Guns or Dildos, Which Better Stops Rape?

[DawnODay]

Just when you thought the Left couldn't get more disgusting, there is this:

"So you want to be raped?" [University of Wisconsin Sophomore Michelle] Walker asks the 20 or so demonstrators....

A young woman, seemingly stunned by the question, screams, "No one said that!"

"Nobody said that. Stop insulting survivors," yells another demonstrator, wielding a dildo while holding a "Disarm hate" sign.

"You guys are insulting survivors by not allowing them to defend themselves," Walker shoots back.

"I have a friend who was raped on campus," Walker continues. "She wasn't allowed to have her concealed carry (gun) with her. She was raped because of that. If she would have had her concealed carry I guarantee she wouldn't have been raped."

There is a stunned pause by the anti-gun crowd, as if they're not sure how to process the information they've just received.

Suddenly, the lead sex toy wielder snaps out of her protest paralysis, turns to her fellow demonstrators and conjures up a familiar left-wing chant: "Show me what democracy looks like!"

"This is what democracy looks like!" the small crowd chants back.​

M.D. Kittle, UW Student: My Friend Was Raped, Gun-Control Laws Left Her Defenseless, MacIver News Service (Oct. 17, 2017).

See the video here.

There is no need to make fun of leftist radicals anymore. They make fools of themselves.

 

[Charmolypi]

Walker's friend was raped because a rapist raped her. Blaming the presence or absence of guns is just moving the spotlight off the responsible party.

 

[DawnODay]

Walker's friend was raped because a rapist raped her. Blaming the presence or absence of guns is just moving the spotlight off the responsible party.

Wow! I have so many responses to that, but let me make sure I understand what you are saying:

Are you saying that had she been allowed to carry her weapon on campus, and thus use it to defend herself, she would have been raped anyway?

 

[Adder4321]

Walker's friend was raped because a rapist raped her. Blaming the presence or absence of guns is just moving the spotlight off the responsible party.

True, but carrying a gun would have protected her. Also, by your logic, the recent shooting at Las Vegas did not occur because the man had guns, but because he wanted to kill people.

 

[sr71plt]

Not necessarily. There's more than a 50 percent chance it would have gotten her shot by her own gun. Keep an eye on the news and learn what you don't want to know.

You gun nuts are full of excuses for not caring that people are getting blown away because you want to have a penis toy.

 

[DawnODay]

True, but carrying a gun would have protected her. Also, by your logic, the recent shooting at Las Vegas did not occur because the man had guns, but because he wanted to kill people.

That was one of the points I really want to make. Gun control nuts always blame the guns, not the criminals who use them to commit murder or other crimes, as if it is the gun's fault. That is exactly, as Charmolypi wrote: "just moving the spotlight off the responsible party." Apparently it's okay with Charmolypi to do that with murderers.

 

[DawnODay]

There's more than a 50 percent chance it would have gotten her shot by her own gun.

Can you cite any evidence for that statistic?

 

[Adder4321]

Not necessarily. There's more than a 50 percent chance it would have gotten her shot by her own gun. Keep an eye on the news and learn what you don't want to know.

Only if she didn't know how to use it. That's the big problem, guns can protect people, but only if they're willing to train to use them.

 

[DawnODay]

Only if she didn't know how to use it. That's the big problem, guns can protect people, but only if they're willing to train to use them.

In Wisconsin, where this took place, you must take a safety course before you qualify for a Concealed Carry Permit. She would have known how to use it.

 

[KimGordon67]

This is a specious argument. The only time I've been attacked by a stranger, one of the reasons it *didn't* result in rape was because he didn't have a gun.

 

[Adder4321]

The only way that gun ownership can effectively prevent crime across and entire country is if all citizens are required to own a gun and are trained to use them. I seriously doubt that anyone, armed or not would try and rape or assault someone when they know that they carry a fire arm and know how to use it. The problem is that government funding would likely be needed to supply the weapons and training to people and there's no way any government that I know of would pass any laws like that.

 

[DawnODay]

This is a specious argument. The only time I've been attacked by a stranger, one of the reasons it *didn't* result in rape was because he didn't have a gun.

Let's stick to the facts and objective data:

A newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S....

The report... compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.

And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

"Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers," Lott writes. "Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."​

A. Bandler, Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country, (Aug 10, 2016).

In short, it is actually your argument that was "specious" (you might want to look up the definition), because as criminal, your potential rapist would not have had a conceal carry permit.

In any event, and most importantly, whatever the reason, I'm very glad you didn't get raped.

 

[phrodeau]

The only way that gun ownership can effectively prevent crime across and entire country is if all citizens are required to own a gun and are trained to use them. I seriously doubt that anyone, armed or not would try and rape or assault someone when they know that they carry a fire arm and know how to use it. The problem is that government funding would likely be needed to supply the weapons and training to people and there's no way any government that I know of would pass any laws like that.

The only way to keep pedestrians from being mowed down on the sidewalks is to require every one of them to be inside a car.

 

[DawnODay]

There's more than a 50 percent chance it would have gotten her shot by her own gun....

(Emphasis add.)

Can you cite any evidence for that statistic?

I hear crickets chirping still. Here, let me help you with an article from a liberal newspaper:

For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of those 26 cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon.

Professor Gary Kleck, author of the above study, then conducted a much broader examination of NCVS data. Analyzing a data set of 27,595 attempted violent crimes and 16 types of protective actions, Kleck found that resisting with a gun greatly lowered the risk of the victim being injured, or of the crime being completed.​

D. Kopel, Guns on university campuses: The Colorado experience, Washington Post (Apr. 20, 2015) (emphasis added).

So, unless you think the US Census Bureau is conspiring with a left leaning newspaper to fake these statistics, it seems you just made up your "more than a 50 percent chance" claim. Of course, sr71plt, that shouldn't surprise me, given what so many people have noted about your lack of honesty and integrity elsewhere.

 

[Adder4321]

The only way to keep pedestrians from being mowed down on the sidewalks is to require every one of them to be inside a car.

Well you can't say that it wouldn't work.

And I didn't mean that the only way to remove crime was to arm everyone. It's more accurate to say that every person must be armed to the same extent. If no one had guns, the same result would be achieved. However, any person who has a gun has power over those who don't, so unless you can successfully remove all guns, both illegal and legal from the world, some people would still be able to use them to do bad things to those who aren't armed.

Just like you could prevent people from being run over by cars by removing all cars. But as long as any cars still exist, people would still be able to use them to run people over.

 

[KimGordon67]

Let's stick to the facts and objective data:

A newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S....

The report... compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.

And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

"Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers," Lott writes. "Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."​

A. Bandler, Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country, (Aug 10, 2016).

In short, it is actually your argument that was "specious" (you might want to look up the definition), because as criminal, your potential rapist would not have had a conceal carry permit.

In any event, and most importantly, whatever the reason, I'm very glad you didn't get raped.

You presented an anecdote as 'fact' - I countered with another anecdotal 'fact', so please don't tell me I'm not using 'facts and objective data', which my initial post conformed to the definitions of 'facts and objective data' that you'd initially set out.
(Also, if you're going to use a publication run by this dude as a source of 'objective data', you might want to look up the definition of 'objective'.)

In an environment with high levels of legal gun ownership, there are high levels of illegal gun ownership. If I lived in a society with a level of gun ownership that required things like concealed carry permits, my potential rapist would most probably have had a gun.

I've already had the 'gun ownership protects you from crime' argument with a gun ownership supporter. We mutually agreed that, in fact, it's impossible to prove that wide levels of gun ownership either increase or decrease crime figures - it's literally impossible to prove the argument either way. Well, not literally impossible, but impossible with currently available data.

 

[John Blackhawk]

In an environment with high levels of legal gun ownership, there are high levels of illegal gun ownership. If I lived in a society with a level of gun ownership that required things like concealed carry permits, my potential rapist would most probably have had a gun.

I've already had the 'gun ownership protects you from crime' argument with a gun ownership supporter. We mutually agreed that, in fact, it's impossible to prove that wide levels of gun ownership either increase or decrease crime figures - it's literally impossible to prove the argument either way. Well, not literally impossible, but impossible with currently available data.

Fundamentally i just don't buy any theory that links levels of legal gun ownership to illegal gun ownership. That's what gun control activists use to justify their existence.

Also while i can't argue much with the idea it's impossible to prove that gun ownership either increases or decreases crime figures i would argue if you make yourself not worth the trouble to be targeted by a rapist they would probably go for easier prey.

 

[phrodeau]

Well you can't say that it wouldn't work.

And I didn't mean that the only way to remove crime was to arm everyone. It's more accurate to say that every person must be armed to the same extent. If no one had guns, the same result would be achieved. However, any person who has a gun has power over those who don't, so unless you can successfully remove all guns, both illegal and legal from the world, some people would still be able to use them to do bad things to those who aren't armed.

Just like you could prevent people from being run over by cars by removing all cars. But as long as any cars still exist, people would still be able to use them to run people over.

We are right now preventing pedestrian deaths by manufacturing cars with mechanisms that detect and avoid pedestrians.

Guns can be made safer.

 

[Tigersman]

In Wisconsin, where this took place, you must take a safety course before you qualify for a Concealed Carry Permit. She would have known how to use it.

Knowing how to use a gun is one thing, but having the willingness to use it is a whole different matter. Contrary to what you see on TV or in the movies, if a person pulls a gun then they best use it right then. A person does not have a conversation with a drawn gun unless they want the gun used on them.

 

[CeriseBuss]

I did not read the original post to be so much about the pros and cons of gun control as I read it to be about the ridiculous ways self-styled "Progressives" handle political debate now-of-days.

I'm a lesbian and what I would call an "old style" feminist. By "'old style' feminist" I mean that I believe women should be treated with Equality & Respect, because women are just as capable as men. Today's so-called feminists seem to want special privileges and protection, as if we really were weaker.

The same seems to be true among today's gay rights activists. In the `80s & `90s, we simply wanted to have equal rights and to be left to live our lives like everyone else. That's Equality. Now, it seems that, having achieved this, too many gays expect to be treated special. That's a mistake.

I live in Madison, where the girls (I'm choosing my words carefully) in the video are waving dildos and chanting when they find it impossible to intellectually debate the woman's valid point. That's what the Left has become in Wisconsin and, it seems, in most of the country. As someone who in the past has proudly called herself a liberal, what most liberals have become of late I find an embarrassment.

 

[KimGordon67]

Fundamentally i just don't buy any theory that links levels of legal gun ownership to illegal gun ownership. That's what gun control activists use to justify their existence.

Also while i can't argue much with the idea it's impossible to prove that gun ownership either increases or decreases crime figures i would argue if you make yourself not worth the trouble to be targeted by a rapist they would probably go for easier prey.

Re: the first point ... I dunno. It's pretty simple logic. The more guns there are in the system, the more opportunity there is to have an illegal gun. (I can't quickly find any research to back up that hunch, but if you'd actually read something, I'd put some time into finding me - let me know if you want me to look.)

Re: the second point ... so you're fundamentally saying women shouldn't 'make themselves targets' for rapists? Hmmm.
But I stand by my point - in a stranger situation, a rapist with a gun is more likely to be successful than a rapist without a gun.

 

[KimGordon67]

While it is impossible to prove either way that gun ownership increases or decreases crime overall, there does appear to be a correlation between levels of gun ownership and homicide - all homicide, not just gun-related. Source.

 

[DrDelirium]

I did not read the original post to be so much about the pros and cons of gun control as I read it to be about the ridiculous ways self-styled "Progressives" handle political debate now-of-days.

I'm a lesbian and what I would call an "old style" feminist. By "'old style' feminist" I mean that I believe women should be treated with Equality & Respect, because women are just as capable as men. Today's so-called feminists seem to want special privileges and protection, as if we really were weaker.

The same seems to be true among today's gay rights activists. In the `80s & `90s, we simply wanted to have equal rights and to be left to live our lives like everyone else. That's Equality. Now, it seems that, having achieved this, too many gays expect to be treated special. That's a mistake.

I live in Madison, where the girls (I'm choosing my words carefully) in the video are waving dildos and chanting when they find it impossible to intellectually debate the woman's valid point. That's what the Left has become in Wisconsin and, it seems, in most of the country. As someone who in the past has proudly called herself a liberal, what most liberals have become of late I find an embarrassment.

Kudos for embracing principle instead of tribal identification. The traditional left embraced ideas like equality, and the right to do your own thing and be left alone. Somehow these have become 'right wing' talking points while Groupthink has become the standard mode on the 'left.' "Left" and "Right," "Liberal" and Conservative," have become meaningless. The only question is if your rights will be trampled by the special privileges of some tribe, or by the special privileges of rich motherfuckers.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Such as?

I did not read the original post to be so much about the pros and cons of gun control as I read it to be about the ridiculous ways self-styled "Progressives" handle political debate now-of-days.

I'm a lesbian and what I would call an "old style" feminist. By "'old style' feminist" I mean that I believe women should be treated with Equality & Respect, because women are just as capable as men. Today's so-called feminists seem to want special privileges and protection, as if we really were weaker.

The same seems to be true among today's gay rights activists. In the `80s & `90s, we simply wanted to have equal rights and to be left to live our lives like everyone else. That's Equality. Now, it seems that, having achieved this, too many gays expect to be treated special. That's a mistake.

I live in Madison, where the girls (I'm choosing my words carefully) in the video are waving dildos and chanting when they find it impossible to intellectually debate the woman's valid point. That's what the Left has become in Wisconsin and, it seems, in most of the country. As someone who in the past has proudly called herself a liberal, what most liberals have become of late I find an embarrassment.

 

[LIVINRFANTASIES]

Dollie

Walker's friend was raped because a rapist raped her. Blaming the presence or absence of guns is just moving the spotlight off the responsible party.

True. I was raped long ago. No one had a gun and the only people there helped the rapist. It changed my life. I even hate the word rape.

Wow! I have so many responses to that, but let me make sure I understand what you are saying:

Are you saying that had she been allowed to carry her weapon on campus, and thus use it to defend herself, she would have been raped anyway?

Possibly. She didn't know she was going to be raped so wouldn't have her gun out.

America can't be all that bad...

America is good. It's those damned Americans that are bad.