• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail

Mate, this is like talking to a brick wall.

You can pick out anecdotal examples all you want, the fact of the matter is, as the statistics I have just provided clearly show, that on the whole having access to firearms does nothing to prevent women being raped. For every example you can provide where a woman defended herself with a gun there will be another where an attacker used a gun to assist him in carrying out a rape.

Even a child should be able to understand that it makes no sense to hold onto some meaningless anecdotal examples when the actual statistics on rape have been calculated and clearly show there is no correlation between access to firearms and a reduction in the amount of women being raped. The rape capital of the World has liberal gun laws for fucks sake.

At this point in the conversation I am honestly beginning to wonder if you are a troll or have diminished mental capacities in some way...
 
drug_mentor said:
Mate, this is like talking to a brick wall.

You can pick out anecdotal examples all you want, the fact of the matter is, as the statistics I have just provided clearly show, that on the whole having access to firearms does nothing to prevent women being raped. For every example you can provide where a woman defended herself with a gun there will be another where an attacker used a gun to assist him in carrying out a rape.
Click to expand...

The statistic show differences in rape rates, they do not prove that it has anything to do with gun laws. Correlation does not imply causation, as they say.
Logically, a woman with a gun (whether her attacker has one or not) is still less likely to get raped, because she might be the one to shoot first, or maybe her attacker will miss. And a woman with a gun will more likely deter a potential rapist as well.
 
I am not arguing causation though, you are, you said;

Trying2Iso said:
Guns stop sexual predators in their tracks.
Click to expand...

You said this, the fact that women are no less likely to be raped (and in at least one case, are considerably MORE likely to be raped) in Countries with liberal gun laws compared to ones with conservative gun laws proves you are wrong.

My argument is that access to firearms has next to no impact on a woman being raped, I believe the statistics I have provided prove this to be the case. You are arguing access to guns stops sexual assaults, obviously it doesn't or South Africa where you don't need a licence to concealed carry wouldn't be the rape capital of the World, it really is quite simple.

I am not the one who is trying to reduce the incidence of rape to a factor as simple as having access to guns or not, as the quote above from you shows, you are. I am by no means trying to argue that access to guns increases rapes, I am saying it doesn't factor into it, and therefore is not an argument for liberal gun laws.
 
drug_mentor said:
I am not arguing causation though, you are, you said;
You said this, the fact that women are no less likely to be raped (and in at least one case, are considerably MORE likely to be raped) in Countries with liberal gun laws compared to ones with conservative gun laws proves you are wrong.
Click to expand...

If anything it proves rape rates are affected by socioeconomic and cultural factors, seeing as rates are SO much higher in South Africa than US yet gun laws are similar.
 
Just explain to me how having a gun makes a woman NOT less likely to get sexually assaulted.
Many women have used guns to defend themselves.
 
Trying2Iso said:
If anything it proves rape rates are affected by socioeconomic and cultural factors, seeing as rates are SO much higher in South Africa than US yet gun laws are similar.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but when you also consider they are equally or less likely to occur in Countries with tight gun laws as they are in the US, it paints the very obvious picture that guns are not the be all to stopping sexual assault that you claimed they are.

If guns stopped sexual predators in their tracks, as you say, it would make no sense for a Country where you can conceal carry to be the rape capital of the World whilst Countries where citizens cannot access guns for self defense reasons have low occurrences of rapes.

My point is that rape has a lot of factors that influence it, access to firearms does not appear to be one of them. The only point I am making is that you are wrong to state that guns are some kind of magic solution to sexual assaults, the statistics prove this quite clearly.

Trying2Iso said:
Just explain to me how having a gun makes a woman NOT less likely to get sexually assaulted.
Many women have used guns to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

I already did, and you childishly decided to put words in my mouth to the effect I was saying we should just let women get raped without having a chance.

Many women have used guns to defend themselves, just as many men have used guns to assist them in doing harm to women. Can you really not see how pointless that is for an argument? It goes both ways.
 
You didn't answer the question though.
Explain how having a gun wouldn't help a woman protect herself.
a gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun
a weapon she could use to shoot her attacker.
Very unlikely that a rapist will sneak up behind her in a dark ally and grab her before she can shoot, most women aren't deaf, i think you've been watching too many movies.
 
Mate I answered that question before you even asked it,

drug_mentor said:
If a man is intent on committing pre meditated rape against a woman that he has the ability to overpower then it isn't going to matter if the woman is armed or not 95% of the time. If you come up behind someone and grab or strike them and have considerably more physical strength than them the odds are not in favour of them being able to draw their weapon, turn the safety off and fire a shot into their attacker to prevent their assault.
Click to expand...

I don't think this situation is limited to movies, people get snuck up on all the time. To be honest even if you hear someone approaching you from behind most peoples reaction isn't going to be to draw on them before they even turn around to see what is happening. Someone who has planned a rape in advance and carefully selects a victim is almost certainly going to try and take them by surprise.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that access to guns for EVERYBODY means that would be attackers can access guns just as easily as would be victims?
 
Last edited:
^^ actually that's why i asked again
Explain to me how a woman with ears will be snuck behind and grabbed. Assuming in a location with no other people (because the rapist would want no witnesses).
A strange man approaches an armed woman in the wrong side of town, the woman should have a right to defend herself if the man continues to approach her despite her warnings.
And guess what? criminals already have guns, they break the law already, so why can't women be allowed to have them too to even the odds?

edit: There are many instances where women used guns to defend themselves from attackers. It happens, despite what gun control advocates like to believe.
I actually showed you one already
 
Last edited:
Honestly, this discussion has gone far off topic, it has been a good distraction for me to procrastinate what I am supposed to actually be doing, but I don't see the point in engaging with you further when you just want to regurgitate the same bullshit I debunked on the last page. You are really tiresome to have a discussion with, presenting scenarios you cook up in your head as a rebuttal to actual facts and pigheadedly repeating the same shit over and over is not an argument mate, its just silly.
 
If felons can get guns, then these aren't working
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

there's your evidence of what i was saying

Statistics show being armed does have an impact on crime. 1/3 of felons felt this impact.
 
Trying2Iso said:
You want facts?
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK
Click to expand...

Considering I live in a Country where they have worked and are currently working your link means little to me.

So a majority of criminals using firearms in the US obtain them illegally, its not a surprise is it? They can't buy them legally. The fact is those black market guns are being diverted from the legal market, if guns weren't so freely available in the first place then criminals wouldn't have such easy access to illicit firearms.

Where I live, it is hard to access black market firearms precisely because a majority of illegal guns are diverted from the legal market, given we have such a small legal market here it makes for an even smaller black market, which means reduced availability of guns to criminals

The fact is, in places that have implemented tight gun control laws access to firearms has gone down, gun violence has gone down, you can provide whatever one sided statistics that don't show the full story all you like, it doesn't make you less wrong.

I also did not argue that guns have never prevented a crime, I do believe they facilitate considerably more than they help prevent though.

I really am done with this discussion, it isn't going anywhere and we have massively derailed this thread from the original topic.

I suggest you watch this.
 
well my last statistic should mean something to you, seeing as criminals have and do encounter armed citizens in the US, and it often turns out either bad for the criminal, or deters the crime completely.
 
That's a great vid drug_mentor..

Here it is embeded.

[video=youtube_share;9pOiOhxujsE]http://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE[/video]

[video=youtube_share;TYbY45rHj8w]http://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w[/video]
 
You realise they tightened gun laws up after the Dunblane massacre, right? I don't see how that is an argument for why current laws are not working.

I was actually attending the next Primary School over from Dunblane at the time of that shooting, several of my teachers had children at that School but luckily none of them were hurt or killed, still, that was a really horrible day. Incidents like that are exactly why we need strict gun control.

Also worth pointing out, the guns Thomas Hamilton used to kill all those children were legally owned and obtained.

Nobody has ever argued that gun crimes don't occur in places where guns are illegal, just that they occur less often. You can cite as many shootings as you like, until the UK or Australia has similar levels of gun crime as the US it doesn't mean a fucking thing.
 
Last edited:
Cumbria happened in 2010 tho
and that shooting killed as many people as the Aurora Co shooting in the US
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top