[quote]dcamnc wrote:
A female Officer that I work with (I’m a cop) told me the other day that she was scared to walk to her car when getting off…I politely reminded her that she was a Police Officer, with a Glock 37, taser, oc spray, ASP baton, and a police radio, walking in a pretty safe area. What more does she need to feel safe? Good grief.[/quote]
Then why is she even a police officer.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
on edge wrote:
My wife goes for walks ant night and I worry about her. Not because I think she’ll get raped, I worry she will get run over. We have no sidewalks and she’s so damn trusting of the cars going by. I ask her “How do you KNOW they see you?” “How do you know they’re not drunk?” Yet she never looks back to make sure the headlights aren’t coming at her and she never veers to the farthest edge of the road.
I guess this is kind of an off topic rant, so sorry, but it pisses me off that she’s so trusting. As I tell my son, “Don’t worry about wearing light colors so the cars see you. Make sure you see the cars.” End rant.
Why dont you tell her to walk on the left side of the road? This way, she’ll be facing oncoming traffic and (God forbid) if there is a car coming her way, she’ll have a much greater chance of dodging it than if it came from behind her.[/quote]
I’ve heard it advised that you should walk on that side of the road for just that reason. Riding a bike for instance requires you ride with traffic for the reason that you are a vehicle.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
hedo wrote:
My wife travels a lot. I don’t worry about her too much. She also carries a S&W .357 mag. with her at all times and has been trained how to use it.
Common sense and a .357 will end most attacks but mostly it’s the .357.
Nothing and I mean nothing empowers a woman more than effective training and carry of a weapon. It equalizes everything or rather places her in a superior position.
Because the bottom line is the average woman will never prevail in the average confrontation with even an average male except under some extraordinary circumstances. Most women, and I mean even healthy strong women like those on this site, do not realize how much stronger a man is, even a man of equal size.[/quote]
This is so true Push. When my 12 year old son was 85 pounds he was stronger than his mom and step mom. Now he’s up to a massive 110 or so at 5’3" and is even stronger. Unless a gal has been a victim of violence, they often don’t realize how hard a man can hit or the extent of the damage that even an average guy can do.
Not that this should prevent self defense training of all types, just that a well thought out strategy is needed with many tools as you have said.
I’m 200 pounds or so and I routinely carry a knife and gun. I have some self defense training and my knowledge of anatomy as a chiropractor is very helpful in knowing spots that cause a lot of damage.
I also carry a key chain that is a kubotan. So a fairly strong guy has his strength training, a knife, a gun and an impact and grappling weapon. And I have been trained in the use of all of these.
First, learn awareness. The learn a few different types of self defense strategies up to and including guns if you are willing to learn and assume the responsibility of firearms ownership.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Westclock wrote:
My future wife and daughter are both going to be the proud recipients of a .38 snub nose with the hammer sawed off.
You know, Smith & Wesson makes hammerless 38 snubbies?
My wife carries a Ruger SP101 loaded with +P hollow point .38 ammo. No hammer to get snagged, double-action (just pull the trigger), short barrel for ease of use at short distances, easy to conceal in purse, highly effective stopping power at close quarters.
I’ve told her many times if she is ever attacked to simply empty all five rounds in the upper torso of her attacker.
At 5’3", 110 lbs., this gives her a clearly superior position in a violent confrontation that she is clearly likely to lose otherwise, no matter how much MMA/physical defense experience she may have.
She has drawn her weapon(s) in situations at home where she suspected an intruder (all false alarms so far) and I can tell you even though I am twice her weight and astronomically stronger than her, I would never want to face her or another woman similarly armed.
Of all the people in this world, women deserve the right to keep and bear arms. It is a silly, misguided notion to maintain a mindset that firearms are for men and women should look at other avenues of self defense first.
The gun is the instant “equalizer” for a woman.[/quote]
I have the same gun in my bedroom loaded with 38 special +ps. that is if your gun si a 357. I had a local gunsmith render it DAO and polish the action.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
She has never pulled the gun without cause. Do not be a stupid fucker and insinuate that based on a flawed philosophical disagreement with me on the reasonableness of weapons carry.
