From: ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson)
Subject: Re: using guns to stop rapes
Organization: Sarah Brady Fan Club
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:45:24 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Apr10021033@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>>> On 5 Apr 92 21:12:07 GMT, ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) said:
>> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>Eric Johnson had assumed that the reduction in the rape completion
>>>would apply to armed women, whereas the original statistic was women
>>>who used a gun in self defense.  His statement would be true only if
>>>armed women always were able to use a gun for self defense.
>
>> Well, I apologize for mixing up 'armed women' with 'those who can
>> use a gun in self defense'. I guess I made the wrong assumption that
>> an armed women would automatically use the gun for self defense if
>> attacked, but apparently you don't see it that way. I don't much see
>> the point of the woman being armed then, 
>
>(Boy, if I were Terminator I could really have fun taking the last
>sentence out of context :-)  You still haven't got the point I was
>trying to make.  Can you not think of cases when, in spite of carrying
>a gun or having one handy at home, you are not given a chance to use
>it?

Well, I wouldn't consider them armed then. A lot of probably has to do
with however a given study defines "used gun to defend" whether it means
shot the attacker, let the attacker know she was armed, etc. Hard for 
either of us to know for sure. I don't consider anyone without their gun 
(or other weapon) handy to be 'armed', so a woman attacked on the street
while her gun is at home I would consider unarmed.

>Since guns would appear to be used in self defence in less than 1% of
>rape attempts, it would seem that unless armed women comprise a
>similar percentage of women, it would seem that cases where an armed
>women is unable to use a gun for self defence are reasonably common.

This is not necessarily true. I believe, and perhaps some of the women here
on the net can give their input, the following: An woman who is concerned
enough about her safety to be armed is typically more aware of her surroundings,
and more likely to avoid high-risk situations. In short, I believe unarmed
women are not only more likely to have an attempted rape against them
completed, (We agree so far I assume, per your own stats) but she is
also more likely to have attempts against her. While not a woman myself,
I can relate to that personally. I own and carry a gun, and am concerned
with my own safety. As such, I avoid places known for high crime, etc,
and I find that, especially while carrying, I make an extra effort
to avoid any confrontations, certainly much more so than when I am
unarmed. I find this common among gunowners who carry.

You are probably right, though, that there may be a number of cases 
where a gun is unreachable. But like I said, those are the cases where I 
personally would classify them as unarmed. In any event, an armed
woman (by either of our definitions) is going to obviously have a much better
opportunity to use a gun in self defense than an unarmed woman. 
 
>I tried to find some more data on weapon use in defence against
>rapists and turned up "Rape victimization in 26 American Cities".  In
>this survey, guns or knives were used in defence in 2% of rapes and
>attepeted rapes, and the completion rate was 3% when these weapons
>were used.

I'm not going to argue with a 97% success rate. If they were used in 100%
or rapes and attempted rapes, we not only would have less rapes, but
probably less attempted rapes (not to mention less rapists!). 
-- 
begin 644 .signature
M+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM
M+0I))VT@=&AE('9I8W1I;2!O9B!%2B=S('-I9VYA='5R92!V:7)U<R$@3V@@
$3F\A"FT@
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns