What kind of laws do you prefer to mitigate the effects of rape.
Permissive gun laws
3.7% (3)
3.7% (3)
Permissive Abortion laws
12.3% (10)
12.3% (10)
Niether the cost of human life is too high
6.2% (5)
6.2% (5)
All options are acceptable to stop rape
30.9% (25)
30.9% (25)
Abortions only, guns hurt real people
40.7% (33)
40.7% (33)
Guns only, we must protect the innocent
6.2% (5)
6.2% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Guns v.s. Abortion

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Whenever either topic is brought up the side arguing in favor try to claim they are defending the rights of women rape victims. The anti-side portrays the pro as murderous.

Gun right advocates will say Guns are the only way a weaker women can defend herself from a male rapist.

image
Amanda Collins - Pro-Gun rape survivor

Women's right advocates say women should not be forced to carry a baby they did not ask for.

No strategy is 100% effective. Women miscarry all the time whether or not they want a baby. Methods of abortion vary greatly. Even the morning after pill has some unwanted side effects. Guns can and often do jam, misfire, many people just don't get proper gun training.

In a raw numbers sense there have been 56 million abortions since Roe v.s. Wade.

Gun homicide peaked at 18,000 in 1993 and was at 10,000 for 2010. if you count suicides and general accidents then the number of gun related deaths is around 30,000 for 2010. the sum total would probably be less than 56 million though.

I'm pro-gun and see women carrying as a decent way to deter rape and to give those who actually try to commit the crime a nice little prize at muzzle velocity. Is it perfect? Obviously not. Not everyone has the right mindset to carry a firearm, have the time to practice, and sometimes the situation makes its use impossible for one reason or another. As for abortion I am more pro-life then pro-choice, but I think abortion should be legal for about three or four months of development just as a practical matter.

A) Permitting people to have guns for defence has lots of effects outside of preventing rapes. Abortion results in abortion, and that's more or less it.

B) The majority of women are raped by people they already know. The stranger in dark alley situation firearms in this context is supposed to help with is comparatively exceedingly rare.

psijac:
No strategy is 100% effective. Women miscarry all the time whether or not they want a baby.

So? What has this to do with anything?

psijac:
In a raw numbers sense there have been 56 million abortions since Roe v.s. Wade.

Gun homicide peaked at 18,000 in 1993 and was at 10,000 for 2010. if you count suicides and general accidents then the number of gun related deaths is around 30,000 for 2010. the sum total would probably be less than 56 million though.

Er...what has this to do with anything?

thaluikhain:
The majority of women are raped by people they already know. The stranger in dark alley situation firearms in this context is supposed to help with is comparatively exceedingly rare.

If I recall correctly most rapes are date rapes/alcohol related, so sobriety is probably the best defense.

Shock and Awe:
If I recall correctly most rapes are date rapes/alcohol related, so sobriety is probably the best defense.

That and most people not knowing what constitutes as rape or how it can affect the victim. So you are right, the best defense is sobriety, but let's also throw in education. We live in a world where we tell people how to not be raped rather than telling people not to rape. This lack of education leads to people justifying sexual acts with unconscious individuals or through the use of coercion.

OT: I'm going to go with abortion being needed more, seeing as how most rapes occur through people who the victim already knew, therefore they most likely wouldn't bring a gun with them if they knew they were going to be around this person. I'm personally still iffy on how I feel about gun laws in general so I'll pass on the permissive gun law option. Maybe later on I'll have a stronger and better educated opinion on the subject.

thaluikhain:
A) Permitting people to have guns for defence has lots of effects outside of preventing rapes. Abortion results in abortion, and that's more or less it.

B) The majority of women are raped by people they already know. The stranger in dark alley situation firearms in this context is supposed to help with is comparatively exceedingly rare.

psijac:
No strategy is 100% effective. Women miscarry all the time whether or not they want a baby.

So? What has this to do with anything?

psijac:
In a raw numbers sense there have been 56 million abortions since Roe v.s. Wade.

Gun homicide peaked at 18,000 in 1993 and was at 10,000 for 2010. if you count suicides and general accidents then the number of gun related deaths is around 30,000 for 2010. the sum total would probably be less than 56 million though.