A weak, small person becomes a strong scared person who actually has the ability to defend their life against really bad people in a really bad situation.
Think before you type; even though this is an anonymous internet forum you should still strive to show deductive and reasoning capabilities. And if you really do live in Mexico and disagree with me that women are better empowered in other ways in this regard, then you are a fool and you don’t read your newspaper.
Maybe you are missinterpreting what I meant by without cause, you stated that she had pulled the gun at times that were a false alarm. This means that the person in front of her was at risk of being shot for no good reason. That is an example of deductive and reasoning.
Why would I lie about living in Mexico? I have been here 3 years and other than some shoot outs between the police and Narcos I actually for the most part feel safer here than I did in the UK (I have had guns pulled on me whilst doing barwork in Manchester for instance.)
Maybe you should actually try reading a bit further than the sensationalist headlines to understand that the risk of being violently attacked in the US, Mexico or the UK is tiny.
You take a far greater risk getting in your car each day. Money and time spent on buying and training with a gun would be better served taking a defensive driving course and spending some time on a skid pan if it really is safety you are worried about however I can’t escape the feeling that a lot of people in the US just have a hardon for having a gun.
In theory I have no problem with that however I can’t help thinking that those guns would be better off being kept locked up in a gun club between usages than in someones purse.[/quote]
The chance of being in a serious assault situation is not a statistic, it’s 100% or 0% in a sample size of me that i can chose to be prepared and deal with or just hope it doesn’t happen.
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
MsM wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
I just thought I’d make a cultural comparison that’s neither here nor there. Several men are suggesting guns. I think that underscores one of the fundamental differences between Canada and the U.S. I would be stunned if anyone here suggested that. It wouldn’t even be a consideration.
MsM, perhaps it’s different in your neck of the woods. What’s your take on it?
This isn’t a judgement. It’s an observation.
Sorry, ouroboro_s; I replied to this last night but it didn’t post.
It would definitely depend on where you are. When I was in Ontario, the only people I knew that really had guns were the police and criminals (the odd hunter). In New Brunswick, out in the boonies, everyone has guns. You still have to have a permit and register them here. I have found that the more a place tries to restrict gun ownership, the more issues you have with them being stolen/used for crimes. Everyone has them here and it’s no big deal. You don’t really hear people talking about shooting people here. I think they don’t go around shooting people because everyone knows that everyone else has a gun.
I know you aren’t passing judgment; that’s not like you at all. Personally, I am all for responsible gun ownership and would use one, if necessary. When my son was a baby, I did come home (which was in a very nice area in Old South, London) to find two men that had broken into my house, still in my house. Tell me that a gun would not be appropriate in a situation like that?
Women that don’t prepare themselves for random attacks are being very naive because chances are, at one point in their life, they will have to deal with one.
What do you find the differences to be, if any, ouroboro_s?
I’m originally from rural NS where gun ownership proliferates but they are hunting weapons.
My impression is that the possession of a hand gun may impart a false sense of security or bravado; that it levels the playing field. For the most part, I don’t believe that it does. Merely possessing it or holding it does not give you immunity. It isn’t meant as window dressing. It is my opinion that you ought not own a hand gun unless you truly believe you have it in you to kill another person; without hesitation or compunction. That is, after all what they are for. Many days I believe I could, others not. Because of how we are socialised, I don’t think I could do it without hesitation therefore I would not carry or have one in my home.
Others clearly feel differently.
[/quote]
I agree with you on that point, however I don’t think anyone really knows that they have it in them to use the gun correctly until they are in that situation. By then it is too late.
Armed police have some of the best training available to deal with these kind of situations (I’m talking outside the US here) but they still fuck up and shoot the wrong people or stall and get shot.
Your average Joe or Joanneblogs having a one day course or blasting off rounds at a firing range is not really going to prepare them for a life and death situation any better than your average weekend Self Defence seminar will prepare you for a violent attack on the streets.
