Woman Uses Gun in Self-Defense; Stops Rape Suspect
John O
An attempt to pontificate on what goes on in the UK with, presumably, bugger
all in the way of cultural awareness....
<dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c32908cc.02102...@posting.google.com...
> nick....@virgin.net (Nick Cooper) wrote in message
news:<97084f7.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> > dg...@hotmail.com wrote in message
news:<c32908cc.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > nick....@virgin.net (Nick Cooper) wrote in message
news:<97084f7.02102...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > No, the England & Wales rate isn't fluctuating. If you graph the
> > figures, you'll see that the are pretty much a straight line, which
> > will reach the level of the last noted US figure around 2041. The
> > average rise is 0.012 per 1,000 of population, some years are static,
> > but there are no drops.
>
> So let's stipulate that the UK rape rate is steadily climbing. Now,
> since women are by law defenseless, what can they do about it?
Pretty much the same as anyone else who is threatened with a crime. Attempt
to put themselves out of harm's way and, if the worst happens, attempt to
get the Law to exact some sort of punishment on the perpetrators.
Alternatively, they could attempt to shoot the perpetrator, and exchange a
potential rape situation for a life in prison....because that, in the UK, is
what they would face. We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal nuts with
guns over here.
>
> > > However you slice it, crime is on the rise in the UK.
> >
> > Nobody could deny that that is true for this particular crime, but it
> > is still far lower than the US rate,
>
> Starting, as almost all UK crime rates did, from a much lower base.
> These "let's look at where we are now" A/B country comparisons are
> meaningless when they exclude trends and starting points. How else do
> you judge policy except by what happens after and because of it?
So. What policy are you talking about and when/how are you expecting to see
its effects?
One major change in government policy that has set in over the last twenty
to thirety years or so has been a reclassification (and broadening) of what
constitutes rape and also a concerted campaign to increase reporting rates
for the crime.
What is widely recognised is that almost all the increase in incidence of
reported rape has to do with that new diefinition, i.e., rape by someone
known to the individual concerned, as opposed to 'stranger rape'.
Therefore, igf you mean that the policy of changing the definition and
counting method has led to an increase in the reported level, then I would
agree. If you are trying to fantasise some kjind of never-never land in
which women regularly (ever?) carried guns to dissuade rapists from carrying
out their evil intent, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. This was never
the case.
>
> Vis a vis guns, the US crime rate has fallen as the domestic gun stock
> and gun-carrying rates have increased. UK crime rates appear to have
> risen as the last few legal guns are removed from civilian
> circulation.
Unless you can factor out the effect of changing definitions and report
rates, this is absolute nonsense. Apart from which, the frequency with
which a criminal was likely to be caught 'in flagrante' by a gun-toting
householder or whatever was always pretty close to nil. You need to have
some sort of estimate of which crimes were ever intercepted by people
wielding guns. If you don't have that, you are talking arrant nonsense.
By the way: you DO know what has been responsible for one of the biggest
increases/distortions in recorded crime rate over the last couple of years,
don't you? Mobile phone theft, usually by teenagers on other teenagers.
Just the sort of people I guess you would be happy to present with arms.
>
> However you want to slice the numbers, the conclusion is hard to
> escape: victim disarmament does not lower crime, it just creates more
> victims.
Since there is not a scintilla of evidence that the UK crime rate was in any
way responsive to the armed status of its so-called victims in the first
place, this statement, like the rest of your post, is utter nonsense - and
also shows how little you know of UK society.
>Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
> raise crime.
Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that sometime.
Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off the
citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
>
> >and it is so unlikely as to be
> > virtually impossible that the rate will continue to rise without some
> > leveling off.
>
> Well you'll see, won't you? And if it DOESN'T level off, then what?
> You've traded your right to self defense on the siren song of promises
> of lowered crime, and the promises have not come true. You've traded
> freedom for security, and now you have neither. That's indeed a
> shame, but not a fate *I* care to emulate.
Paul
"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3db6dc0a$0$19853$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
Unfortunately, it's a little too late for punishment of the rapist to help
the victim a lot after the rape.
Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any weapon
at her disposal to avoid rape.
While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women have
a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be adequately
armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
I haven't got a clue about the laws in the UK but I do know that in
Australia it is illegal for a woman to carry even non-lethal defence (e.g. a
can of MACE). Really STUPID!
In Australia they broadened the rape classification to include rape in
marriage some years ago. Rape by anyone else has always been rape. How
is/was it different in the UK?
> > Vis a vis guns, the US crime rate has fallen as the domestic gun stock
> > and gun-carrying rates have increased. UK crime rates appear to have
> > risen as the last few legal guns are removed from civilian
> > circulation.
>
> Unless you can factor out the effect of changing definitions and report
> rates, this is absolute nonsense. Apart from which, the frequency with
> which a criminal was likely to be caught 'in flagrante' by a gun-toting
> householder or whatever was always pretty close to nil. You need to have
> some sort of estimate of which crimes were ever intercepted by people
> wielding guns. If you don't have that, you are talking arrant nonsense.
>
> By the way: you DO know what has been responsible for one of the biggest
> increases/distortions in recorded crime rate over the last couple of
years,
> don't you? Mobile phone theft, usually by teenagers on other teenagers.
> Just the sort of people I guess you would be happy to present with arms.
I'm not sure if you're missing the point deliberately or not.
I haven't checked the stats to know if what the original poster was
asserting is true or not, but the point he was making is that the rate of
increase in crime in the UK is greater than the rate of increase in the USA.
Now you can argue the validity of the data collection methods and
interpretation all day, but looking at the general trends should serve to
even them out a bit. At least it is somewhat more valid than a direct
comparison.
> > However you want to slice the numbers, the conclusion is hard to
> > escape: victim disarmament does not lower crime, it just creates more
> > victims.
>
> Since there is not a scintilla of evidence that the UK crime rate was in
any
> way responsive to the armed status of its so-called victims in the first
> place, this statement, like the rest of your post, is utter nonsense - and
> also shows how little you know of UK society.
There was no evidence that gun ownership affected crime rates in Australia
either, but when they took away our guns they told us it would lower crime
rates. It hasn't, in fact many crimes have higher rates.
> >Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
> > raise crime.
>
> Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that sometime.
>
> Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off the
> citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
Arsonists kill more people than cranks with guns. What do you propose we do
about that?
People will kill other people, always have, always will. All we can hope to
do is defend ourselves. Personally I'd rather try to defend myself against
someone attacking me with a stick, knife or even a gun than against someone
with a can of petrol and a match.
John O
"Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
news:3db73768$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Why?
Mace is a pretty lethal weapon in the wrong circs. In fact, pretty much
anything can be.
But why the sexisat assumption that only women need this sort of excuse to
carry offensive weapons? I remember one workplace where women out after a
certin time at night were allowed taxis, but not men at ditto - despite the
fact that the likelihood of a man being attacked is far greater than that
for a woman....and despite the fact that some of the men not allowed these
taxis on the company were actually far smaller and far less able to
self-defend than some of the women allowed them.
Could we do this for weapons, too?
Two basic differences over the last few years. As you say: the inclusion of
rape within marriage as a species of rape that did not previously exist.
And second, a focus on defining sex with someone that one knows and that one
considered 'unwanted' to be rape. That, in turn, will cover a very wide
spectrum of event. It will certainly, without arguing which is right, now
cover situations where, in the past, neither men nor women would have
considered a rape to have taken place - but where now, a significant number
of women may consider rape to have occurred.
And third, a significant increase in support services for alleged rape
victims, making the reporting of such offences easier - and also more likely
to proceed through the system.
So if you wish to show 'rape' as somehow an instance of something odd afoot
in the UK, I think you won't get very far.
>
>
>
> > > Vis a vis guns, the US crime rate has fallen as the domestic gun stock
> > > and gun-carrying rates have increased. UK crime rates appear to have
> > > risen as the last few legal guns are removed from civilian
> > > circulation.
> >
> > Unless you can factor out the effect of changing definitions and report
> > rates, this is absolute nonsense. Apart from which, the frequency with
> > which a criminal was likely to be caught 'in flagrante' by a gun-toting
> > householder or whatever was always pretty close to nil. You need to
have
> > some sort of estimate of which crimes were ever intercepted by people
> > wielding guns. If you don't have that, you are talking arrant nonsense.
> >
> > By the way: you DO know what has been responsible for one of the biggest
> > increases/distortions in recorded crime rate over the last couple of
> years,
> > don't you? Mobile phone theft, usually by teenagers on other teenagers.
> > Just the sort of people I guess you would be happy to present with arms.
>
> I'm not sure if you're missing the point deliberately or not.
Well, no. And I do not think I am missing the point.
The previous poster is using two indicators to 'prove' a point. A specific
crime (rape) where I would say that the cause of increased figures is far
too complex for simple speculation of the type that he argues....and then
the overall figures where the UK is currently suffering seriously from the
sort of crime I refer to.
It does seem to me that rather than attempt to go for correlative evidence,
the poster would be better off attempting to find (any) evidence that there
existed some golden age ten twenty thirty years ago, before the crime rise
started, when UK law-abiding citizens regularly used guns to reter crime.
Clue: there wasn't.
>
> I haven't checked the stats to know if what the original poster was
> asserting is true or not, but the point he was making is that the rate of
> increase in crime in the UK is greater than the rate of increase in the
USA.
>
> Now you can argue the validity of the data collection methods and
> interpretation all day, but looking at the general trends should serve to
> even them out a bit. At least it is somewhat more valid than a direct
> comparison.
Why?
Both point and trend data will depend on data collection and definition.
Work I do that uses data is absolutely subject to those issues - and most of
the time spent 'analysing' data actually goes to those.
The argument over UK crime figures has been going on in the UK for much
longer than this thread - and was bolstered earlier this year by the near
simulatneous release of Crime Survey stats and Police figures, which
appeared to show diametriclly opposed pictures. The one that is used, more
often, to demonstrate the actual level of crime in the UK (as opposed to
crime reporting) actually seems to be showing crime going down - with a
current blip caused by mobile phone crime.
>
>
>
> > > However you want to slice the numbers, the conclusion is hard to
> > > escape: victim disarmament does not lower crime, it just creates more
> > > victims.
> >
> > Since there is not a scintilla of evidence that the UK crime rate was in
> any
> > way responsive to the armed status of its so-called victims in the first
> > place, this statement, like the rest of your post, is utter nonsense -
and
> > also shows how little you know of UK society.
>
> There was no evidence that gun ownership affected crime rates in Australia
> either, but when they took away our guns they told us it would lower crime
> rates. It hasn't, in fact many crimes have higher rates.
Depends on who are 'they' and what they told you the effect would be. For
almost every assertion in the public domain, you may find someone who can
contradict it. Oldest and easiest game in the book.
However, the point is: in the UK, we didn't have or use guns the way they
appear to be used in the US. I have no idea about their prevalence in
Australia, so can't comment.
>
>
>
> > >Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
> > > raise crime.
> >
> > Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that sometime.
> >
> > Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off
the
> > citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
>
> Arsonists kill more people than cranks with guns. What do you propose we
do
> about that?
I am posting about the UK and do not have the figures for Australia.
However, looking at the 2001 Government crime figures, 9% of victims in the
UK were killed by 'cranks with guns' and a mere 2% were killed by burning.
Besides which, my comment was specifically in response to the previous
poster's rather glib dismissal of the possibility that people with guns
could do any damage. Go back and read what he wrote.
Paul
I don't dispute that, but if you accept that people have the right to defend
themselves, what weapons would you propose to allow?
Or do you believe that the law should provide retribution after the fact?
Surely (generally) non-lethal weapons (provided they are effective) would be
preferable to 10 or 20 or 50% of people carrying guns.
> But why the sexisat assumption that only women need this sort of excuse to
> carry offensive weapons? I remember one workplace where women out after a
> certin time at night were allowed taxis, but not men at ditto - despite
the
> fact that the likelihood of a man being attacked is far greater than that
> for a woman....and despite the fact that some of the men not allowed these
> taxis on the company were actually far smaller and far less able to
> self-defend than some of the women allowed them.
>
> Could we do this for weapons, too?
I was talking about rape, I suppose that can happen to guys as well, but
IMHO is not as prevalent.
Also, I'm 6'2" which tends to discourage most muggers so I tend not to think
of men as not being as much at risk as women .
However, your point is correct.
I don't understand what you're getting at with this. Australia has such
things now as "date rape" and a few other new rape categories, but in
general, if it is rape now it was rape before the new categories were
introduced. As far as I can see the new categories are only for statistical
purposes.
How is that different in the UK?
> And third, a significant increase in support services for alleged rape
> victims, making the reporting of such offences easier - and also more
likely
> to proceed through the system.
>
> So if you wish to show 'rape' as somehow an instance of something odd
afoot
> in the UK, I think you won't get very far.
Not trying to "show" anything. Just trying to understand the difference
between rape in the UK and rape in Australia.
Since Australia still has fairly close ties to the UK and our legal system
was based on yours I am surprised at the difference.
If the UK follows the Australian model (or visa versa) then there probably
wasn't that many instances where a gun was used to deter a crime, but it did
occasionally happen.
I live in a country where, like the UK, guns must be kept locked up if you
have one. Which may be one reason why I find the debate on gun ownership as
a means of deterring crime interesting. I know several people who *may* be
better off today had they had a weapon (even a non-lethal one) to defend
themselves with several years ago.
> > I haven't checked the stats to know if what the original poster was
> > asserting is true or not, but the point he was making is that the rate
of
> > increase in crime in the UK is greater than the rate of increase in the
> USA.
> >
> > Now you can argue the validity of the data collection methods and
> > interpretation all day, but looking at the general trends should serve
to
> > even them out a bit. At least it is somewhat more valid than a direct
> > comparison.
>
> Why?
>
> Both point and trend data will depend on data collection and definition.
> Work I do that uses data is absolutely subject to those issues - and most
of
> the time spent 'analysing' data actually goes to those.
>
> The argument over UK crime figures has been going on in the UK for much
> longer than this thread - and was bolstered earlier this year by the near
> simulatneous release of Crime Survey stats and Police figures, which
> appeared to show diametriclly opposed pictures. The one that is used,
more
> often, to demonstrate the actual level of crime in the UK (as opposed to
> crime reporting) actually seems to be showing crime going down - with a
> current blip caused by mobile phone crime.
Agreed, but trend data should still be a more accurate means of comparison
than point data, which must people in this NG seem to use.
Seems I remember reading that trends smooth out the discrepancies in point
data. OTOH you can't compare apples to oranges, so if the data is totally
bogus then trends won't help.
> > > > However you want to slice the numbers, the conclusion is hard to
> > > > escape: victim disarmament does not lower crime, it just creates
more
> > > > victims.
> > >
> > > Since there is not a scintilla of evidence that the UK crime rate was
in
> > any
> > > way responsive to the armed status of its so-called victims in the
first
> > > place, this statement, like the rest of your post, is utter nonsense -
> and
> > > also shows how little you know of UK society.
> >
> > There was no evidence that gun ownership affected crime rates in
Australia
> > either, but when they took away our guns they told us it would lower
crime
> > rates. It hasn't, in fact many crimes have higher rates.
>
> Depends on who are 'they' and what they told you the effect would be. For
> almost every assertion in the public domain, you may find someone who can
> contradict it. Oldest and easiest game in the book.
'they' are the politicians, who else lies to people so consistently?
> However, the point is: in the UK, we didn't have or use guns the way they
> appear to be used in the US. I have no idea about their prevalence in
> Australia, so can't comment.
Australia is pretty much like the UK. The only exception I know of is that
target shooters are still allowed to own pistols of any calibre.
> > > >Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
> > > > raise crime.
> > >
> > > Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that
sometime.
> > >
> > > Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off
> the
> > > citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
> >
> > Arsonists kill more people than cranks with guns. What do you propose
we
> do
> > about that?
>
> I am posting about the UK and do not have the figures for Australia.
> However, looking at the 2001 Government crime figures, 9% of victims in
the
> UK were killed by 'cranks with guns' and a mere 2% were killed by burning.
>
> Besides which, my comment was specifically in response to the previous
> poster's rather glib dismissal of the possibility that people with guns
> could do any damage. Go back and read what he wrote.
It's worse here :-(
An arsonist recently burnt down a backpacker hostel killing many, some of
which were UK tourists.
I'm afraid I just don't see that taking guns away from people who enjoy
using them for target shooting or hunting is going to significantly affect
the violent crime rate. If someone can show me where this course of action
has reduced violent crime significantly then I will look at it. Until then
I am a firm believer that people should be able to enjoy life as they see
fit as long as it does not pose an unreasonable danger to others.
BTW, I don't own a gun, but I do borrow one occasionally at the local
shooting range.
Melissa in Colorado
...
>> So let's stipulate that the UK rape rate is steadily climbing. Now,
>> since women are by law defenseless, what can they do about it?
>
> Pretty much the same as anyone else who is threatened with a crime.
> Attempt to put themselves out of harm's way and, if the worst happens,
> attempt to get the Law to exact some sort of punishment on the
> perpetrators.
That's a bit easy for you to say, not being female.
Gun Control: 1.) The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
2.) The theory that a gay man found dead on a fence post in Wyoming, is
somehow morally superior to a gay man carrying a concealed handgun.
3.) The theory that 110 lb women should have to fistfight with 210 lb
rapists.
> Alternatively, they could attempt to shoot the perpetrator, and exchange
> a potential rape situation for a life in prison....because that, in the
> UK, is what they would face.
So proud of your tyranny, aren't you.
> We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
> nuts with guns over here.
You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
Perhaps because you want violent crime and no self defense?
"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right
to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use.
All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force
an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral
imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the
retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at
the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral.
Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention:
instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it."
- Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" , The Virtue of
Selfishness ( 1961 ), pg 108
How true! You're the living examples.
> One major change in government policy that has set in over the last
> twenty to thirety years or so has been a reclassification (and
> broadening) of what constitutes rape and also a concerted campaign to
> increase reporting rates for the crime.
I'm sure that's comforting to the raped women. "It was reported, I feel so
much better."
> What is widely recognised is that almost all the increase in incidence
> of reported rape has to do with that new diefinition, i.e., rape by
> someone known to the individual concerned, as opposed to 'stranger
> rape'.
So what does this academic distinction do for the women it happens to?
> Therefore, igf you mean that the policy of changing the definition and
> counting method has led to an increase in the reported level, then I
> would agree. If you are trying to fantasise some kjind of never-never
> land in which women regularly (ever?) carried guns to dissuade rapists
> from carrying out their evil intent, you are living in cloud cuckoo
> land. This was never the case.
It works in the US.