Er...what has this to do with anything?

I am framing my question in the context of rape. An abortion cannot prevent rape only mitigate some of the lasting damage done by rape. Unless the child itself would have grown up to become a rapist. not every fetus is aborted because of rape

psijac:
I am framing my question in the context of rape. An abortion cannot prevent rape only mitigate some of the lasting damage done by rape. Unless the child itself would have grown up to become a rapist. not every fetus is aborted because of rape

It's a weird frame to use. I can appreciate the dichotomy, but that's about all that particular frame is good for.

Guns probably can prevent rape under some circumstances, but deregulation of concealed carry won't necessarily reduce the crime rate or the rape rate.

Abortion obviously doesn't prevent rape, but it can help towards reducing PTSD (or rather, it prevents escalation of PTSD if a woman is forced to keep the child).

If you want to debate the ethics of abortion, fine, if you want to debate gun control, fine. But the two issues are different fields, and while the fact that one type of freedom is opposed by liberals and the other by conservatives is interesting, it doesn't lend itself well to a debate about rape.

Since the issue of abortion is far larger than rape impregnations in scale, I don't really think one has a lot to do with the other.
The debate can - from my perspective - really only be:
"Permissive abortion laws" versus "permissive abortion and gun laws". Because one thing is absolutely clear: Access to guns won't prevent a) all rape impregnations and b) all other pregnancies that may require an abortion.

psijac:

Gun homicide peaked at 18,000 in 1993 and was at 10,000 for 2010. if you count suicides and general accidents then the number of gun related deaths is around 30,000 for 2010. the sum total would probably be less than 56 million though.

But so what? Hardly any gun homicides occur in the process of preventing rape, and a small minority of abortions are carried out because of rape. There is no solid and compelling reason to link gun ownership and abortion at all, nor somehow play them off against each other.

There is no point in this comparison.

psijac:
All options are acceptable to stop rape

Not sure how I feel about that phrasing.

I do not consider rape to be the crime to end all crimes and worthy of all the scorn and focus society seems to place upon it... so I don't think that all options are acceptable to stop rape. It's almost as though "forced male castration" is an "acceptable" option since "all" are.

Everyone carrying a firearm might stop some rapes and turn some other rapes into a homicide - not in the victim's favor.

I'm also of the belief that a citizenry that feels the need to be armed is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff when it comes to resolving a nation's crime rate.

Wraith:
That and most people not knowing what constitutes as rape or how it can affect the victim. So you are right, the best defense is sobriety, but let's also throw in education. We live in a world where we tell people how to not be raped rather than telling people not to rape. This lack of education leads to people justifying sexual acts with unconscious individuals or through the use of coercion.

Very much this. Society tends to dance around this issue, rather than facing it in a meaningful way.

would it be ok to shoot the fetus if it was coming right for you ?...

Sleekit:
would it be ok to shoot the fetus if it was coming right for you ?...

Well, it...hmmm.

Yeah, need to get back to you about this.

thaluikhain:

Wraith:
That and most people not knowing what constitutes as rape or how it can affect the victim. So you are right, the best defense is sobriety, but let's also throw in education. We live in a world where we tell people how to not be raped rather than telling people not to rape. This lack of education leads to people justifying sexual acts with unconscious individuals or through the use of coercion.

Very much this. Society tends to dance around this issue, rather than facing it in a meaningful way.

This may be tangentially related, and I've never actually told anyone this, but;

whenever I have a dirty dream (and they are few and far between), I always feel dirty afterwards. For example, the worse one was a dream where I went on a date with a mildly attractive woman. We went to a resteraunt and dance place and at one point she sat on my lap (And thats as far as it went) and the dream was a nightmare for me. You know how you feel when you're having a nightmare? Like you're half awake? Thats what it was like for me. The whole time my mind is screaming 'this is wrong, you shouldn't be doing this'. I'm attracted to women, but for some reason that always happens to me.

OT: Wut? Like I really don't understand what the hell is going on. Abortions cause a lot of death so guns are a-ok? I've always been on the 'mostly pro with caveats' side for both issues

psijac:
-snip-

I'm certainly not against the legality of using guns in self-defense (though I think the US's laws regarding how they're sold could use some work, and the NRA needs to put their big girl panties on and accept that, much like eating their vegetables and brushing their teeth, background checks may be a chore but they aren't a bad thing).

Though you must be either insane or very naive if you think promoting the carrying of guns to protect rape victims will prevent all rape. About 2/3 of rapes that occur are committed people the victim knows. Sure you may faithfully carry a gun every time you go out, but a lot of times the friend or relative will know where you keep the gun at home and will strategically place themselves away from it, or remove it themselves. If for whatever reason she's without her gun, or something goes wrong with it, or she can't bring herself to shoot a friend or family member, or she's raped as a child or young adult that isn't old enough to be carrying a gun and shooting it at people, then it's useless.

And I don't quite get where you're going with tying it to abortion. Are you trying to say that abortion should be outlawed because it takes more lives? The circumstances are quite different and not really comparable. Women get abortions for many different reasons, rape isn't the only one. And if you're going by sheer number of deaths, then we really should focus more on motor vehicles because they kill more than anything else in this country, and for also very different reasons. Just taking the number of "deaths" out of context is pretty useless.

So just spit it out, OP. Are you trying to say you want to "replace" abortion with women carrying guns to prevent rape? If that's the case, then unless you're also going to allow women to shoot themselves in the stomach when they decide they aren't ready for a baby or when the baby is going to risk her life, then you have spectacularly failed at understanding why abortions occur.

psijac:
Whenever either topic is brought up the side arguing in favor try to claim they are defending the rights of women rape victims. The anti-side portrays the pro as murderous.

Gun right advocates will say Guns are the only way a weaker women can defend herself from a male rapist.

Firearms are the most practical and effective tool any human can carry for self-defense. They're quintessential equalizers.

That said I have no idea how abortion and firearms are comparable. OP, it sounds a bit like you're framing this as a woman's choice: carry a gun or give yourself an "out" if you are raped. Really, regardless of someone's positions on the issues, this poll is ridiculous.

Abomination:
I do not consider rape to be the crime to end all crimes and worthy of all the scorn and focus society seems to place upon it

Hang on, just because rape isn't the ultimate evil, it doesn't deserve to be the object of disgust in a civilized society? That's a weird viewpoint. I murdered a baby, sure, but Jerry over there murdered two babies - why is everyone acting like I'm such a terrible guy?!

Abomination:
... so I don't think that all options are acceptable to stop rape. It's almost as though "forced male castration" is an "acceptable" option since "all" are.

Do you mean forced male castration as in "cut 'em off in case he rapes one day", or "he's trying to rape me, I'm going to shoot him in the bollocks"?

Neither is ideal - the ideal obviously being a society where nobody is raping anybody - but one is a lot more justifiable than the other, being legitimate self-defence (without getting into issues of fabricated self-defence excuses) in the immediate sense rather than a precautionary mesaure.

SonicWaffle:

Abomination:
I do not consider rape to be the crime to end all crimes and worthy of all the scorn and focus society seems to place upon it

Hang on, just because rape isn't the ultimate evil, it doesn't deserve to be the object of disgust in a civilized society? That's a weird viewpoint. I murdered a baby, sure, but Jerry over there murdered two babies - why is everyone acting like I'm such a terrible guy?!

I said it wasn't "worthy of all the scorn and focus" as in the amount of scorn and focus society places on rape is disproportionate to the combined damage it has upon our society when compared to other ills.

SonicWaffle:

Abomination:
... so I don't think that all options are acceptable to stop rape. It's almost as though "forced male castration" is an "acceptable" option since "all" are.

Do you mean forced male castration as in "cut 'em off in case he rapes one day", or "he's trying to rape me, I'm going to shoot him in the bollocks"?

Neither is ideal - the ideal obviously being a society where nobody is raping anybody - but one is a lot more justifiable than the other, being legitimate self-defense (without getting into issues of fabricated self-defense excuses) in the immediate sense rather than a precautionary measure.

I'm talking about a concept such as preemptive forced male castration as opposed to self defense. Self-defense should always be an option but if everyone is armed then the 'equalizer' no longer exists as everyone now has the tool and on average men are still more capable in its use... so we're back to square one.

And the idea of "we won't let the rapists have guns" is ridiculous because one must be first convicted of rape before society will label them as a rapist and that's unfortunately already after the fact.

Abomination:

psijac:
All options are acceptable to stop rape

Not sure how I feel about that phrasing.

I do not consider rape to be the crime to end all crimes and worthy of all the scorn and focus society seems to place upon it... so I don't think that all options are acceptable to stop rape. It's almost as though "forced male castration" is an "acceptable" option since "all" are.

Everyone carrying a firearm might stop some rapes and turn some other rapes into a homicide - not in the victim's favor.

I'm also of the belief that a citizenry that feels the need to be armed is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff when it comes to resolving a nation's crime rate.

I suppose I should have used the word both instead of all.

The next extreme would be to require all women to get their tubes tied. Which I am not really for either

Abomination:

SonicWaffle:

Abomination:
I do not consider rape to be the crime to end all crimes and worthy of all the scorn and focus society seems to place upon it

Hang on, just because rape isn't the ultimate evil, it doesn't deserve to be the object of disgust in a civilized society? That's a weird viewpoint. I murdered a baby, sure, but Jerry over there murdered two babies - why is everyone acting like I'm such a terrible guy?!

I said it wasn't "worthy of all the scorn and focus" as in the amount of scorn and focus society places on rape is disproportionate to the combined damage it has upon our society when compared to other ills.

Ah, I suppose that's fair enough, but it's still a despicable crime and an extremely traumatic event with long-term consequences for the victim. It may not have a damaging effect on society as a whole but the effect on individuals is huge.

Although thinking about it, in a wider sense it does do a lot of damage to society, considering that it's something that women (more so than men) are - rightly - told to be constantly wary of. That constant risk-awareness can't be doing any good for the social group, interactions between strangers etc. We train one half of the population to never let their guard down around the other half. Sure, it's not genocide, but that still has a widespread negative impact on society.

Abomination:

SonicWaffle:

Abomination:
... so I don't think that all options are acceptable to stop rape. It's almost as though "forced male castration" is an "acceptable" option since "all" are.

Do you mean forced male castration as in "cut 'em off in case he rapes one day", or "he's trying to rape me, I'm going to shoot him in the bollocks"?

Neither is ideal - the ideal obviously being a society where nobody is raping anybody - but one is a lot more justifiable than the other, being legitimate self-defense (without getting into issues of fabricated self-defense excuses) in the immediate sense rather than a precautionary measure.

I'm talking about a concept such as preemptive forced male castration as opposed to self defense.

To be fair, outside of the radical (read: batshit fucking mental misandrist) feminism blogs, I've never seen anyone advance that as their actual solution.

Abomination:
Self-defense should always be an option but if everyone is armed then the 'equalizer' no longer exists as everyone now has the tool and on average men are still more capable in its use... so we're back to square one.

And the idea of "we won't let the rapists have guns" is ridiculous because one must be first convicted of rape before society will label them as a rapist and that's unfortunately already after the fact.

The solution is to give women bigger guns. Once the rapists get hold of those too, the women will have a pack of attack dogs following them everywhere. Suddenly we're in a self-defence arms race until nobody goes out in public without being at the driving seat of a tank.

A little education might not be a bad idea to start with, though. Every woman I've discussed this with has been given tips for avoiding rape, rape whistles, advice on how to dress etc. In 26 years, not once have I ever been told "don't rape people".

Lilani:

psijac:
-snip-

I'm certainly not against the legality of using guns in self-defense (though I think the US's laws regarding how they're sold could use some work, and the NRA needs to put their big girl panties on and accept that, much like eating their vegetables and brushing their teeth, background checks may be a chore but they aren't a bad thing).

Though you must be either insane or very naive if you think promoting the carrying of guns to protect rape victims will prevent all rape. About 2/3 of rapes that occur are committed people the victim knows. Sure you may faithfully carry a gun every time you go out, but a lot of times the friend or relative will know where you keep the gun at home and will strategically place themselves away from it, or remove it themselves. If for whatever reason she's without her gun, or something goes wrong with it, or she can't bring herself to shoot a friend or family member, or she's raped as a child or young adult that isn't old enough to be carrying a gun and shooting it at people, then it's useless.

And I don't quite get where you're going with tying it to abortion. Are you trying to say that abortion should be outlawed because it takes more lives? The circumstances are quite different and not really comparable. Women get abortions for many different reasons, rape isn't the only one. And if you're going by sheer number of deaths, then we really should focus more on motor vehicles because they kill more than anything else in this country, and for also very different reasons. Just taking the number of "deaths" out of context is pretty useless.

So just spit it out, OP. Are you trying to say you want to "replace" abortion with women carrying guns to prevent rape? If that's the case, then unless you're also going to allow women to shoot themselves in the stomach when they decide they aren't ready for a baby or when the baby is going to risk her life, then you have spectacularly failed at understanding why abortions occur.

There is a lot wrong with mandatory background checks. First being that it will be an honor system. If we pass background checks today and I sell a gun for cash tomorrow what is going to stop me from saying I sold it yesterday?

A gun can't stop all rapes and I never implied that it could. No action can achieve that goal. Even if all women were sent to another planet. Men would still be raping each other like they do in prison.

I think abortion laws are fine the way they are but I do think some of the laws and culture around these laws are bullshit.

psijac:
Whenever either topic is brought up the side arguing in favor try to claim they are defending the rights of women rape victims. The anti-side portrays the pro as murderous.

Gun right advocates will say Guns are the only way a weaker women can defend herself from a male rapist.

Women's right advocates say women should not be forced to carry a baby they did not ask for.

No strategy is 100% effective. Women miscarry all the time whether or not they want a baby. Methods of abortion vary greatly. Even the morning after pill has some unwanted side effects. Guns can and often do jam, misfire, many people just don't get proper gun training.

In a raw numbers sense there have been 56 million abortions since Roe v.s. Wade.

Gun homicide peaked at 18,000 in 1993 and was at 10,000 for 2010. if you count suicides and general accidents then the number of gun related deaths is around 30,000 for 2010. the sum total would probably be less than 56 million though.

Guns are not the only means of defense, but many of the alternatives are less than reliable, not to mention less likely to get the assailant to back off immediately. An assailant that covers his face at the right time for instance renders all forms of pepper spray useless, and with stun guns, you must maintain contact for a few seconds, not always an easy feat to manage. In any event, a modern gun that has not been badly abused will almost never jam or misfire, that used to be a common issue, but not anymore. That stated, I would strongly prefer that all gun owners get some minimal training, that is indeed a problem.

As for the other issue, I've always supported abortions up to mid term in all cases.

psijac:
There is a lot wrong with mandatory background checks. First being that it will be an honor system. If we pass background checks today and I sell a gun for cash tomorrow what is going to stop me from saying I sold it yesterday?

I'm sorry...but do you even understand how guns are sold? And how businesses in general work? All modern owned by licensed sellers have to be registered. If you sell that gun, they're going to know you had it last. And yeah, that might work for the first couple of days, but after a year if the ATF isn't beginning to wonder how you're selling guns you bought this year to people last year, then the IRS is going to be wondering where all this income from supposedly a year ago is coming from. If you really think outrunning federal regulations is as simple as flipping a few dates, then you really need to learn a bit more about this.

A gun can't stop all rapes and I never implied that it could. No action can achieve that goal. Even if all women were sent to another planet. Men would still be raping each other like they do in prison.

If you start a thread about guns and link it with abortions and rape, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? Especially when it's specifically named "Guns VS abortions," as though we're supposed to choose one or the other?

I think abortion laws are fine the way they are but I do think some of the laws and culture around these laws are bullshit.

Yes, because knowing who owns guns and making sure no honest sellers accidentally sell to somebody with an outstanding warrant, prior felonies, or severe mental condition is such a horrible thing to do.