Push, I actually agree with more of what you are writing than I disagree with. Just a couple of thoughts though:
[quote]Throughout history women have suffered disproportionately greater physical harm in confrontations due to the biological differences in the sexes.
[/quote]
However it is far more likely for a guy to be involved in a violent assault or attack. 18-24 year old guys are the biggest target for assault, partly because of their lifestyles.
Serious question here because I have no idea, but how easy is it to find a decent course taught by a competent instructor?
Are most courses good or is it like Self Defence courses where most of the available ones would leave you worse off than not taking them?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Are most courses good or is it like Self Defence courses where most of the available ones would leave you worse off than not taking them?[/quote]
Would it be a fair assessment to say that you don’t believe anyone can prepare themselves for the unexpected, so why bother?
Hey, the gun debate here actually ended up being pretty sensible I thought. Good to see!
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Are most courses good or is it like Self Defence courses where most of the available ones would leave you worse off than not taking them?
Would it be a fair assessment to say that you don’t believe anyone can prepare themselves for the unexpected, so why bother?
[/quote]
That’s pretty much what I get from his posts. I can’t 100% anticipate what might happen to me, so I might as well not try and prepare myself for anything out of my normal routine, for which preparation in his estimation leaves people (or women at least) deluded and hyperreactive. In his opinion, worrying about what is statistically unexpected is obviously irrational.
Hey Cockney, you never answered the question I posed before. When I was living by myself, in the middle of nowhere, and heard someone in my home in the middle of the night, would you have said it was a better decision to get the revolver out and find out who the hell is in my house, and what the hell they mean to do, or to hide in the closet? I’m really just curious. Please tell me what you would have wanted me to do. I’m sorry if that is too practical a question for you. But practicality happens.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Serious question here because I have no idea, but how easy is it to find a decent course taught by a competent instructor?
Are most courses good or is it like Self Defence courses where most of the available ones would leave you worse off than not taking them?[/quote]
By themselves self defense courses serve only one real purpose.
To make the female more confident and practiced in what should come naturally.
Females are not as aggressive as males, and hence their immediate reaction is panic, fear, and generally fleeing. This is normal and very much the correct response if under attack by a male.
The classes teach you to run, to throw your purse, throw your keys, etc. And flee. It supposed to keep you calm so you make CORRECT decisions.
IF you cant get away immediately your supposed to go for soft spots, groin, eyes, neck, face.
Attacking these spots is intended to stun the attacker long enough to allow you to, again, run as fast as you can.
Its not so much “self defense” as a “how to punch a guy in the throat and run like hell”, class.
Which is the best decision.
The gun opens up a different option, instead of having to run from the guy and risk him catching you, or punch, kick, stab the guy in the eyes, when he tries to catch you…
You just open up on him with a .38 and then run like hell, if you hit him even once hes not going to be able to catch you.
And even if somehow you miss, hes not going to go after a chick who just shot at him, hes going to get out of there.
My future ladies are getting both a self defense course taught by my incredibly badass uncle who owns a martial arts studio.
But also the shaved .38’s from my grandfather.
I’m about to go running and it’s 2 am…i’ll report back later.
[quote]Court wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Alffi wrote:
Court from Canada on page 1 said that 1 in 6 women are raped. Lots of statistics like this pop up from seemingly reputable organizations,but they are quite wrong.
Then people will go to see a film about evil white male serial killer (who might have been a jew anyway) and will not know about the racial face of crime.
If these “1 in 4” or “1 in 6” or whatever statistics were for real,then we would all know a lot of women who have been raped or assaulted but in most cases we hardly know one.
Do you imagine that the women you know are going to bring it up in casual conversation? You know women who have been raped, I’m sure, you just don’t know about the rape.
I’m not sure what your point regarding race is. Could you clarify, please?
MsM wrote:
After reading your post, I can tell you that if I knew you, you’d be the last person I’d tell if I were assaulted. There’s the answer to your last paragraph.
Thanks for taking the words out of my mouth, both of you. Just because you don’t know anyone, doesn’t mean they’re not out there. You may not know anyone, but I may know 10 women. That’s how averages work.
I do agree with you on one thing though, Alffi, those statistics are quite wrong. I believe they are much higher than that because many people/women do not report their rapes/attempted rapes/assaults.
Let’s say I was at a party and got slipped a drug, come in and out of consciousness while a guy is on top of me. I wake up in the morning, not knowing exacly what happened, but knowing something did. I feel it’s my fault for putting myself in that situation and question myself.
Never report it because I’m scared/ashamed/embarrassed. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No. Does that mean my case isn’t in one of those statistics? Yes.[/quote]
First of all I would like to say that I’m only talking about industrial,white majority countries. A country like South Africa reportedly has a very high rape rate,and also a primitive government which probably does not care much so there’s a good reason to believe that the rape rate is indeed high.
But that does not really apply in the countries I’m talking about. In all the western,feminized countries women’s word is generally taken a little more seriously than a man’s, and it is up to the point where in UK for example men have been warned about sleeping with drunk women because it might be considered rape (sleeping with drunk men on the other hand). And there are some studies which find anything from 2-50% or so of rape allegations to be false. And if most rape is committed by familiar men as has been pounded into the public concious for a while,then presumably most rape is not “out of the bushes” kind brutality which is what we’re largely talking about here. Which is obviously a different setting and arguably has more in common with the concept of marital rape which has fairly recently been recognized as a crime.
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
“In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)”
(Note: sexual assault or rape may be classified as one and the same. And one woman obviously can be raped multiple times in her life).
“The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)”
That is quite a far cry from 1 in 6 or so. Sorry if I’m using a bit old stats now. I just had to dig something up for a general idea.
If you know 10 women then I would guess it’s your job.
[quote]Alffi wrote:
Court wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Alffi wrote:
Court from Canada on page 1 said that 1 in 6 women are raped. Lots of statistics like this pop up from seemingly reputable organizations,but they are quite wrong.
Then people will go to see a film about evil white male serial killer (who might have been a jew anyway) and will not know about the racial face of crime.
If these “1 in 4” or “1 in 6” or whatever statistics were for real,then we would all know a lot of women who have been raped or assaulted but in most cases we hardly know one.
Do you imagine that the women you know are going to bring it up in casual conversation? You know women who have been raped, I’m sure, you just don’t know about the rape.
I’m not sure what your point regarding race is. Could you clarify, please?
MsM wrote:
After reading your post, I can tell you that if I knew you, you’d be the last person I’d tell if I were assaulted. There’s the answer to your last paragraph.
Thanks for taking the words out of my mouth, both of you. Just because you don’t know anyone, doesn’t mean they’re not out there. You may not know anyone, but I may know 10 women. That’s how averages work.
I do agree with you on one thing though, Alffi, those statistics are quite wrong. I believe they are much higher than that because many people/women do not report their rapes/attempted rapes/assaults.
Let’s say I was at a party and got slipped a drug, come in and out of consciousness while a guy is on top of me. I wake up in the morning, not knowing exacly what happened, but knowing something did. I feel it’s my fault for putting myself in that situation and question myself.
Never report it because I’m scared/ashamed/embarrassed. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No. Does that mean my case isn’t in one of those statistics? Yes.
First of all I would like to say that I’m only talking about industrial,white majority countries. A country like South Africa reportedly has a very high rape rate,and also a primitive government which probably does not care much so there’s a good reason to believe that the rape rate is indeed high.
But that does not really apply in the countries I’m talking about. In all the western,feminized countries women’s word is generally taken a little more seriously than a man’s, and it is up to the point where in UK for example men have been warned about sleeping with drunk women because it might be considered rape (sleeping with drunk men on the other hand). And there are some studies which find anything from 2-50% or so of rape allegations to be false. And if most rape is committed by familiar men as has been pounded into the public concious for a while,then presumably most rape is not “out of the bushes” kind brutality which is what we’re largely talking about here. Which is obviously a different setting and arguably has more in common with the concept of marital rape which has fairly recently been recognized as a crime.
