Reply to Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?[/quote]

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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![/quote]

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Good job not addressing PP’s point. If weapons made everyone less safe across the board, why would the police, military, and the people guarding US Senators have them? Obviously they have some utility. But people like you just want women to be sitting ducks and to just cross their fingers and hope no one like the rapist in this thread ever crosses their path. That kind of naive, magical thinking is absurd.[/quote]

If the US Army has tanks and surface-to-air missiles, shouldn't everyone be allowed to have tanks and surface-to-air missiles? Obviously they have some utility.[/quote]

This is a hyperbolic analogy and just proves you know you don’t have a good argument. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics