Rape victim questions gun laws

[Hoopla Phil]

http://media.www.dailyhelmsman.com/media/storage/paper875/news/2010/04/23/News/Rape-Victim.Questions.Gun.Laws-3912208.shtml

Days of courtroom proceedings lie in one 23-year-old Memphis woman's future after becoming a victim of robbery, rape and kidnapping, all under the threat of a gun. She now understands why some choose to arm themselves to try to protect themselves from crimes like these.

The Memphis Police caught and charged the suspects with two counts each of aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count each of especially aggravated rape. All three possessed violent criminal records but were able to gain possession of a gun that allowed them to commit yet another series of crimes
________________________________________________________________________


How horrible that she had to go through such an ordeal.

[RamboLiberal]

1. Big reason as a female I carry a gun

And before that studied martial arts. I don't intend to be an easy victim. I know a gun is not a panacea but being unarmed really makes it tough to have any chance to fight back.

[jazzhound]

35. Always like to hear this.........

One of the most disgusting things about the "control" movement is the manner in which it attempts to convince women that they can't safely handle firearms.

How progressive.
:puke:

[sharesunited]

2. Do you want her armed or her assailants disarmed?

Guns are so plentiful in our society that gun laws prohibiting possession by criminals are ineffective.

Maybe we should make guns generally scarce.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. More anti civil rights spew again from you. At least you are consistent

[sharesunited]

7. I think you have it backwards. Guns and ammo deprive people of civil rights.

Grievous misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment has willfully deluded so many Americans.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. The courts and history say you have it ass backwards

But then again you know that

[NewMoonTherian]

39. In the absence of a 2nd amendment...

I would favor minimal restrictions on gun ownership. Far less than we have now.

I do see your point, as other nations' draconian laws were possible because they lack an enumerated right to guns(I would say arms in general, but I haven't studied enough to warrant that). I think this has less to do with RKBA affecting public opinion, and more to do with the majority who favor gun rights having a sound legal footing to defend against potential trespasses. This still isn't ironclad reliable though, as we've somehow failed to prevent the indefensible restrictions on automatics, SBRs, silencers and so on.

[cowman]

4. Have her armed

because, as you know, criminals will always have guns, I've asked you time and time again, how will you stop the smuggling of guns across our borders? The former Soviet Union had some of the tightest borders and still couldn't stop the smuggling, so again, how would you stop it? And would you outlaw lathes and drill presses because with these I could manufacture a gun.

[armueller2001]

5. HAHAHA

Make guns generally scarce? Just like banning drugs made them scarce, right?

Get out of your dream world.

[rrneck]

6. Maybe you could explain

how she is supposed to defend herself against two unarmed assailants.

[sharesunited]

8. These guys had guns. Why? To conveniently impose their will, of course.

That's what guns are for.

[rrneck]

9. Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

Wrong answer! And what did our lucky assaultee win? That's right SharesUnited, a severe beating, sexual assault, and a lifetime of therapy to deal with the experience! That's right! Our lucky winner will have a lifetime of trauma because SharesUnited seems to think that the lack of a weapon will make a brutal asshole less brutal!

Jesus H. Christ. You didn't even try on that one. Produce a coherent explanation or shut the fuck up.

[sharesunited]

11. Nope, they had guns. And threatened her with them. So she wouldn't resist.

They managed to obtain them despite being ineligible to do so. Because of sheer abundance.

[rrneck]

12. Wrong again.

I'll repost the question again for the functionally illiterate and galactically obtuse.

Maybe you could explain how she is supposed to defend herself against two unarmed assailants.

[sharesunited]

13. If they had been unarmed, she might have been inclined to fight or flee.

But they were armed. So she didn't.

[rrneck]

14. Her inclinations

much like yours, are pointless. She was over matched whether her attackers were armed or not. From the news item in the OP:

One night, while retrieving her car from a parking garage, the woman and a male friend were kidnapped by three men, one of whom was armed. A night of crime ensued. The woman was sexually assaulted, and the man was robbed and shot. The three men eventually fled, and the victims escaped alive.

Have you ever been in a fight? Have you ever had to confront someone that outweighs you fifty pounds who makes a living brutalizing people? That couple didn't have a chance whether there was a gun there or not.

Be that as it may, while you may prefer to never set food outdoors and troll message boards with your inane bullshit your expressions of obtuse and ineffectual compassion make liberals look like idiots, and that's all our business. You are wrong. You sound, whether you realize it or not, exactly like the caricature propagated by the worst the political right in this country has to offer. That caricature is one of an obtuse, effete, overeducated and inexperienced technocrat that gins up absurd utopian policy proposals divorced not just from the reality that people live every day, but from physics itself. People like you get Republicans elected.

Now, explain in something other than some obtuse koan, how one male and one female could physically overcome an assault by three males WITHOUT A WEAPON. And since you seem to think all firearms should disappear through a rip in the fabric of time, your explanation should work for EVERYBODY, regardless of physical ability or combat skill.

Good luck.

[sharesunited]

17. Her assailants chose to carry guns and to threaten her with them.

Did they need them? Not according to your alternate version of the story.

But they clearly appreciated the convenience and efficacy of guns for imposing their will.

I'm sorry you cannot see how wrong you are for promoting the myth of gun ownership as some kind of Constitutionally protected right.

Why not offer a sincere expression of good luck to those nations which are making a conscious decision NOT to follow us down the path toward an uncontrollably armed society? Instead, it seems you would prefer they fail.

[rrneck]

19. The question was:

Maybe you could explain how she is supposed to defend herself against two unarmed assailants.

Or do you prefer to continue dodging the question?

"

[sharesunited]

21. Her access to a gun is the same access by which a gun was available to threaten her.

See what downwardly spiraling futility you offer her?

[rrneck]

23. Still no answer.

All the guns are gone. There are no guns. Guns do not exist. They have gone to the magical nowhere that is between your ears.

This is the question that you continue to dodge:

Maybe you could explain how she is supposed to defend herself against two unarmed assailants.

[sharesunited]

25. Yet in the very next moment you arm her. Which arms them.

Is she better off? Are any of us?

[rrneck]

26. ...

Maybe you could explain how she is supposed to defend herself against two unarmed assailants.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. Wait a minute

What was the question again ?

[jazzhound]

30. "People like you get Republicans elected."

Most certainly. This is the tragic fact that the unstudied pro-control supporters refuse to look at. So sad that protecting their egos is a greater priority to them than dumping failed policy that sabotages truly positive social policy changes. And so disturbing that they hypocritically distort the political motivations of those who oppose their ideas.

[rrneck]

15. And by the way,

that wasn't the question.

Maybe you could explain how she is supposed to defend herself against two unarmed assailants.

[armueller2001]

16. Gun control :

The theory that a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman who defends herself from attack with a firearm

[sharesunited]

18. Her access to a gun is the same access by which a gun is available to threaten her.

See what downwardly spiraling futility you offer us?

[rrneck]

20. ...

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

[sharesunited]

22. Likewise.

[rrneck]

24. Summon up an explanation to the question you were asked.

If you can.

[rrneck]

27. We're getting good at this.

You trot out a bunch of bullshit. I call you on it. You dance around a while. I call you on that. You run away.

Practice, practice, practice.

[cowman]

28. Hey Shares

the 60's gun control movement just called looking for you

[shedevil69taz]

34. Except no matter if guns are commercially available

to law abiding people or not criminals will continue to aquire them through illegal means. If it wasn't guns they were using because they simply didn't exsist as you would wish they would simply use some other instrument to make it easier to brutalize innocent victems.

[X_Digger]

37. He doesn't believe it..

.. he also doesn't believe that I can get a dime bag of any illicit substance within half an hour.

I'm assuming he keeps his hands over his eyes and only removes them to post his "deep thoughts".

[armueller2001]

45. Um... no

In my post I said nothing about a firearm being used to threaten the woman.

Or is it inconceivable to you that two large males could overpower and rape a woman?

[cowman]

10. That's what guns are for?

I can't honestly believe you just said that, I own several guns, I won't tell you how many, but you can assume the worst. Guns are used for a variety of reasons, target shoot, self defense, to name a few, but to say thats what they are for is dishonest

[jazzhound]

31. My toothbrush is designed to clean my teeth.

So according to shareslogic I'm disallowed from using a toothbrush to clean tight nooks in my shower.

Shareslogic is simply too brilliant for us to wrap our teeny gun-slingin' brains around, cowman! :sarcasm:

[cowman]

32. So true

[Euromutt]

36. Or even just one. Consider Gary "the Green River Killer" Ridgway

Ridgway was convicted of 48 murders, confessed to another 23, and probably killed 90+ women in total, making him possibly the most prolific murderer in American history (Donald "Pee-Wee" Gaskins may have killed more). He committed every one of his murders by strangulation, usually with his arm. No legal restrictions on any kind of weapon would have made a difference to this guy.

[Katya Mullethov]

44. We had a local boy that made it big

Henry Lee Lucas . He liked to run people over with his car , amongst other things .

[proteus_lives]

33. Behold: SU's one non-point.

Watch him fail again and again and again.

[RamboLiberal]

38. Do you want to explain to me how a female without a gun

Or even an elderly person or even someone who has not the fighting skill of a criminal can fight him off?

I have 27 years of martial arts training and even with all those nights spent in the dojang I'm under no damn illusion I can fight off a much younger, heavier, stronger probably male opponent.

At least a firearm gives innocent people a fighting chance.

Or are we supposed to lock ourselves in our homes at night with deadbolts on our doors and bars on our windows?

But in your own fear or obsession against "evil guns" you want to deprive the rest of us of a very good means of self-defense.

[jazzhound]

40. I've gotta say that your cavalier carriage is really quite sickening, given the

possible negative outcome of your gun-restricting scheme.

"Maybe" we should make guns generally scarce?!?! "Maybe" we should gamble with the lives of the non-criminal population while we experiment with social policy?! "Maybe" we should just ignore the evidence that defensive gun uses are *at least* as frequent as offensive gun uses and the net result of gun restrictions -- which affect *only* the law abiding -- will be the deaths of innocent members of our population?

:puke:

[Travis Coates]

46. Maybe we should make guns generally scarce.

You're absolutely right. Now, how do you propose to do it? Firearms are very durable and there ar millions of them on this planet, machine tools abound. How,exactly, do you propose to remove firearms from society?

[Biker13]

41. K&R nt

[old mark]

42. My wife was raped when she was very young. I taught her to shoot

and she has an old S&W revolver that she really loves shooting and she is very good with it.

She was raised very liberally to be against guns, and she was till she shot one and found she really liked it.

m

[X_Digger]

47. Gah, one especially bad line..

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment grants nothing. It protects a pre-existing right (actually expanded on later in the article.)

Otherwise, pretty interesting article, thanks for posting it.