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
“In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)”
(Note: sexual assault or rape may be classified as one and the same. And one woman obviously can be raped multiple times in her life).
“The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)”
That is quite a far cry from 1 in 6 or so. Sorry if I’m using a bit old stats now. I just had to dig something up for a general idea.
If you know 10 women then I would guess it’s your job.
[/quote]
I’m from Canada, so I do believe we’re talking about the same countries. While my word may be taken to mean more here than in some other places, it still doesn’t mean I’m going to report it. In my experience, I only know one woman who actually reported it to the police. Things happen and you question your own judgement/if it ‘really’ happened/was it my fault, etc.
You also don’t want to be “that girl” if it happens within a tight knit university community, not to mention you don’t want to admit it to yourself. As soon as you say something, you have to deal with it immediately from an emotional standpoint, not to mention everyone knowing what happened to you if they know your alleged assaulter. Easier to tuck it away and pretend it never happened.
It’s not my job at all, but people tell you things when they trust you and/or know you’ve been through a similar experience. Women who have been sexually assaulted (and I’m making what may be a broad generalization, though I don’t feel it is) don’t want to be judged by what has happened to them. That’s why we pick and choose very very carefully who we tell.
As an example, I told the very first person about my experience less than a year ago about something that happened over 5 years ago!
And yes, your statistics are more than 10 years out of date. People are more willing to report it now, however that still doesn’t mean that everyone does.
The stat I’m most concerned about is your 2-50% being false. That’s quite the range that it really means nothing. It would include women who decide after they’ve said something they don’t want to go through with the emotional ordeal, so they recant their story. It also includes women who feel more at risk, so they recant their story.
It most certainly does include some false allegations, I’m not completely naiive, however a 2-50% statistic is so incredibly invalid I’m surprised you used it…
[quote]pch2 wrote:
I put this in my log this morning, and since this thread is so closely related I’m wondering what you all think. Regarding BJJ:
I haven’t really been taking self defense seriously. Honestly the whole idea of actually using any of this in real life (other than playing) seems a bit ridiculous. You’re going to arm bar a stranger? They’re not going to tap, and if they do, you just let them go? Won’t it all start over? Also, in what situations are you supposed to initiate violence? I understand the extremes, but most of life is not the extremes. I frequently encounter random guys that don’t understand personal space, I’m not initiating violence with them.[/quote]
When the perception of a threat becomes the threat you have a legal and lawful right to protect yourself by using justifiable force.
[quote]Court wrote:
Alffi wrote:
Court wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Alffi wrote:
Court from Canada on page 1 said that 1 in 6 women are raped. Lots of statistics like this pop up from seemingly reputable organizations,but they are quite wrong.
Then people will go to see a film about evil white male serial killer (who might have been a jew anyway) and will not know about the racial face of crime.
If these “1 in 4” or “1 in 6” or whatever statistics were for real,then we would all know a lot of women who have been raped or assaulted but in most cases we hardly know one.
Do you imagine that the women you know are going to bring it up in casual conversation? You know women who have been raped, I’m sure, you just don’t know about the rape.
I’m not sure what your point regarding race is. Could you clarify, please?
MsM wrote:
After reading your post, I can tell you that if I knew you, you’d be the last person I’d tell if I were assaulted. There’s the answer to your last paragraph.
Thanks for taking the words out of my mouth, both of you. Just because you don’t know anyone, doesn’t mean they’re not out there. You may not know anyone, but I may know 10 women. That’s how averages work.
I do agree with you on one thing though, Alffi, those statistics are quite wrong. I believe they are much higher than that because many people/women do not report their rapes/attempted rapes/assaults.
Let’s say I was at a party and got slipped a drug, come in and out of consciousness while a guy is on top of me. I wake up in the morning, not knowing exacly what happened, but knowing something did. I feel it’s my fault for putting myself in that situation and question myself.
Never report it because I’m scared/ashamed/embarrassed. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No. Does that mean my case isn’t in one of those statistics? Yes.
First of all I would like to say that I’m only talking about industrial,white majority countries. A country like South Africa reportedly has a very high rape rate,and also a primitive government which probably does not care much so there’s a good reason to believe that the rape rate is indeed high.
But that does not really apply in the countries I’m talking about. In all the western,feminized countries women’s word is generally taken a little more seriously than a man’s, and it is up to the point where in UK for example men have been warned about sleeping with drunk women because it might be considered rape (sleeping with drunk men on the other hand). And there are some studies which find anything from 2-50% or so of rape allegations to be false. And if most rape is committed by familiar men as has been pounded into the public concious for a while,then presumably most rape is not “out of the bushes” kind brutality which is what we’re largely talking about here. Which is obviously a different setting and arguably has more in common with the concept of marital rape which has fairly recently been recognized as a crime.
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
“In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)”
(Note: sexual assault or rape may be classified as one and the same. And one woman obviously can be raped multiple times in her life).
“The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)”
That is quite a far cry from 1 in 6 or so. Sorry if I’m using a bit old stats now. I just had to dig something up for a general idea.
If you know 10 women then I would guess it’s your job.
I’m from Canada, so I do believe we’re talking about the same countries. While my word may be taken to mean more here than in some other places, it still doesn’t mean I’m going to report it. In my experience, I only know one woman who actually reported it to the police. Things happen and you question your own judgement/if it ‘really’ happened/was it my fault, etc. You also don’t want to be “that girl” if it happens within a tight knit university community, not to mention you don’t want to admit it to yourself. As soon as you say something, you have to deal with it immediately from an emotional standpoint, not to mention everyone knowing what happened to you if they know your alleged assaulter. Easier to tuck it away and pretend it never happened.
It’s not my job at all, but people tell you things when they trust you and/or know you’ve been through a similar experience. Women who have been sexually assaulted (and I’m making what may be a broad generalization, though I don’t feel it is) don’t want to be judged by what has happened to them. That’s why we pick and choose very very carefully who we tell. As an example, I told the very first person about my experience less than a year ago about something that happened over 5 years ago!
And yes, your statistics are more than 10 years out of date. People are more willing to report it now, however that still doesn’t mean that everyone does.
The stat I’m most concerned about is your 2-50% being false. That’s quite the range that it really means nothing. It would include women who decide after they’ve said something they don’t want to go through with the emotional ordeal, so they recant their story. It also includes women who feel more at risk, so they recant their story. It most certainly does include some false allegations, I’m not completely naiive, however a 2-50% statistic is so incredibly invalid I’m surprised you used it…
[/quote]
And the statistics I’m referring to concern the USA. A relatively large percentage of US rape victims are non-white and a relatively high number of the rapists are black. Canada is far more white so we can deduce that there would be a lot less rape going on.
So according to the stats of back then, less than 1% of US american women are raped and the USA may well be the rape capital of the west. You could multiply that to your heart’s content and you would still have trouble coming up with 1 in 6.
I did not make up what I said about studies. I just wanted to be fair and cited the lower assumed figures and the higher figures. You can go to some men’s advocacy sites for example and come up with those having faith in the high figures or feminist sites,biased to the opposite direction,who would have one believe that hardly any woman would ever bend the truth.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I understand the point you’re trying to make and in all fairness it is an extension of the British guy’s point.
The point I was trying to drive home is that the gun is the great equalizer for a woman who might encounter a predator in her lifetime. She should not necessarily run out and get one because of paranoia; neither should she scoffingly decide she never has anything to worry about.
It is true that the statistical likelihood of an assault lean toward someone she knows well, most likely an ex boyfriend or husband. All the more reason for her to do what is practical and reasonable to defend herself and in many instances, her children.
None of my comments on this thread need be taken as political advocacy. They are of a practical nature. Throughout history women have suffered disproportionately greater physical harm in confrontations due to the biological differences in the sexes.
Until firearms were invented she was at the mercy of the other sex’s whims when it comes to violence; she really could do nothing about it. The gun changed all that.
