Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Prevent Rapes Support Concealed Carry

F

follower of Christ

Guest
Prevent RapesSupport Concealed Carry

Send this Article to a Friend
Printable page



April 25, 2000

Opinion Editorial

By Linda Gorman

An animal rapes another woman, and the powers that be hold another community meeting at which they dole out the same old advice about not walking alone at night. No matter that the most recent victim was driving a paper route. The advocationally concerned write Letters-to-the-Editor gushing about the rewards of volunteering for the Boulder Rape Crisis Team. According to one mans testimonial in The Daily Camera, men who volunteer make a decision to help a community in crisis and gain experience offering information and assistance to survivors of sexual assault as a part of a wonderfully diverse and compassionate team that can demonstrate that men are a necessary part of the healing process.[1]

When ghouls like this have finished making themselves feel better by telling everyone how much they benefit from their interactions with those who have been raped, perhaps we can dispense with the canned compassion and the silly advice and move on to discussing what can be done to put rapists permanently out of business.

In the seventies, rape avoidance programs encouraged victims to play along with their attacker. Sympathize with him, women were told, get him to relax and lower his guard so you can escape. Do not fight back. That will make him more likely to beat or kill you. Rape is not as bad as being dead.

Of course time marches on, dead bodies accumulate, and the politically correct advice changes form. Today women are advised to take immediate action against their attackers. They should drop everything, make noise, fight back, and try to run.

What they really should do is carry a gun. With a gun, a 100 pound woman is more than a match for an attacker twice her size and has a real possibility of convincing him that the cost of raping her is far too high. Without a gun she can fight back, and, unless she is extremely lucky, get raped anyway.

Let others argue about the preventative effects of consciousness raising and educational programs. Let the lawyers and the victim advocates argue over the nuances of whether no means no and the what evidence will be allowable should a rape victim survive to see her day in court. A woman facing a rapist needs effective self-defense. A gun is the most effective form of self-defense ever devised. It follows that those interested in preventing rape would support laws giving women the right to buy and carry a gun should they feel it necessary.

According to John Lott and David Mustards landmark 1997 study Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws in 1992 roughly 4,000 rapes a year could have been prevented.

Results from the Department of Justices National Crime Victimization Survey support Lott and Mustards conclusion. They show that women who offer no resistance are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who resist their attackers with a gun.

Groups like SAFE, Handgun Control, and the Bell Campaign say that this is nonsense. They point to the paper by Arthur Kellerman et al. that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993 and use its results to claim that owning a gun increases ones risk of being murdered. Using a methodology designed for medical research, Kellerman matched a case sample of 444 homicides with 388 controls who lived nearby and were the same sex, race, and approximate age. But gun ownership is not random. Kellerman et al. ignored the possibility that people who thought they were more likely to be killed might also be more likely to have a gun in the house. They also failed to report that in only 8 of the 444 homicides was it established that the house gun was the one used in the homicide.

Because real data show that guns do more good than harm, gun phobics typically rely on emotional half-truths. One SAFE representative suggested that those in favor of concealed carry visualize Mile High Stadium filled with 70,000 drunken fans. Imagine the carnage! She must consider Bronco fans particularly murderous. Buccaneer and Dolphin fans, many of whom tipple at least a bit on game days, manage to avoid shooting one another despite the fact that Florida has relatively liberal shall issue concealed-carry law.

It is possible that liberalizing gun laws would increase accidental firearms deaths. At present the United States has about 1,000 accidental firearms deaths each year, 300 with handguns.[2] In contrast, there were almost 96,000 forcible rapes, an estimated 4,000 of which would have been prevented by liberalizing gun laws.

Public policy is about tradeoffs. Whats yours?

Notes:

[1] Thomas, A Boulder County Rape Crisis Team Volunteer. 19 April 2000. Sex Assault, The Daily Camera, online edition, http://www.TheDailyCamera.com as of 21 April 2000. http://www.bouldernews.com/opinion/letters/19elett.html.
[2] Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998. Department of Commerce, table 148

Linda Gorman is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado, http:/IndependenceInstitute.net. This article originally appeared in the Colorado Daily (Boulder), for which Linda Gorman is a regular columnist.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org
 
Why are you flooding this place with so many gun related topics, just condense it into one, and rather than blasting out post after post after post, discuss individual points unlike ignoring people like I've seen you do in others...
 
Slyvena said:
Why are you flooding this place with so many gun related topics, just condense it into one, and rather than blasting out post after post after post, discuss individual points unlike ignoring people like I've seen you do in others...
How about knowing what youre dealing with before making assumptions and commenting on something you know nothing about ? :)

Firstly look at my signature, S....the first three threads there ARE attempts to 'discuss' the issue.
They failed.

Secondly, unless you are a moderator here or own the forum please dont tell me how to behave unless I am breaking the rules in which case you need to contact a moderator.

Thanks :)
 
follower of Christ said:
Slyvena said:
Why are you flooding this place with so many gun related topics, just condense it into one, and rather than blasting out post after post after post, discuss individual points unlike ignoring people like I've seen you do in others...
How about knowing what youre dealing with before making assumptions and commenting on something you know nothing about ? :)

Firstly look at my signature, S....the first three threads there ARE attempts to 'discuss' the issue.
They failed.

Secondly, unless you are a moderator here or own the forum please dont tell me how to behave unless I am breaking the rules in which case you need to contact a moderator.

Thanks :)
And thirdly, DONT derail my thread.
Post on topic or vacate, please.

.
 
follower of Christ said:
[quote="follower of Christ":1o5rt4iv]
Slyvena said:
Why are you flooding this place with so many gun related topics, just condense it into one, and rather than blasting out post after post after post, discuss individual points unlike ignoring people like I've seen you do in others...
How about knowing what youre dealing with before making assumptions and commenting on something you know nothing about ? :)

Firstly look at my signature, S....the first three threads there ARE attempts to 'discuss' the issue.
They failed.

Secondly, unless you are a moderator here or own the forum please dont tell me how to behave unless I am breaking the rules in which case you need to contact a moderator.

Thanks :)
And thirdly, DONT derail my thread.
Post on topic or vacate, please.

.[/quote:1o5rt4iv]
And once more, I have a certain poster on ignore, which frankly isnt your business, so he is being ignored because he likes to stir up trouble and then when he gets a rise out of someone hit the report button.
It is MY choice to ignore him....and again, is NONE of your concern.

:)
 
follower of Christ said:
And once more, I have a certain poster on ignore, which frankly isnt your business, so he is being ignored because he likes to stir up trouble and then when he gets a rise out of someone hit the report button.
It is MY choice to ignore him....and again, is NONE of your concern.

:)
Let me guess............ :chin ...his user name begins with the letter "D". :shades
 
Solo said:
follower of Christ said:
And once more, I have a certain poster on ignore, which frankly isnt your business, so he is being ignored because he likes to stir up trouble and then when he gets a rise out of someone hit the report button.
It is MY choice to ignore him....and again, is NONE of your concern.

:)
Let me guess............ :chin ...his user name begins with the letter "D". :shades
How'd ya guess ;)

.
 
John said:
I think if we can keep the personal remarks out, including the innuendo against the faith of gun owner, there might not be any need.
I dont expect that to happen, however.
:shame
 
follower of Christ said:
And once more, I have a certain poster on ignore, which frankly isnt your business, so he is being ignored because he likes to stir up trouble and then when he gets a rise out of someone hit the report button.
FoC's characterization is not correct.

I have indeed reported many of his posts - they were rude, offensive, and unsubstantiated. That is why they were reported, no other reason.

Now, back to matters of substance for those who do not have me on "ignore". Here is one study's findings in the respect to the matter of the self-defence value of a gun:

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
 
Getting back to the TOPIC


Prevent RapesSupport Concealed Carry

Send this Article to a Friend
Printable page



April 25, 2000

Opinion Editorial

By Linda Gorman

An animal rapes another woman, and the powers that be hold another community meeting at which they dole out the same old advice about not walking alone at night. No matter that the most recent victim was driving a paper route. The advocationally concerned write Letters-to-the-Editor gushing about the rewards of volunteering for the Boulder Rape Crisis Team. According to one mans testimonial in The Daily Camera, men who volunteer make a decision to help a community in crisis and gain experience offering information and assistance to survivors of sexual assault as a part of a wonderfully diverse and compassionate team that can demonstrate that men are a necessary part of the healing process.[1]

When ghouls like this have finished making themselves feel better by telling everyone how much they benefit from their interactions with those who have been raped, perhaps we can dispense with the canned compassion and the silly advice and move on to discussing what can be done to put rapists permanently out of business.

In the seventies, rape avoidance programs encouraged victims to play along with their attacker. Sympathize with him, women were told, get him to relax and lower his guard so you can escape. Do not fight back. That will make him more likely to beat or kill you. Rape is not as bad as being dead.

Of course time marches on, dead bodies accumulate, and the politically correct advice changes form. Today women are advised to take immediate action against their attackers. They should drop everything, make noise, fight back, and try to run.

What they really should do is carry a gun. With a gun, a 100 pound woman is more than a match for an attacker twice her size and has a real possibility of convincing him that the cost of raping her is far too high. Without a gun she can fight back, and, unless she is extremely lucky, get raped anyway.

Let others argue about the preventative effects of consciousness raising and educational programs. Let the lawyers and the victim advocates argue over the nuances of whether no means no and the what evidence will be allowable should a rape victim survive to see her day in court. A woman facing a rapist needs effective self-defense. A gun is the most effective form of self-defense ever devised. It follows that those interested in preventing rape would support laws giving women the right to buy and carry a gun should they feel it necessary.

According to John Lott and David Mustards landmark 1997 study Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws in 1992 roughly 4,000 rapes a year could have been prevented.

Results from the Department of Justices National Crime Victimization Survey support Lott and Mustards conclusion. They show that women who offer no resistance are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who resist their attackers with a gun.

Groups like SAFE, Handgun Control, and the Bell Campaign say that this is nonsense. They point to the paper by Arthur Kellerman et al. that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993 and use its results to claim that owning a gun increases ones risk of being murdered. Using a methodology designed for medical research, Kellerman matched a case sample of 444 homicides with 388 controls who lived nearby and were the same sex, race, and approximate age. But gun ownership is not random. Kellerman et al. ignored the possibility that people who thought they were more likely to be killed might also be more likely to have a gun in the house. They also failed to report that in only 8 of the 444 homicides was it established that the house gun was the one used in the homicide.

Because real data show that guns do more good than harm, gun phobics typically rely on emotional half-truths. One SAFE representative suggested that those in favor of concealed carry visualize Mile High Stadium filled with 70,000 drunken fans. Imagine the carnage! She must consider Bronco fans particularly murderous. Buccaneer and Dolphin fans, many of whom tipple at least a bit on game days, manage to avoid shooting one another despite the fact that Florida has relatively liberal shall issue concealed-carry law.

It is possible that liberalizing gun laws would increase accidental firearms deaths. At present the United States has about 1,000 accidental firearms deaths each year, 300 with handguns.[2] In contrast, there were almost 96,000 forcible rapes, an estimated 4,000 of which would have been prevented by liberalizing gun laws.

Public policy is about tradeoffs. Whats yours?

Notes:

[1] Thomas, A Boulder County Rape Crisis Team Volunteer. 19 April 2000. Sex Assault, The Daily Camera, online edition, http://www.TheDailyCamera.com as of 21 April 2000. http://www.bouldernews.com/opinion/letters/19elett.html.
[2] Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998. Department of Commerce, table 148

Linda Gorman is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado, http:/IndependenceInstitute.net. This article originally appeared in the Colorado Daily (Boulder), for which Linda Gorman is a regular columnist.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org
 
top_bar_v03.jpg


Myth 6: Few people actually use guns for self-defense.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) predicted in 1987 that 83 percent of people in this country would be a victim of violent crime during their lifetime. Considering the violent crime rate has not changed significantly, about 80 percent of the citizenry, in possession of over 230 million guns, with nearly half the households having a gun, are going to come face to face with a violent criminal one day. This situation makes one think that there would be many instances of defensive gun use in this country. In fact, thirteen studies conducted between 1976 and 1994 estimated that there were between 770,00 and 3.6 million civilian defensive gun uses per year.

The National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in 1993, has yielded the most accurate estimate of defensive gun use to date. While designing this landmark study, the authors corrected many flaws found in several previous surveys. In doing so, the authors constructed the first survey ever specifically designed to tally the number of defensive gun uses in this country.

The survey revealed that between 1988-1993 civilians used guns in self-defense 2.2-2.5 million times per year, saving between 240,000- 400,000 lives each year.
Based on their results, Kleck and Gertz estimated that the number of defensive gun uses is three to four times that of illegal gun uses.


Sources: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997). Don B. Kates Jr., and Gary Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence, (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997). Michael R. Rand, "Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft," U.S. Department of Justice, 1994

http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/oteromyths.htm
 
.
top_bar_v03.jpg

Myth 8: You, and your family and friends, are 43 times more likely to be shot by a gun kept in the home than is a criminal intruder.

The infamous study that yielded this illogical statistic is just one of many that litter the public health and medical literature.
Serious shortcomings in rationale and methodology plague the study. Nevertheless, the 43:1 ratio is arguably the gun control advocate’s most cited statistic.

The study’s authors start from the presumption that the effectiveness of gun ownership for self-defense can only be ascertained by contrasting dead intruders with dead innocents. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Similar to police forces and other household security measures, the real benefits of gun ownership, demonstrated in the NSDS, are to be counted not in corpses but in lives saved and crimes deterred. In no way do the authors address this. In fact, the study only counted homes in which a homicide or suicide took place, ignoring gun-containing households that may have successfully defended themselves from criminal victimization with a firearm or had no incidents occur at all.

In an attempt to conjure up a risk factor due to having a gun in the home, the authors tallied the gun related deaths in the homes studied. In doing so, the authors included suicides. Of the 43 gun related deaths included in the study, 37 were suicides. The inclusion of suicides as gun related deaths would be reasonable if gun availability affected suicide rates. But, as explained in disputing Myth #3, gun availability does not influence suicide rates. The suicides would almost certainly have occurred by some other means in the absence of a gun. Additionally, the authors excluded many cases of lawful self-defense homicide. So, in deriving their risk factor of gun related deaths vs. self-defense homicides, the authors used an inflated numerator and an under-representative denominator.

Moreover, the Seattle-based homes investigated were not the average American households. The study group was teeming with high-risk households that contained a disproportionate number of people with histories of arrests, drug abuse and domestic violence. By studying these high-risk homes, one cannot make sweeping generalizations regarding the rest of this country.

Sources: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997). David B. Kopel, "The 43:1 Fallacy." Independence Feature Syndicate Opinion-Editorial. 1998. Available: <http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm> (31 July 1998).

http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/oteromyths.htm
 
Because real data show that guns do more good than harm, gun phobics typically rely on emotional half-truths. One SAFE representative suggested that those in favor of concealed carry visualize Mile High Stadium filled with 70,000 drunken fans. Imagine the carnage! She must consider Bronco fans particularly murderous. Buccaneer and Dolphin fans, many of whom tipple at least a bit on game days, manage to avoid shooting one another despite the fact that Florida has relatively liberal shall issue concealed-carry law.
The person who made this statement is not arguing the point properly. True, the SAFE representative said something irresponsible and clearly untrue. But the fact that one person exaggerates the risk of guns in the hand of the general population does not undermine the force of other studies and data that suggest that gun freedom poses a risk.

It is possible that liberalizing gun laws would increase accidental firearms deaths. At present the United States has about 1,000 accidental firearms deaths each year, 300 with handguns.[2] In contrast, there were almost 96,000 forcible rapes, an estimated 4,000 of which would have been prevented by liberalizing gun laws.
This is misleading. As in the past, the problem is a narrow focus on one aspect or dimension of a larger issue. The way this is written invites the reader to conclude that the 1000 accidental gun death are more than compensated for by the 4000 rapes that would have been prevented by liberalizing gun laws.

Well, let's suppose that this figure is correct - that 4000 rapes would be prevented.

The problem, of course, is that the gun used to prevent the rape is also available to its owner to be used in a crime of passion, or to commit suicide etc.

You are being invited to think of the gun as materializing in the hands of the woman at the moment she needs it, and you are implicitly being seduced into ignoring all the other ways her ownership of that gun might have a terrible outcome.
 
So Mr. suicidal decides to take his life with a gun..why should i have to give mine up because of that?
 
John said:
So Mr. suicidal decides to take his life with a gun..why should i have to give mine up because of that?
Exactly !

I have to put MY wife at risk because some bipolar mental patient kills himself with a gun....PREposterous.


.
 
I guess some on the antigun side believe in mass punishment, a term that is used in the military and is used to punish

For example if a soldiers are allowed to drink in the established barracks and just one soldier gets a dui, then the commander may punish them all by banning the alchohol in the barracks. I dont drink and dont care to, but i have been punished for others foul ups, ie dont leave the base cause pv2 snuffy shows up late for formation all the time.
 
John said:
So Mr. suicidal decides to take his life with a gun..why should i have to give mine up because of that?
Because, with all due respect, your "rights" are not the over-riding consideration here.

We live in a society, with all the complicated connectedness that this entails. Let's say that I like to play the lottery once a month and I spend one dollar on it. Fine. But suppose that 3 % of the population have grave gambling addictions and are spending all their money on lottery tickets. A case can be made, in the interests of these people, that the lottery be shut down.

Does this infringe on my "right" to play the lottery? Yes. But sometimes we need to defer to the interests of others.
 
Because, with all due respect, your "rights" are not the over-riding consideration here.

We live in a society, with all the complicated connectedness that this entails. Let's say that I like to play the lottery once a month and I spend one dollar on it. Fine. But suppose that 3 % of the population have grave gambling addictions and are spending all their money on lottery tickets. A case can be made, in the interests of these people, that the lottery be shut down.

Does this infringe on my "right" to play the lottery? Yes. But sometimes we need to defer to the interests of others.

My rights are paramount. If 3% of a population have problem then let them seek help, don't punish the other 97%.

If 20% of a population had drinking problems they can go to AA meetings for example..you don't ban all the boose.
 
Back
Top