Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plenty if you take in account that disfigurement (knives/screwdrivers) are the preferred weapons for rape and then take into account the "soft kill" of rape.
Of course, if the intended victim is facing the attacker off with a gun, well, there's that bringing a knife to a gun fight.
"Soft kill." I've never heard that term. In dealing with the aftermath of an attempted rape and going through group therapy with my lady and other victims I see rape as a murder of a woman's soul and heart. In many ways worse than death. I suppose that calling it a "soft" kill works since actual life itself wasn't taken. I'm glad you put that in quotes though.
I'm afraid if someone actually used that term with me in an attempt to say that physical survival is all that matters in the case of rape I might (would) react violently. I see rape as the most heinous crime that can be committed. A rapist is the lowest form of predator ever to walk the planet on two legs. They are the hyenas I am pinpointing when I express my disgust at the "give the criminal what they want" attitude expressed by so many firearms phobics. Some things do not have any monetary or material value attached. There is no price tag and that's non negotiable.
I can't imagine telling a woman who has suffered through the attack of a rapist that it's all OK because it was just a "soft kill." Having seen this "soft kill" phenomena up close and personal the old adage that "nobody ever raped a 38" just comes to mind. I believe we understand each other.
Is owning firearms "unacceptable." That's an interesting statement. To flatly state that owning firearms is "unacceptable"takes your personal opinion a bridge to far. A great many people feel very differently. Every day, many times a day, across this country, people use firearms to defend themselves and those they love from violent, and armed, predators.
A very large percentage of those predators want something that value cannot be placed on. When someone has to use lethal force in defense of life it is nothing like the anti firearms propaganda paints it to be. Nor are the people who carry guns for defensive purposes the blood thirsty killers that same propaganda portrays.
An armed citizen is under a different set of rules from everyone else. The rules we follow are even stricter than those governing law enforcement officers. There is this comepletely false representation of armed citizens carrying a gun because it brings a feeling of power and control. Armed men in particular are targeted this way and portrayed as having feelings of inferior manhood and compensate by carrying a firearm. And it's all a bald faced lie. In situations that even people such as yourself would feel the need to act with force, the mouthy drunk making sexually explicit comments about ones lady and following you out of the restaurant pushing the issue is a good example, you are under strict obligation to retreat, ignore, even placate. Being armed means you must put up with things most people flat would not.
There is no power of any kind that goes with being armed. If you are carrying concealed you cannot flash you're weapon to some cretin as a warning. As a matter of fact doing so is a crime. Being armed means you must adopt as pacifistic a demeanor as humanly possible. Now, if the mouthy drunk pushes you and then gropes your lady, displays a knife or firearm of his own as a threat, then you may act. Until someone has demonstrated that they are a threat of possible death or great bodily harm to you or another person, you must retreat, even grovel if that's what it takes to avoid having to use your weapon.
Carrying a firearm does nothing to boost someone's ego. It does improve ones skills in diplomacy. Overtly threatening situations where you are accosted and a weapon is displayed are not like what you see in movies where the granite jawed action hero makes some cute one liner before drawing his weapon and dispatching multiple bad guys and then going for coffee either. If you have had to use your weapon, you had better stay put and wait for the police, ensuring that your gun is in plain view and not in your hand, and your hands are on your head. As a matter of fact, it's a good idea to be on the ground well before they tell you to be with your weapon out of reach.
This is the point where things get really fun. Oh yea. Much depends on the officers and how they assess things, and just what circumstances led to you using your weapon. But you will still be taken in, your weapon taken into evidence and you will be extensively questioned. Even if the cops see a clear cut case of self defense, they have procedures that must be followed.
Lets put it this way, guns are quite "acceptable". Firearms owners are not obnoxious jerks who play know it all and throw around the "power" feeling that carrying a weapon supposedly brings. Because there is no such "power." We are NOT walking around out here looking for any excuse to even show our weapon, let alone use it. We are however prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones should the true need arise, and we are fully aware that having to do so will not see us treated as any sort of "hero."
So, do yourself a favor. Drop your misconceptions and perhaps reexamine your hatred and contempt of armed citizens. We are not what you have been led to believe. I would welcome a civil discourse about this and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. I will add that I am an assistant instructor for CCW and it's my job to educate and prepare citizens who have decided to be armed in what awaits in the real world. There is a LOT to cover in that regard.
WHOA, there! Hold on just a second. It was a question, not a statement. Allow me to explain:
I asked the question as I did to point out the absurdity of the analogy to which I was replying. Did you read the rest of the exchange between me and that poster? I am not anti-gun, nor do I have hatred or contempt for gun owners, although I think there are people who have, by their actions, forfeited their right to own one, and I think there are some people - a minority - who have an unhealthy obsession with them. That is a far cry from hatred and contempt. Hell, I have mentioned on this forum my own interest in learning to hunt. I enjoy game, and generally speaking, find responsible hunting far more humane that many of the factory farming practices that stock grocery stores with meat.
I invite you to explore my posting history about guns. You may find me questioning the need for a certain kind of gun, or for so many guns, or saying there are some individuals who should not have a gun, but you will not find anything I have said that indicates I believe they should be forbidden or confiscated, or anything that even remotely suggests that I hate gun owners themselves.