It is a tool. One should have many tools in their toolbox; the more you have the more effective you can be at survival. Safe driving is a tool. Eating and exercising is a tool. Good awareness is a tool, etc.
One’s location and circumstances do play an important part in determining which tools a woman should have in her tool box. A single parent living in the southside of Chicago with a violent ex-husband should carefully consider many tools while a woman in a relatively safe environment and social order in New Brunswick may consider other tools in her priority list.
It’s all relative. But in no case should some fit, confident British guy living in Mexico unduly persuade the hypothetical Chicago woman that she really doesn’t have anything to worry about and she should keep her gun locked up at the gun club like they do in jolly ol’ England where home invasion and physical violence against women is sky-rocketing.
Nor should he scoff at the Montana woman, who lives in grizzly country and is home alone from time to time and where the police response time is at best 45 minutes, from grabbing her gun when things go bump in the night.
Women, don’t let some inherent fear of the gun, a tool, and/or some reliance on statistical improbability, cause you the inability to effectively deal with a predator some day. There is just too much “instant power” available to you to level the playing field with this tool.[/quote]
Yup, good post indeed. While many would argue that a gun for women would only perpetuate paranoia and mistrust, I agree with your point that it essentially boils down to an extra safety blanket. If a single mother is at home, in the middle of the night, and hears a commotion come from down the hall or outside, what IS a gun going to hurt? Guarantee if there’s a guy who’s 6’4" and has a knife on him, that woman is going to need all the firepower she can muster.
Now, I do think that there needs to be clear and verbal warnings issued before the actual use of a gun in a defensive position, but I suppose that’s an issue for another time.
I will also remark, though, that the issue of this thread is a much more complex and multi-leveled debate than I had originally surmised.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
MsM wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
I just thought I’d make a cultural comparison that’s neither here nor there. Several men are suggesting guns. I think that underscores one of the fundamental differences between Canada and the U.S. I would be stunned if anyone here suggested that. It wouldn’t even be a consideration.
MsM, perhaps it’s different in your neck of the woods. What’s your take on it?
This isn’t a judgement. It’s an observation.
Sorry, ouroboro_s; I replied to this last night but it didn’t post.
It would definitely depend on where you are. When I was in Ontario, the only people I knew that really had guns were the police and criminals (the odd hunter). In New Brunswick, out in the boonies, everyone has guns. You still have to have a permit and register them here. I have found that the more a place tries to restrict gun ownership, the more issues you have with them being stolen/used for crimes. Everyone has them here and it’s no big deal. You don’t really hear people talking about shooting people here. I think they don’t go around shooting people because everyone knows that everyone else has a gun.
I know you aren’t passing judgment; that’s not like you at all. Personally, I am all for responsible gun ownership and would use one, if necessary. When my son was a baby, I did come home (which was in a very nice area in Old South, London) to find two men that had broken into my house, still in my house. Tell me that a gun would not be appropriate in a situation like that?
Women that don’t prepare themselves for random attacks are being very naive because chances are, at one point in their life, they will have to deal with one.
What do you find the differences to be, if any, ouroboro_s?
I’m originally from rural NS where gun ownership proliferates but they are hunting weapons.
My impression is that the possession of a hand gun may impart a false sense of security or bravado; that it levels the playing field. For the most part, I don’t believe that it does. Merely possessing it or holding it does not give you immunity. It isn’t meant as window dressing. It is my opinion that you ought not own a hand gun unless you truly believe you have it in you to kill another person; without hesitation or compunction. That is, after all what they are for. Many days I believe I could, others not. Because of how we are socialised, I don’t think I could do it without hesitation therefore I would not carry or have one in my home.
Others clearly feel differently.
I agree with you on that point, however I don’t think anyone really knows that they have it in them to use the gun correctly until they are in that situation. By then it is too late.
Armed police have some of the best training available to deal with these kind of situations (I’m talking outside the US here) but they still fuck up and shoot the wrong people or stall and get shot.
Your average Joe or Joanneblogs having a one day course or blasting off rounds at a firing range is not really going to prepare them for a life and death situation any better than your average weekend Self Defence seminar will prepare you for a violent attack on the streets.[/quote]
Police do not train on average more than a private citizen, they often train a lot less. the reason is people who like to shoot , shoot. Cops aren’t always shooters. some are , but not as many as you think.
The people I know who do carry guns like to shoot and are proficient enough to handle them responsibly.
[quote]sluicy wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Are most courses good or is it like Self Defence courses where most of the available ones would leave you worse off than not taking them?
Would it be a fair assessment to say that you don’t believe anyone can prepare themselves for the unexpected, so why bother?
That’s pretty much what I get from his posts. I can’t 100% anticipate what might happen to me, so I might as well not try and prepare myself for anything out of my normal routine, for which preparation in his estimation leaves people (or women at least) deluded and hyperreactive. In his opinion, worrying about what is statistically unexpected is obviously irrational.
Hey Cockney, you never answered the question I posed before. When I was living by myself, in the middle of nowhere, and heard someone in my home in the middle of the night, would you have said it was a better decision to get the revolver out and find out who the hell is in my house, and what the hell they mean to do, or to hide in the closet? I’m really just curious. Please tell me what you would have wanted me to do. I’m sorry if that is too practical a question for you. But practicality happens.
[/quote]
Perfect example of what you are talking about … the town of Dartmouth NH has had less than a half a dozen murders in the past 50 years. Except in January 2001 two well liked, liberal, intelligent and trusting Dartmouth professors (Half and Suzanne Zantop) were murdered in their home by two bored kids with delusions of grandeur. Maybe you remember the story. It was actually the focus of world wide media for awhile.
What the media didn’t tell you about was Andrew Patti and his 11 year old son, recent transplants to Vershire, Vermont an even more peaceful town across the Connecticut River from Hanover. Patti had come to Vermont from NY. When he moved to Vermont he bought a Glock. The great thing about Vermont, despite its socialist leanings, is that it has no gun laws. No concealed carry laws, no registration, no nothing.
Well, six months before these two bored kids killed the Zantops, they visited Patti’s house in the middle of nowhere. One of the kids knocked on his door and demanded to use Patti’s phone. Being from NY Patti was suspicious of the stranger at the door.
I’ll refer to the linked story to detail what happened next:
[i]Patti was unaware that the stranger had brought along two deadly weapons. One was an old but sharp hunting knife tucked in his military boot. The other was his best friend. While the stranger knocked at the door, the friend ? also a teenager, a year younger than the young man at the door ? crouched in a bush around the side of the house. He was dressed all in black, his face covered with a ski mask that revealed his close-set eyes. The friend also had a hunting knife in his boot, and around his waist he wore a utility belt with pouches filled with duct tape, a jackknife, and plastic ties that could bind a person hand and foot.?
Patti showed the stranger his gun. ?Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,? he replied. ?I just want to use your phone.? Patti instead offered to call a local garage. But when he picked up the phone, it was dead. So was the phone upstairs. Before knocking, the two teens had cut the phone line. Hours earlier, they had dug a pit five feet long and three feet deep down the road ?a grave meant for Patti and his young son?
When nothing happened in the next few minutes, Patti and Andy Jr. eventually calmed down. The boy went to sleep on the couch, but Patti spent the night on the hard floor, staring at the door, waiting for the potential home invaders to try again. They didn’t.[/i]
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2004/01-16/dartmouth.html
So, the Zantops murders were statistically improbable, and were the focus of the media. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media didn’t know or wasn’t interested in telling the story of the murders that didn’t happen because of a gun. Nonetheless, Patti is a good example of how one guy in the middle of nowhere had the mindset and the means to be prepared for and prevented a statistically improbable event. There’s more out there that we’ll never know about.
If you want the whole story of the Zantops, the murderers, and a little bit about Patti read “Judgment Ridge: The True Story Behind the Dartmouth Murders”. It should be on the required reading list for everyone who has an interest in guns.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
a story that gave me the shivers…
[/quote]
Cool, I’ll check out the book. I love true crime. That’s two good book recommendations from this thread.