Rape Prevention

[mikeb302000]

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20111106/ARTICLES/111109909?tc=ar">Go Upstate.com published a rebuttal to Sheriff Chuck's advice. According to the author, carrying a gun is not the right way to protect yourself against rape.

Repeated studies have shown that people who own a handgun are at a high risk of that gun being used against them. Unfortunately, people who perpetrate violent crimes are often more adept at using, and more ready to use, handguns.

The fact is that very few rapes are perpetrated by strangers. We warn our children, our friends and family members to be careful of strangers when we should be warning them about those they know. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, most sexual assaults (approximately two-thirds) are perpetrated by someone the victim knows and trusts.

How willing and able would you be to pull the trigger on your relative, friend, spouse, boyfriend or someone else you know?

You know what the problem is, pro-gun folks who suggest that a gun makes you safer have an agenda. They're desperately trying to justify their own decision to own and carry a gun. In a free country like the United States you're certainly able to carry a gun if you want to, but it's not the smart move.

The gun-rights extremists love to point out anecdotal situations in which a gun MIGHT have helped, but they reject all the other anecdotal situations in which the gun did more harm than good.

Studies have backed this up, as the article mentioned, but I always prefer to use common sense. Assuming that no negligent discharge ever happens during the entire time you own the gun, and assuming no gun is ever stolen from you, and let's say you never get depressed and take you own life with the gun and that you never go off the deep end over work or economic or relationship stress. Let's say it never happens that on a dark night you mistakenly shoot somebody who didn't need shootin', let's assume all that.

As protection against rape the gun is still practically useless. If your rapist is one of the 75% who know their victims, it'll be too late by the time push comes to shove. If the rapist is one of the 25% who don't know their victim, he'll probably be quicker and better prepared and more willing to use violence than you.

Like all gun ownership and concealed carry, the gun can make you FEEL safer, but that's illusory, ungrounded in facts and irrrational. It's a bad decision to carry a gun when the chances of it saving you are so low and the chances of it causing harm are so high.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[GreenStormCloud]

1. It is very difficult to rape a woman after she has put a few bullets in you.

...let's say you never get depressed and take you own life with the gun and that you never go off the deep end over work or economic or relationship stress. Let's say it never happens that on a dark night you mistakenly shoot somebody who didn't need shootin', let's assume all that.
Those are easy assumptions. For over 99+% of the 100+ million legal gun owners those assumptions fit. For those the gun is no danger to them or anyone else unless that someone else attacks them. A gun is a tool. If you aren't willing to use the tool then it can't help you.

BTW - There are more dangers than just stranger rape. There are also muggers, home invaders, and other bad guys.

[Remmah2]

9. Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time.

http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~tellner/sd/Review.html

[AtheistCrusader]

17. I do have one thought...

I agree with the findings of that study, and I think it's fairly self evident... But I do wonder one thing.

This countervailing meme that 'it's better not to resist', I wonder if that might contribute to an environment where when a victim does resist, their results are better becaue 'holy shit she's fighting back, what do I do now?!'

If the rapist goes in expecting no resistance, and gets a gunny sack full of badgers, said rapist might be more likely to boot scoot on out of there, than a rapist that went in expecting and prepared for a fight.

But it's just a small nagging 'schroedingers cat' sort of thought, where observation might alter the outcome, just by properly reporting the observation.



By all means, fight back, with any and all implements you feel are necessary, and are comfortable employing. I just hope awareness that fighting back DOES work, and IS effective, doesn't change the expectations and results for the rapists, in a manner that disadvantages the victim.

[spin]

44. In trhe jujitsu classes my daughter took ...

she was taught to use the techniques to startle and possible disable her attacker and then to escape. She was taught methods of disarming an attacker armed with a gun or a knife.

Her instructor held black belts in judo, jujitsu and karate and was one of the highest ranked judokas in the nation. In judo he was an 8th degree black belt and wore a red and white belt.

He often said he considered a man with a .45 automatic as a 9th degree black belt.

[iverglas]

35. I'll bet you actually think you can get away with this, don't you?

I'll bet lots of people do at other places you frequent.

This is what you are citing.

Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance (Kleck and Sayles, 1990).

Good god almighty.

Oh, snork. http://www.jstor.org/pss/800645 ... Kates and Bordua were in on it too.


Heh, in trying to find that source, I see I haven't caught old Kleck's wiki page before, somehow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

Compare and contrast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway

:rofl:

Kinda like the difference between their work. Hemenway's doesn't come with big warning labels attached.


Here's a 1993 study; it lists Kates & Sayles in references: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/83/11/1633.pdf

n for that study was 149. It makes no mention of guns or knives.

I wonder how many subjects in the Kates & Sayles sample actually had a gun or a knife (or in the studies they were reviewing; I haven't paid full attention and don't have full access that I can find). If it was much more than one of each, I'd be eating my hat.

Now, Kleck returned to the charge in 2005: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211201.pdf

My caveat here: given Kleck's very large axe to grind, I am absolutely not recommending that any woman base her own strategy on anything Kleck has ever said.

See pages 17 and 18 there (tables 3 and 4).

Out of 733 rape and 1278 sexual assault incidents reviewed by the authors, how many involved the victim firing a gun?

Any guesses?

NONE.

How many involved the victim threatening the offender with a firearm?

THREE.

Out of 12,235 assault incidents, how many victims fired / threatened with a gun?

8 and 45, respectively.


Now, if anybody wants to base her estimates of the likelihood of injury / exacerbation on those numbers and Kleck's analysis of them ... well, she wants her head read.

This doesn't dampen Kleck's ardour, though.

The sexual assault and assault analyses reveal clearer patterns of SP effects, perhaps because of the larger sample sizes and more stable estimates that they afford. Most SP variables, both forceful and non-forceful, are associated with lower risks of injury, many of them significantly so. The most effective SP actions include “ran away/hid,” “called the police,” “attacked without weapon,” “attacked with non-gun weapon,” and “threatened with non-gun weapon.” These SP actions appear to reduce by half the risk of injury compared to nonresistance. Both forms of resistance with a gun -“attack with a gun” and “threat with a gun”- are also associated with lower risk compared to no SP, although the differences are not statistically significant. As with rape and sexual assault incidents, only “screaming” is associated with a significantly higher risk compared to nonresistance.

"Differences are not statistically significant"?? EIGHT out of 12,235 cases involved "attack with a gun"; 45 involved "threaten with a gun". And he is drawing ANY conclusions from that? I wonder whether anybody's sued him.


Anyway, it would be unsurprising that people who think they can get away with citing a >10-yr-old source citing an unnamed >20-yr-old inaccessible study, both written by hacks and shills, wouldn't knwo what they were talking about anyway.

Oh, by the way, the thing you cite is:

From the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, May/June 1999

:snork:

Peer-reviewed?



The sight of this crew of male individuals squatting here poking away at women's experiences of sexual assault ... bleah. Will there be much more? Let's hope not.

[gejohnston]

45. So Wikipedia's

warning label really means something? Here is a couple of things you ignored.

In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991).

objective and respected scientist in his field.

Hemenway honored by local and national organizations

In November, David Hemenway will receive a "Striving for Justice" award from Massachusetts-based Community Works, a network of 34 local social justice organizations working towards long-term systemic change. David will also be the keynote speaker and honoree for the Legal Community Against Violence 19th Anniversary Dinner in June 2012 in San Francisco. Congrats David!

Well meaning but still a propagandist.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/

[iverglas]

54. "a couple of things you ignored"

In your case, my entire post.

So much for the vaunted grasp of all things statistical.

I'll have to stop adding amused little asides in my posts. Too distracting, I guess.

[gejohnston]

57. mostly because

your entire post was complete nonsense and not worth my effort. The disclaimer referred only to the dispute with Hemenway. Hemenway's page did not reference the dispute, thus no disclaimer. You are smart enough to have figured that out.
I never claimed to have a grasp of all things or anything statistical. You have me confused with some patronizing faux intellectual on your side.
What is Kleck's ax to grind? Show me the evidence.

Given that Hememway is a shill with an axe to grind, I would not recommend anyone to trust anything he does, unless you are giving a grant and want your money's worth.

[iverglas]

58. let me help you out

I'll remove the distractions, and again offer the link where you can read for yourself. (Do note that I did not cite Hemenway for anything in my post, so you don't have to keep talking about him. The "disclaimer" I referred to was on the Kleck wiki page. But really, stop fixating on all that. Consider the facts below.)



Now, Kleck returned to the charge in 2005: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211201.pdf

See pages 17 and 18 there (tables 3 and 4).

Out of 733 rape and 1278 sexual assault incidents reviewed by the authors, how many involved the victim firing a gun?

Any guesses?

NONE.

How many involved the victim threatening the offender with a firearm?

THREE.

Out of 12,235 assault incidents, how many victims fired / threatened with a gun?

8 and 45, respectively.



I am still wanting to know the source of the bizarre statement in that 1999 dance journal article cited by remmah2, about the 1% of whatever. I simply do not take that kind of secondary source as being an accurate representation of anything, and even if it is, I want to see what the thing it is representing actually is and whether it is itself worthy of being given any credence. In this case, on its face, I think one or the other of those is not met, but I need to see the source.

[mikeb302000]

46. your 99.+% is made-up bullshit. nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

3. How did you get from 2/3 quoted in your inset

to 3/4 in your silly commentary? Rounding up?

"According to the U.S. Department of Justice, most sexual assaults (approximately two-thirds) are perpetrated by someone the victim knows and trusts."

"If your rapist is one of the 75% who know their victims,..."

Oh, and since this whole diatribe is based on 2 opinions, further they are opinions of nobodys, what is the purpose of this post?

[mikeb302000]

47. sorry, did I say 75% when I should have said 66%? nt

[ileus]

4. It never hurts to plug a few holes in your attacker.

I doesn't matter who it is....you should be willing to remove any threat against your person.

[krispos42]

5. Are you using numbers based on rapes at all ages?

If you're going to be honest, you have to study rapes of people age 21 and over.

I don't think most rapes/molestations by close relatives happen after adulthood. It's my feel that they prey on pre-pubescent children that they can manipulate into silence and/or use their ignorance of sex to their advantage. I don't believe Uncle Chester goes around sticking body parts into his niece or nephew's body when they're adults.

And let's face it, women are usually overpowered by their attackers in the process of violent rape anyway. Having a gun taken away from you and not having a gun in the first place doesn't really change the balance of power; the rapist has established physical dominance and can penetrate you and molest you at will, and after he's done he has the option of inflicting grievous bodily harm... with or without the gun.

What you're trying to perpetuate is that we're in more danger from honest citizens carrying concealed handguns than from violent rapists.

[jmg257]

6. Aren't there studies that conclude armed defense is the best means of defending against rape

and other violent crimes? How do we know which studies to believe? Are those on one side more credible then the other?


We do not agree re: "common sense", 'cause my sense tells me the best way to defend against violence (that one cannot otherwise avoid) would be with a firearm. I run out of viable options rather quickly. Of course you got it right when the capability of the potential victim to shoot someone MUST be taken into consideration.

Being a victim of rape isn't on my list of things to personally fear, so the relationships and mindsets of those 'typically involved' are also something I would not have considered. I do have a wife and daughter, both whom have shown little interest in being armed. What other means of defense do you suggest would be better then arming a potential victim?

As discussed in another recent thread on 'gun studies', there are indeed risks involved with many things we do just about daily. It is always good to be educated on as many aspects as possible when making decisions about actions that involve risk (others pointed out how studies w/could help). In that way, one can better be aware of risks, & weigh the odds based on THEIR situations & experiences, what benefits they gain, etc. If one can be highly confident to eliminate suicide, mistaken identity, accidents, theft, etc. from their equation, as appears to be the overwhelming case with most lawfully owned guns, then don't the odds start to shift to gun ownership = favorable? Always considering safety, after a while owning guns and even carrying them becomes 'no big deal'.

"In a free country like the United States you're certainly able to carry a gun if you want to, but it's not the smart move", except when it is the best move, maybe the only move(?). Allowing everyone to make thier own choice is what freedom is about...hopefully they choose wisely!

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Of course there are studies that conclude that. Better than a dozen.

But what's a few ignored facts between friends?

Resistance with a firearm has, by any known measure, the best chance of reducing injury to the victim. Study after study show it. From rapes, to armed burglary, to aggravated assault.

OP is just perpetuating the bullshit 'they'll just use it against you' meme with no facts whatsoever to support it.

[mikeb302000]

48. of course there are

your side has studies to "prove" that guns are the best at everything from protectiing against rape to keeping the family safe at night. And our side has studies that "prove" the opposite.

What your side avoids like the plague is using a little common sense and logic and honesty. You have an agenda to uphold at all costs.

I know some women. Very few of them would have the willingness or the capacity to become proficient at owning and carrying a firearm. For the majority of women it would be a terrible liability. That's just simple common sense. And the same is true of men, by the way.

And I'm obviously not talking about the gals you know at the shooting range or the daughters of gun nuts. I'm talking about the female population at large, the ones who work in offices and supermarkets and department stores, the nurses and teachers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. "I know some women." becomes "For the majority of women..."

And since you appealed to "common sense" twice, you of course won't mind if I do likewise:

It would be a terrible liability to value the word of a poster who has both admitted owning guns illegally and who has publicly changed their stance on permissable gun ownership almost as often as Mitt Romney has on health care. That's just simple common sense...

[jmg257]

51. You'll find "my side" - that is "me" doesn't rely much on

studies - for the reason you posted...overall they just don't seem to prove much of anything.

We do know guns in the wrong hands are bad. We do agree that IF anyone does not have the willingnesss to become proficient or to use it if/when needed, then it does makes sense they do not carry - as noted above.

The problem is when someone such as yourself with an agenda considers only what THEY think to be 'common sense'. I really don't see it as common sense to think that the majority of women do not have 'the capacity' (I'll assume you meant that in a non-derogatory mannor) to become proficient at owning firearms...it REALLY isn't that hard. I have seen and helped plenty of women and men become quite proficient in one day of training at the range. In fact one of the other instructors was a nurse, and she was VERY proficient. So of course I don't think it very logical or honest to feel that gun ownership has to be 'a terrible liability for the majority of women', and for most men either. There was a willingness, but otherwise nothing special about those folks...they were from 'the population at large'.

So...what makes the 'female' population at large so different?? I work in an office - doesn't it appear you are a bit sexist in thinking the women sitting across from me don't have the capacity to own or carry a gun? Why would you or anyone else think that?? My 50-something sister-in-law is a nurse and decided she wants to eventually buy a firearm, so just a few months ago wanted to learn how to shoot. Why is it 'common sense' to think SHE couldn't own a handgun properly? My niece shot a few handguns the same day and did just fine too, she is a college student. What is it about HER that makes it 'logical' to think she is less capable then her boyfriend, or less capapble then anyone else??


Once again, I feel what makes the most sense is to leave it up to the individual. How proficient do they want to/will they become? Do they have the...capacity (whatever that is - I'll imagine you meant the ability to use it for defense)? Do they know the risks? The benefits? What is their situation? What do they fear? What else should they consider? Will they be responsible enough!?

It is their safety & their situation & their experince, logical it be their choice.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. You know some women?

Really? You mean out of all the people on this planet you've met some which are of the predominant sex? Wow - big shock there.

All sarcasm aside, that's a pretty condescending and sexist view you hold. The "female population at large" is quite capable of using a firearm proficiently.

How do you figure it is "simple common sense" to believe most women, and apparently most men, have neither the willingness nor capability to become proficient at owning and carrying a firearm? Do you really believe it is so complex and difficult that only the most extreme examples of human intelligence, dexterity and strength are capable of doing so? Are you really THAT stupid?

[AtheistCrusader]

62. If that were the case

You should be able to easily demonstrate the alleged 'fact' via a study.

Every woman I know personally either owns a firearm, or has a permit and carries. And this is in Seattle.

[gejohnston]

63. Re:

What your side avoids like the plague is using a little common sense and logic and honesty.

I share Eisenstein's opinion of "common sense" Logic is only as good as the information you have. Honesty? Project much?

You have an agenda to uphold at all costs.

So do you, what's your point?

I know some women. Very few of them would have the willingness or the capacity to become proficient at owning and carrying a firearm.

In Italy, perhaps not. Women tend to be better at it than men. The USSR figured that out during WW2, many were snipers. Same is true of fighter pilots. Ruth Westheimer was trained as a military sniper during Israel's fight for independence in the late 1940s. Yes, that Dr. Ruth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Westheimer
http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drruth.asp

For the majority of women it would be a terrible liability. That's just simple common sense.

Sexist are you? I know some ladies back in Wyoming that could help you cure that, though you may not like the treatment.

And I'm obviously not talking about the gals you know at the shooting range or the daughters of gun nuts. I'm talking about the female population at large, the ones who work in offices and supermarkets and department stores, the nurses and teachers.

the two populations don't overlap? Or are you saying gun nuts sell their daughters off to other gun nuts who keep them barefoot and in the kitchen? What exactly are you thinking?

[rl6214]

64. Your side avoids like the plague using what we consider to be

common sense, logic and most of all honesty. You of course have a HUGE agenda to uphold at ALL costs.

"I know some women"

Well isn't that special.

Quite a few women I know enjoy shooting and have the willingness and the capacity to become VERY proficient at owning and carrying firearms. Women tend to be VERY good at shooting and handling firearms. To have them carry a firearm for self defense is just simple common sense. It's not just men that can do this.

"And I'm obviously not talking about the gals you know at the shooting range or the daughters of gun nuts."

You do know that term is verboten here?

The women I know that enjoy firearms are nurses, teachers, work in offices and supermarkets and come from every walk of life.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Remmah2]

8. Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time.

"A charity caring for rape victims warned yesterday that advice in Cosmopolitan to fight back when attacked could leave women with more injuries than offering no resistance.
"Sometimes it is far better just to let it happen and then deal with the aftermath," said Helen Jones, co-chairwoman of the Rape Crisis Federation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/16/davidward1

Women are sometimes advised that fighting back will increase their risk of injury. There are two problems with this argument.


First, research shows that physical resistance does not cause further injury to the resister. While there is a correlation between resistance and a somewhat higher rate of physical injury (at most 3%) (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Siegel et al.,1989), researchers who examined the sequence of events found that injury usually occurred before resistance. In other words, resisters were not injured because they had resisted: rather, being injured motivated them to fight back (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985). After the initial injury, forceful resistance did not increase the resister's risk of further damage.


Second, this argument overlooks the fact that a woman who does not resist is virtually guaranteed to suffer the emotional and physical injury of the rape itself. Even when resisters are injured, the injury is typically much less severe than a completed rape would have been (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman and Knight, 1991). Of those 40% of resisters who suffered physical damage, only 7% suffered injury as severe as a dislodged tooth. A woman who fights back incurs no demonstrable chance of additional injury, but she gains a 55-86% chance of avoiding rape altogether (Kleck and Sayles, 1990).


