Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You, a male, have the option to quietly hand over what the attacker wants. I, a female, have that option only if the attacker simply wants money. If the attacker has rape in mind, your solution is not viable.

But Badger, didn't you read his first paragraph? Situations that don't fit into his preconceived mold simply do not exist. Or at least, they don't matter.

Say what you will about Eric's position on self defense; at least he admits, however obliquely, that bad stuff will come as a consequence of it. Just that he thinks the bad of the alternative is worse. What I can't abide is people who pretend that the bad consequences of their actions are only in their critics' imaginations.

Handguns have been called 'equalizers' for a reason. They are the only way in a physical conflict scenario for a little old lady (or her physical equivalent) to be anything other than a helpless victim. They don't always save people, sure -- but what part of 'equalized' means 'always wins'? What matters is that it means 'doesn't always lose'. That's pretty damn good.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

First, I can think of a better deterrent to crime than a gun: a dog. I have made several arguments to that effect, so I need not go into detail beyond saying that a barking dog deters much.

Second, I do not trust private militias. They easily become politicized with agendas that delineate clearly 'insiders' from 'outsiders' and become useful in many sorts of political mischief. They can easily become lynch mobs or death squads, and in a society as polarized as ours, such is much a possibility.

The solution to a burglary is to either get out or to do nothing to draw attention to oneself. You don't want to confront a burglar.

There are other situations. I know personally a family that was subjected to a home invasion where the intent was bodily harm as opposed to stealing things. Some thugs are not benign.

There are two issues here, one personal, one political.

To GB, I would point out that I did not dismiss the issue of rape. I don't personally think it's worth it for a woman to risk her life by drawing a weapon against someone who already has one to prevent being raped. Of course, my opinion is worth nothing, and every woman would have to make that decision for herself.

Now to Mr. Butler. . .I would submit to individual lawlessness, yes, if only property were at stake. That has nothing to do with the question of submitting to tyranny. I would suggest that at only one time in our whole history as a nation were militias ever used to defend what was called liberty against a tyrannical federal government, and that was during the Civil War, in the South, which I don't regard as a very inspiring example. I have said many times here that I think the Second Amendment as written has been a dead letter for a long time because we don't rely on a well-regulated militia for security, we rely on the military, the police, and the courts.

It seems to me the whole achievement of modern civilization, led by the British and the Americans, was to design and implement legal systems which citizens could trust. No system is perfect or without injustice, but we have done very well, comparatively speaking. The injustices we suffer are minor (albeit not for the individual victim of injustice) compared to what we would suffer in conditions of lawlessness.

Now if liberty were really suspended in the US, what would I do? That's a very tough question and it would depend on circumstances: how bad the authoritarian regime was, how many people it was killing or maiming (if any), and what were the chances that I could do any good. My point is, we are not in any situation like that now nor do I see it on the horizon.

In any event, for me, being a good citizen involves a necessary minimum of trust in our institutions, not a hair-trigger willingness to take the law into my own hands.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To GB, I would point out that I did not dismiss the issue of rape. I don't personally think it's worth it for a woman to risk her life by drawing a weapon against someone who already has one to prevent being raped.

How about drawing a weapon against an unarmed man who is twice your size? Or who wants to strangle you to death as part of the deal?

Of course, my opinion is worth nothing, and every woman would have to make that decision for herself.

Pro-choice!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or who wants to strangle you to death as part of the deal?

Be sure to clear that up with him ahead of time, of course. Per the Prof, resistance is never a good idea; but I bet he'd grudgingly make an exception for those practically nonexistent cases where you could conclusively prove your life was in danger ahead of time. I'm sure a notarized statement-of-intent would suffice.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm sure a notarized statement-of-intent would suffice.

Or an HIV test.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or an HIV test.

Now you're just being unreasonable. Not everyone has the health insurance coverage necessary to get those kinds of tests. You should just carry a condom with you and offer it to him while you are not resisting.

Originally Posted by radind

There are other situations. I know personally a family that was subjected to a home invasion where the intent was bodily harm as opposed to stealing things. Some thugs are not benign.

Rapists are completely unpredictable. I still say that four sharp canine razors into one's flesh from a nice pet turned into a monster predator is a strong deterrent.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rapists are completely unpredictable. I still say that four sharp canine razors into one's flesh from a nice pet turned into a monster predator is a strong deterrent.

A bat or a hunk of iron pipe (even a steel-toed boot could do the trick) will calm the hell out of Rover in short order. And Rover's got to be within striking distance, and thus vulnerable, to do you any real good.

That's not to say that a dog isn't a good idea -- they are. Just that they aren't the 'magic bullet' any more than anything else is.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A bat or a hunk of iron pipe (even a steel-toed boot could do the trick) will calm the hell out of Rover in short order. And Rover's got to be within striking distance, and thus vulnerable, to do you any real good.

That's not to say that a dog isn't a good idea -- they are. Just that they aren't the 'magic bullet' any more than anything else is.

They can detect intrusion before the intruder poses a danger to the owner. They have better night vision and a keen sense of smell. if the dog overpowers the crook, then the situation for the malign intruder will go from the usual unease of someone violating what little conscience one has to a primal terror.

At night, Rover is the top of the food chain, and a human habitation becomes as dangerous a jungle for anyone who doesn't belong there as the Sundarbans are by day for a fisherman, woodcutter, or honey gatherer. (The Sundarbans are a swamp infamous for one of the largest remaining safe havens of the Bengal tiger). Needless to say, I have more sympathy for fishermen, wood-cutters, and honey-gatherers in the Indian subcontinent than I have for American rapists. Once a dog overpowers a person, the baseball bat, iron pipe, or even gun might get out of reach.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There are two issues here, one personal, one political.

To GB, I would point out that I did not dismiss the issue of rape. I don't personally think it's worth it for a woman to risk her life by drawing a weapon against someone who already has one to prevent being raped. Of course, my opinion is worth nothing, and every woman would have to make that decision for herself.

Now, some questions have become values lock questions that ought not to be. Is neo-Keynesian economics or trickle down - Laffer Curve economics valid? Is global warming real? These have become issues on which people have deep opinions to the extent that evidence cannot be evaluated honestly. The heart speaks to the extend that the mind is blind. Such questions ought to be technical questions, but they aren't at this point.

Whether one resists rapists or whether one resists violent crime is also a deep values driven question. Perhaps these ought to be values driven questions. Perhaps one doesn't really know even what one's own values really are until one has actually been in a situation where the question is being asked in an immediate high stakes manner.

If this is the case, should one be able to impose a solution to this values loaded question on everyone? Should those who don't worry about being raped get together and pass laws to prevent those who would like to defend themselves from doing so?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Now to Mr. Butler. . .I would submit to individual lawlessness, yes, if only property were at stake. That has nothing to do with the question of submitting to tyranny. I would suggest that at only one time in our whole history as a nation were militias ever used to defend what was called liberty against a tyrannical federal government, and that was during the Civil War, in the South, which I don't regard as a very inspiring example. I have said many times here that I think the Second Amendment as written has been a dead letter for a long time because we don't rely on a well-regulated militia for security, we rely on the military, the police, and the courts.

It seems to me the whole achievement of modern civilization, led by the British and the Americans, was to design and implement legal systems which citizens could trust. No system is perfect or without injustice, but we have done very well, comparatively speaking. The injustices we suffer are minor (albeit not for the individual victim of injustice) compared to what we would suffer in conditions of lawlessness.

Now if liberty were really suspended in the US, what would I do? That's a very tough question and it would depend on circumstances: how bad the authoritarian regime was, how many people it was killing or maiming (if any), and what were the chances that I could do any good. My point is, we are not in any situation like that now nor do I see it on the horizon.

In any event, for me, being a good citizen involves a necessary minimum of trust in our institutions, not a hair-trigger willingness to take the law into my own hands.

Someone would suggest there ought to be a minimum necessary distrust as well. When the government becomes tyrannical enough that one starts to seriously ask whether violence is justified, is that the time to start advocating a strong interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? If it is possible that one might want to fight tyranny, should one in time of freedom want to maintain the rights and privileges necessary to maintain freedom?

I would agree that the current situation in the US is no where near bad enough to justify a violent response. I do not truly expect the situation to deteriorate in the immediate future. I would also suggest that taking up arms against tyranny is another deep values level decision that is very difficult and which severe and deeply held differences of opinion can and do exist.

This being the case, should those who deeply hold one set of values be able to impose their values on those that disagree?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Once a dog overpowers a person, the baseball bat, iron pipe, or even gun might get out of reach.

A dog would need to be professionally trained to do that, especially if the person has a gun.
Dogs are great substitutes for alarm systems, but that's about it. And wow, some people are allergic, or don't want to have to take care of a dog! You can't just tie them up and keep them around in case of an emergency.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

They can detect intrusion before the intruder poses a danger to the owner. They have better night vision and a keen sense of smell. if the dog overpowers the crook, then the situation for the malign intruder will go from the usual unease of someone violating what little conscience one has to a primal terror.

True. But there's that 'if'... And two intruders makes that 'if' even 'iffier'.

Ultimately, it's a matter of what risks each person is willing to live with. And that's for each person to decide for him/herself.

Originally Posted by The Rani

A dog would need to be professionally trained to do that, especially if the person has a gun.

I disagree. 130 pounds of any dog, properly-motivated, is going to have at least a sporting chance against a person with a gun in the dark. When dogs go apeshit, they're pretty effective. Why do you think cops' first move breaking into a house is immediate puppycide?

Of course, the point of self-defense is to deny the other guy anything resembling a sporting chance...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why do you think cops' first move breaking into a house is immediate puppycide?

That is exactly my point.

Since the issue of rape is not theoretical to me, I would say that cases are individual.

In mine, back in 1978 a man crawled in my 2nd floor window on a hot summer night and was at my throat before I was even awake.

One has to trust one's instincts in these matters. In mine, it was intuitive: submit or die. He got off on fighting back. I was "fortunate" in that this person was caught.

My instinct was right. The man murdered two women. Slit one's throat and lit the other on fire.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Be sure to clear that up with him ahead of time, of course. Per the Prof, resistance is never a good idea; but I bet he'd grudgingly make an exception for those practically nonexistent cases where you could conclusively prove your life was in danger ahead of time. I'm sure a notarized statement-of-intent would suffice.

I happen to know of a situation very similar to the hypothetical situation that is being discussed. What happened was a rapist came up from behind this woman putting one hand on her forehead and the other hand on her chin. (He was much bigger than this woman). He then told her if she resisted he would break her neck. This woman very much did fear for her life. After the rape was committed and it was reported to the police, the police told her that she probably saved her life because by trying to resist or fighting back, she could have easily gotten herself killed. When it came to trial. No one questioned whether she was forcibly raped, but then the guy was a serial rapists and her description of what happened to her fit the same MO as the other victims.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rapists are completely unpredictable. I still say that four sharp canine razors into one's flesh from a nice pet turned into a monster predator is a strong deterrent.

Not that it matters much, but this case was more like 'gang' violence. Two people were shot but fortunately survived. Dogs are good for those who want animals in their homes. However, I still support firearms for personal defense for those who choose this option.

Originally Posted by radind

Not that it matters much, but this case was more like 'gang' violence. Two people were shot but fortunately survived. Dogs are good for those who want animals in their homes. However, I still support firearms for personal defense for those who choose this option.

In my condo bldg you're not supposed to have a dog over 40 lbs. I think the same thing applies to guns as to dogs--whatever you prefer. Killing in self-defense is absolutely acceptable and can be necessary. Basically, you can pretty much learn to live with anything except death. You might have post-traumatic stress, but it's preferable to dying, IMO.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I happen to know of a situation very similar to the hypothetical situation that is being discussed. What happened was a rapist came up from behind this woman putting one hand on her forehead and the other hand on her chin. (He was much bigger than this woman). He then told her if she resisted he would break her neck. This woman very much did fear for her life. After the rape was committed and it was reported to the police, the police told her that she probably saved her life because by trying to resist or fighting back, she could have easily gotten herself killed. When it came to trial. No one questioned whether she was forcibly raped, but then the guy was a serial rapists and her description of what happened to her fit the same MO as the other victims.

Based on what the cops told me, most of the stranger-rapists are serial. It really does come down to trusting your instincts in the moment and paying attention. (Of course people are pretty hyperaware in those situations.) Another potential victim of the same person might be able to get away in another setting or if someone happened to come along.

Self-defense training, martial arts, firearms training all can be helpful, depending on what you choose. All of these things train people to assess the situation and survive. Probably none of this training would have helped much in my situation (except maybe sleeping with a gun under my pillow), but hey, shit happens and sometimes it's bad and scary.

Originally Posted by annla899

Based on what the cops told me, most of the stranger-rapists are serial. It really does come down to trusting your instincts in the moment and paying attention. (Of course people are pretty hyperaware in those situations.) Another potential victim of the same person might be able to get away in another setting or if someone happened to come along.

Self-defense training, martial arts, firearms training all can be helpful, depending on what you choose. All of these things train people to assess the situation and survive. Probably none of this training would have helped much in my situation (except maybe sleeping with a gun under my pillow), but hey, shit happens and sometimes it's bad and scary.

No one truly knows what they would do when they are staring death in the face. Especially a young person, such as yourself. You not only did the right thing, but it was probably the only thing you could do. I'm glad you survived.

Thank you for sharing your story. That took a lot of courage.

I feel the need to say something because although i have not read all of the posts on this thread i have read quite a few that seem to advocate being passive and not protecting yourself even if you have the means to do so.

there are cases as a couple that have been stated where not fighting back were maybe not ideal, but split second decisions were made and no one can truly say what they would do in these situations unless they have experienced and survived them.

I grew up with guns, living in the bush in Alaska you learn to use them young. At 8 i was hunting with a 250-3000, i walked into the hardware/everything store in my hometown at the age of 12 and bought the 357 Mag that i still own with money that i had earned myself. For me and those i grew up with guns were an essential part of survival. Every gun that i own was bought for a specific reason, mainly hunting but also as protection in certain situations. i can remember as a child Grizzly bears trying to force their way into our house in the middle of the night and my father having to shoot them as they battered at the front door, or my mother standing guard with a 44 MAG as we swam on a warm day in some of the streams near the camps in case a bear was to wander into the area.

ok so to today, i don't live where i have bears causing issues in my daily life now, but there are other situations that basically come down to the same thing and that is protection of family and home. I was taught never to point a gun at something i wasn't ready to pull the trigger on, and never to kill unless it was for food or protection. These lessons i have already started passing on to my sons, i took the oldest on his first hunting trip when he was 8 after spending considerable time discussing guns and the damage that they were capable of doing. working with him until i was sure he understood and then spending the day with him as we picked out his first gun * a lightweight single shot 410 that is kept locked in the safe with the rest of my guns*
My nephew used to get mad at me because when he came to my house he was not allowed to play the gun games on Nintendo where all you see is a gun and you just walk around shooting everything that moves. the point that i tried over and over to explain to him was that once you pull the trigger the person does not get back up to play the next round and i have done the same with my boys.

I am trying not to ramble, there is a point to what i am trying to say, having said that if someone were to seriously threaten my family or my home i would not hesitate to pull the trigger fully knowing the consequences of what i was doing. the talk of roving militias in a total breakdown of society is definitely a possible scenario and there is no way that i could stand by and watch anyone being pushed around or bullied by this type of state if that is what you wish to call it. does that make me the same as them? i don't know the answer to that, truthfully i don't believe so because i would not be out looking for trouble just protecting my family if the need arises. If it ever comes down to the choice between standing back or protecting my family there will be only one choice to make and i will make it fully knowing what i am doing. does that mean that i think everyone should feel this way not at all, the actions i take are for me to live with, the choices you make are yours alone to make.

I am trying not to ramble, there is a point to what i am trying to say, having said that if someone were to seriously threaten my family or my home i would not hesitate to pull the trigger fully knowing the consequences of what i was doing. the talk of roving militias in a total breakdown of society is definitely a possible scenario and there is no way that i could stand by and watch anyone being pushed around or bullied by this type of state if that is what you wish to call it. does that make me the same as them? i don't know the answer to that, truthfully i don't believe so because i would not be out looking for trouble just protecting my family if the need arises. If it ever comes down to the choice between standing back or protecting my family there will be only one choice to make and i will make it fully knowing what i am doing. does that mean that i think everyone should feel this way not at all, the actions i take are for me to live with, the choices you make are yours alone to make.

This makes complete sense.

Originally Posted by annla899

Since the issue of rape is not theoretical to me, I would say that cases are individual.

In mine, back in 1978 a man crawled in my 2nd floor window on a hot summer night and was at my throat before I was even awake.

One has to trust one's instincts in these matters. In mine, it was intuitive: submit or die. He got off on fighting back. I was "fortunate" in that this person was caught.

My instinct was right. The man murdered two women. Slit one's throat and lit the other on fire.

OMG, I'm so sorry! I hope he is rotting in a prison cell.

Another thing is that dogs are not usually taken to other people's houses. My friend with cerebral palsy was raped by an acquaintance while visiting his place.