As for your work in educating people about firearms and their use, I commend you. I firmly believe that some kind of training, particularly with regards to safety, should be mandatory for anyone who wants to carry a weapon.
Last edited by Catgirl64; 11-06-2017 at 10:52 PM..
"Soft kill." I've never heard that term. In dealing with the aftermath of an attempted rape and going through group therapy with my lady and other victims I see rape as a murder of a woman's soul and heart. In many ways worse than death. I suppose that calling it a "soft" kill works since actual life itself wasn't taken. I'm glad you put that in quotes though.
I'm afraid if someone actually used that term with me in an attempt to say that physical survival is all that matters in the case of rape I might (would) react violently. I see rape as the most heinous crime that can be committed. A rapist is the lowest form of predator ever to walk the planet on two legs. They are the hyenas I am pinpointing when I express my disgust at the "give the criminal what they want" attitude expressed by so many firearms phobics. Some things do not have any monetary or material value attached. There is no price tag and that's non negotiable.
I can't imagine telling a woman who has suffered through the attack of a rapist that it's all OK because it was just a "soft kill." Having seen this "soft kill" phenomena up close and personal the old adage that "nobody ever raped a 38" just comes to mind. I believe we understand each other.
"Soft Kill" is a military term relating to taking out an asset without actually destroying it. Firing a shrapnel missile over a ship to shred its radars is a soft kill.
In the case of rape, I was using the term since one might destroy someone emotionally and operationally, but there would still be a living, breathing, thinking (as oppose to a "vegetable" or a plane full of only heartbeats as with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (oxygen starvation, brain damage, and only heartbeats left)) human being.
I used that term to be brief. It is a familiar term to me but I rather thought that others had heard of it. Oh well.
"Soft kill." I've never heard that term. In dealing with the aftermath of an attempted rape and going through group therapy with my lady and other victims I see rape as a murder of a woman's soul and heart. In many ways worse than death. I suppose that calling it a "soft" kill works since actual life itself wasn't taken. I'm glad you put that in quotes though.
I'm afraid if someone actually used that term with me in an attempt to say that physical survival is all that matters in the case of rape I might (would) react violently. I see rape as the most heinous crime that can be committed. A rapist is the lowest form of predator ever to walk the planet on two legs. They are the hyenas I am pinpointing when I express my disgust at the "give the criminal what they want" attitude expressed by so many firearms phobics. Some things do not have any monetary or material value attached. There is no price tag and that's non negotiable.
I can't imagine telling a woman who has suffered through the attack of a rapist that it's all OK because it was just a "soft kill." Having seen this "soft kill" phenomena up close and personal the old adage that "nobody ever raped a 38" just comes to mind. I believe we understand each other.
I commend your feelings on this issue.
As someone who works with teen girls, I see rape all too often- and the perpetuators often don't see them(the girls) as human beings but objects. All to often they pass as regular Joe's (since violence against women isn't regarded as important as it should be-look at the suspect in Sunday's shooting spree- his domestic violence history was not seen as a red flag important enough to prevent him from owning a weapon)...
And unfortunately the courts do seem to look at this as a "lesser" crime...
Its educating humans into relating with others as beings as is the most important- its more than just gun control but educating all of our children to be Kind to others, that rape, and coercion, is Wrong.
Do you actually think your funny attempts to redefine what the popular vote is fools anyone?
Trump lost the popular vote. Stop trying to redefine what "OF THE PEOPLE" means to suit your laughably partisan agenda. And even if Trump DID win the popular vote, he's still a worthless, egotistical, incompetent, immature sexual predator who pays neither his taxes or his employees. As horrible as Hillary was, leave it to the far-right to come up with a worse candidate, for they are never to be outdone when it comes to failure.
As I was lying in bed tonight, I recalled the X-Files episode where an old farm community man was talking to Scully about how people were getting meaner, how they had a number of rapes in previous years, and he thought it was because of all the additives in the beef industry. Scully tells him that those additives have been proven safe and then the old man laughs because the government says it is safe.
ANYHOW, maybe we ought to be considering what we are putting in our bodies. If we know now that high fruitose corn syrup and margarine isn't such a great deal, one might wonder about what else.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,814 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by diva360
The poll should say "fewer" guns. This comment may be deleted, but if the subject is guns, which is a definite noun, then the modifier should be countable.
I will let this quotation stand. "Fewer" is one thing, and "lesser" is another thing.
You can ban most guns and it works in places like Germany, Denmark, Japan, Italy, etc where the vast majority agree with the ban and thus obey it.
You can have lots of guns with little trouble in a place like Switzerland where the vast majority are ultra responsible and disciplined.
You can have lots of guns with lots of trouble in places like Afghanistan where the vast majority are ultra armed and undisciplined.
Then there is America where policy and society is all over the map, literally.
Where else would you have two states like Texas and Vermont which share nothing in common except lax gun laws?
What other country features huge swaths of rural areas with lots of guns as well as congested inner cities with lots of guns?
I do not have the answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
