Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most rapes are committed by someone the victim already knows. A gun wouldn’t stop that in the vast majority of cases because usually the victim has their guard down.

Random “stranger rapes” are very rare. But when they do happen, the rapist typically has the advantage due to the element of surprise. Very difficult to fish your gun out of your purse or waistband before being physically attacked and restrained. And there’s probably a 50/50 chance the rapist will take control of your firearm and use it to control you. So that’s made a bad situation even worse.

If the USG was able to keep accurate statistics about firearms, it would shock most Americans out of complacency.

It certainly would; there would be even more confirmation of the tens of thousands or more of annual defensive uses of firearms, typically without firing a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you have a series of red herrings…. I never suggested that a person not prepare for an attack. My point is that I don’t want to live in the kind of society where the social contract is based on vigilante threats of violent death. I want trained and vetted members of our community to have that kind of power and responsibility rather than any random citizen.

You gun nuts are living in a fantasy world where a handgun is the answer to any problem. If a criminal thinks you have a gun and he wants to hurt you he will just chop you with his machete from behind before you can react. All a gun accomplishes is a general escalation of violence in response or in anticipation along with innocent bystanders getting shot. Just imagine the number of well trained and heavily armed professionals that refused to do anything in Uvalde!

That's the thing, right? I had a friend who was a gun nut. She would explain how, whenever she goes anywhere, she scans the area for places where attackers could attack from, escape routes, and so on. She wanted to be able to carry a gun everywhere at all times to protect herself from the potential threats that could come upon her anywhere at any time, and was angry that the state would not allow her to do so. At the time, I wondered why she seemed to believe she was living in a war zone (in rural Illinois!), and whom she wanted to protect herself from. Now, with constant mass shootings anywhere and everywhere - schools, malls, churches, movie theaters, parades, banks, hospitals, concerts, grocery stores, etc. etc. etc. - the answer is clear to me: she wanted to protect herself from other people with guns. The answer is also clear that her gun would not have protected her or anybody else at any of those mass shootings that now make all of us feel like we're living in a war zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's honestly kind of horrifying that someone is comparing a gun to a spare tire in the trunk of a car, or a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, or a lock on the front door of a house.

What’s “horrifying?” Firearms have legitimate uses. One of them is self-defense, a natural right recognized in every society. Why should competent, trained people be deprived of the efficacious means of self defense to assuage someone else’s unreasoning fear of inanimate objects?

Oh, and my post did not mention firearms. You invented that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most rapes are committed by someone the victim already knows. A gun wouldn’t stop that in the vast majority of cases because usually the victim has their guard down.

Random “stranger rapes” are very rare. But when they do happen, the rapist typically has the advantage due to the element of surprise. Very difficult to fish your gun out of your purse or waistband before being physically attacked and restrained. And there’s probably a 50/50 chance the rapist will take control of your firearm and use it to control you. So that’s made a bad situation even worse.

If the USG was able to keep accurate statistics about firearms, it would shock most Americans out of complacency.

It certainly would; there would be even more confirmation of the tens of thousands or more of annual defensive uses of firearms, typically without firing a shot.

You want someone to count all the times that somebody pointed a gun at someone else and nobody was shot? My late neighbor used to have a gun in his house for home protection, and he was never robbed. Do you want to count that? We don't have a gun in the house, and we also haven't been robbed. Maybe you want to count that too - my late neighbor's home-protection gun even protected us! or something. When we would knock on his door after dark for neighborly things, which we tried to avoid because he answered the door with the gun after dark, we would yell IT'S YOUR NEIGHBORS! as loud as we could, and hoped he could hear us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's honestly kind of horrifying that someone is comparing a gun to a spare tire in the trunk of a car, or a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, or a lock on the front door of a house.

What’s “horrifying?” Firearms have legitimate uses. One of them is self-defense, a natural right recognized in every society. Why should competent, trained people be deprived of the efficacious means of self defense to assuage someone else’s unreasoning fear of inanimate objects?

Oh, and my post did not mention firearms. You invented that.

Only fools aren't afraid of guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

This ancient canard, in addition to being utterly disproven by the enormous number of defensive firearm uses each year (not to mention other defensive weapon uses), is wholly inapposite when discussing armed people who are trained and competent with their weapons, as compared with the entire population who might own some kind of a weapon.

The irrational fear of weapons and the inability to comprehend or acknowledge the advantage they provide a prepared user defending against unlawful attack, bespeaks a mental disorder.

Being irrational is thinking that living under the constant tension and threat of imminent interpersonal violence is the only or best way to live amongst others in a civilized society.

I don’t want shootouts by untrained paranoiacs taking place all around me. Untrained and likely unskilled (don’t you see how people drive around here? you want those same people to have guns?) citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders. I don’t want someone shooting in a panic at some man on the NW Branch trail because I could be driving my car or riding my bike nearby when stray bullets start flying.

I have a spare tire in my trunk. I don’t live under the constant threat and tension of an imminent flat tire.

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I don’t live under the constant threat and tension of an imminent conflagration.

I have locks on my doors. I don’t live under a constraint threat and tension of an imminent home invasion.

Preparation against potential risks is a rational, prudent action that gives peace of mind. It is precisely the opposite of a paranoiac mindset of constant threat and tension over a perceived risk with no sense of being able to effectively respond to that danger.

If you look back over prior postings, you will see that they consistently refer to people being properly trained, including in weapon retention, and having the correct mindset, including situational awareness.

The spectre you seek to conjure of “someone shooting in panic” and “stray bullets flying” is wholly belied by the thousands and thousands of lawfully armed people going about their daily business in the greater DC area with no “panic” and no “stray bullets.” Even before recent legal changes there have always been a large number of lawfully armed people in this area, either with so-called “need based” carry permits or because of the many federal and other law enforcement agencies. Certainly, if the disaster you fear was going to occur it would have been common and constant in the past and currently. It was not and is not.

Finally, the instantaneous and exclusive interpretation of the term weapon as meaning a firearm ignores the many other options available, from defensive sprays and electronic weapons to bladed and impact weapons, none of which produce any “stray bullets.”

The admonition that “citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders” sounds great — except that criminals or the mentally ill, not their intended victims, typically choose the time and place of their assault.

So you have a series of red herrings…. I never suggested that a person not prepare for an attack. My point is that I don’t want to live in the kind of society where the social contract is based on vigilante threats of violent death. I want trained and vetted members of our community to have that kind of power and responsibility rather than any random citizen.

You gun nuts are living in a fantasy world where a handgun is the answer to any problem. If a criminal thinks you have a gun and he wants to hurt you he will just chop you with his machete from behind before you can react. All a gun accomplishes is a general escalation of violence in response or in anticipation along with innocent bystanders getting shot. Just imagine the number of well trained and heavily armed professionals that refused to do anything in Uvalde!

What makes it OK to call people who disagree with you names?

Self-defense against unprovoked attack is not “vigilantism.” It is a natural right.

“Trained and vetted members of our community” have no duty to protect any individual person, and even if they did they cannot be everywhere at once. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

“If a criminal thinks you have a gun and he wants to hurt you he will just chop you with his machete from behind before you can react.”. Nonsense. That is what situational awareness is about. A person who is “born drunk and died asleep” misses not only danger cues but also most of the beauty and things of intetest in the world. “If a criminal thinks your have a gun” the substantial likelihood is that he/she will go find a softer target.

Responding to stop criminal violence is not “escalation.” As for your concern about “innocent bystanders,” I can’t say I’ve seen any reports of non-combatants getting struck by defenders in self defense situations. Most such situations are resolved by the mere display of a weapon.

The pathetic and shameful inadequacy craven cowards who shrunk from their sworn duty in various cases simply confirms that merely arming a person cannot give them the character required to act when it is required. If I recall correctly, armed “civilians” were prevented by cowards from taking action while the cowards allowed murders to continue.

As for the kind of society one wants to living, it is narcissistic wishcraft to pretend that depriving decent people of the ability to defend themselves will somehow create a utopia where no criminal will ever take advantage of any weak or defenseless person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's honestly kind of horrifying that someone is comparing a gun to a spare tire in the trunk of a car, or a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, or a lock on the front door of a house.

What’s “horrifying?” Firearms have legitimate uses. One of them is self-defense, a natural right recognized in every society. Why should competent, trained people be deprived of the efficacious means of self defense to assuage someone else’s unreasoning fear of inanimate objects?

Oh, and my post did not mention firearms. You invented that.

Only fools aren't afraid of guns.

There is a difference between unreasoning, emotionalism, delusional fear and proper respect for a dangerous instrumentality, like an automobile, a chain saw or a firearm.

But I do hope criminals are afraid of firearms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most rapes are committed by someone the victim already knows. A gun wouldn’t stop that in the vast majority of cases because usually the victim has their guard down.

Random “stranger rapes” are very rare. But when they do happen, the rapist typically has the advantage due to the element of surprise. Very difficult to fish your gun out of your purse or waistband before being physically attacked and restrained. And there’s probably a 50/50 chance the rapist will take control of your firearm and use it to control you. So that’s made a bad situation even worse.

If the USG was able to keep accurate statistics about firearms, it would shock most Americans out of complacency.

It certainly would; there would be even more confirmation of the tens of thousands or more of annual defensive uses of firearms, typically without firing a shot.

You want someone to count all the times that somebody pointed a gun at someone else and nobody was shot? My late neighbor used to have a gun in his house for home protection, and he was never robbed. Do you want to count that? We don't have a gun in the house, and we also haven't been robbed. Maybe you want to count that too - my late neighbor's home-protection gun even protected us! or something. When we would knock on his door after dark for neighborly things, which we tried to avoid because he answered the door with the gun after dark, we would yell IT'S YOUR NEIGHBORS! as loud as we could, and hoped he could hear us.

First of all, a house cannot be “robbed.”

And you completely misrepresent my post. Defensive uses of firearms are just that — situations in which an attack or incipient attack was met by defensive force or the immediate threat thereof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

[Anonymous]

Being irrational is thinking that living under the constant tension and threat of imminent interpersonal violence is the only or best way to live amongst others in a civilized society.

I don’t want shootouts by untrained paranoiacs taking place all around me. Untrained and likely unskilled (don’t you see how people drive around here? you want those same people to have guns?) citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders. I don’t want someone shooting in a panic at some man on the NW Branch trail because I could be driving my car or riding my bike nearby when stray bullets start flying.

Good points here. Don't underestimate amount of shear stupidity surrounding us. Incompetence is a norm not an exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's honestly kind of horrifying that someone is comparing a gun to a spare tire in the trunk of a car, or a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, or a lock on the front door of a house.

What’s “horrifying?” Firearms have legitimate uses. One of them is self-defense, a natural right recognized in every society. Why should competent, trained people be deprived of the efficacious means of self defense to assuage someone else’s unreasoning fear of inanimate objects?

Oh, and my post did not mention firearms. You invented that.

Only fools aren't afraid of guns.

There is a difference between unreasoning, emotionalism, delusional fear and proper respect for a dangerous instrumentality, like an automobile, a chain saw or a firearm.

But I do hope criminals are afraid of firearms.

Everyone should be afraid of firearms. If you're not afraid of firearms, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As for the kind of society one wants to living, it is narcissistic wishcraft to pretend that depriving decent people of the ability to defend themselves will somehow create a utopia where no criminal will ever take advantage of any weak or defenseless person.

If more guns made us safer, we'd be the safest country in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's honestly kind of horrifying that someone is comparing a gun to a spare tire in the trunk of a car, or a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, or a lock on the front door of a house.

What’s “horrifying?” Firearms have legitimate uses. One of them is self-defense, a natural right recognized in every society. Why should competent, trained people be deprived of the efficacious means of self defense to assuage someone else’s unreasoning fear of inanimate objects?

Oh, and my post did not mention firearms. You invented that.

Only fools aren't afraid of guns.

There is a difference between unreasoning, emotionalism, delusional fear and proper respect for a dangerous instrumentality, like an automobile, a chain saw or a firearm.

But I do hope criminals are afraid of firearms.

Everyone should be afraid of firearms. If you're not afraid of firearms, you're an idiot.

No, absolutely not. No one should “be afraid” of firearms, any more than they should be “afraid” of vehicles, fireplaces, electricity, power tools or any other potentially dangerous instrumentality. They should understand reality well enough to respect the potential for danger while acknowledging the potential utility, if not for themselves then for other people competent in dealing with such things.

Blind fear lets things control you. Reason lets you control things or at least respond to potential risks in a rational and controlled way.