From a local group of women I met:
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/swarm.htm
Yes, we have legally armed women in Colorado and at least 31 other states.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
Armed gays now too!
http://www.pinkpistols.com/index2a.html
http://www.pinkpistols.com/photos/poster/Thumbs1.htm
http://www.pinkpistols.com/photos/poster/Thumbs2.htm
> By the way: you DO know what has been responsible for one of the biggest
> increases/distortions in recorded crime rate over the last couple of
> years, don't you? Mobile phone theft, usually by teenagers on other
> teenagers. Just the sort of people I guess you would be happy to present
> with arms.
At the range 2 weeks ago, I saw a woman teaching her 13 year old son to
shoot.
>>Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
>> raise crime.
>
> Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that sometime.
A statistically insignificant data point. And the killer was hardly "the
law abiding" now, was he.
> Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off
> the citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
He's a criminal because of his behavior, certainly not fine & upstanding.
And it's a perfect illustration of how all the king's horses and all the
king's men can't protect us ( not with tens of millions of dollars to find
one sniper, and not even with calling in the federales with their high tech
toys ), nor do they have any legal obligation to.
Don't depend on govt to protect you.
--
- Melissa > Somewhere In Colorado, U.S.A. Member GOA, JPFO
Colorado women: If you may be interested in trying shooting,contact me.
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
I won't compromise with the burglar.I won't compromise with the rapist.
And I DEMAND an end to the compromise of my 2nd Amendment human rights.
WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK, By Harry Browne:
http://www.liamworks.com/wgdw/index.html
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any weapon
>at her disposal to avoid rape.
You might be surprised to learn that not all women are like that. One
woman in her 40s was jogging in the park and she was raped and killed.
She put up no struggle. In fact, she asked God to forgive the cretin
who was killing her. The authorities learned this when they caught the
rapist and questioned him.
She was being politically correct to a fault. Either that or she had a
death wish, which is not too hard to believe for someone who is that
stupid.
>While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women have
>a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be adequately
>armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
"Non-lethal weapons" is an oxymoron. And they are extremely dangerous
to the person who thinks they are useful. Perhaps this joke will get
the point across.
This man is on vacation in Alaska and he is shopping at the general
store. He asks the storekeeper about what people do to prevent being
attacked by grizzly bears. The storekeeper said that some people wear
silver bells and carry pepper spray. The man then asked him how do you
know when a bear is nearby. The storekeeper told him that you look for
bear scat, and if you find silver bells in it, and it smells like
pepper spray, you know a grizzly bear is not far away.
>I haven't got a clue about the laws in the UK but I do know that in
>Australia it is illegal for a woman to carry even non-lethal defence (e.g. a
>can of MACE). Really STUPID!
What's really stupid is that the Ozzies let their criminal ruling
class put that insane prohibition on them.
Don't they have rope and trees down there - to hang demagogues? Or how
about chains in the back of pickup trucks - like people in East Texas.
>Arsonists kill more people than cranks with guns. What do you propose we do
>about that?
Ban fire.
>People will kill other people, always have, always will. All we can hope to
>do is defend ourselves. Personally I'd rather try to defend myself against
>someone attacking me with a stick, knife or even a gun than against someone
>with a can of petrol and a match.
How about two airplanes filled with jet fuel?
The US govt could not even defend against that.
The Dark Magus
---
Be very, very careful what you put into that head,
because you will never, ever get it out.
--Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
The Dark Magus
<melissa...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>> We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
>> nuts with guns over here.
>You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
Because about half of adult British males are criminals.
Paul
"The Dark Magus" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3db7aea5...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:57:28 +1000, "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any
weapon
> >at her disposal to avoid rape.
>
> You might be surprised to learn that not all women are like that. One
> woman in her 40s was jogging in the park and she was raped and killed.
> She put up no struggle. In fact, she asked God to forgive the cretin
> who was killing her. The authorities learned this when they caught the
> rapist and questioned him.
>
> She was being politically correct to a fault. Either that or she had a
> death wish, which is not too hard to believe for someone who is that
> stupid.
Unbelievably stupid! (Not that I'm saying I don't believe you, just the
stupidity).
I suppose people who are that stupid are probably unlikely to die of old
age.
> >While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women
have
> >a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be adequately
> >armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
>
> "Non-lethal weapons" is an oxymoron. And they are extremely dangerous
> to the person who thinks they are useful. Perhaps this joke will get
> the point across.
>
> This man is on vacation in Alaska and he is shopping at the general
> store. He asks the storekeeper about what people do to prevent being
> attacked by grizzly bears. The storekeeper said that some people wear
> silver bells and carry pepper spray. The man then asked him how do you
> know when a bear is nearby. The storekeeper told him that you look for
> bear scat, and if you find silver bells in it, and it smells like
> pepper spray, you know a grizzly bear is not far away.
I agree with your point, but I live in a society where the use of lethal
force is discouraged. It is encouraged for the police force, but that is a
different issue.
If non-lethal force is the only alternative, then I can only wonder why that
is also forbidden.
BTW, I like the joke.
> >I haven't got a clue about the laws in the UK but I do know that in
> >Australia it is illegal for a woman to carry even non-lethal defence
(e.g. a
> >can of MACE). Really STUPID!
>
> What's really stupid is that the Ozzies let their criminal ruling
> class put that insane prohibition on them.
>
> Don't they have rope and trees down there - to hang demagogues? Or how
> about chains in the back of pickup trucks - like people in East Texas.
Not much that can be done when both political parties and the media support
it.
The SSAA (Sporting Shooters Association of Australia) which is sort of our
version of the NRA haven't been able to stop it.
> >Arsonists kill more people than cranks with guns. What do you propose we
do
> >about that?
>
> Ban fire.
LOL, but I was serious.
> >People will kill other people, always have, always will. All we can hope
to
> >do is defend ourselves. Personally I'd rather try to defend myself
against
> >someone attacking me with a stick, knife or even a gun than against
someone
> >with a can of petrol and a match.
>
> How about two airplanes filled with jet fuel?
>
> The US govt could not even defend against that.
Too true :-(
But I wonder what a pilot/couple of passengers with guns/non-lethal weapons
might have done had they realised what was happening in time. It seems
unlikely that they could have saved the plane, but they *might* have saved a
lot of lives on the ground.
Yes, I do know all of the arguments against allowing passengers to carry
guns. But I can still wonder.
The Todal
"Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
news:3db73768$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> at her disposal to avoid rape.
Up to a point. I think most thinking reasonable women would behave in much
the same way as thinking reasonable men, namely: if you can fight back
without a risk of being hurt badly, then do so. If fighting back is likely
to involve being stabbed with a knife or strangled, then submit to the rape
as the lesser of two evils.
Rape isn't unique - the same would apply if you see a burglar entering your
house.
>
> While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women
have
> a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be adequately
> armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
The question then is whether the danger of issuing weapons will actually be
counterproductive and lead to more crime, not less. If you gave every woman
a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for robbery and murder.
It is sexist and demeaning to women to say that women have a unique
requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect themselves
from the unique crime of rape.
Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known to
their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a dead
husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and saying "he
tried to rape me".
John O
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-E2622...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <97084f7.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> nick....@virgin.net (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>
> > ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> > news:<ActualGeek-50811...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rates given for England
> > > are for convictions and the rates given for the US are for reported
> > > crimes.
> >
> > No, you are quite wrong - both sets of figures are for reported rapes,
> > taken from the referenced US Dept of Justice report:
>
> Reported Rapes? Ah, so they are pointless figures. Gun control doesn't
> stop rapes, it encourages them.
>
> > Personally, I get amazed at the number of times Americans - in some
> > vain attempt to draw attention away from their own numbers - falsely
> > accuse UK figures as being based on convictions rather than reports,
> > when they're clearly not.
>
> Maybe thats because the BCS report, from which numbers have been posted
> repeatedly to this very group, is a survey of victims, and not a survey
> of reported crimes.
What point are you trying to make here? In the UK, it is widely
recognised - both by criminologists and the government - that there are
disparities between the different source figures for crime (reports, survey,
etc.) - and that different sources are more appropriate to answering
different questions.
What question are you trying to answer here? And how does that invalidate
one or other data source?
BTW - from what you post, it is not clear that you fully understand what the
BCS covers. It is not ' a survey of victims': it is a survey of the general
population.
The Todal
"The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ap8ich$sdgj8$1...@ID-164291.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
to
> their assailant.
oops, I meant their "victim".
I do have sympathy with those who argue that "Mace" sprays should be on sale
in the shops to any adults, male or female, who want to carry them.
Obviously anyone using such a spray inappropriately would have to be
prosecuted and severely punished, which could be rather time-consuming. If
any kids got hold of such sprays, and they inevitably would, they would
enjoy torturing each other with them.
Paul
"The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ap8ich$sdgj8$1...@ID-164291.news.dfncis.de...
>
> news:3db73768$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any
weapon
> > at her disposal to avoid rape.
>
> Up to a point. I think most thinking reasonable women would behave in much
> the same way as thinking reasonable men, namely: if you can fight back
> without a risk of being hurt badly, then do so. If fighting back is likely
> to involve being stabbed with a knife or strangled, then submit to the
rape
> as the lesser of two evils.
>
> Rape isn't unique - the same would apply if you see a burglar entering
your
> house.
Up to a point :-). There are also cases where the rapist kills the woman
afterward anyway. Regardless of whether the rapist will kill her or not, if
the woman perceives that it is possible that he will (which she may judge by
the violence of the attack), then in all likelihood she will fight to the
death (either hers or his).
I would also point out that rape is not the same as non-consensual sex.
Rape involves violence or the threat of violence.
Several years ago a woman survived multiple knife wounds (from memory it was
about 40) from a rapist. She only survived because she fought back with all
she had at the time, her finger nails and her teeth
A few years before that a woman who worked next door to where I worked at
the time wasn't as lucky. The man who raped and murdered her only served
about 5 years.
> > While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women
> have
> > a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be adequately
> > armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
>
> The question then is whether the danger of issuing weapons will actually
be
> counterproductive and lead to more crime, not less. If you gave every
woman
> a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for robbery and
murder.
Read what I said. If you have a problem with guns then why not support
non-lethal weapons as a means of self-defence?
Unless you don't believe in self-defence?
> It is sexist and demeaning to women to say that women have a unique
> requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect themselves
> from the unique crime of rape.
Bullshit! It's a fact of life. Men rape women, men are generally stronger
than women.
> Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
to
> their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a dead
> husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and saying "he
> tried to rape me".
In Australia, and I would venture most countries (other than the UK), rape
by husbands is not the major form of rape.
I'm not sure if that makes yours a better country to live in, or a worse
country for a woman to find a husband in :-).
PeteM
Paul <pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>one
>> considered 'unwanted' to be rape. That, in turn, will cover a very wide
>> spectrum of event. It will certainly, without arguing which is right, now
>> cover situations where, in the past, neither men nor women would have
>> considered a rape to have taken place - but where now, a significant
>number
>> of women may consider rape to have occurred.
>
>I don't understand what you're getting at with this. Australia has such
>things now as "date rape" and a few other new rape categories, but in
>general, if it is rape now it was rape before the new categories were
>introduced. As far as I can see the new categories are only for statistical
>purposes.
>
>How is that different in the UK?
It isn't. The difference is between what *used* to be done about
reporting and recording such events, and what is done *today*. In the
past there was a general view that it was impossible to decide whether
allegations of "date rape" were true, since they tend to turn purely on the
issue of consent. . So, it was thought, there was no point in prosecuting
them and little point in even recording them.
Today many more such allegations go through the formal investigation
process, sometimes as far as prosecution. This has caused a dramatic
change in the official record of *reported* rapes, but naturally says
nothing about whether *actual* prevalence of rape has changed.
Incidentally, it has also had the effect of causing a sharp drop in the
conviction rate for rape prosecution. This is always being remarked on
as a bad thing by womens' campaigning groups, but it is purely an
artefact of the change in prosecuting policy.
--
PeteM
Paul
>
> "The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ap8ich$sdgj8$1...@ID-164291.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >
> > Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
> to
> > their assailant.
>
> oops, I meant their "victim".
I figured that out :-)
> I do have sympathy with those who argue that "Mace" sprays should be on
sale
> in the shops to any adults, male or female, who want to carry them.
> Obviously anyone using such a spray inappropriately would have to be
> prosecuted and severely punished, which could be rather time-consuming. If
> any kids got hold of such sprays, and they inevitably would, they would
> enjoy torturing each other with them.
I wish you had put that in the original post (before I replied to it).
That makes a lot of sense and in general I agree with it.
I don't agree that children would "enjoy torturing each other" but I do
concede that *some* children would inevitably misuse them if they got their
hands on them, but the same can be said of general household items, aerosol
sprays in particular.
ThorII
>
>"Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
>news:3db73768$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any weapon
>> at her disposal to avoid rape.
>
>Up to a point. I think most thinking reasonable women would behave in much
>the same way as thinking reasonable men, namely: if you can fight back
>without a risk of being hurt badly, then do so. If fighting back is likely
>to involve being stabbed with a knife or strangled, then submit to the rape
>as the lesser of two evils.
>
>Rape isn't unique - the same would apply if you see a burglar entering your
>house.
>
>>
>> While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women
>have
>> a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be adequately
>> armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
>
>The question then is whether the danger of issuing weapons will actually be
>counterproductive and lead to more crime, not less. If you gave every woman
>a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for robbery and murder.
>It is sexist and demeaning to women to say that women have a unique
>requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect themselves
>from the unique crime of rape.
Judging from what I have read you wont have a problem with that just an
ever increasing level of violent crime of all sorts until every dam one
of you has to stay locked up in his house and call a constable to be
escorted to the store and back home again.
Paul
"PeteM" <pete@scrooge_marley.com> wrote in message
news:$bIt5BAE...@rockall.gov...
Ok, it's becoming clearer.
When you say "little point in even recording them" do you mean that they;
1 weren't recorded?
2 were recorded sometimes?
3 were recorded?
It would help if rape statistics were differentiated from non-consensual
sex.
> Today many more such allegations go through the formal investigation
> process, sometimes as far as prosecution. This has caused a dramatic
> change in the official record of *reported* rapes, but naturally says
> nothing about whether *actual* prevalence of rape has changed.
I can see what you are getting at here but I don't quite see how it fits
with your last paragraph. Assuming that "little point in even recording
them" means that they were recorded then surely this would only affect the
ratio of reported rapes to prosecutions?
> Incidentally, it has also had the effect of causing a sharp drop in the
> conviction rate for rape prosecution. This is always being remarked on
> as a bad thing by womens' campaigning groups, but it is purely an
> artefact of the change in prosecuting policy.
I can see how that would be the case.
John O
"Lee E. Brown" <astute.rea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cars9.12939$Pk1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c32908cc.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmndomtmmmam.ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote in
> message news:<3daee84e...@news.ntlworld.com>...
> > > On 16 Oct 2002 17:46:29 -0700, dg...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmndomtmmmam.ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote in
> message news:<3dadab99...@news.ntlworld.com>...
> > > >> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:53:11 -0600, "Clayton E. Cramer"
> > > >> <claytonR...@claytoncramer.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"Shaun" <shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmndomtmmmam.ntlworld.com>
wrote
> in
> > > >> >message news:3dac9fae...@news.ntlworld.com...
> > > >> >> On 15 Oct 2002 15:59:12 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmndomtmmmam.ntlworld.com (Shaun)
wrote
> in
> > > >> >> >news:3dac3a13...@news.ntlworld.com:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> So when threatened by an alledged rapist she doesn't bother
> > > >> >> >> telling the police ...
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021015arrest1015p1.asp
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >"Police said Dunbar ran into Wesley at 4:04 a.m. Thursday when
> she
> > > >> >> >took her dog for a walk on North Murtland Avenue. A man
> approached
> > > >> >> >from behind, pointed a rifle at her and told her to stand there
> while
> > > >> >> >he shot her.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Dunbar pleaded for her life and ran away, screaming for help. A
> > > >> >> >police officer escorted her home and took a report. Dunbar went
> out
> > > >> >> >about 90 minutes later for a walk. This time, she carried her
> gun.
> > > >> >> >The same man came up behind her as she walked up a hill. At the
> top,
> > > >> >> >he pulled a .22-caliber rifle from his pants, pointed it at her
> and
> > > >> >> >asked, "How would you like me to shoot you?"
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Dunbar fired in response."
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "Phew, that was close. I was almost killed by a dangerous
criminal
> who
> > > >> >> is still at large . I'll think I'll take a walk in the same area
> to
> > > >> >> get over it"
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What was such a stupid women doing with a gun ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Catching a rapist for the police.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> Given the appalling numbers of rapes that occur in the US gun
owning
> > > >> utopia they need all the help they can get.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Indeed, which is why there is absolutely no substitute for law
abiding
> > > >females to have access to guns for self defense.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, as the person most likely to rape them is their partner or
> > > friend, when they shoot them in a domestic dispute it is in fact
> > > pre-emptive self defence
> >
> > Wrong, in many ways. Somewhat more than half the rapes were
> > perpetrated by an ACQUAINTANCE, a criminological term for anyone known
> > to the victim before the attack. You are conflating the whole
> > universe of acquaintances with the much smaller subset of partners and
> > friends.
> >
> > Second, a large percentage of rapes comes from strangers. You prefer
> > the woman to be defenseless?
> >
> > >
> > > >Re: rape -- another area where "gun free" England is catching up
fast.
> > >
> > > er no,
> >
> > Er, yes.
> >
> > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/cjusew96.pr
> >
> > "Police statistics for 1996 showed that compared to England and Wales
> > the murder rate here [the US] was 5.7 times higher and the rape rate
> > was about 3 times higher. These differences had narrowed after 1981,
> > when the murder rate here was 8.7 times higher and the rape rate 17
> > times higher."
> >
> > Rape rate was 17x, now 3x. Here on planet Earth, that's "catching up
> > fast."
>
> Now you've done it! You've gone and puts FACTS under Shaun's nose!
Possible that the ratio is shifting. But what on earth has that to do with
gun control in the UK?
Women did not use guns to protect themselves in some past mythical age in
the UK....so what difference would making them less available make to the
rape rate?
>
> His head will explode any second now....
>
>
>
>
John O
"Melissa in Colorado" <melissa...@dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:3db77da9$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
> "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> said, and I quote:
> ...
> >> So let's stipulate that the UK rape rate is steadily climbing. Now,
> >> since women are by law defenseless, what can they do about it?
> >
> > Pretty much the same as anyone else who is threatened with a crime.
> > Attempt to put themselves out of harm's way and, if the worst happens,
> > attempt to get the Law to exact some sort of punishment on the
> > perpetrators.
>
> That's a bit easy for you to say, not being female.
>
> Gun Control: 1.) The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
> strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
> explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
> 2.) The theory that a gay man found dead on a fence post in Wyoming, is
> somehow morally superior to a gay man carrying a concealed handgun.
> 3.) The theory that 110 lb women should have to fistfight with 210 lb
> rapists.
>
> > Alternatively, they could attempt to shoot the perpetrator, and exchange
> > a potential rape situation for a life in prison....because that, in the
> > UK, is what they would face.
>
> So proud of your tyranny, aren't you.
Not really. Just because you have swallowed the US bullshit on guns doesn't
mean the rest of teh world ought to be. We recently moved from a society in
which guns were out of the ordinary, but permitted, to one in which they are
virtually outlawed. Groups at the forefront of the campaign to achieve that
were probably FEMALE dominated.
Guess they must have forgotten about that rape thing.
>
> > We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
> > nuts with guns over here.
>
> You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
>
> Perhaps because you want violent crime and no self defense?
Self-defense using a gun is violent crime.
You seem very forgiving of violent crime: why is that?
>
>
> "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right
> to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
> only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use.
> All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force
> an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral
> imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the
> retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at
> the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral.
> Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention:
> instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it."
> - Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" , The Virtue of
> Selfishness ( 1961 ), pg 108
>
> How true! You're the living examples.
>
> > One major change in government policy that has set in over the last
> > twenty to thirety years or so has been a reclassification (and
> > broadening) of what constitutes rape and also a concerted campaign to
> > increase reporting rates for the crime.
>
> I'm sure that's comforting to the raped women. "It was reported, I feel so
> much better."
I made no observation on that. I was merely responding to a rather asinine
suggestion that the 'reason' why the UK rape rate was supposed to be rising.
It is a matter for a great deal of debate over here, and the usual axis for
that debate relates to whether one believes that the real rate is
increasing, or whether the rate is relatively steady, with changes in
reporting and definition accounting for most of the change.
There are respectable arguments on both sides.
Apart from US gun nuts, there appear to be very few individuals in the UK
arguing that the reason for the rise has anything to do with the right or
otherwise to bear arms.
>
> > What is widely recognised is that almost all the increase in incidence
> > of reported rape has to do with that new diefinition, i.e., rape by
> > someone known to the individual concerned, as opposed to 'stranger
> > rape'.
>
> So what does this academic distinction do for the women it happens to?
And what about the man accused? Or do you not care at all about men?
What it means is that there is a category of event that at one point in time
was not defined, either legally or socially, as 'rape - and we are now at
another point in time where that same category of event MAY be defined as
rape.
Personally, I suspect that that change in definition may be liberating for
some women and damaging for others. Because by putting a name to something,
you give some people control over their lives - and make others into
victims. I have no idea of the relative proportions of these.
The same issue affects men (although you don't seem to be aware of this).
The problem with rape is that it is far more a crime of definition than,
say, unlawful killing or theft.
If you increase the focus of 'rape' onto those areas that were previously
considered to be outside the scope of that crime, you will have situations
arising where individuals sincerely believe their conduct to be proper - and
yet now find it to be illegal. The Law and Society are shifting at
different paces.
And by the way: since c.90% of rape cases going through the UK courts do not
result in a conviction, it might just as well be worth looking at the crime
from the point of view of the men dragged into the system.
You would undoubtedly whinge on about the poor women involved in all this.
But to do so, you are relying on the change in legal definition. Yet for
some reason, juries are not happy with this definition. So when you ask
about what this does for the woman....well, in legal terms, 9 out of 10 of
the women complaining of rape have not been - yet have seen fit to initiate
a process that may have wrecked a man's life and/or career.
I recognise that there is an issue here - about the tension between social
and legal values. Your comments usggest you don't even see the problem.
>
> > Therefore, igf you mean that the policy of changing the definition and
> > counting method has led to an increase in the reported level, then I
> > would agree. If you are trying to fantasise some kjind of never-never
> > land in which women regularly (ever?) carried guns to dissuade rapists
> > from carrying out their evil intent, you are living in cloud cuckoo
> > land. This was never the case.
>
> It works in the US.
What evidence? You appear to have a much higher rape rate. Perhaps a
difference in definition.....
>
> From a local group of women I met:
> http://dimensional.com/~melissa/swarm.htm
> Yes, we have legally armed women in Colorado and at least 31 other states.
>
> http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/
> http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
>
> Armed gays now too!
> http://www.pinkpistols.com/index2a.html
> http://www.pinkpistols.com/photos/poster/Thumbs1.htm
> http://www.pinkpistols.com/photos/poster/Thumbs2.htm
>
> > By the way: you DO know what has been responsible for one of the biggest
> > increases/distortions in recorded crime rate over the last couple of
> > years, don't you? Mobile phone theft, usually by teenagers on other
> > teenagers. Just the sort of people I guess you would be happy to present
> > with arms.
>
> At the range 2 weeks ago, I saw a woman teaching her 13 year old son to
> shoot.
Wonderful. You are truly homicidal, aren't you?
Without going any further down what is obviously a total cultural divide,
perhaps worth reflecting on the different cultural values that would apply
to what you have just described.
You see it as admirable.
A woman doing that in the UK would probably be considered guilty of abuse -
and removed from any position of responsibility for that child forthwith.
That is quite a divide.
We don't just see carrying arms as pointless, intellectually: we regard
those who carry them with serioius distaste.
>
> >>Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
> >> raise crime.
> >
> > Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that sometime.
>
> A statistically insignificant data point. And the killer was hardly "the
> law abiding" now, was he.
Why significantly insignificant?
You do know how many people are murdered in the UK each year, don't you?
And actually, prior to Dunblane, our murder rate has frequently been bumped
up by 5% or more in a given year by a statistically insignificant lone
gunman. Go look up Hungerford, too.
And the point I was making was relative to the assertion of the previous
poster that appeared to be along the lines of 'gun availability never killed
anyone'. Well, it does.
>
> > Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off
> > the citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
>
> He's a criminal because of his behavior, certainly not fine & upstanding.
> And it's a perfect illustration of how all the king's horses and all the
> king's men can't protect us ( not with tens of millions of dollars to find
> one sniper, and not even with calling in the federales with their high
tech
> toys ), nor do they have any legal obligation to.
>
> Don't depend on govt to protect you.
Or guns.
John O
Yep. I go along with the well established principle of English Law - that
you may use REASONABLE force with which to defend yourself. Guns and mace,
in the UK context, have long been considered unreasonable.
>
> Surely (generally) non-lethal weapons (provided they are effective) would
be
> preferable to 10 or 20 or 50% of people carrying guns.
>
>
>
> > But why the sexisat assumption that only women need this sort of excuse
to
> > carry offensive weapons? I remember one workplace where women out after
a
> > certin time at night were allowed taxis, but not men at ditto - despite
> the
> > fact that the likelihood of a man being attacked is far greater than
that
> > for a woman....and despite the fact that some of the men not allowed
these
> > taxis on the company were actually far smaller and far less able to
> > self-defend than some of the women allowed them.
> >
> > Could we do this for weapons, too?
>
> I was talking about rape, I suppose that can happen to guys as well, but
> IMHO is not as prevalent.
One of the categories of crime in the UK showing the highest year-on-year
trend rise. Albeit from a small base and, I suspect, due to a real change
in reporting standards.
However, I was comparing the probability of being raped by a stranger with
the probability of being attacked and possibly suffering serious physical
harm.
Probability of the latter is far higher if you are a young man than the
former is for, say, a woman of any age.
No. I think they are leading to new types of case being brought before the
courts - and are a real factor in the low conviction rate: the Law....or
Government policy....has moved ahead of public opinion. So although a woman
may consider herself to have been raped, a jury will not.
What I am thinking about here are what I would call 'ambiguous sex'. Where
the woman feels, after the event, that she would rather not have. Because
the government is putting resources into encouraging women to come forward
and report 'rapes', I do believe that some women now feel that this sort of
incident is a rape.
Yet the true issue is whether the alleged perpetrator believed consent to be
present. So I think two things: that more bad cases are coming to court;
and that in crime surveys, more people believe themselves to have been raped
than a strict legal definition would allow.
>
> How is that different in the UK?
>
>
>
> > And third, a significant increase in support services for alleged rape
> > victims, making the reporting of such offences easier - and also more
> likely
> > to proceed through the system.
> >
> > So if you wish to show 'rape' as somehow an instance of something odd
> afoot
> > in the UK, I think you won't get very far.
>
> Not trying to "show" anything. Just trying to understand the difference
> between rape in the UK and rape in Australia.
Fairy nuff.
Well - my point, really.
>
> I live in a country where, like the UK, guns must be kept locked up if you
> have one.
Nope. You are thinking about the UK pre-Dunblane. Basically - and maybe
someone on uk.legal will help - I believe we are allowed shotguns (locked
up) and air pistols. Nothing else. NOTHING.
Indeed. I enjoy data - but that means I am aware that you need to do a LOT
of digging before you get to anything like the 'truth'.
Oh. That is a different argument. I think the response to Dunblane was an
over-reaction.
What I do not buy in to is the idea that guns make a serious impact on
reducing crime.
ThorII
Since 1.67% of all british men have been raped.....I bet all used pepper spray.
ThorII
Ahhhhh...australia, where men are men...and the sheep are scared.
I hear they found another use for sheep in australia....wool.
Paul
Then the only real difference of opinion is what is reasonable. In any sane
society this will depend on the degree of the threat being defended against.
If you don't allow guns and you don't allow effective non-lethal devices
then what is permissible?
And "reasonable force" is a VERY slippery definition.
Not long ago, in Australia, two police were confronted by a man with a
hammer. They shot and killed him. Personally I question whether they
needed to kill him seeing as he was only armed with a hammer, but the police
and politicians called it a good kill.
OTOH, had a "civilian" done the deed (with any weapon) there is little doubt
that he would have been charged. To me this gives the impression that
"reasonable force" varies depending on who is using it.
<snip>
> > I don't understand what you're getting at with this. Australia has such
> > things now as "date rape" and a few other new rape categories, but in
> > general, if it is rape now it was rape before the new categories were
> > introduced. As far as I can see the new categories are only for
> statistical
> > purposes.
>
> No. I think they are leading to new types of case being brought before the
> courts - and are a real factor in the low conviction rate: the Law....or
> Government policy....has moved ahead of public opinion. So although a
woman
> may consider herself to have been raped, a jury will not.
>
> What I am thinking about here are what I would call 'ambiguous sex'.
Where
> the woman feels, after the event, that she would rather not have. Because
> the government is putting resources into encouraging women to come forward
> and report 'rapes', I do believe that some women now feel that this sort
of
> incident is a rape.
>
> Yet the true issue is whether the alleged perpetrator believed consent to
be
> present. So I think two things: that more bad cases are coming to court;
> and that in crime surveys, more people believe themselves to have been
raped
> than a strict legal definition would allow.
Hmmm. How about a new category of non-consensual sex? That way it wouldn't
get in the way of "real" rape cases.
As you say, it's not unheard of for a woman to change her mind after the
event. Framing any such law to protect the innocent is a job for lawyers.
> > I'm afraid I just don't see that taking guns away from people who enjoy
> > using them for target shooting or hunting is going to significantly
affect
> > the violent crime rate. If someone can show me where this course of
> action
> > has reduced violent crime significantly then I will look at it.
>
> Oh. That is a different argument. I think the response to Dunblane was
an
> over-reaction.
>
> What I do not buy in to is the idea that guns make a serious impact on
> reducing crime.
I have an open mind on the subject. We should know one way or the other in
a 100 years or so :-)
I do however, firmly believe that, should the need arise, a person can
defend themselves and that the law should allow them some means (not
necessarily guns) to do so.
Paul
"ThorII" <gu...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:a2qfrukhfepm3gjh8...@4ax.com...
I think you're confusing Australia with New Zealand, that's the standing
joke about them :-)
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>The question then is whether the danger of issuing weapons will actually be
>counterproductive and lead to more crime, not less.
No, the question is whether restricting the behavior of someone who has
done nothing wrong, and for who you have no evidence to suspect that
they intend to do wrong, can ever be justified because of fears of what
someone else might do.
The answer is no.
>If you gave every woman
>a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for robbery and murder.
Some would. They would deserve punishment. Those who did not would not.
--
While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one
ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes
the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its
citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly
cannot claim this distinction.
- Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>I live in a society where the use of lethal force is discouraged.
And that is one of the main reasons Britain is a very fucked up
country.
The Dark Magus
<the_tod...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any weapon
>> at her disposal to avoid rape.
>Up to a point. I think most thinking reasonable women would behave in much
>the same way as thinking reasonable men, namely: if you can fight back
>without a risk of being hurt badly, then do so. If fighting back is likely
>to involve being stabbed with a knife or strangled, then submit to the rape
>as the lesser of two evils.
And then after being raped the woman gets killed. Rapists do not like
to leave eye witnesses behind.
If that woman you allude to was carrying a gun, and she knew how to
use it, including how escalate her state of awareness thru the various
stages of alertness, then it would be likely that she would neither be
raped or hurt. In fact, there is only a 1-2% chance she will even fire
the gun. Rapists know better than take on someone with a gun,
especially if they do not want to get their balls shot off.
The Dark Magus
<the_tod...@msn.com> wrote:
>I do have sympathy with those who argue that "Mace" sprays should be on sale
>in the shops to any adults, male or female, who want to carry them.
You are making a big mistake advocating those toys for serious self
protection. All they do is piss the attacker off.
>Obviously anyone using such a spray inappropriately would have to be
>prosecuted and severely punished, which could be rather time-consuming. If
>any kids got hold of such sprays, and they inevitably would, they would
>enjoy torturing each other with them.
Jezuz - yours is sure a violent society.
The Dark Magus
>the time wasn't as lucky. The man who raped and murdered her only served
>about 5 years.
That is so disgusting I cannot find adequate words to express my
feelings. I hope the citizens of Britain find out where that cretin is
living and string him up.
Tony Martin gets life in prison (later reduced on appeal) for
defending himself from violent criminals yet a rapist/murderer gets
only 5 years.
No wonder Britain is such a fucked up country.
The Dark Magus
>Ahhhhh...australia, where men are men...and the sheep are scared.
>I hear they found another use for sheep in australia....wool.
Aren't you sure you are describing Britain?
The Limeys are living proof that the Normans fucked sheep.
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>> So proud of your tyranny, aren't you.
>Not really. Just because you have swallowed the US bullshit on guns doesn't
>mean the rest of teh world ought to be. We recently moved from a society in
>which guns were out of the ordinary, but permitted, to one in which they are
>virtually outlawed. Groups at the forefront of the campaign to achieve that
>were probably FEMALE dominated.
No, women have more sense than that.
It's leftist sodomite perverts who are behind gun confiscation. Their
agenda includes complete subjugation of the British populace, and
therefore they need people to be unarmed wimp peasants.
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>Yep. I go along with the well established principle of English Law - that
>you may use REASONABLE force with which to defend yourself. Guns and mace,
>in the UK context, have long been considered unreasonable.
Only because the British have succumbed to brainwashing by leftist
sodomite perverts.
That's what is meant by the "UK context" - a nation dominated by
leftist sodomite perverts.
Humphrey Go Kart
> Only because the British have succumbed to brainwashing by leftist
> sodomite perverts.
>
> That's what is meant by the "UK context" - a nation dominated by
> leftist sodomite perverts.
Twice in one post! You must be feeling really 'proud' now. Why don't
you get Mrs Palmer to provide you with some executive relief?
--
Humphrey Go Kart
http://www.jesus.com/
http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/
Paul
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:18:57 +1000, "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com>
> wrote:
> >A few years before that a woman who worked next door to where I worked at
> >the time wasn't as lucky. The man who raped and murdered her only served
> >about 5 years.
>
> That is so disgusting I cannot find adequate words to express my
> feelings. I hope the citizens of Britain find out where that cretin is
> living and string him up.
>
> Tony Martin gets life in prison (later reduced on appeal) for
> defending himself from violent criminals yet a rapist/murderer gets
> only 5 years.
>
> No wonder Britain is such a fucked up country.
I live in Australia, and it happened here.
PeteM
Paul <pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>> reporting and recording such events, and what is done *today*. In the
>> past there was a general view that it was impossible to decide whether
>> allegations of "date rape" were true, since they tend to turn purely on
>the
>> issue of consent. . So, it was thought, there was no point in prosecuting
>> them and little point in even recording them.
>
>Ok, it's becoming clearer.
>
>When you say "little point in even recording them" do you mean that they;
> 1 weren't recorded?
> 2 were recorded sometimes?
> 3 were recorded?
AIUI it would depend on the circs. Such complaints used to be dealt
with pretty unsympathetically - with either "Do you really want to go
through a public trial and cross-examination when there's no chance of a
conviction?" or even "Sounds like you let him talk you into it and now
you are coming crying to us".
Knowing this, most women wouldn't bother to report the incident. If
they did, they'd probably withdraw the allegation as soon as they heard
the police response
>
>It would help if rape statistics were differentiated from non-consensual
>sex.
There is no difference. Rape is defined as non-consensual sex.
>
>
>
>> Today many more such allegations go through the formal investigation
>> process, sometimes as far as prosecution. This has caused a dramatic
>> change in the official record of *reported* rapes, but naturally says
>> nothing about whether *actual* prevalence of rape has changed.
>
>I can see what you are getting at here but I don't quite see how it fits
>with your last paragraph. Assuming that "little point in even recording
>them" means that they were recorded then surely this would only affect the
>ratio of reported rapes to prosecutions?
see above - women are now much more likely to report such incidents
*and* to insist on a criminal investigation, and the police are now
obliged to record them formally.
--
PeteM
PeteM
O <aud...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>And what about the man accused? Or do you not care at all about men?
>
>What it means is that there is a category of event that at one point in time
>was not defined, either legally or socially, as 'rape - and we are now at
>another point in time where that same category of event MAY be defined as
>rape.
>
>Personally, I suspect that that change in definition may be liberating for
>some women and damaging for others. Because by putting a name to
>something,
>you give some people control over their lives - and make others into
>victims. I have no idea of the relative proportions of these.
>
>The same issue affects men (although you don't seem to be aware of this).
>The problem with rape is that it is far more a crime of definition than,
>say, unlawful killing or theft.
>
Not just definition but proof. It would be perfectly possible - indeed
probable - for a jury to agree that it "really is rape" if the woman doesn't
verbally consent, but still be unable to decide whether she did or didn't.
--
PeteM
Peter McLelland
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:36:11 +1000, "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I live in a society where the use of lethal force is discouraged.
>
> And that is one of the main reasons Britain is a very fucked up
> country.
>
Peter
Peter McLelland
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:18:57 +1000, "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com>
> wrote:
> >A few years before that a woman who worked next door to where I worked at
> >the time wasn't as lucky. The man who raped and murdered her only served
> >about 5 years.
>
> That is so disgusting I cannot find adequate words to express my
> feelings. I hope the citizens of Britain find out where that cretin is
> living and string him up.
>
> Tony Martin gets life in prison (later reduced on appeal) for
> defending himself from violent criminals yet a rapist/murderer gets
> only 5 years.
>
> No wonder Britain is such a fucked up country.
>
for directions and is shot dead, just for knocking on the door, and the
murderer isn't even prosecuted.
So friendly
Peter
Peter McLelland
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:17:09 +0100, "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> So proud of your tyranny, aren't you.
>
> >Not really. Just because you have swallowed the US bullshit on guns
doesn't
> >mean the rest of teh world ought to be. We recently moved from a society
in
> >which guns were out of the ordinary, but permitted, to one in which they
are
> >virtually outlawed. Groups at the forefront of the campaign to achieve
that
> >were probably FEMALE dominated.
>
> No, women have more sense than that.
In general it is the women who leed any anti gum campaign almost anywhere,
even in the US.
>
> It's leftist sodomite perverts who are behind gun confiscation. Their
> agenda includes complete subjugation of the British populace, and
> therefore they need people to be unarmed wimp peasants.
>
You should talk to WOTAN, I am sure you would get on quite well.
Peter
Nick Cooper
> I don't understand what you're getting at with this. Australia has such
> things now as "date rape" and a few other new rape categories, but in
> general, if it is rape now it was rape before the new categories were
> introduced. As far as I can see the new categories are only for statistical
> purposes.
>
> How is that different in the UK?
Similar in the UK, but perhaps more so. As John O remarked, women are
now in a better position to report rapes now, but also to do so in
situations which a few years previously might not actually be
considered by the woman in question as rape. I suppose another factor
could even be that changes in drinking patterns amongst young women -
the number of instances of drunk women alone being assaulted by taxi
and mini-cab (licensed private hire) drivers is getting quite
alarming.
> I live in a country where, like the UK, guns must be kept locked up if you
> have one. Which may be one reason why I find the debate on gun ownership as
> a means of deterring crime interesting. I know several people who *may* be
> better off today had they had a weapon (even a non-lethal one) to defend
> themselves with several years ago.
I would guess Australia would be between the UK and the US, but still
closer to the former. British police not being armed is reflected in
the fact that use of firearms in crime as a who is still relatively
low compared to countries with armed police.
> Agreed, but trend data should still be a more accurate means of comparison
> than point data, which must people in this NG seem to use.
>
> Seems I remember reading that trends smooth out the discrepancies in point
> data. OTOH you can't compare apples to oranges, so if the data is totally
> bogus then trends won't help.
The data I posted shows that the US rape rates have been fluctuating
widely and at lkeast in 1996 was falling, while those in the UK,
although they have been increasing, show an existing trend that
pre-dates the ban on handguns, which many Americans are trying to
blame for the aforementioned rise. More recent figures that I'm
tracked down seem to show that this cannot be the case.
> I'm afraid I just don't see that taking guns away from people who enjoy
> using them for target shooting or hunting is going to significantly affect
> the violent crime rate. If someone can show me where this course of action
> has reduced violent crime significantly then I will look at it. Until then
> I am a firm believer that people should be able to enjoy life as they see
> fit as long as it does not pose an unreasonable danger to others.
The big problem is that the pro-gun lobby constantly try to say that
the banning of handguns in the UK was sold to the public as a way to
reduce crime in general, or even armed crime specifically. It
categorically was not. It was not that Thomas Hamilton went on a
shooting rampage with a handgun that was being addressed, but that it
was a handgun he legally owned due to shoddy application of the
regulations on the part of the local police. Somehow, people thought
it somehow more horrifying that he had used a licensed gun, rather
than an illegally-held one. Unfortunately, the public were riding on
such a media-whipped wave of outrage than nobody stopped to think how
inherently ridiculous banning handguns was as a response, not least
because Hamilton did hold other weapons illegally including,
apparently, a sub-machine gun. IF he had been denied his legal guns,
it seems unlikely that the killings would not have taken place.
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>And "reasonable force" is a VERY slippery definition.
Not really, although the state can brainwash people into thinking it
is.
From the Texas Penal Code:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html
+++++
§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person
A person is justified in using deadly force against another if a
reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated;
and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent the other's
imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault,
aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
The requirement imposed by this section does not apply to an actor who
uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force
committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the
actor.
+++++
The concept of "reasonable force" is based on what a "Reasonable
Person" would do under the same circumstances.
Of course, finding such a person in Britain is all but impossible.
Nick Cooper
> On 23 Oct 2002 22:57:13 -0600, Melissa in Colorado
> <melissa...@dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> >> We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
> >> nuts with guns over here.
>
>
Cite?
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>> >A few years before that a woman who worked next door to where I worked at
>> >the time wasn't as lucky. The man who raped and murdered her only served
>> >about 5 years.
>> No wonder Britain is such a fucked up country.
>I live in Australia, and it happened here.
You have just shattered my romantic illusion about Oz. <sniff>
Paul
I suppose that it makes some sort of sense that it's not a report unless
it's followed through.
> >It would help if rape statistics were differentiated from non-consensual
> >sex.
>
> There is no difference. Rape is defined as non-consensual sex.
It is now. But stop and think about it for a minute. "Real rape" is
accompanied with either violence or the threat of violence. Non-consensual
sex would then cover all of the other circumstances.
To me it seems likely that the distinction would give the "real rape" victim
a better change of justice instead of being lumped in with the "grey" areas
which a percentage of the general public doesn't see as a serious crime.
> >> Today many more such allegations go through the formal investigation
> >> process, sometimes as far as prosecution. This has caused a dramatic
> >> change in the official record of *reported* rapes, but naturally says
> >> nothing about whether *actual* prevalence of rape has changed.
> >
> >I can see what you are getting at here but I don't quite see how it fits
> >with your last paragraph. Assuming that "little point in even recording
> >them" means that they were recorded then surely this would only affect
the
> >ratio of reported rapes to prosecutions?
>
> see above - women are now much more likely to report such incidents
> *and* to insist on a criminal investigation, and the police are now
> obliged to record them formally.
It makes sense given that reports that are not followed up are not recorded.
Paul
"Nick Cooper" <nick....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:97084f7.02102...@posting.google.com...
Australian police go armed. Security guards go armed.
A few years ago there was an attempted armed robbery at the bank just up the
road from where I live. The security guards opened fire and the robbers
returned fire. Three bystanders were injured, one is a paraplegic now (she
was hit by one of the guards bullets).
A couple of months ago two police were confronted by a man with a hammer.
They shot and killed him. Police and politicians called it a "justified"
kill.
I'm not saying that police and security guards are not generally
responsible, but these two incidents may me wonder about some of them.
You obviously don't have any of that in the UK if your police are not armed.
Thankyou for your reply, it is thoughtful and informative (unlike some
rantings I have seen in this group).
Since this thread is dealing with the question of whether guns change crime
rates perhaps some would care to comment on this scenario:
Taking the case of the armed robbery at the bank I mentioned above, let us
assume that some, say 10 of the citizens around the shopping centre where
also armed:
The anti-gun case:
The guards shoot, the robbers shoot, the 10 armed citizens shoot and more
innocent bystanders are injured or perhaps killed.
The pro-gun case:
The robbers see the number of people around the area when they "case the
joint" and conclude that some of them will be armed. The decide that it is
too risky and look for somewhere to rob that is more isolated.
The other case:
No one shoots, the robbers escape with the money and it is either recovered
later or the bank collects the insurance.
To me all arguments seem plausible and the last two the most desirable
outcomes.
The argument presented as anti-gun is plausible because of what happened
when only the guards were armed. I live close enough to hear the shots and
my next door neighbour was present at the time so I don't accept that the
facts are not as stated.
The other argument seems plausible because professional robbers will always
look at the risk/reward ratio and choose the easiest target.
Could it be that in the real world you would find that there are some cases
of each occurring?
Paul
That seems fairly straight forward. I don't know what the law is here but I
do know some cases of it's application.
A good while back, probably more that 10 years a fellow shot and killed a 16
year old who was breaking into his house. He didn't know the person was 16
and he thought he had a gun, which it turned out he did not. The police
didn't charge him and the politicians backed their decision.
A bit later after the anti-gun lobby gained momentum the politicians decided
guns shouldn't be used for self defence.
A while after that there was a case of a man using a gun to detain two home
invaders until the police arrived. He may have wounded one of them, it was
a long time ago and I don't remember the details clearly. Anyway he was
charged for either having or using the gun.
There have been a few other incidents of people being charged for producing
guns in defence of their homes so the idea is now generally out of favour.
Not to say that some would not be prepared to face the legal consequences
later if they perceived an immediate need to use a gun. But without a clear
and immediate need to shoot (i.e. life threatening) it would undoubtedly be
less legally stressful if you do nothing and collect the insurance later.
Mike
<pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>
>A couple of months ago two police were confronted by a man with a hammer.
>They shot and killed him. Police and politicians called it a "justified"
>kill.
>
>I'm not saying that police and security guards are not generally
>responsible, but these two incidents may me wonder about some of them.
>
>You obviously don't have any of that in the UK if your police are not armed.
>
IIRC). These innocent unarmed people (amongst others) were killed by
"highly trained" firearms officers (aka "trigger happy killers") in the
UK police. Mr Ashley was naked in his bedroom when he was gunned down.
Mr Stanley was walking along the street, going about his lawful
business, when he was gunned down and Master Shorthouse was asleep in
his bed when he was shot by a "highly trained" police firearms officer
who didn't know the first thing about firearm safety.
--
Mike
Paul
"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NMGJUCAx...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
??? Didn't I just read that police in the UK don't carry firearms ???
Just as an aside, there have been several incidents lately where police here
have shot themselves. They blame the unsafe guns.
PeteM
Paul <pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>But stop and think about it for a minute. "Real rape" is
>accompanied with either violence or the threat of violence. Non-consensual
>sex would then cover all of the other circumstances.
>
What other circumstances?
--
PeteM
dg...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> > So let's stipulate that the UK rape rate is steadily climbing. Now,
> > since women are by law defenseless, what can they do about it?
>
> Pretty much the same as anyone else who is threatened with a crime. Attempt
> to put themselves out of harm's way and, if the worst happens, attempt to
> get the Law to exact some sort of punishment on the perpetrators.
And what if the attacker wants you dead? What good does punishment
serve YOU?
Truly, the voice of the "sheep subject."
>
> Alternatively, they could attempt to shoot the perpetrator, and exchange a
> potential rape situation for a life in prison....because that, in the UK, is
> what they would face. We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal nuts with
> guns over here.
Your rancid opinion is duly noted: self defense againsta vicious
rapist is nutty and homicidal. Better to lay back and enjoy it.
> >
> > > > However you slice it, crime is on the rise in the UK.
> > >
> > > Nobody could deny that that is true for this particular crime, but it
> > > is still far lower than the US rate,
> >
> > Starting, as almost all UK crime rates did, from a much lower base.
> > These "let's look at where we are now" A/B country comparisons are
> > meaningless when they exclude trends and starting points. How else do
> > you judge policy except by what happens after and because of it?
>
> So. What policy are you talking about and when/how are you expecting to see
> its effects?
Gun control of course. We see the effects right now.
>
> One major change in government policy that has set in over the last twenty
> to thirety years or so has been a reclassification (and broadening) of what
> constitutes rape and also a concerted campaign to increase reporting rates
> for the crime.
>
> What is widely recognised is that almost all the increase in incidence of
> reported rape has to do with that new diefinition, i.e., rape by someone
> known to the individual concerned, as opposed to 'stranger rape'.
>
> Therefore, igf you mean that the policy of changing the definition and
> counting method has led to an increase in the reported level, then I would
> agree. If you are trying to fantasise some kjind of never-never land in
> which women regularly (ever?) carried guns to dissuade rapists from carrying
> out their evil intent, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. This was never
> the case.
Not in your country, no, much to your disgrace.
> >
> > Vis a vis guns, the US crime rate has fallen as the domestic gun stock
> > and gun-carrying rates have increased. UK crime rates appear to have
> > risen as the last few legal guns are removed from civilian
> > circulation.
>
> Unless you can factor out the effect of changing definitions and report
> rates, this is absolute nonsense. Apart from which, the frequency with
> which a criminal was likely to be caught 'in flagrante' by a gun-toting
> householder or whatever was always pretty close to nil.
In your country. Not here.
> You need to have
> some sort of estimate of which crimes were ever intercepted by people
> wielding guns. If you don't have that, you are talking arrant nonsense.
No, the arrant nonsense was the claim by gun prohibitionists that
disarming the victims makes them safer. It doesn't. The claim was,
disarm yourselves and become helpless and crime will fall.
>
> By the way: you DO know what has been responsible for one of the biggest
> increases/distortions in recorded crime rate over the last couple of years,
> don't you? Mobile phone theft, usually by teenagers on other teenagers.
> Just the sort of people I guess you would be happy to present with arms.
>
> >
> > However you want to slice the numbers, the conclusion is hard to
> > escape: victim disarmament does not lower crime, it just creates more
> > victims.
>
> Since there is not a scintilla of evidence that the UK crime rate was in any
> way responsive to the armed status of its so-called victims in the first
> place, this statement, like the rest of your post, is utter nonsense - and
> also shows how little you know of UK society.
And UK politicians know even less, since they touted gun control as a
response to crime.
I don't claim at all that armed to resistance to crime in the UK over
the last 50 years or so has been a significant factor. The point is,
UK gun banners claimed that the arms in the hands of law abiding
civilians WAS a significant factor in causing crime, and that gun bans
would cure that. It hasn't.
>
> >Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
> > raise crime.
>
> Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that sometime.
Leave it to the scientifically illiterate to drag out lone, isolated
atrocities to make policy with, ignoring the other side of the
equation.
>
> Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off the
> citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
See the current news: it's a terrorist.
But even then, you're completely ignoring the tens of thousands of
lives SAVED by firearms every year in the US.
Mike
<pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>Just as an aside, there have been several incidents lately where police here
>have shot themselves. They blame the unsafe guns.
>
With a good safety procedure, you need to make a lot of mistakes before
you can accidentally shoot someone (or yourself).
--
Mike
dg...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> > Or do you believe that the law should provide retribution after the fact?
>
> Yep. I go along with the well established principle of English Law - that
> you may use REASONABLE force with which to defend yourself. Guns and mace,
> in the UK context, have long been considered unreasonable.
And such a restriction is, by any standard, itself unreasonable.
Essentially, ANY effective self defense is now "unreasonable." This
is the problem with non-objective law. The law is conditioned on some
cloudy, subjective word whoe meaning then shifts out from under you.
By moving the bar of what is "reasonable" is how every single (legal)
gun in the UK has vanished.
<snip>
>
> What I do not buy in to is the idea that guns make a serious impact on
> reducing crime.
If you mean, self defense guns, I think you have the issue backwards.
Self defense weapons are not some social engineering tool to reduce
crime. Rather, they are a consequence of crime, a recognition that
crime exists, and one needs to defend oneself.
What IS clear, is that confiscating guns from law abiding hands does
NOT lower crime.
dg...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> > > We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
> > > nuts with guns over here.
> >
> > You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
> >
> > Perhaps because you want violent crime and no self defense?
>
> Self-defense using a gun is violent crime.
No, such a definition is an Orwellian nightmare.
> I made no observation on that. I was merely responding to a rather asinine
> suggestion that the 'reason' why the UK rape rate was supposed to be rising.
It's not the reason. But since it IS happening, your women are SOL,
since they can't have, and never will have, effective means of self
defense.
<snip>
> Without going any further down what is obviously a total cultural divide,
> perhaps worth reflecting on the different cultural values that would apply
> to what you have just described.
>
> You see it as admirable.
>
> A woman doing that in the UK would probably be considered guilty of abuse -
> and removed from any position of responsibility for that child forthwith.
>
> That is quite a divide.
>
> We don't just see carrying arms as pointless, intellectually: we regard
> those who carry them with serioius distaste.
We call them "women who repel rape." We call your women "victims."
The serious distaste is obviously a self-exculpatory defense mechanism
to avoid dealing with your general impotence agaist criminals. You
can't protect yourselves, but you can console yourself by sneering at
the American "cowboys."
<snip>
> And the point I was making was relative to the assertion of the previous
> poster that appeared to be along the lines of 'gun availability never killed
> anyone'. Well, it does.
No, the point is a little less shallow. You have to weigh BOTH sides
of the ledger.
The Dark Magus
>How about: James Ashley, Harry Stanley and John Shorthouse Jnr (aged 6
>IIRC). These innocent unarmed people (amongst others) were killed by
>"highly trained" firearms officers (aka "trigger happy killers") in the
>UK police. Mr Ashley was naked in his bedroom when he was gunned down.
>Mr Stanley was walking along the street, going about his lawful
>business, when he was gunned down and Master Shorthouse was asleep in
>his bed when he was shot by a "highly trained" police firearms officer
>who didn't know the first thing about firearm safety.
All the more reason for citizens to be armed.
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>> From the Texas Penal Code:
>> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html
>> +++++
>> § 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person
>>
>> A person is justified in using deadly force against another if a
>> reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated;
>> and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
>> immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
>> attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent the other's
>> imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault,
>> aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
>> The requirement imposed by this section does not apply to an actor who
>> uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force
>> committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the
>> actor.
>> +++++
>That seems fairly straight forward. I don't know what the law is here
You sure acted like you knew what it was before I questioned you. :-)
>but I do know some cases of it's application.
The word is "its", not "it's". I mention that because I do not want
the morons on these forums to have their bad grammar reinforced. There
are enough morons in Britain as it is.
British Common Law is essentially the same with regard to self
protection except Texas law requires that the person have a
"reasonable belief" instead of just an "honest belief" as in British
law.
Texas law also allows the use of deadly force in the protection of
one's property, which I understand British law does not. And Texas law
even allows the use of deadly force to stop someone from taking your
property away. That means in principle you can shoot a retreating
criminal in the back if that is the only reasonable way you can get
your property back.
>There have been a few other incidents of people being charged for producing
>guns in defence of their homes so the idea is now generally out of favour.
>Not to say that some would not be prepared to face the legal consequences
>later if they perceived an immediate need to use a gun. But without a clear
>and immediate need to shoot (i.e. life threatening) it would undoubtedly be
>less legally stressful if you do nothing and collect the insurance later.
Notice that in Texas law there is a special case made for the use of
deadly force in home invasion:
"The requirement imposed by this section does not apply to an actor
who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force
committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the
actor."
You can use deadly force to stop someone from breaking into your home
without meeting the requirements in the law above. IOW, you do not
need to prove that the use of deadly force was reasonable, that it was
immediately necessary or that you were even in fear for your life.
If someone tries to break into your home, you can use deadly force to
stop him under any circumstances. At least in principle that is the
case. I have mentioned that the Harris Co. (Houston) District Attorney
will not ask the Grand Jury for an indictment in a home invasion case
because he knows that he cannot get a jury to convict.
That means that the Houstonian who killed that drunken Scotsman at
3:00 am was fully justified. He did not have to wait for the use of
deadly force to become reasonable or immediately necessary. It turns
out that he did wait until the guy was about to break thru the door,
which then made the use of deadly force an immediate necessity. But he
did not have to wait.
You Limeys might think that is rather harsh, but everyone is given
fair warning when they come to Texas. Why do you think our motto is:
"Don't Fuck With Texas!"
There, now you know. And if you think that is just idle talk, try
breaking into someone's house in Houston at 3:00 am.
The Dark Magus
wrote:
>> >You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
>> Because about half of adult British males are criminals.
>Cite?
I read a rather detailed article in the Sunday Times a few years back
that said over 40% of adult males above the age of 40 had criminal
records.
It was discussed extensively in uk.p.m. You can use Google to look
thru the archives for yourself.
ActualGeek
"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not really. Just because you have swallowed the US bullshit on guns doesn't
> mean the rest of teh world ought to be. We recently moved from a society in
> which guns were out of the ordinary, but permitted, to one in which they are
> virtually outlawed. Groups at the forefront of the campaign to achieve that
> were probably FEMALE dominated.
>
They sure are paying for it now, with such crimes up %30! (BCS Survey)
Alan G
wrote:
>
You assume everyone has insurance?
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
Alan G
wrote:
>
A couple of years back two bored officers on night duty in our part of
the country (NE UK) decided to have a look at the guns they carry in
a supposedly locked box in the car. Quite illegal too since they
aren't permitted to have access to the weapons except on operational
neccessity or authorised by a senior officer. One of the fuckwits
made a big hole in the roof of the police car when he "accidently"
pulled the trigger.
Another of these "trained" firearms officers was on duty at Blairs
constituency home when he opened fire with a smg at a dangerous pigeon
hiding in the bushes.
Watching these trained firearms officers in action on tv and having
seen them on duty at manchester airport I must say they scare the shit
out of me. Most of them don't seem competent to carry a pea shooter.
Mike
<al...@NOTTTntlworld.com> writes
>A couple of years back two bored officers on night duty in our part of
>the country (NE UK) decided to have a look at the guns they carry in
>a supposedly locked box in the car. Quite illegal too since they
>aren't permitted to have access to the weapons except on operational
>neccessity or authorised by a senior officer. One of the fuckwits
>made a big hole in the roof of the police car when he "accidently"
>pulled the trigger.
>
Protection officer managed to accidentally discharge, not one but, two
rounds through the floor and wall of the Royal Train. IIRC his
explanation was that he was cleaning the weapon and it went off. I was
taught to clear down before first but then, I didn't have the benefit of
the highly superior police firearms training.
>Another of these "trained" firearms officers was on duty at Blairs
>constituency home when he opened fire with a smg at a dangerous pigeon
>hiding in the bushes.
>
for pigeon shooting, most shooters would use a 12 bore but that requires
a little skill. IIRC, this "highly trained marksman" missed and the
bird escaped uninjured.
>Watching these trained firearms officers in action on tv and having
>seen them on duty at manchester airport I must say they scare the shit
>out of me. Most of them don't seem competent to carry a pea shooter.
Agreed.
--
Mike
Paul
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 02:38:00 +1000, "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> From the Texas Penal Code:
>
> >> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html
>
> >> +++++
> >> § 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person
> >>
> >> A person is justified in using deadly force against another if a
> >> reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated;
> >> and when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
> >> immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
> >> attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent the other's
> >> imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault,
> >> aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
>
> >> The requirement imposed by this section does not apply to an actor who
> >> uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force
> >> committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the
> >> actor.
> >> +++++
>
> >That seems fairly straight forward. I don't know what the law is here
>
> You sure acted like you knew what it was before I questioned you. :-)
No, I have never made that claim. I just observe the results of its
application.
> >but I do know some cases of it's application.
>
> The word is "its", not "it's". I mention that because I do not want
> the morons on these forums to have their bad grammar reinforced. There
> are enough morons in Britain as it is.
>
> British Common Law is essentially the same with regard to self
> protection except Texas law requires that the person have a
> "reasonable belief" instead of just an "honest belief" as in British
> law.
As I keep saying, I'm in Australia.
<snip>
Melissa in Colorado
>
> "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
> news:3db73768$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any
>> weapon at her disposal to avoid rape.
>
> Up to a point. I think most thinking reasonable women would behave in
> much the same way as thinking reasonable men, namely: if you can fight
> back without a risk of being hurt badly, then do so. If fighting back is
> likely to involve being stabbed with a knife or strangled, then submit
> to the rape as the lesser of two evils.
>
> Rape isn't unique - the same would apply if you see a burglar entering
> your house.
Maybe in Unfree Kingdom but not here!
http://www.ccdb.org/furman1.htm
http://www.9news.com/9wtk/makemyday.htm
>
>>
>> While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women
> have
>> a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be
>> adequately armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to
>> permit it.
>
> The question then is whether the danger of issuing weapons will actually
> be counterproductive and lead to more crime, not less.
Which has been disproven by John Lott, unless Brits are more stupid, evil or
incompetent than people in the US, that is.
> If you gave every
> woman a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for robbery
> and murder.
Oh stick it in your ear! Women commit almost none of the violent crimes,
something like 95% are done by men.
AND it's STILL wrong to punish good people for what bad people do, with loss
of their human rights!
> It is sexist and demeaning to women to say that women have a
> unique requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect
> themselves from the unique crime of rape.
Not unique but certainly greater, unless you think it's fair for a 120 lb
woman to have to defend herself against a 220 lb rapist with her physical
strength.
> Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
> to their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a
> dead husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and
> saying "he tried to rape me".
Is it better to have crime scenes where you have to scrape up the bleeding
body of the woman who was attacked, raped and beaten to death?
Gun Control: 1.) The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
2.) The theory that a gay man found dead on a fence post in Wyoming, is
somehow morally superior to a gay man carrying a concealed handgun.
3.) The theory that 110 lb women should have to fistfight with 210 lb
rapists.
--
- Melissa > Somewhere In Colorado, U.S.A. Member GOA, JPFO
Colorado women: If you may be interested in trying shooting,contact me.
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
I won't compromise with the burglar.I won't compromise with the rapist.
And I DEMAND an end to the compromise of my 2nd Amendment human rights.
WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK, By Harry Browne:
http://www.liamworks.com/wgdw/index.html
Paul
All the ones that were referred to earlier in this thread where conviction
is at best, uncertain.
John O
> In article <3db7dbf1$0$18871$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Paul <pa...@triplanets.com> writes
> >
> >The difference is between what *used* to be done about
> >> reporting and recording such events, and what is done *today*. In the
> >> past there was a general view that it was impossible to decide whether
> >> allegations of "date rape" were true, since they tend to turn purely on
> >the
> >> issue of consent. . So, it was thought, there was no point in
prosecuting
> >> them and little point in even recording them.
> >
> >Ok, it's becoming clearer.
> >
> >When you say "little point in even recording them" do you mean that they;
> > 1 weren't recorded?
> > 2 were recorded sometimes?
> > 3 were recorded?
>
> AIUI it would depend on the circs. Such complaints used to be dealt
> with pretty unsympathetically - with either "Do you really want to go
> through a public trial and cross-examination when there's no chance of a
> conviction?" or even "Sounds like you let him talk you into it and now
> you are coming crying to us".
>
> Knowing this, most women wouldn't bother to report the incident. If
> they did, they'd probably withdraw the allegation as soon as they heard
> the police response
>
>
> >
> >sex.
>
> There is no difference. Rape is defined as non-consensual sex.
No. It is not! And hereby may be one reason why even the crime survey
figures are going up.
Rape requires sex, usually involving the insertion of a penis into an
orifice (so it cannot be carried out by a woman).
And it requires a lack of a reasonable belief on the part of the alleged
perpetrator as to consent.
This, I think, is where so many women/feminsit groups make a serious
mistake. They assume that because a woman presents with a valid belief that
she has had sex that, in her heart of hearts she did not want, or did not
'truly' consent to, that this is rape.
In an experiential sense, it probably is. May also be in an ethical sense -
but NOT yet in a legal sense.
Rape is not determined solely by the feelings of the alleged victim, but by
the state of mind of the alleged perpetrator.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Today many more such allegations go through the formal investigation
> >> process, sometimes as far as prosecution. This has caused a dramatic
> >> change in the official record of *reported* rapes, but naturally says
> >> nothing about whether *actual* prevalence of rape has changed.
> >
> >I can see what you are getting at here but I don't quite see how it fits
> >with your last paragraph. Assuming that "little point in even recording
> >them" means that they were recorded then surely this would only affect
the
> >ratio of reported rapes to prosecutions?
>
> see above - women are now much more likely to report such incidents
> *and* to insist on a criminal investigation, and the police are now
> obliged to record them formally.
>
> --
> PeteM
John O
And hereby hangs the whole debate as to whether we ought to have one rape
offence, or two. Fraid I cannot make my mind up on that one. A lesser
offence, with lower degrees of proof required, would certinly improve the
conviction rate.
But I know that some women argue that either it is a rape or it isn't: that
the crime is/should be indivisible.
I don't know....
Meanwhile, however, you might be interested in at least one proposal
designed to ratchet up the allegation level: the government a year or two
back was toying with the idea of ruling that where an individual was drunk,
no reasonable consent can have been given.
Ergo, when in doubt, do not resort to the age old ploy of taking your date
out and getting her smashed before you indulge in sex.
John O
comparison
> > than point data, which must people in this NG seem to use.
> >
> > Seems I remember reading that trends smooth out the discrepancies in
point
> > data. OTOH you can't compare apples to oranges, so if the data is
totally
> > bogus then trends won't help.
>
> The data I posted shows that the US rape rates have been fluctuating
> widely and at lkeast in 1996 was falling, while those in the UK,
> although they have been increasing, show an existing trend that
> pre-dates the ban on handguns, which many Americans are trying to
> blame for the aforementioned rise. More recent figures that I'm
> tracked down seem to show that this cannot be the case.
This brings to mind one or two studies I have been involved in where people
have been trying to go all round the houses to prove something using very
tangential methods, when a simple question would suffice.
Put simply: was there any noted level of women using handguns to defend
themselves in the UK from rape, murder, or anything else prior to the ban on
handguns,
Basically: no. I just occasionally may have happened, just as a woman may
have picked up a kitchen knife, or even thrown a pan of boiling water. But
these were the very rare exceptions, rather than the rule.
Which means that there was no particular pattern of behaviour to be
interrupted by the handgun ban.
>
> > I'm afraid I just don't see that taking guns away from people who enjoy
> > using them for target shooting or hunting is going to significantly
affect
> > the violent crime rate. If someone can show me where this course of
action
> > has reduced violent crime significantly then I will look at it. Until
then
> > I am a firm believer that people should be able to enjoy life as they
see
> > fit as long as it does not pose an unreasonable danger to others.
>
> The big problem is that the pro-gun lobby constantly try to say that
> the banning of handguns in the UK was sold to the public as a way to
> reduce crime in general, or even armed crime specifically. It
> categorically was not. It was not that Thomas Hamilton went on a
> shooting rampage with a handgun that was being addressed, but that it
> was a handgun he legally owned due to shoddy application of the
> regulations on the part of the local police. Somehow, people thought
> it somehow more horrifying that he had used a licensed gun, rather
> than an illegally-held one. Unfortunately, the public were riding on
> such a media-whipped wave of outrage than nobody stopped to think how
> inherently ridiculous banning handguns was as a response, not least
> because Hamilton did hold other weapons illegally including,
> apparently, a sub-machine gun. IF he had been denied his legal guns,
> it seems unlikely that the killings would not have taken place.
Agreed. I think we have some very bad, very offensive legislation on the
back of media panics.
John O
Not quite. Police are occasionally armed - and can make some pretty major
cock-ups by accident.
Over the past few years, we have had one or two spectacular police own
goals....one of the worst being a guy carrying a billiard table leg, which
the police presumed to be a gun of some kind.
The police shot and killed him.
John O
"The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ap8ich$sdgj8$1...@ID-164291.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any
weapon
> > at her disposal to avoid rape.
>
> Up to a point. I think most thinking reasonable women would behave in much
> the same way as thinking reasonable men, namely: if you can fight back
> without a risk of being hurt badly, then do so. If fighting back is likely
> to involve being stabbed with a knife or strangled, then submit to the
rape
> as the lesser of two evils.
>
> Rape isn't unique - the same would apply if you see a burglar entering
your
> house.
>
> >
> have
> > a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be adequately
> > armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
>
> The question then is whether the danger of issuing weapons will actually
be
woman
> a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for robbery and
murder.
> requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect themselves
> from the unique crime of rape.
>
to
> their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a dead
> husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and saying "he
> tried to rape me".
Indeed - something the handgun nuts seem to prefer to overlook. One of the
things that did interest me a year or so back, when doing cross-culture
comparisons of serious crime, was murder stats.
In the UK, a very high numeric category of murder tends to be men murdering
their partners - about four times as likely as women murdering their
partner.
That fits, quite neatly, with the recent judge's review of murder
sentencing, and their conclusion that up to two-thirds of murders are
actually 'domestics' that went one step too far. Not pre-meditated in the
classical sense - but violence with extreme and unfortunate consequences.
Since we also know from HO statistics that the level of dv is pretty evenly
matched between the genders, the main discriminating factor is not whether
it happens, but the level of damage inflicted. Women tend to murder with
weapons, which requires at least some degree of pre-meditation. Men use
weapons, but also fists, feet, etc.
Anyway, going a long way round. Most UK murders seem to be domestics gone
wrong. There tend to be more male on female murders as a result of these,
because men have more potential to harm to hand.
Compare and contrast murder break-downs for some major US conurbations,
which shows murder rates between the sexes as being near identical. Why?
My guess is that in the US, a domestic can take a turn for the worse when
one party makes a grab for the gun.
The person who ends up dead is then largely determined by the accident of
who reacches it first.
And, btw, I had reached the same conclusion as you about women claiming 'he
tried to rape me' when murder is in mind.
But how's about this. Women carries gun into bank with b/f. Woman legally
carrying gun. Hands gun to b/f once inside.... and he proceeds to carry out
robbery.
On way out, if no shots fired (so no ballistics) he simply hands gun back to
partner. Makes proving intent a good deal harder.
>
>
John O
>
> "The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ap8ich$sdgj8$1...@ID-164291.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
> > news:3db73768$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > Any thinking, reasonable woman will tell you that she would use any
> weapon
> > > at her disposal to avoid rape.
> >
> > Up to a point. I think most thinking reasonable women would behave in
much
> > the same way as thinking reasonable men, namely: if you can fight back
> > without a risk of being hurt badly, then do so. If fighting back is
likely
> > to involve being stabbed with a knife or strangled, then submit to the
> rape
> > as the lesser of two evils.
> >
> > Rape isn't unique - the same would apply if you see a burglar entering
> your
> > house.
>
> afterward anyway.
Ye-es.... but then look at the figures. A few hundred murders in any one
year - most of which arise out of domestics....and depending on whether you
go by convictions or feminist claims that every accusation represents a real
rape, a few thousand, or maybe a few tens of thousands of rapes.
Chance of being killed by a rapist is probably somewhere between one in a
thousand and one in ten thousand.
>Regardless of whether the rapist will kill her or not, if
> the woman perceives that it is possible that he will (which she may judge
by
> the violence of the attack), then in all likelihood she will fight to the
> death (either hers or his).
>
> I would also point out that rape is not the same as non-consensual sex.
> Rape involves violence or the threat of violence.
>
> Several years ago a woman survived multiple knife wounds (from memory it
was
> about 40) from a rapist. She only survived because she fought back with
all
> she had at the time, her finger nails and her teeth
>
> A few years before that a woman who worked next door to where I worked at
> the time wasn't as lucky. The man who raped and murdered her only served
> about 5 years.
Then possibly he was not convicted on the murder
>
>
>
> > > While I don't advocate guns as the sole answer I do believe that women
> > have
> > > a greater need for defence than men. To this end they can be
adequately
> > > armed with a variety of non-lethal weapons, were the law to permit it.
> >
> > The question then is whether the danger of issuing weapons will actually
> be
> > counterproductive and lead to more crime, not less. If you gave every
> woman
> > a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for robbery and
> murder.
>
> Read what I said. If you have a problem with guns then why not support
> non-lethal weapons as a means of self-defence?
>
> Unless you don't believe in self-defence?
>
>
>
> > It is sexist and demeaning to women to say that women have a unique
> > requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect themselves
> > from the unique crime of rape.
>
> Bullshit! It's a fact of life. Men rape women, men are generally
stronger
> than women.
>
>
>
> > Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
> to
> > their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a
dead
> > husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and saying
"he
> > tried to rape me".
>
> In Australia, and I would venture most countries (other than the UK), rape
> by husbands is not the major form of rape.
>
> I'm not sure if that makes yours a better country to live in, or a worse
> country for a woman to find a husband in :-).
>
>
>
>
John O
"Melissa in Colorado" <melissa...@dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:3db87842$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
Well, I don't know the US figures, but if you are talking about the UK, you
are talking total nonsense. Still, sticking to the truth has never been a
particularly feminist debating habit, has it?
>
> AND it's STILL wrong to punish good people for what bad people do, with
loss
> of their human rights!
>
> > It is sexist and demeaning to women to say that women have a
> > unique requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect
> > themselves from the unique crime of rape.
>
> Not unique but certainly greater, unless you think it's fair for a 120 lb
> woman to have to defend herself against a 220 lb rapist with her physical
> strength.
Ah, yes. American eating habits. Thankfully, we still show a greater
degree of self-control in the UK.
>
> > Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
> > to their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a
> > dead husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and
> > saying "he tried to rape me".
>
> Is it better to have crime scenes where you have to scrape up the bleeding
> body of the woman who was attacked, raped and beaten to death?
And how many of those happen in the UK? Go on. I am interested in where
you are pulling these imaginary figures from.
>
> Gun Control: 1.) The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
> strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
> explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
> 2.) The theory that a gay man found dead on a fence post in Wyoming, is
> somehow morally superior to a gay man carrying a concealed handgun.
> 3.) The theory that 110 lb women should have to fistfight with 210 lb
> rapists.
>
AH yes. And your version of anti-gun-control.... the suggestion that for
the defence and convenience of a handful of women, perhaps half a dozen a
year, a society that has significantly lower levels of crime than your own
society should wholly destroy a tradition that has served us for a century
or more and which, we strongly suspect, is pretty much the main reason why
the number of women scraped up off the floor is little more than a handful a
year, rather than the hundreds - or is it thousands - that you regularly
scrape up?
In other words: you can't abide by the fact that your society has fucked up
royally....and would like to see every other society you can influence
fucking up too.
A couple of uncomfortable facts for you:
"In the ten years since 1990/91 {sexual offences}have increased on average
by 9 percent per year. Much of this rise is thought to be attributable to
an increase in reporting by the publicand improvements in police practice in
responding to rape victims."
Source: 'A question of evidence: investigating and prosecuting rapes in the
1990's' - Home Office Research Study 196
Total number of homicides committed in 2000/01: 850 (may vary subject to
subsequent court action), of which, if previous year patterns are anything
to go by, just 250 are likely to be classified, eventually, as murder.
Seventy percent of recorded victims of homicide in 2000 were male: 30% were
female - a fall from 38% of victims being female in 1990.
So approx. 75 women are likely to show up as having been murdered in that
year.
Home Office specifically states that it is NOT possible to count offences
committed in furtherance of a sexual attack, as insufficient information is
available.
However, if one were to assume that the WHOLE of the category classed as
other was due to sexual motives - highly unlikely - then perhaps 30 of the
women murdered in that year ended up as Melissa describes. But probably far
fewer.
Total number of rapes of a female in 2000/01: 7, 929
Total number of offences of violence against the person jumped from 230, 756
in 1998/99 to 581, 038 in 1999/00 due to a change in offence coverage and
counting rules introduced on 1 April 1998.
Could not find a direct breakdown of offenders for this, but....if one goes
by cautioning rates, in 2000/01, approx. 25% of those cautioned for offences
of violence against the person were female.
John O
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:17:09 +0100, "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> So proud of your tyranny, aren't you.
>
> >Not really. Just because you have swallowed the US bullshit on guns
doesn't
> >mean the rest of teh world ought to be. We recently moved from a society
in
> >which guns were out of the ordinary, but permitted, to one in which they
are
> >virtually outlawed. Groups at the forefront of the campaign to achieve
that
> >were probably FEMALE dominated.
>
>
> It's leftist sodomite perverts who are behind gun confiscation. Their
> agenda includes complete subjugation of the British populace, and
> therefore they need people to be unarmed wimp peasants.
Gosh....does this mean I have to go out and sodomise someone? Who would you
suggest?
And have you the first idea about the state of British agriculture?
When you are talking about peasants - presumably people working on the land,
perhaps you ought to look closer to home.
John O
<dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c32908cc.02102...@posting.google.com...
Well, console is a bit strong, but yes....given the intellectual state of
the US argument for women in the UK carrying guns, so far posted on this
thread, cowboy seems about right. Ignoramus also.
What you seem to be in serious denial about is the general level of violence
in your own society. You haven't a clue about how our stats work....and
seem to think that because our murder rate has hit the spectacular high of
250 or so per year, (of which less than 100 women), we should tear up a
century-old tradition that we feel has served us well.
Where on earth do you get off?
Ooops. Forgot. You come from the land of 'if you aren't with us you are
against us'. Somehow, I suspect in the decades to come, ALL Americans will
come to regret that particular piece of ignorant arrogance.
>
> <snip>
>
> > And the point I was making was relative to the assertion of the previous
> > poster that appeared to be along the lines of 'gun availability never
killed
> > anyone'. Well, it does.
>
> No, the point is a little less shallow. You have to weigh BOTH sides
> of the ledger.
You may be making that point now. That was not what was said.
John O
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-9C04A...@corp.supernews.com...
er, yes. Do, please, point out the baseline year you are using.... and also
explain your comment with reference to HO 196 - an investigation into just
the issue you mention.
I feel sure you cannot possibly have made such a confident assertion without
having at least read it and having some idea of its contents.
John O
news:<3db7b62b...@news-server.houston.rr.com>...
> > On 23 Oct 2002 22:57:13 -0600, Melissa in Colorado
> > <melissa...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
> > >> nuts with guns over here.
> >
> > >You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
> >
That is an easy one - and a sure sign that the poster is a feminist moron.
You just look at the figure for people 'who have ever been convicted'. Same
way you reach levels for 'one in n women have been assaulted/raped'. Yep.
A lifetime headline figure of one in four or five quickly translates down to
an ctual offence rate of less than 1% of the population being victims per
year.
Try this one: about one third of the UK population hsa had its life
threatened by Germans.
Quick. Let's go out and ban Germans!
And this will remain the case until the WWII generation is long deceased.
>
> Cite?
John O
> On 24 Oct 2002 08:25:57 -0700, nick....@virgin.net (Nick Cooper)
> wrote:
>
> >> >You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
>
> >> Because about half of adult British males are criminals.
>
> >Cite?
>
> I read a rather detailed article in the Sunday Times a few years back
> that said over 40% of adult males above the age of 40 had criminal
> records.
Indeed: it is one of those 'so what?' statistics. What is much more
interesting is to look at offending rates by age cohort. You will find that
criminal offending in the over-40 age group is something of a rarity.
John O
<dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c32908cc.02102...@posting.google.com...
> "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
>
> > > So let's stipulate that the UK rape rate is steadily climbing. Now,
> > > since women are by law defenseless, what can they do about it?
> >
> > Pretty much the same as anyone else who is threatened with a crime.
Attempt
> > to put themselves out of harm's way and, if the worst happens, attempt
to
> > get the Law to exact some sort of punishment on the perpetrators.
>
> And what if the attacker wants you dead? What good does punishment
> serve YOU?
Not a lot. On the other hand, go and find out about the actual UK murder
rates and what are believed to be the causes of same.
About 75 women murdered each year in the UK - the bulk of those by someone
they know closely, and as a result of a domestic that went too far.
How many of those 75 do you honestly think would be saved by the possession
of a handgun? How many extra murders do you thik might be committed if
handguns were more widely available.
>
> Truly, the voice of the "sheep subject."
Hehehe....coming from a nation that thinks George Bush is capable of passing
the Turing Test....????
>
> >
> > Alternatively, they could attempt to shoot the perpetrator, and exchange
a
> > potential rape situation for a life in prison....because that, in the
UK, is
> > what they would face. We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal nuts
with
> > guns over here.
>
> Your rancid opinion is duly noted: self defense againsta vicious
> rapist is nutty and homicidal. Better to lay back and enjoy it.
Did I say that? Nope. I simply have a rather more developed sense of a
social order than you appear to: I am weighing social consequences against
individual good.
You may think women should enjoy being raped. I don't.
>
> > >
> > > > > However you slice it, crime is on the rise in the UK.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody could deny that that is true for this particular crime, but
it
> > > > is still far lower than the US rate,
> > >
> > > Starting, as almost all UK crime rates did, from a much lower base.
> > > These "let's look at where we are now" A/B country comparisons are
> > > meaningless when they exclude trends and starting points. How else do
> > > you judge policy except by what happens after and because of it?
> >
> > So. What policy are you talking about and when/how are you expecting to
see
> > its effects?
>
> Gun control of course. We see the effects right now.
Yes. What effects?
>
> >
> > One major change in government policy that has set in over the last
twenty
> > to thirety years or so has been a reclassification (and broadening) of
what
> > constitutes rape and also a concerted campaign to increase reporting
rates
> > for the crime.
> >
> > What is widely recognised is that almost all the increase in incidence
of
> > reported rape has to do with that new diefinition, i.e., rape by someone
> > known to the individual concerned, as opposed to 'stranger rape'.
> >
> > Therefore, igf you mean that the policy of changing the definition and
> > counting method has led to an increase in the reported level, then I
would
> > agree. If you are trying to fantasise some kjind of never-never land in
> > which women regularly (ever?) carried guns to dissuade rapists from
carrying
> > out their evil intent, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. This was
never
> > the case.
>
> Not in your country, no, much to your disgrace.
What? It is to our disgrace that we don't buy in to your macho fantasies?
I did some quick calculations through the HO stats for 2000/01. Total that
might be attributable to women murdered in furtherance of a sexual assault
(assuming no other reason at all....) would be between 30 and 40 per year.
My reading of the figures is that the actual is probably far less. A dozen?
Half a dozen?
You want us to change our entire society for this dubious benefit?
>
> > >
> > > Vis a vis guns, the US crime rate has fallen as the domestic gun stock
> > > and gun-carrying rates have increased. UK crime rates appear to have
> > > risen as the last few legal guns are removed from civilian
> > > circulation.
> >
> > Unless you can factor out the effect of changing definitions and report
> > rates, this is absolute nonsense. Apart from which, the frequency with
> > which a criminal was likely to be caught 'in flagrante' by a gun-toting
> > householder or whatever was always pretty close to nil.
>
> In your country. Not here.
Indeed. In your country you have much more violent crime and frighteningly
more murder than we have. So what is your point.
I have seen various dumb attempts to show that 'things have got worse in the
UK since guns were outlawed'. The problem with that argument is that it
doesn't wash unless you can show that people used to carry guns to deter
crime before that ban.
You seem to admit they didn't.
So what difference has the gun ban made?
Bugger all.
>
> > You need to have
> > some sort of estimate of which crimes were ever intercepted by people
> > wielding guns. If you don't have that, you are talking arrant nonsense.
>
> No, the arrant nonsense was the claim by gun prohibitionists that
> disarming the victims makes them safer. It doesn't. The claim was,
> disarm yourselves and become helpless and crime will fall.
Not exactly an argument I heard much of over here. No doubt it was claimed.
But the main concern at the time was to prevent nutters like Thomas Hamilton
from upping the kill rate by 5% to 10% every so often by their use of guns.
>
> >
> > By the way: you DO know what has been responsible for one of the biggest
> > increases/distortions in recorded crime rate over the last couple of
years,
> > don't you? Mobile phone theft, usually by teenagers on other teenagers.
> > Just the sort of people I guess you would be happy to present with arms.
> >
> > >
> > > However you want to slice the numbers, the conclusion is hard to
> > > escape: victim disarmament does not lower crime, it just creates more
> > > victims.
> >
> > Since there is not a scintilla of evidence that the UK crime rate was in
any
> > way responsive to the armed status of its so-called victims in the first
> > place, this statement, like the rest of your post, is utter nonsense -
and
> > also shows how little you know of UK society.
>
> And UK politicians know even less, since they touted gun control as a
> response to crime.
No they didn't.
The push for gun control came very much from outside conventional politics.
>
> I don't claim at all that armed to resistance to crime in the UK over
> the last 50 years or so has been a significant factor. The point is,
> UK gun banners claimed that the arms in the hands of law abiding
> civilians WAS a significant factor in causing crime, and that gun bans
> would cure that. It hasn't.
What a stupid statement. Guns are an insignificant factor in causing crime,
and anyone who has read any HO report on the subject would know that.
Presumably you have not.
No doubt you would find demagogues to quote saying pretty much anything you
care to mention. But the serious argument has never been that banning guns
would reduce crime. It has, to an extent, been that banning guns might
reduce murder using guns.
If this thread persists long enough, I will see if there is any breakdown of
those figures.
>
> >
> > >Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
> > > raise crime.
> >
> > Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that sometime.
>
> Leave it to the scientifically illiterate to drag out lone, isolated
> atrocities to make policy with, ignoring the other side of the
> equation.
No. It seems that you are the illiterate here, being unable even to read a
single HO report on the subject. The UK has approx. 250 murders per year.
Adding 10 to 20 murders to that count in a single incident does rather skew
the figures.
>
> >
> > Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping off
the
> > citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public service?
>
> See the current news: it's a terrorist.
With a GUN. Did you read that bit?
That's one guy or one gun doing 4% of the UK annual murder total in a couple
of weeks. Aren't you proud?
>
> But even then, you're completely ignoring the tens of thousands of
> lives SAVED by firearms every year in the US.
Right. From which I can only conclude that you must be a rather more
barbaric or homicidal people than we are.
If the presence of firearms contributes to saving the lives of, say, two
times ten thousand lives....then pro-rata-ing that back suggests that our
failure to have widely available firearms should give us a murder rate of at
least 3,000 to 4,000 per year....and that assumes you 'tens of thousands'
was just two tens.
I guess the Police and Courts must have overlooked those murders somewhere.
Though I can't imagine where. After all....hiding 3,000 murders in a
country the size of the UK is pretty difficult.
Paul
I'm not so much thinking about the statistical chance as about the victims
perceptions during her ordeal. And I'm talking about violent rape, not
non-consensual sex with a woman who is under the influence.
> >Regardless of whether the rapist will kill her or not, if
> > the woman perceives that it is possible that he will (which she may
judge
> by
> > the violence of the attack), then in all likelihood she will fight to
the
> > death (either hers or his).
> >
> > I would also point out that rape is not the same as non-consensual sex.
> > Rape involves violence or the threat of violence.
> >
> > Several years ago a woman survived multiple knife wounds (from memory it
> was
> > about 40) from a rapist. She only survived because she fought back with
> all
> > she had at the time, her finger nails and her teeth
> >
> > A few years before that a woman who worked next door to where I worked
at
> > the time wasn't as lucky. The man who raped and murdered her only
served
> > about 5 years.
>
> Then possibly he was not convicted on the murder
He was. But he was young and had a "disturbed childhood". Bullshit!
<snip>
Paul
Neither do I, but the thought keeps popping up. OTOH it might be a case
where the cure is worse than the disease.
> Meanwhile, however, you might be interested in at least one proposal
> designed to ratchet up the allegation level: the government a year or two
> back was toying with the idea of ruling that where an individual was
drunk,
> no reasonable consent can have been given.
I wonder how that would work for the "one night stands".
I'm thinking of the women who regularly go out, get drunk and sleep with
someone they met that night.
I wonder if the court would conclude that it was reasonable to assume
consent had been given by their repeated actions.
Maybe young single guys should just say no to these wome...... hmmm,
probably wouldn't work.
> Ergo, when in doubt, do not resort to the age old ploy of taking your date
> out and getting her smashed before you indulge in sex.
<snip>
Paul
I think that has been fairly well established, at least to my satisfaction.
What I am more interested in is what is thought of the general concept of
self defence. Lets stick with the crime of rape and suppose for a minute
that from tomorrow, a large percentage/most of women in the UK will carry
some sort of defensive weapon. Before someone gets into a discussion about
guns let me stipulate that the weapon can be anything that is effective, not
necessarily a gun.
The answer I am interested in is;
1. Women are able to defend themselves to a greater degree and there
are less rapes.
2. The rapists decide that it's too risky to try to rape a stranger
and there are less rapes
3. The rapists arm themselves with more effective weapons and rapes
stay the same/increase.
With the courts to back them up I tend to lean toward 1 & 2 while conceding
that there will also be some cases of 3.
Hint: I'm not really sure of the answer either.
<snip>
Paul
The accident itself is sad. When it happens in Australia I find it obscene
and offensive the way the police force (and some politicians) rush to
explain the accident/mistake as unavoidable/understandable.
<snip>
Melissa in Colorado
...
>> So proud of your tyranny, aren't you.
>
> doesn't mean the rest of teh world ought to be.
It's so charming that you consider human rights to be BS.
> We recently moved from
> a society in which guns were out of the ordinary, but permitted, to one
> in which they are virtually outlawed. Groups at the forefront of the
> campaign to achieve that were probably FEMALE dominated.
>
> Guess they must have forgotten about that rape thing.
Yeah, they foolishly think they can depend on the govt to protect them.
Until they wake up with a rapist breathing in their face.
>> > We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
>> > nuts with guns over here.
>>
>> You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
>>
>> Perhaps because you want violent crime and no self defense?
>
> Self-defense using a gun is violent crime.
No asshole, it's self defense. If you don't understand the difference,
you're a sad excuse for a slave.
>> "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right
>> to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
>> only in retaliation & only against those who initiate its use.
>> All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force
>> an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral
>> imperative. If some 'pacifist' society renounced the
>> retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at
>> the mercy of the 1st thug who decided to be immoral.
>> Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention:
>> instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage & reward it."
>> - Ayn Rand "The Nature of Government" , The Virtue of
>> Selfishness ( 1961 ), pg 108
>>
>> How true! You're the living examples.
>> > What is widely recognised is that almost all the increase in
>> > incidence of reported rape has to do with that new diefinition, i.e.,
>> > rape by someone known to the individual concerned, as opposed to
>> > 'stranger rape'.
>>
>> So what does this academic distinction do for the women it happens to?
>
> And what about the man accused? Or do you not care at all about men?
I don't care about rapists.
> If you increase the focus of 'rape' onto those areas that were
> previously considered to be outside the scope of that crime, you will
> have situations arising where individuals sincerely believe their
> conduct to be proper - and yet now find it to be illegal. The Law and
> Society are shifting at different paces.
Which part of "no means no" is it so hard for some men to understand?
> And by the way: since c.90% of rape cases going through the UK courts do
> not result in a conviction, it might just as well be worth looking at
> the crime from the point of view of the men dragged into the system.
Oh the poor men. Could it be that 90% of the cases are biased against the
women reporting them? Just a good old boy havin' a little fun, eh? <nod
nod, wink wink>
> You would undoubtedly whinge on about the poor women involved in all
> this.
When a guy tries to drag a screaming woman into a pickup truck, the intent
seems very clear.
"Mayor: "Intent to commit rape? How did you establish that?"
Callahan: "Well, when a naked man is a chasing a woman down an alley with a
butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the red
cross."
Mayor: "I think he's got a point." - Dirty Harry
> But to do so, you are relying on the change in legal definition. Yet
> for some reason, juries are not happy with this definition. So when you
> ask about what this does for the woman....well, in legal terms, 9 out of
> 10 of the women complaining of rape have not been - yet have seen fit to
> initiate a process that may have wrecked a man's life and/or career.
Then more women need to learn martial arts, so it can be quite clear to the
jury that she resisted and he refused to stop, before she kicked his ass.
> I recognise that there is an issue here - about the tension between
> social and legal values. Your comments usggest you don't even see the
> problem.
I also realize there's a difference between the way that many men see rape,
and the way that women do.
>> At the range 2 weeks ago, I saw a woman teaching her 13 year old son to
>> shoot.
>
> Wonderful. You are truly homicidal, aren't you?
You are truly a lying ratbag, aren't you?
> Without going any further down what is obviously a total cultural
> divide, perhaps worth reflecting on the different cultural values that
> would apply to what you have just described.
>
> You see it as admirable.
It's admirable, yes, that a woman teaches her son how to defend himself.
I realize that people like you would teach their daughters to lay back and
take it.
> A woman doing that in the UK would probably be considered guilty of
> abuse - and removed from any position of responsibility for that child
> forthwith.
We've already established that you live in a socialist tyranny, so you're
hardly an example. Why not use the Stalinist USSR as an example of how we
should consider changing to be like you?
> That is quite a divide.
Oh yes.
> We don't just see carrying arms as pointless, intellectually: we regard
> those who carry them with serioius distaste.
LOL! From here, we disdain slave sheep.
>> >>Conversely, firearms in the hands of the law abiding do not
>> >> raise crime.
>> >
>> > Really? You need to ask the residents of Dunblane about that
>> > sometime.
>>
>> A statistically insignificant data point. And the killer was hardly
>> "the law abiding" now, was he.
>
> Why significantly insignificant?
?
> You do know how many people are murdered in the UK each year, don't you?
I do know that one nut who kills some people is statistically insignificant
compared to the 99.994% of gun owners who don't ( in the US ).
I also know that free and civilized nations don't punish good people for
what bad people do, by abolishing their human rights.
> And the point I was making was relative to the assertion of the previous
> poster that appeared to be along the lines of 'gun availability never
> killed anyone'. Well, it does.
Nonsense, you just refuse to admit that in the absence of guns, killers use
other tools.
>> > Or are you arguing that the fine upstanding type currently bumping
>> > off the citizens of Washington is simply doing us all a public
>> > service?
>>
>> He's a criminal because of his behavior, certainly not fine &
>> upstanding. And it's a perfect illustration of how all the king's
>> horses and all the king's men can't protect us ( not with tens of
>> millions of dollars to find one sniper, and not even with calling in
>> the federales with their high
> tech
>> toys ), nor do they have any legal obligation to.
>>
>> Don't depend on govt to protect you.
>
> Or guns.
That's a lie. Guns help protect life and liberty 2 million times a year in
the US.
Nick Cooper
wrote:
>
>"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:NMGJUCAx...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <3db81b53$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Paul
>> <pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>> >
>> >A couple of months ago two police were confronted by a man with a hammer.
>> >They shot and killed him. Police and politicians called it a "justified"
>> >kill.
>> >
>> >I'm not saying that police and security guards are not generally
>> >responsible, but these two incidents may me wonder about some of them.
>> >
>> >You obviously don't have any of that in the UK if your police are not
>armed.
>> >
>> How about: James Ashley, Harry Stanley and John Shorthouse Jnr (aged 6
>> IIRC). These innocent unarmed people (amongst others) were killed by
>> "highly trained" firearms officers (aka "trigger happy killers") in the
>> UK police. Mr Ashley was naked in his bedroom when he was gunned down.
>> Mr Stanley was walking along the street, going about his lawful
>> business, when he was gunned down and Master Shorthouse was asleep in
>> his bed when he was shot by a "highly trained" police firearms officer
>> who didn't know the first thing about firearm safety.
>
>??? Didn't I just read that police in the UK don't carry firearms ???
>
>Just as an aside, there have been several incidents lately where police here
>have shot themselves. They blame the unsafe guns.
I'll clarify my earlier statement: Officers on regular duty - the vast
majority - are not armed. Most (all) local forces, however, maintain
Armed Response Unit, often with at least one on the road at any given
time. If an incident apparently involving firearms is reported, they
are the ones who respond to it, along with un-armed officers. The
ARUs are supposed to be made up of trained officer authorised to use
firearms (the vast majority of police officers as a whole are not),
but they still manage to shoot unarmed criminals and even innocent
memebrs of the public.
The Police Complaints Authority web-site details some of these
incidents. It also notes complaints from members of the public who
felt "intimidated" when ARUs responded to none-firearms incidents.
This is a pretty good illustration of the attitude of the general
population towards firearms and especially towards the concept of an
armed police force (yes, even despite the horrendous crime-wave many
Americans would have us believe we are suffering under):
http://www.pca.gov.uk/investig/firearms.htm
--
Nick Cooper
[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." [Rudyard Kipling]
Melissa in Colorado
...
> We call them "women who repel rape." We call your women "victims."
> The serious distaste is obviously a self-exculpatory defense mechanism
> to avoid dealing with your general impotence agaist criminals. You
> can't protect yourselves, but you can console yourself by sneering at
> the American "cowboys."
The best suggestion I can think of for Unfree Kingdom women is to learn how
to kill with their hands, and if they have an attempted rape happen, don't
report it afterwards and carefully hide the body.
Melissa in Colorado
...
> Not long ago, in Australia, two police were confronted by a man with a
> hammer. They shot and killed him. Personally I question whether they
> needed to kill him seeing as he was only armed with a hammer, but the
> police and politicians called it a good kill.
Of course they would, it was a govt kill. They could have very well shot
his legs out from under him and carted him away.
> OTOH, had a "civilian" done the deed (with any weapon) there is little
> doubt that he would have been charged. To me this gives the impression
> that "reasonable force" varies depending on who is using it.
Of course. In a tyranny, the govt has a monopoly on the use of force.
>> Yet the true issue is whether the alleged perpetrator believed consent
>> to
> be
>> present. So I think two things: that more bad cases are coming to
>> court; and that in crime surveys, more people believe themselves to
>> have been
> raped
>> than a strict legal definition would allow.
>
> Hmmm. How about a new category of non-consensual sex? That way it
> wouldn't get in the way of "real" rape cases.
Oh wait, non-consexual sex is known as rape!
rape1 (r!p), n., v., raped, rap·ing.
–n.
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to
have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. See statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–v.t.
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–v.i.
9. to commit rape.
[1250–1300; (v.) ME rapen < AF raper < L rapere to seize, carry off by
force, plunder; (n.) ME < AF ra(a)p(e), deriv. of raper]
—rapÆa·ble, rapeÆa·ble, adj.
—rapÆist, rapÆer, n.
> As you say, it's not unheard of for a woman to change her mind after the
> event.
Get real. It's not unheard of for little greem men from Mars to land,
either.
Melissa in Colorado
>
> "Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NMGJUCAx...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <3db81b53$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Paul
>> <pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>> >
>> >A couple of months ago two police were confronted by a man with a
>> >hammer. They shot and killed him. Police and politicians called it a
>> >"justified" kill.
>> >
>> >I'm not saying that police and security guards are not generally
>> >responsible, but these two incidents may me wonder about some of them.
>> >
>> >You obviously don't have any of that in the UK if your police are not
> armed.
>> >
>> How about: James Ashley, Harry Stanley and John Shorthouse Jnr (aged 6
>> IIRC). These innocent unarmed people (amongst others) were killed by
>> "highly trained" firearms officers (aka "trigger happy killers") in the
>> UK police. Mr Ashley was naked in his bedroom when he was gunned down.
>> Mr Stanley was walking along the street, going about his lawful
>> business, when he was gunned down and Master Shorthouse was asleep in
>> his bed when he was shot by a "highly trained" police firearms officer
>> who didn't know the first thing about firearm safety.
>
> ??? Didn't I just read that police in the UK don't carry firearms ???
>
> Just as an aside, there have been several incidents lately where police
> here have shot themselves. They blame the unsafe guns.
They're probably so busy wetting their knickers at having to carry one that
they never train with it.
"Oh, let's see, I have to find the key for the safety lock, someone is
about to attack me with a knife...oh where did I put that key?!...( fumble
fumble )"
Melissa in Colorado
> In article <3db8252d$0$18871$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Paul
><pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>>
>>"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:NMGJUCAx...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <3db81b53$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Paul
>>> <pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>>> >
>>> >A couple of months ago two police were confronted by a man with a
>>> >hammer. They shot and killed him. Police and politicians called it a
>>> >"justified" kill.
>>> >
>>> >I'm not saying that police and security guards are not generally
>>> >responsible, but these two incidents may me wonder about some of
>>> >them.
>>> >
>>> >You obviously don't have any of that in the UK if your police are not
>>armed.
>>> >
>>> How about: James Ashley, Harry Stanley and John Shorthouse Jnr (aged 6
>>> IIRC). These innocent unarmed people (amongst others) were killed by
>>> "highly trained" firearms officers (aka "trigger happy killers") in
>>> the UK police. Mr Ashley was naked in his bedroom when he was gunned
>>> down. Mr Stanley was walking along the street, going about his lawful
>>> business, when he was gunned down and Master Shorthouse was asleep in
>>> his bed when he was shot by a "highly trained" police firearms officer
>>> who didn't know the first thing about firearm safety.
>>
>>??? Didn't I just read that police in the UK don't carry firearms ???
>>
> Those days are gone. More and more UK police now carry firearms.
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,532543,00.html
Police being 'armed by stealth' as gun
use reaches record level
Special report: policing crime
Nick Paton Walsh
Sunday August 5, 2001
The Observer
Use of firearms by the police has reached a record high level. Armed
response vehicles are attending more incidents than ever before, prompting
fears that police are being armed 'by stealth'.
According to new Home Office figures, the number of operations in which
firearms are issued to police officers rose between April 1999 and March
2000 in 21 constabularies, doubling in four.
Police operations in England and Wales using armed response vehicles
(ARVs) reached an unprecedented high nationwide, doubling in seven
constabularies. MPs expressed concern at the rise, saying it jeopardised
the 'principle of an unarmed police force'.
Last year Nottinghamshire police became the first force to routinely arm
police on foot patrol in a controversial pilot scheme to reduce drug
crime. Since then, eight other constabularies have made inquiries to
Nottinghamshire to ask how best to implement the scheme.
The rise in firearms use will increase pressure on Home Secretary David
Blunkett to crack down on it. Blunkett has expressed concern at the recent
killings of Andrew Kernan, shot brandishing a samurai sword in Merseyside
last month, and Derek Bennett, killed on a Brixton estate while holding a
gun-shaped cigarette lighter. In both cases lethal force had been used
when a non-lethal alternative could have been available.
Last week the Metropolitan Police announced it was to arm officers with
'stun guns' to protect them and the public from the increasing risk of
knife attacks.
Police increasingly use firearms because of the greater threat of gun
crime and the prevalence of imitation firearms. When the public report the
possible use of a gun in a crime, the police arrive armed. Ministers are
alarmed at the use of replica guns, and want legislation to combat the
threat.
The figures reveal the deployment of ARVs by the Metropolitan Police has
reached a record high, doubling from 790 in 1996 to 1,812 in 1999. ARV use
in Greater Manchester has quadrupled in a year, to 173 occasions in
1999-2000, and risen threefold in Lincolnshire to 141 incidents last year.
While the number of operations in which firearms were issued to police
doubled in Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Surrey, and South Wales, the number
of officers trained in firearms has dropped in Cambridgeshire and South
Wales and risen by one per cent or less in Surrey and Cleveland.Police
spokesmen put the deployment rises down to a change in tactical
procedures: forces used to prefer to train fewer officers in using
firearms to a higher standard.
Recent workplace legislation has heightened concerns over the health and
safety of officers. Chief constables, responsible for enforcing firearms
policy under regulations from the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO), now face prosecution if their staff are harmed at work through
their negligence.
The figures showed a minor decrease nationwide in the total number of
operations in which firearms were issued, from 10,928 between April 1998
and March 1999, to 10,915 for the same period last year. But in the same
period ARV deployments rose to a record 8,276, as opposed to 7,544 two
years ago.Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, said the majority of
victims of police shootings were posthumously recognised as no real threat
to the public.
'These deaths are not subjected to scrutiny by a public inquiry, and so
the lessons are not learned and police feel they can act with impunity,'
she added.
Criminologists said more armed police would force criminals to carry guns.
'The evidence and research universally suggests the more armed the police
become, the more dangerous it becomes both for the police and the public
they serve,' said Professor John Benyon, a criminologist at the Scarman
Centre at the University of Leicester.
'There is a growing air of inevitability among chief constables, not
apparent 10 years ago, that the British police will become a fully armed
force in a matter of time.'
Simon Hughes MP, Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs, said: 'The
fact that so many forces have seen significant rises in firearms use
should be viewed with concern. We really do not want to get into a culture
where all police carry guns.
'We need to see serious national debate and to hear the police justify
this drift in policy and look at the alternatives available to firearms.
The principle of an unarmed police force looks increasingly at risk.'
Paul Acres, Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and chairman of ACPO's police
use of firearms committee, said: 'Every operation we conduct is risk
assessed. Thirty years ago, the public would not fear firearms, but today
they are more alert to it.'
He said the chief police officers were keen to see legislation making it a
criminal offence to carry an imitation firearm, placing the burden of
proof on the individual to show he had 'good cause'.
Melissa in Colorado
...
>> > If you gave every
>> > woman a handgun, some handguns would be used by some women for
>> > robbery and murder.
>>
>> Oh stick it in your ear! Women commit almost none of the violent
>> crimes, something like 95% are done by men.
>
> Well, I don't know the US figures, but if you are talking about the UK,
> you are talking total nonsense. Still, sticking to the truth has never
> been a particularly feminist debating habit, has it?
Women are more violent in the UK than in the US? This is amazing.
Violent crime is a testosterone thing dearie, and most of the very few
women who commit it, do so because they get fed up with being kicked around
by some man.
>> AND it's STILL wrong to punish good people for what bad people do, with
> loss
>> of their human rights!
I notice this keeps being ignored.
>> > It is sexist and demeaning to women to say that women have a
>> > unique requirement for handguns or other weapons in order to protect
>> > themselves from the unique crime of rape.
>>
>> Not unique but certainly greater, unless you think it's fair for a 120
>> lb woman to have to defend herself against a 220 lb rapist with her
>> physical strength.
>
> Ah, yes. American eating habits. Thankfully, we still show a greater
> degree of self-control in the UK.
You pathetic dipshit! It has to do with the fact that men are almost always
bigger than women, and have an average of twice the upper body strength!
>> Gun Control: 1.) The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped
>> and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
>> woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet
>> wound. 2.) The theory that a gay man found dead on a fence post in
>> Wyoming, is somehow morally superior to a gay man carrying a concealed
>> handgun. 3.) The theory that 110 lb women should have to fistfight
>> with 210 lb rapists.
>>
>
> AH yes. And your version of anti-gun-control.... the suggestion that
> for the defence and convenience of a handful of women, perhaps half a
> dozen a year, a society that has significantly lower levels of crime
> than your own society should wholly destroy a tradition that has served
> us for a century or more and which, we strongly suspect, is pretty much
> the main reason why the number of women scraped up off the floor is
> little more than a handful a year, rather than the hundreds - or is it
> thousands - that you regularly scrape up?
Yes of course, we know there's hardly any crime in UK, you have a regular
utopian Orwellian worker's paradise there, or at least so you say.
> In other words: you can't abide by the fact that your society has fucked
> up royally....and would like to see every other society you can
> influence fucking up too.
Sounds like the Hitlerian Big Lie.
> A couple of uncomfortable facts for you:
>
> "In the ten years since 1990/91 {sexual offences}have increased on
> average by 9 percent per year. Much of this rise is thought to be
> attributable to an increase in reporting by the publicand improvements
> in police practice in responding to rape victims."
Hogwash. They never responded before that? What kind of society did you
have?
Steve Glynn
Sorry to dive into this discussion, but isn't it obvious? 'Yes' means
'Yes', 'No' means 'No' except when it means 'Maybe', but anyone with half a
brain can work out when it really means 'No' and will, if he has any
decency about him, stop when the lady concerned says 'No' and means it.
My wife, who led a somewhat exciting social life before we met, is perfectly
clear on the distinction between rape and 'I had too much to drink last
night and who on earth is that strange man in my bed?'.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/10/02
Paul
"Melissa in Colorado" <melissa...@dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:3db8cf2b$1...@omega.dimensional.com...
> "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> said, and I quote:
> ...
> > Not long ago, in Australia, two police were confronted by a man with a
> > hammer. They shot and killed him. Personally I question whether they
> > needed to kill him seeing as he was only armed with a hammer, but the
> > police and politicians called it a good kill.
>
> Of course they would, it was a govt kill. They could have very well shot
> his legs out from under him and carted him away.
>
> > OTOH, had a "civilian" done the deed (with any weapon) there is little
> > doubt that he would have been charged. To me this gives the impression
> > that "reasonable force" varies depending on who is using it.
>
> Of course. In a tyranny, the govt has a monopoly on the use of force.
>
> >> Yet the true issue is whether the alleged perpetrator believed consent
> >> to
> > be
> >> present. So I think two things: that more bad cases are coming to
> >> court; and that in crime surveys, more people believe themselves to
> >> have been
> > raped
> >> than a strict legal definition would allow.
> >
> > Hmmm. How about a new category of non-consensual sex? That way it
> > wouldn't get in the way of "real" rape cases.
>
> Oh wait, non-consexual sex is known as rape!
>
> rape1 (r!p), n., v., raped, rap·ing.
> 1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to
> have sexual intercourse.
> 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
> 3. See statutory rape.
> 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
> the rape of the countryside.
> 5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
> 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
> 7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
> 8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
> 9. to commit rape.
> [1250-1300; (v.) ME rapen < AF raper < L rapere to seize, carry off by
> force, plunder; (n.) ME < AF ra(a)p(e), deriv. of raper]
> -rapÆist, rapÆer, n.
>
> > As you say, it's not unheard of for a woman to change her mind after the
> > event.
>
> Get real. It's not unheard of for little greem men from Mars to land,
> either.
Face reality, it happens. And, IMHO, it is about the worst thing that a
woman can do to undermine the position of genuine victims.
Mary Rosh
Possibly as a man you don't notice the differences in strength and
size as much as women do. I wouldn't want to fight someone who
weighed 50 pounds more than me.
> >
> > > Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
> > > to their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a
> > > dead husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and
> > > saying "he tried to rape me".
> >
> > Is it better to have crime scenes where you have to scrape up the bleeding
> > body of the woman who was attacked, raped and beaten to death?
>
> And how many of those happen in the UK? Go on. I am interested in where
> you are pulling these imaginary figures from.
The violent crime rate is now much higher in the UK than the US. Here
is an interesting piece that I came across.
Calgary Herald
January 19, 2001 Friday FINAL EDITION
SECTION: OPINION, Pg. A26
LENGTH: 763 words
HEADLINE: British experience shows gun control doesn't work
BYLINE: Lorne Gunter, Edmonton Journal
BODY:
. . .
The inner cities of England and Wales are as violent and
crime-ridden as the
ghettos of New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, St. Louis, Washington and
south central
Los Angeles. (New York City neighbourhoods do not make it on this list
because
they are no longer remarkably violent places. The American cities I
list are all
more violent than N.Y.C.)
Central Newcastle, in the north of England, may actually be the
most
dangerous place in the industrialized world. The Home Office in
Britain
reports that "incidents of violence against the person," which
includes common
assault, right up to and including murder, are the highest there:
236.5 per
1,000 residents.
That rate -- nearly 24 per cent of residents suffering a violent
crime in one
year -- is greater than all but a handful of other districts in
developed
nations, and is surpassed by none. It is three times the rate of
violent
victimization for Britain as a whole, and four times greater than
the Canadian
and American national rates.
(That's right, the violent crime rate in all of Britain is
higher than it
is in all of the United States, and just as high in Canada as it is
south of the
line.)
Home burglaries and car thefts are more than 50 per cent more
frequent in
Britain than in the U.S. And there are nearly three-quarters as many
total rapes
in Britain as there are in the entire U.S., even though Britain has
only about
one-quarter the population.
> >
> > Gun Control: 1.) The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
> > strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
> > explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
> > 2.) The theory that a gay man found dead on a fence post in Wyoming, is
> > somehow morally superior to a gay man carrying a concealed handgun.
> > 3.) The theory that 110 lb women should have to fistfight with 210 lb
> > rapists.
> >
>
> AH yes. And your version of anti-gun-control.... the suggestion that for
> the defence and convenience of a handful of women, perhaps half a dozen a
> year, a society that has significantly lower levels of crime than your own
> society should wholly destroy a tradition that has served us for a century
> or more and which, we strongly suspect, is pretty much the main reason why
> the number of women scraped up off the floor is little more than a handful a
> year, rather than the hundreds - or is it thousands - that you regularly
> scrape up?
>
> In other words: you can't abide by the fact that your society has fucked up
> royally....and would like to see every other society you can influence
> fucking up too.
See the reference article above. Why is the violent crime rate higher
in Britain so much than the US?
You should read Joyce Lee Malcolm's excellent new book on the history
of crime in the UK since about 1300. Murders were very high in
Britain back then, but began to fall around the same time guns were
introduced and continued to fall as guns became more common. The
decline continued until about 1920 when the gun control laws were
started. In 1900 there were two murders in London. What gun laws did
you have in 1900? Why have murder rates gone up after gun control
laws have gone into effect?
Mike
<pa...@triplanets.com> writes
>
>"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3db8a26b$0$19852$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
>> goals....one of the worst being a guy carrying a billiard table leg, which
>> the police presumed to be a gun of some kind.
>>
>> The police shot and killed him.
>
>The accident itself is sad. When it happens in Australia I find it obscene
>and offensive the way the police force (and some politicians) rush to
>explain the accident/mistake as unavoidable/understandable.
>
him. They claimed that he was pointing the table leg at them in a
threatening manner but were never called upon to explain how they
managed to shoot him in the back of the head.
--
Mike
Paul
Pretty much like the guy with the hammer I was telling you about. He was
shot multiple times (IIRC 9 bullets), and there was never any investigation
into that. The police didn't even pretend that they didn't know it was a
hammer. If a gun had to be used at all, one bullet in the leg would seem
sufficient.
ThorII
>
>"Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
>news:3db81b53$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Nick Cooper" <nick....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:97084f7.02102...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Paul" <pa...@triplanets.com> wrote in message
>> A couple of months ago two police were confronted by a man with a hammer.
>> They shot and killed him. Police and politicians called it a "justified"
>> kill.
>>
>> I'm not saying that police and security guards are not generally
>> responsible, but these two incidents may me wonder about some of them.
>>
>> You obviously don't have any of that in the UK if your police are not
>armed.
>
>Not quite. Police are occasionally armed - and can make some pretty major
>cock-ups by accident.
>
>Over the past few years, we have had one or two spectacular police own
>goals....one of the worst being a guy carrying a billiard table leg, which
>the police presumed to be a gun of some kind.
>
>The police shot and killed him.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Agreed, but trend data should still be a more accurate means of
>> comparison
>> > > than point data, which must people in this NG seem to use.
>> > >
>> > > Seems I remember reading that trends smooth out the discrepancies in
>> point
>> > > data. OTOH you can't compare apples to oranges, so if the data is
>> totally
>> > > bogus then trends won't help.
>> >
>> > The data I posted shows that the US rape rates have been fluctuating
>> > widely and at lkeast in 1996 was falling, while those in the UK,
>> > although they have been increasing, show an existing trend that
>> > pre-dates the ban on handguns, which many Americans are trying to
>> > blame for the aforementioned rise. More recent figures that I'm
>> > tracked down seem to show that this cannot be the case.
>> >
>> > > I'm afraid I just don't see that taking guns away from people who
>enjoy
>> > > using them for target shooting or hunting is going to significantly
>> affect
>> > > the violent crime rate. If someone can show me where this course of
>> action
>> > > has reduced violent crime significantly then I will look at it. Until
>> then
>> > > I am a firm believer that people should be able to enjoy life as they
>> see
>> > > fit as long as it does not pose an unreasonable danger to others.
>> >
>> > The big problem is that the pro-gun lobby constantly try to say that
>> > the banning of handguns in the UK was sold to the public as a way to
>> > reduce crime in general, or even armed crime specifically. It
>> > categorically was not. It was not that Thomas Hamilton went on a
>> > shooting rampage with a handgun that was being addressed, but that it
>> > was a handgun he legally owned due to shoddy application of the
>> > regulations on the part of the local police. Somehow, people thought
>> > it somehow more horrifying that he had used a licensed gun, rather
>> > than an illegally-held one. Unfortunately, the public were riding on
>> > such a media-whipped wave of outrage than nobody stopped to think how
>> > inherently ridiculous banning handguns was as a response, not least
>> > because Hamilton did hold other weapons illegally including,
>> > apparently, a sub-machine gun. IF he had been denied his legal guns,
>> > it seems unlikely that the killings would not have taken place.
>>
>> Thankyou for your reply, it is thoughtful and informative (unlike some
>> rantings I have seen in this group).
>>
>> Since this thread is dealing with the question of whether guns change
>crime
>> rates perhaps some would care to comment on this scenario:
>>
>> Taking the case of the armed robbery at the bank I mentioned above, let us
>> assume that some, say 10 of the citizens around the shopping centre where
>> also armed:
>>
>> The anti-gun case:
>> The guards shoot, the robbers shoot, the 10 armed citizens shoot and more
>> innocent bystanders are injured or perhaps killed.
>>
>> The pro-gun case:
>> The robbers see the number of people around the area when they "case the
>> joint" and conclude that some of them will be armed. The decide that it
>is
>> too risky and look for somewhere to rob that is more isolated.
>>
>> The other case:
>> No one shoots, the robbers escape with the money and it is either
>recovered
>> later or the bank collects the insurance.
>>
>> To me all arguments seem plausible and the last two the most desirable
>> outcomes.
>>
>> The argument presented as anti-gun is plausible because of what happened
>> when only the guards were armed. I live close enough to hear the shots
>and
>> my next door neighbour was present at the time so I don't accept that the
>> facts are not as stated.
>>
>> The other argument seems plausible because professional robbers will
>always
>> look at the risk/reward ratio and choose the easiest target.
>>
>> Could it be that in the real world you would find that there are some
>cases
>> of each occurring?
>>
You left out the scenario where the robbers burst into the bank and
just kill everyone with no questions asked as recently happened and
five people were killed...for no reason.
All five were unarmed and posed no threat yet they were killed.
I do not think that allowing only criminals to have firearms is the
proper method. Allowing..and even encouraging honest law
abiding citizens to protect themselves and others is the proper
course of action.
We had over 3,000 people killed here in the U.S. and not
one firearm was used. Killers come in all stripes and in many
different situations. Esoteric discussions of wether citizens are
armed or not are a bit outdated anymore. The average honest
law abiding citizens NEED to have protection...to even hint
otherwise is silly.
Hand wringing over what is scenarios about well gee...what
if someone innocent is shot...are kinda laughable at this stage
of the game. The real question is how many will be PREVENTED
from being injured or even killed by the application of deadly
force to stop a crime. That is the only equation that counts.
>>
>>
>>
>
ThorII
No its not asshole...its common sense.
>>
>> Not unique but certainly greater, unless you think it's fair for a 120 lb
>> woman to have to defend herself against a 220 lb rapist with her physical
>> strength.
>
>Ah, yes. American eating habits. Thankfully, we still show a greater
>degree of self-control in the UK.
As evidenced by pictures of winston churchill and henry the 8th...eh?
>>
>> > Rape in the UK is relatively rare and usually involves men who are known
>> > to their assailant. I don't think we want more crime scenes involving a
>> > dead husband and a woman with a handgun standing in the bedroom and
>> > saying "he tried to rape me".
Cite please....
>>
>> Is it better to have crime scenes where you have to scrape up the bleeding
>> body of the woman who was attacked, raped and beaten to death?
>
>And how many of those happen in the UK? Go on. I am interested in where
>you are pulling these imaginary figures from.
Me too.
>>
>> Gun Control: 1.) The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
>> strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
>> explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
>> 2.) The theory that a gay man found dead on a fence post in Wyoming, is
>> somehow morally superior to a gay man carrying a concealed handgun.
>> 3.) The theory that 110 lb women should have to fistfight with 210 lb
>> rapists.
>>
>
>AH yes. And your version of anti-gun-control.... the suggestion that for
>the defence and convenience of a handful of women, perhaps half a dozen a
>year, a society that has significantly lower levels of crime than your own
>society should wholly destroy a tradition that has served us for a century
>or more and which, we strongly suspect, is pretty much the main reason why
>the number of women scraped up off the floor is little more than a handful a
>year, rather than the hundreds - or is it thousands - that you regularly
>scrape up?
Uh...look again sport, your level of violent crime has SURPASSED that of
the US except for one or two catagories. You now have a six times greater
chance of being mugged in london than in new york...and the london officials
are asking the new york officials....FOR HELP...
>
>In other words: you can't abide by the fact that your society has fucked up
>royally....and would like to see every other society you can influence
>fucking up too.
>
>A couple of uncomfortable facts for you:
How about some for you sparky...except for rape and murder Britain has
surpassed ALL levels of violent crime in the U.S. and for murder...you are
just a bit behind us...and you are catching up...while ours is dropping.
You better rethink your position.
ThorII
>
>"The Dark Magus" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:3db80652...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:17:09 +0100, "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> So proud of your tyranny, aren't you.
>>
>> >Not really. Just because you have swallowed the US bullshit on guns
>doesn't
>> >mean the rest of teh world ought to be. We recently moved from a society
>in
>> >which guns were out of the ordinary, but permitted, to one in which they
>are
>> >virtually outlawed. Groups at the forefront of the campaign to achieve
>that
>> >were probably FEMALE dominated.
Probably?????????..... is that like, its my considered unsubstantiated uninformed
opinion?
>>
>> No, women have more sense than that.
>>
>> It's leftist sodomite perverts who are behind gun confiscation. Their
>> agenda includes complete subjugation of the British populace, and
>> therefore they need people to be unarmed wimp peasants.
>
>Gosh....does this mean I have to go out and sodomise someone? Who would you
>suggest?
Does the phrase...start with yourself ring a bell?
>
>And have you the first idea about the state of British agriculture?
Yes...does the term Mad Cow Disease ring a bell?
>
>When you are talking about peasants - presumably people working on the land,
>perhaps you ought to look closer to home.
Thats the difference between subjects and CITIZENS...or havent you read history.
>>
ThorII
>
><dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c32908cc.02102...@posting.google.com...
>> "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<3db7e710$0$1801$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > > We are not quite so forgiving of homicidal
>> > > > nuts with guns over here.
>> > >
>> > > You sure are forgiving of violent criminals though. Why is that?
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps because you want violent crime and no self defense?
>> >
>> > Self-defense using a gun is violent crime.
>>
>> No, such a definition is an Orwellian nightmare.
>>
>>
>> > I made no observation on that. I was merely responding to a rather
>asinine
>> > suggestion that the 'reason' why the UK rape rate was supposed to be
>rising.
I can tell you why its rising...wimp victims.
>>
>> It's not the reason. But since it IS happening, your women are SOL,
>> since they can't have, and never will have, effective means of self
>> defense.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Without going any further down what is obviously a total cultural
>divide,
>> > perhaps worth reflecting on the different cultural values that would
>apply
>> > to what you have just described.
>> >
>> > You see it as admirable.
>> >
>> > A woman doing that in the UK would probably be considered guilty of
>abuse -
>> > and removed from any position of responsibility for that child
>forthwith.
>> >
>> > That is quite a divide.
>> >
>> > We don't just see carrying arms as pointless, intellectually: we regard
>> > those who carry them with serioius distaste.
And intellectually, you will be dead when the criminal decides to kill you.
>>
>> We call them "women who repel rape." We call your women "victims."
>> The serious distaste is obviously a self-exculpatory defense mechanism
>> to avoid dealing with your general impotence agaist criminals. You
>> can't protect yourselves, but you can console yourself by sneering at
>> the American "cowboys."
Why shouldnt they...its all the british are good at...sneering...they sure as
hell cant do much else right.
>
>Well, console is a bit strong, but yes....given the intellectual state of
>the US argument for women in the UK carrying guns, so far posted on this
>thread, cowboy seems about right. Ignoramus also.
Ah...the intellectuall calls americans ignorant...coming from a country that
practiced drawing and quartering...putting head on pikes and sticking them
on public monuments for hundreds of years..thats rich.
>
>What you seem to be in serious denial about is the general level of violence
>in your own society. You haven't a clue about how our stats work....and
>seem to think that because our murder rate has hit the spectacular high of
>250 or so per year, (of which less than 100 women), we should tear up a
>century-old tradition that we feel has served us well.
We are in denial???? When your overall level of violent crime has surpassed
that of the U.S. in ALL catagories except rape and murder....and you are running
a close second...AND GAINING while ours is going down....hmmmmmmm so
who is in denial here?????
>
>
>Ooops. Forgot. You come from the land of 'if you aren't with us you are
>against us'. Somehow, I suspect in the decades to come, ALL Americans will
>come to regret that particular piece of ignorant arrogance.
Nope...we like it. Maybe one day the country that gave us TWO world wars will
figure out that someone else is right. What was it about this appeasement thing
that started us down the path to a long and bloody conflict...that if it had been
nipped in the bud might never have happened....oh yeah right...I forgot..its
your superior intelligence that did it...buddy, you wouldnt know intelligence
if it was rogering the queen.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
ThorII
Better alert your media to the supposed crime wave you are suffering as
they believe it too.
Damn...where do these numnuts come from...oh, sorry...forgot...he's british.
>
>http://www.pca.gov.uk/investig/firearms.htm
PeteM
Mary Rosh <mary...@aol.com> writes
>
>The violent crime rate is now much higher in the UK than the US. Here
>is an interesting piece that I came across.
>
> Calgary Herald
> January 19, 2001 Friday FINAL EDITION
>BYLINE: Lorne Gunter, Edmonton Journal
>crime-ridden as the
>ghettos of New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, St. Louis, Washington and
>south central
>Los Angeles. (New York City neighbourhoods do not make it on this list
>because
>they are no longer remarkably violent places. The American cities I
>list are all
>more violent than N.Y.C.)
>
> Central Newcastle, in the north of England, may actually be the
>most
>dangerous place in the industrialized world.
:-)) Rubbish! I know Newcastle very well. I lived there many years and
spent the early part of this week there.
I shall have to relay this info to my mum who still lives there happily.
>The Home Office in
>Britain
>reports that "incidents of violence against the person," which
>includes common
>assault, right up to and including murder, are the highest there:
>236.5 per
>1,000 residents.
The explanation is simple. Central Newcastle is full of pubs and night
clubs, and there is much drinking among young people. When the
boozers close up at 11.30pm, hundred of drunks pile out on the streets,
and there are many fist fights.
No-one is ever killed (though plenty of them end up in the RVI casualty
dept needing a few stitches). To compare this situation to DC or ghetto
LA is ridiculous.
And to suggest that relaxing gun control would solve the problem is
preposterous. If you allowed ten thousand drunken Geordies to carry
guns, there would be mass slaughter in the Bigg Market every night.
--
PeteM
Peter McLelland
"ThorII" <gu...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:5h2iruscgf7ek5eds...@4ax.com...
The most effective deterrent to crime is the certainty of detection and
conviction. The use of weapons for self defence against crime and in crime
prevention just ensures that the criminal will be armed, and will take
precautions to avoid being shot himself.
Peter
Steve Glynn
non-consensual
> > >sex.
> >
> > There is no difference. Rape is defined as non-consensual sex.
>
> figures are going up.
>
> Rape requires sex, usually involving the insertion of a penis into an
> orifice (so it cannot be carried out by a woman).
>
> And it requires a lack of a reasonable belief on the part of the alleged
> perpetrator as to consent.
>
> This, I think, is where so many women/feminsit groups make a serious
> mistake. They assume that because a woman presents with a valid belief
that
> she has had sex that, in her heart of hearts she did not want, or did not
> 'truly' consent to, that this is rape.
>
> In an experiential sense, it probably is. May also be in an ethical
sense -
> but NOT yet in a legal sense.
>
> Rape is not determined solely by the feelings of the alleged victim, but
by
> the state of mind of the alleged perpetrator.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Today many more such allegations go through the formal investigation
> > >> process, sometimes as far as prosecution. This has caused a dramatic
> > >> change in the official record of *reported* rapes, but naturally
says
> > >> nothing about whether *actual* prevalence of rape has changed.
> > >
> > >I can see what you are getting at here but I don't quite see how it
fits
> > >with your last paragraph. Assuming that "little point in even
recording
> > >them" means that they were recorded then surely this would only affect
> the
> > >ratio of reported rapes to prosecutions?
> >
> > see above - women are now much more likely to report such incidents
> > *and* to insist on a criminal investigation, and the police are now
> > obliged to record them formally.
> >
> > PeteM
>
>
True story -- and, I'm sorry, but I don't know how the case ended.
I used to know a guy who was conducting an appeal on behalf of a chap who
found himself in the unfortunate position of his condom bursting just at the
wrong moment (it's happened to me, too, and I cannot recommend strongly
enough that one uses some water-based lubricant rather than baby oil in
certain circumstances).
Anyway, the lady concerned said 'No! Pull out!' (which, of course, is what
he should have done). He didn't, and found himself on trial and convicted
for rape. The court, quite rightly, refused to sentence him and bound him
over to keep the peace or something.
However, the man still had a criminal conviction for rape, which didn't
please him, particularly since he was a school teacher and sex crimes don't
look good on a teacher's CV, which is why the case went to appeal.
My barrister drinking companion and I agreed that the chap had clearly done
something wrong, but whatever it was it wasn't rape. We eventually worked
out a more appropriate charge, derived from the law on the use of cars.
'Failure to stop after an accident'.
John O
Nope. Because another female obsession has been to exclude sexual history
from court cases.
At one level, this is obviously fair: consent - or otherwise - must be
deemed to be given on the occasion it was sought, and all the previous
consents in the world cannot alter the fact of consent being given or
withheld on that occasion.
That said.... women are forever asking that men 'really understand them' -
and approx. half of those I have encountered have suggested that this goes
to the extreme of understanding that when they say one thing, they mean the
opposite.
Second, it can lead to some very bizarre results: a US case where two
parties met through the internet, he visited her, tired her up and assaulted
her. Obviously a rape, n'ext-ce pas?
Except that the context in which they had met was a Bondage chat room....
and what he did with and to her corresponded pretty closely to her stated
fantasy online. But, at the initial trial, this was not allowed to be
entered as evidence.
What's a jury to think WITHOUT that salient fact? And what would they think
WITH it?
More recently, a UK case involved a woman who had a history of making rape
allegations, requesting money from the alleged perpetrator to ensure she did
not go to the police - and then dropping the individual in it if they
refused to come through with the cash.
That particular aspect of her 'history' was not admissible in court -
although it subsequently emerged via the newspapers.