Abomination:
Self-defense should always be an option but if everyone is armed then the 'equalizer' no longer exists as everyone now has the tool and on average men are still more capable in its use... so we're back to square one.

I don't think you understand what the word equal means. Grant if someone was trying to harm you would would want the advantage in that fight. From a defense stand point advantages are hard to gain because the attattacker will be the one deciding when and where the conflict will occur.

Lilani:

psijac:
There is a lot wrong with mandatory background checks. First being that it will be an honor system. If we pass background checks today and I sell a gun for cash tomorrow what is going to stop me from saying I sold it yesterday?

I'm sorry...but do you even understand how guns are sold? And how businesses in general work? All modern owned by licensed sellers have to be registered. If you sell that gun, they're going to know you had it last. And yeah, that might work for the first couple of days, but after a year if the ATF isn't beginning to wonder how you're selling guns you bought this year to people last year, then the IRS is going to be wondering where all this income from supposedly a year ago is coming from. If you really think outrunning federal regulations is as simple as flipping a few dates, then you really need to learn a bit more about this.

A gun can't stop all rapes and I never implied that it could. No action can achieve that goal. Even if all women were sent to another planet. Men would still be raping each other like they do in prison.

If you start a thread about guns and link it with abortions and rape, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? Especially when it's specifically named "Guns VS abortions," as though we're supposed to choose one or the other?

I think abortion laws are fine the way they are but I do think some of the laws and culture around these laws are bullshit.

Yes, because knowing who owns guns and making sure no honest sellers accidentally sell to somebody with an outstanding warrant, prior felonies, or severe mental condition is such a horrible thing to do.

Federal Firearm License holders (FFL) are already required to run a background check on anyone they sell a gun to. And if they sell it online they have to ship it to another FFL who will run the background check on the person picking it up.

Why are you acting like background checks don't already exist?

Mandatory checks is what was wanted. Dealers can sell from their private collection without a check and a private citizen to citizen sales can occur without a check. A citizen isn't required to keep records of guns she has.

Mandatory background checks would not stop Sandy Hook.

psijac:
Why are you acting like background checks don't already exist?

I'm aware they exist, my dad is an FFL holder. It depends on the state, but in many places background checks aren't required for selling guns in certain situations such as gun shows. And as you said, from citizen to citizen. With so many guns in the country, do you not find it a good idea to try and get a handle on where those are? What exactly is the problem with that? I don't think it's going to be stopping the gun market anytime soon. Hell, Sandy Hook caused major panic buying and my dad couldn't hardly get his hands on any of the guns his buyers were asking for.

Mandatory background checks would not stop Sandy Hook.

When did I ever say it would? Is locking your door also not a good idea because the burglar will probably break a window and get in anyway?

psijac:

Abomination:
Self-defense should always be an option but if everyone is armed then the 'equalizer' no longer exists as everyone now has the tool and on average men are still more capable in its use... so we're back to square one.

I don't think you understand what the word equal means. Grant if someone was trying to harm you would would want the advantage in that fight. From a defense stand point advantages are hard to gain because the attattacker will be the one deciding when and where the conflict will occur.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the point of having a gun is a means of defending yourself against someone who is either more physically capable than you are in a melee or to level the playing field against someone who already has a gun.

If it is the former, congratulations there's a chance the rape attempt is fought off/rapist gets killed - everyone's happy. If it's the latter we've gone from a horrible situation into a high probability of a fatality situation.

Abortions by rape victims would make up only a small fraction of the number of abortions a year anyway - more guns in the hands of citizenry would have other effects than influencing rape statistics. These methods are not focused and will effect society as a whole far greater than the influence they will have over rape statistics.

Lilani:
Though you must be either insane or very naive if you think promoting the carrying of guns to protect rape victims will prevent all rape. About 2/3 of rapes that occur are committed people the victim knows. Sure you may faithfully carry a gun every time you go out, but a lot of times the friend or relative will know where you keep the gun at home and will strategically place themselves away from it, or remove it themselves. If for whatever reason she's without her gun, or something goes wrong with it, or she can't bring herself to shoot a friend or family member, or she's raped as a child or young adult that isn't old enough to be carrying a gun and shooting it at people, then it's useless.

Y'know, they really need to separate that friend/acquaintance category as for the purpose of the survey in question acquaintance could be someone you pass by in the hallway at work everyday. Same issue with murder stats. When people trot out X percentage are killed by people they know, well, according to the stat in question people know rival gang members or their drug dealers. So it's a very deceptive category.

As for the poll in question, define permissive. For example, I fail to see why abortions past the 5th month should be in any way legal because of rape. Or legal at all except for emergency operation procedures. In which case it would take place at a normal hospital and sure as fuck wouldn't occur at an abortion clinic.

I am amazed the abortion only answer is so high.

"guns hurt real people" but then again do you know what else does? Rape. It can destroy a person's entire psyche and leave them destroyed for life. Living in your own hell for life, and needing constant mental support.

How can anyone be that concerned if guns can hurt people if rape has been shown to be much, much worse? Are people really going to damn a woman into a life long personal hell just for their misguided hated and distrust for guns?

Ultratwinkie:
Are people really going to damn a woman into a life long personal hell just for their misguided hated and distrust for guns?

Acting like it's one or the other... what about all the mothers mourning the deaths of sons lost to someone's itchy trigger finger?

The hyperbole is intentional, meant to make you take a step back and realize that not all who are raped endure a lifetime of torment, nor are guns a golden god from heaven come to save us.

Erm... Abortions don't stop rape. Guns can stop rape. If you're solely going by the idea that you're going to stop a rape then a gun is what you're looking for. If you're looking to partially mitigate the effects of a rape then you're looking for abortions. In light of that, I have no idea what you're asking here.

psijac:

Amanda Collins - Pro-Gun rape survivor

Rape survivor? Isn't everyone who has ever been raped a rape survivor? However, I've never met a murder survivor.

Rape isn't a lethal crime. If you rape someone and kill them - those are two separate charges. If you are wholely and solely raped, you are a survivor. By default.

psijac:
In a raw numbers sense there have been 56 million abortions since Roe v.s. Wade.
Gun homicide peaked at 18,000 in 1993 and was at 10,000 for 2010. if you count suicides and general accidents then the number of gun related deaths is around 30,000 for 2010. the sum total would probably be less than 56 million though.

This paragraph sums up why you're confused.

Abortions are not the same as deaths. The overwhelming majority of those 56 million abortions were done on little more than cells. That is nowhere near the same as gun deaths. Why are you comparing the two?

SillyBear:

Amanda Collins - Pro-Gun rape survivor

Rape survivor? Isn't everyone who has ever been raped a rape survivor? However, I've never met a murder survivor.

Rape isn't a lethal crime. If you rape someone and kill them - those are two separate charges. If you are wholely and solely raped, you are a survivor. By default.

You're wrong, you know.

I'm not even sure why you're trying to be pedantic when, despite the fact one could correctly use a "One who continues to exist" definition without being redundant, it should be obvious that we're talking about a person who does well despite hardship.

Abomination:

I do not consider rape to be the crime to end all crimes and worthy of all the scorn and focus society seems to place upon it...

You should probably go to the victims as well as their friends and family and let them know that.

I suggest opening with "Hey, it could be worse, you could have been..." and then insert anything you want, anything at all and see if they agree with you.

dversion:

Abomination:

I do not consider rape to be the crime to end all crimes and worthy of all the scorn and focus society seems to place upon it...

You should probably go to the victims as well as their friends and family and let them know that.

I suggest opening with "Hey, it could be worse, you could have been..." and then insert anything you want, anything at all and see if they agree with you.

Why would I do that? I'm not about to bring up something that would be personally damaging to someone because of my opinion of the societal reaction to a problem. Why would you even consider doing something so cruel?

There are worse things than rape that society suffers from. The idea that it's the worst thing ever is a terrible mantra to keep spewing to people that have suffered from it... "a fate worse than death" can easily become "maybe I'd be better off dead" instead.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked