to mandate that every schoolchild be trained in the use of live grenades, these are not popular positions. Everyone is somewhere in the middle.

I think that lethal weapons are entirely necessary under some circumstances, at least for anybody who isn't either Grizzly Adams or Rambo. And I don't think that the government is capable of, or responsible for, determining those circumstances except in very specific instances like, say, public schools, where I can understand the logic of a zero-tolerance stance on weaponry. Life is unpredictable and the capacity for lethal violence can be very important when you least expect it.

But does that mean that we should all be allowed to carry surface-to-air missiles? Well. I'm honestly not sure. Philosophically I can see the argument, but practically, that sounds ... stupid, I guess is the word I'm looking for. What can a person do with a surface-to-air missile? Theoretically, I suppose they could protect themselves from ... helicopter pirates? The FBI guys in Die Hard? The chances of doing something stupid with a surface-to-air missile seem far greater than the chances of doing something good.

I don't think I would ban handguns, personally. I do agree with the OP in that people should be able to arm themselves without necessarily having to announce to the world that they're armed. Women, specifically, just aren't going to carry around rifles even if they really should be carrying around rifles. Well, most won't, anyway. So the OP does have a point.

I think that people have the right to arm themselves effectively, even if that makes them more dangerous. Danger can't be eliminated entirely. Being overprotective doesn't actually make the people you're trying to protect safer -- it usually has the opposite effect. Even with kids, there comes a point where protecting them doesn't mean restraining them or even standing between them and danger (because you can't, not forever), it means making them able to protect themselves.

 

She is British...their peasantry has had their utter helplessness ingrained for generations.

 

My wife's take is simple: If facing a rapist...the last round is for her.

 

Not great, but one thing sometimes works: Go totally limp, let your head slump forward. The natural reaction of the attacker is to lean slightly forward. When he does, snap your head back, ideally putting the exact centre of your head directly on the tip of his nose. My wife taught this to some women...one used it--sucessfully--on her ex-husband. Note: it also makes IDing the attacker a whole lot easier!

 

Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a 4'5", 90lb woman is supposed to defend herself from a 6'2", 260lb attacker with that thing. Be specific.

Also, that thing is not legal in some states.

 

But if he's strong enough to rape a woman, there'd be nothing stopping him from killing her even if he doesn't take her gun. If she has a gun, she'd at least have a chance - without a gun she's have next to no chance of survival - some will probably suggest she get a taser, but taser's don't always work against a strong, enraged, attacker.

 

Every woman should have one of these instead

 

Just wanted to throw this out there - Jiu Jitsu and Judo, both excellent forms of self defense for a woman to practice. These two arts make it quite possible to own a larger and stronger attacker. But if you'd rather pack heat, more power to you.

 

You know there's a saying in some martial arts philosophies:
"It is better to walk away than to fight,
It is better to fight than to maim,
It is better to maim than to kill,
It is better to kill than be killed,
It is better to be judged by twelve, then be carried by six."

I say it's a double edged sword with most liberals, simply the ones I have spoken to have always said no guns to anyone, and do the liberal hop, with all the what if scenarios, but when push comes to shove, and they are put in that situation, of their attacker not being of the mind of another persons rights, at the time of the said attack, they too want that weapon to defend themselves against the assault...claim all the righteous nonsense you want, but when faced with that inevitable assault, you want that ability to come away un-harmed.

Why don't the liberals just say, brain wash all the potential attackers? Train them not to be aggressive...oh, wait, that is what Christianity has been trying to do for thousands of years, and they can't make people be less aggressive either...it's the choice of the aggressor.