When resistance does not prevent rape it can still yield important benefits. A woman who does not resist may not be viewed as sympathetically nor her trauma be treated as seriously as one who does fight back, because nonresistance may be viewed by others as acquiescence (Galliano, Noble, Travis and Puechl, 1993). In Oregon and some other states, evidence of "earnest resistance" is required for rape prosecution (ORS 163.305(2); Criminal Code of Oregon, 1996). Women who follow the traditional advice not to resist may find that they have no legal standing to press charges against the rapist.


Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance

Defensive use of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance

Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance

http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~tellner/sd/Review.html

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

56. posting it twice does not make it true

so I am gong to have to post this again.

I am astounded. This is an extremely important point. I do not expect to see inaccurate information at this website that could affect the life of someone reading it. And I expect to see information that corrects such errors welcomed.

And do forgive me if I have a strong reaction when someone publishes information that could prompt a woman to do something that might endanger her life.


I am going to elaborate here (on second posting). I trust my efforts to clarify this point, and thus ensure that accurate information is provided at DU to counter information that could harm individuals if they relied on it, will be appreciated.

Kindly engage in some civil discourse here. (What this means is: if you voluntarily enter a discussion and make claims, then you have an obligation to respond to challenges to those claims, and back up your claims or retract them. This is the case a fortiori for claims that someone might rely on to their detriment.)

The thing you cite was published in the journal of modern cheerleading or some such thing. See my post 35 in reply to the first time you did this.

I have posted material, from Kleck himself, that in no way substantiates your claims about the statistical success of using firearms to resist sexual assault.

Never mind cutting and pasting some nobody's claim about what somebody else said. Let's have the actual sources cited there and see what they actually say. Where did the claim about what Kleck said come from, and what are the actual data?

Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time.

Kleck's rather large population in his 2005 study did not even have one woman who had used a firearm against a rape attempt. So that's 1% of zero maybe?

"Less than 1% of the time" necessarily implies more than 100 incidents. Where on earth did he find them in 1990?

Nonsense.



The following relates to the claims in the 1999 paper cited about the requirement that a woman offer evidence of "earnest resistance" against an assailant in order to prove rape.

What you have cut and pasted appears to be ... false information:

In Oregon and some other states, evidence of "earnest resistance" is required for rape prosecution (ORS 163.305(2); Criminal Code of Oregon, 1996). Women who follow the traditional advice not to resist may find that they have no legal standing to press charges against the rapist.

(I originally said) Let me pray that this noise is out of date, and evidence of "earnest resistance" is surely not required in any state to prove sexual assault/rape. (I have now investigated further -- which it is not my job to do, it being the job of a person making a claim to substantiate it, but this was too important to rely on that onus being met in this case.)

If that is the case, and it is not required, then by posting this here you could be contributing to women being injured -- by allowing their decision as to the advisability of resistance to be determined by their understanding that without that evidence they might not be believed. And someone posting information on the internet does have a responsibility to ensure that it is accurate, if someone else might rely on it, to their detriment. Posting inaccurate information on a point as important as this one would be unspeakably irresponsible.

And I absolutely stand by that statement. If something is posted at this site that someone could base a decision on that could have a serious effect on their life, it needs to be true. (I have a feeling that claims that vaccines cause autism won't be meeting that standard, for instance.)

In this particular instance, I see no evidence that Oregon law contains this requirement at present:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/163

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.305

(2) "Forcible compulsion" means to compel by:
(a) Physical force; or
(b) A threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of immediate or future death or physical injury to self or another person, or in fear that the person or another person will immediately or in the future be kidnapped.

2010 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S058549.htm

... Our conclusion that "forcible compulsion" must involve more than the force inherent in sexual contact is supported by changes that the legislature made to the statutory definition of "forcible compulsion" in 1999. Before 1999, "forcible compulsion" was defined for purposes of ORS 163.427 and other sexual offenses as follows:

"'Forcible compulsion' means physical force that overcomes earnest resistance; or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to self or another person, or in fear that the person or another person will immediately or in the future be kidnapped."

ORS 163.305(2) (1997) (emphasis added). In 1999, the legislature considered and ultimately enacted Senate Bill 944 (1999), which removed the "overcomes earnest resistance" wording and added the phrase "to compel by," ultimately resulting in the present definition: <see above in this post>

... The amendment was promoted by a group of rape victim advocates and district attorneys, who argued that the requirement of proving earnest resistance was unfair to, and actually could endanger, victims of sexual assault. <my emphasis> ...

... Based on the text and context of ORS 163.427(1)(a), we agree that "forcible compulsion" by means of physical force must involve physical force that is greater in degree or different in kind than the minimal force that is inherent in "subjecting" a victim to "sexual contact." The physical force must be sufficient to "compel" the victim, against the victim's will, to submit to or engage in the sexual contact, but it need not rise to the level of violence. The question ordinarily will be one of degree. ...

Oregon law evidently no longer requires evidence of "earnest resistance", i.e. something beyond saying "no", to prove forcible compulsion in rape cases. Whether any other state law contains such a requirement still would have to be researched.


An inaccurate claim that a woman must provide evidence of physical resistance in order to prove rape do not benefit women and could result in harm if a woman relied on it.

[azureblue]

10. It ain't the weapon

Whether pepper spray, gun, hand grenade, rocker launcher, knife, etc., the issue is deployment while under attack. And most rapes are surprise attacks, leaving the victim fumbling to get the weapon out of her purse, that is, if she still has the purse in her possession. Remember, the rapist's first goal is to render the woman defenseless as quickly as he can, and surprise attack is usually how he does it. Grab her, and hit her hard or put a knife to her throat, then rape. Stop and think for a minute- a woman, when attacked is using both hands to fend off the attacker, who probably has a weapon of his own, or is hitting her in the face. When and how is she going to be able, with one hand only, to open her purse, dig around in there, find the gun (spray, knife, etc.), get it out, take the safety off and shoot the thing?

This same argument was made against pepper spray, so it holds no water when used against a pistol. The issue is still how to get it out and use it while under attack, while trying to prevent being hurt, with one hand.

Dear Mikey- your topics are getting increasingly lame, badly thought out, and riddled with logic holes. Do yourself a favor. Stop posting until you have more reasoning and research. You're just making a fool of yourself, and hurting your cause.

[Remmah2]

12. Excellent justification for open carry.

It takes away all the guess work.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Never carry your gun in a purse.

That is standard doctrine that is taught in all good concealed-carry courses. Always have the gun somewhere on your body.

[dairydog91]

25. Most rapes aren't blitzkrieg attacks by strangers.

Though rapes of that nature are by far the most aggressively prosecuted. A lot of rape falls roughly into the general category of "acquaintance rape," about 75%. I can't offer numbers on how many of the acquaintance rapes took place through sudden force; I've certainly read fact patterns where the woman realized the man's sexual intentions many minutes before the actual rape, which might have given her some kind of time to ready a weapon in case the wannabe Casanova got aggressive.

[jmg257]

27. Who says a women has to carry a gun in her purse?

Who says she has to carry a handgun that requires 2 hands to release a safety?
Who says she has to carry a gun that even has a safety?

And even if not carrying a firearm, they make holsters for different kinds of defense devices.

Very likely there is going to be at least an initial disparity of force/strength, but that is one purpose of being 'armed', with any device - to help even things out at least. So one doesn't just have to submit unwillingly.


Typical handgun training includes practice using one hand to draw and fire, and using the weak hand too. No big thing to wonder why.
Besides improving things like speed and accuracy and comfort through repetition, the idea is to also find out what works and what doesn't in as many situations as possible.

[SteveM]

31. You will note that the OP and the subject in the link suggested nothing...

in the way of self-defense alternatives, even in the face of evidence posted upstream. I find that disturbing, and perhaps an outgrowth of the "vulgar pacifism" which promotes the strategy of non-violence to a lifestyle of non resistance.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. Fight like a girl --

Use a pink gun.

[spin]

16. I like this one ...

S&W also sells pink handcuffs.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. ooh! me too!

Santa -- are you listening?

[spin]

20. My daughter is really not into pink revolvers so this is what she carries ...

S&W Model 351 PD .22 Magnum

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. nice.

:thumbsup:

[Remmah2]

26. A woman should have a right to choose.

.38 or .40, .357 or .45, Glock or Sig, 13 round or 15 round.

[spin]

28. Agreed! (n/t)

[iverglas]

40. disgusting

Just disgusting. But not surprising.

[Abin Sur]

43. I agree completely.

A .38 special doesn't have nearly enough stopping power. .40 S&W is a much better choice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. "...will defend to the death your right to agree with them.'' n/t

[rl6214]

65. What's disgusting is you not wanting to allow a woman the right

to protect herself as she see's fit. That's disgusting.

[Simo 1939_1940]

66. +1

As disgusting as Rachel Maddow's desire to disarm gay folks -- a group routinely targeted for hate crimes.

[rl6214]

68. +1

Why would they want someone to be a victim?

[Remmah2]

70. +1 nt

nt

[iverglas]

71. what's disgusting is publishing false information

that a person might rely on to their detriment, and possibly all the way to their death.

Not got anything to say to your little playmate about that one?

Some more disgusting.

[Abin Sur]

77. +1

[ileus]

52. don't forget the 10mm, for the ultimate pecker stopping power.

[Simo 1939_1940]

67. I've got the same revolver in .357 NT

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Cite your studies, if you can.

FBI disagrees. DOJ disagrees. Resisting with a firearm halts harm to the victim better than either passive non-resistance, or resistance with fists/feet/non-firearm implements. And the NCVS is quite obviously, lowballing the results, where Kleck and others go way in the opposite extreme. Even if NCVS is 100% accurate (the lowball estimate), it's profound support for resisting harm via a firearm. (Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle between NCVS and Cook/Kleck, etc, but probably biases toward the lower estimate.)

On the other hand, the scientific reasons are likely to be familiar only to the relatively small community of scholars who study the consequences of victim self-protection: the defensive actions of crime victims have significant effects on the outcomes of crimes, and the effects of armed resistance differ from those of unarmed resistance. Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies(3) and in burglaries.(4) Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies(5) and to assaults.(6) Cook(7) offers his unsupported personal opinion concerning robbery victims that resisting with a gun is only prudent if the robber does not have a gun. The primary data source on which Cook relies flatly contradicts this opinion. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.(8)

With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include too few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott,(9) Quinsey and Upfold,(10) Lizotte,(11) and Kleck and Sayles(12) all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them. Findings concerning the impact of armed resistance on whether rape victims suffer additional injuries beyond the rape itself are less clear, due to a lack of information on whether acts of resistance preceded or followed the rapist's attack. The only two rape studies with the necessary sequence information found that forceful resistance by rape victims usually follows, rather than precedes, rapist attacks inflicting additional injury, undercutting the proposition that victim resistance increases the likelihood that the victim will be hurt.(13) This is consistent with findings on robbery and assault.(14)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/

[iverglas]

37. please see post 35

If you have details of Kleck & Sayles 1990, please do post them; since you're citing Kleck citing Kleck ... and basically is this not Kleck's totally outrageous and totally discredited "DGU" thing?

I'm afraid that navigating around the link you gave is way too much of a slow plodding pain in the ass. I'm still trying to find the footnotes. If you know of a pdf version ...

Okay, I finally found the footnotes, and I'm just going to put them here for my ref so I don't have to do that again.


(9) Joan M. Mcdermott, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979).
(10) Quinsey & Upfold, Rape Completion and Victim Injury as a Function of Female Resistance Strategy, 17 Can. J. Behav. Sci. 40 (1985).
(11) Alan J. Lizotte, Determinants of Completing Rape and Assault, 2 J. Quantitative Criminology 203 (1986).
(12) Gary Kleck & Susan Sayles, Rape and Resistance, 37 Soc. Probs. 149 (1990).
(13) Quinsey & Upfold, supra note 10, at 46-47. See generally Sarah E. Ullman & Raymond A. Knight, Fighting Back: Women's Resistance to Rape, 7 J. Interpersonal Violence 31 (1992).
(14) See Kleck, supra note 3, at 9.
(3) ... Gary Kleck & Miriam & DeLone, Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery, 9 J. Quantitive Criminology 55 (1993); ...


Oh yeah, it was written in 1995. Getting a little long in the tooth, by close to a generation.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Kleck is partially behind two of them.

Both are north of the NCVS, which is NOT from Kleck, but rather the DoJ. I mentioned, Kleck is probably quite north of the real number, but the lesser DoJ numbers still make a solid case for the premise, all on their own.

(Also, Kleck is only part author of two of the referenced studies. I certainly approach his interpretation of his own numbers with suspicion, but I do not automatically rule them out.)


I don't think a 1995 study that is detailed enough is necessarily out of date. It may be. I'll accept a newer study if you like. I note that the OP not only didn't offer one, but the OP declared that one is unnecessary, and would not be providing one.

Edit: I'll be happy to dissasemble the bullshit in the OP line by line for you, if you like, since Mike hardly ever comes back to clarify or defend.

[rrneck]

18. The real question to ask is

does the assailant think he'll get shot.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Rape...

...most often, is about power, which is all the more reason not to surrender yours to some uninformed, disconnected politician. According to the FBI/DOJ resisting assaults with a firearm is your best chance to be least hurt.



For those who think otherwise: try this.

[iverglas]

41. more disgusting

Really, just disgusting.

Some people will exploit anything and anybody in the service of their agenda.

Sexual violence is about the power of men over women.

That has fuck all to do with any loonytarian whining about the big bad government, and you know it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. Sexual violence...

...is not about sex, it's about power.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.


For today's irony prize, yes, your restrictive anti-freedom ideas ARE disgusting. Have a nice day.

[iverglas]

53. "gun rights" is not about rights

it's about wrongs.

Hahahahaha.

Everybody can play word games.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Haven't quit your day job, have you?

Neither have I. ;)

One sure bet is gambling with your rights. It's a sure loss.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. The bottom line is people with legal concealed firearms hardly every commit crimes.

The bottom line is this:

People with legally concealed firearms are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

So given this fact, it doesn't really matter if carrying a concealed weapon is useful or not.

The simple fact is, it doesn't harm anyone, so who cares?

Yes, except for certain high-risk occupations, your odds of even needing a concealed firearm to defend yourself from assault are low. My odds of ever needing a smoke alarm or a seat belt are also low. I still want the option of using these things if I choose to do so.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. You too, could cite sources.

Just being fair, after all.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. I have done it countless times here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. In my town...

...not wearing a seat belt will get you a traffic citation.
Also, you can sell a house without working smoke detectors but the municipality won't give you a certificate of occupancy.

On the other hand, Kennesaw GA mandates that homeowners keep a firearm. :)

[SteveM]

30. Some errors, some things left out...

"We are not taking a stand for or against guns. We are merely saying that there are better ways to prevent rape."

What the subject of the link said. She may be right about "preventing" rape; there are different situations and circumstances to consider. However, I note that she did not suggest ANY strategy for women who are under attack to substitute for use of a firearm. Before people equate resistance to attacks with the use of a gun, they may wish to study what outcomes women and men suffer with regard to resistance or non-resistance.
______________________

"You know what the problem is, pro-gun folks who suggest that a gun makes you safer have an agenda. They're desperately trying to justify their own decision to own and carry a gun."

What you said. And this is speculation and mis-characterization. Most pro-2A people do not concern themselves with "feeling" safer by carrying, or suggesting that "feeling" is a reason to carry. Your speculations on any "agendas" of "justification" are yours and yours only.
______________________

"Like all gun ownership and concealed carry, the gun can make you FEEL safer, but that's illusory, ungrounded in facts and irrrational. It's a bad decision to carry a gun when the chances of it saving you are so low and the chances of it causing harm are so high."

You again. And now we have YOUR "agenda." See how quickly you progress from the crime of rape to "all ownership and concealed carry?" Do you have any substantiation for this additional speculation?

[rl6214]

33. "Repeated studies have shown that people who own a handgun are at a high risk of that gun being used

Care to cite some evidence of that or do we just take your word for it?

"You know what the problem is, pro-gun folks who suggest that a gun makes you safer have an agenda."

You know what the problem is, anti-gun zealots who suggest that a gun will be used against the owner have an agenda.

"In a free country like the United States you're certainly able to carry a gun"

That's right and if you've fled this country and no longer live here, you have no say in it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. +1 n/t

[Remmah2]

55. It happens on TV all the time. nt

nt

[jmg257]

34. Just how low are the chances that carrying a gun can save you?

Would you give some of the stats you have, something a bit more specifc then 'so low', for typical lawful gun carrying persons?


I have seen studies about how dangerous gun carrying can be, but they were often based on a study group that isn't very representitive of many lawful gun owners, myself included.

Can you also please share your data on just how high the chances for lawful gun carrying causing harm are?

It is important we do make smart decisions about such important issues, and not just rely on someone else's 'common sense' - we know what some see as common sense to them may be anything but to someone else. For instance, for someone who chooses to lawfully carry guns and have done so without a 'harmful' incident, they would likely see people who favor gun control that would take that choice away as the problem. I imagine for those who have used their guns for self-defense (it does happen!) to be even more passionate about it...I think they would have no trouble identifying an agenda by those who don't agree.

Since you do discuss what you consider to be irrational decisions based on illusions and 'facts'...could you share these facts with us, please?

[-..__...]

61. This thread needs more Oleg Volk...

[iverglas]

72. Oleg Volk was banned from DU

but hey, thanks for flying those colours.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. "If your rapist is one of the 75% who know their victims, it'll be too late"

What about the other 25%?

[iverglas]

73. post 35

Especially for you.

What are you going to do, force them to carry guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. "What are you going to do, force them to carry guns?"

Who said anything about forcing women to carry guns? How about -- we don't deprive the remaining 25% of their right to carry a gun if they so choose; because, you know, either they're ALLOWED TO CHOOSE or they're FORCED into not being able to defend themselves.

You don't know what is best for all wmoen at all times in all circumstances -- and neither do I. That's why the individual freedom to choose should be preserved and since it is in-grained in the highest governing document of this nation and is settled case law what's your beef?

[iverglas]

75. ah, I see

either they're ALLOWED TO CHOOSE or they're FORCED into not being able to defend themselves

Someone is obviously binding the hands and feet and gagging the mouhts of sexual assault victims, so they are FORCED into not being able to defend themselves.

Forgive my ignorance; I was unaware of this. It is shameful; is no one doing anything about it?


Didn't read post 35, I guess?


You don't know what is best for all wmoen at all times in all circumstances

Amazingly, I have never claimed to. Nor does any legislative body that makes laws that apply to everyone, whether they are "best" for them or not.

What I do know is that I'm glad I don't live in a society awash in firearms, and I plan to do my utmost to keep it that way.


That's why the individual freedom to choose should be preserved and since it is in-grained in the highest governing document of this nation and is settled case law what's your beef?

Blah blah blah, and so might say, who knows, a bare majority of your Supreme Court consisting of some of the rightest-wing appointees to that body ever known.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[minavasht]

78. Feel free

to act as you wish.
It is your ass and it is your job to keep it safe.
As far as mine ass goes, I'd take my chances with a gun.