woodwardiocom (
woodwardiocom) wrote2013-10-04 09:53 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
The Difference Is...
Three parallel situations:
Edit: Many thanks for the answers thus far. They've helped.
- "You didn't have a bike lock? No wonder it got stolen, you doofus."
- "You walked through that part of town at midnight waving around an expensive cell phone? You idiot, no wonder you got mugged!"
- "You were dressed like that when you were sexually assaulted? You kinda asked for it."
Edit: Many thanks for the answers thus far. They've helped.
no subject
no subject
Having said that, are you seriously arguing against the premise that rapists are more likely to pick on small, weak, or unarmed people than they are on big, strong, or armed people? If this were true, then rapists would be utterly-unlike most violent criminals -- and indeed, most known human beings!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Do you agree or not that going armed in general makes someone less likely to be overcome by violent criminals? If so, then why would rape be any exception to this rule? Are rapists somehow more brave and persistent than, say, muggers?
Statistics do show that successful violent crimes are in general less common against armed victims. Would you like me to find some of those statistics?
I think you're playing a game here: I find it difficult to imagine that you really believe that armament is useless against violent criminals.
no subject
I'm really not sure why you're badgering me.
no subject
I have observed in my life that bullies -- and violent criminals are but bullies writ large -- attack those they consider weak, not those they consider strong. Hence my default assumption is that violent criminals are less likely to persist in attacking someone whom they discover to be armed, even if the weapon is not actually used upon them. I could be wrong, but you haven't given me any arguments against this theory, other than "you don't have statistics to support it."
no subject
I'm not obliged to give you "arguments against", because:
A) I don't have the background to make a factually-backed argument; I'd just be spouting uninformed opinions.
B) I'm not arguing with you in the first place. I declined to argue, see above.
Anyhow, I did some digging to see if there were any actual studies of the question at hand. The ones that came to a pro-gun conclusion were hosted on pro-gun websites, and the anti-gun ones were on flamingly liberal websites, so I took both with a huge grain of salt. It'd be nice to find something less biased.