5 ms·

A gun? Pepper Spray? You have no idea how the rapist will react to that. And someone shouldn't have to have the burden of ending another human's life just to n

by matt_ 14y ago

A gun? Pepper Spray? You have no idea how the rapist will react to that. And someone shouldn't have to have the burden of ending another human's life just to not be attacked.

cobrausn 14y ago
What is with this absurd first world notion that nobody should ever have anything bad ever happen to them in their life? Self-defense has been part of being alive since the dawn of humanity - living in a civilized (to various degrees) area doesn't negate that. You are either prepared to do what needs to be done to protect yourself, or you rely on passive measures (living in a nice area, avoiding dangerous situations, etc.) and hope you don't become a victim.
- hnriot 14y ago
  It's a first world notion because that's part of being a first world country. We invest in infrastructure that provides protection. Self-defense has shifted to the much more efficient system where by individuals don't walk around armed because we pay into a system of government that provides both police forces and military defense. The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick. I can't imagine a more dangerous society where we all take self-defense into our own hands. It wouldn't be the first world if we did that. Let's not start spouting the gun toting nonsense here, the audience on hn is too smart to buy that.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    'Gun Toting Nonsense'? God this is absurd elitist bull - the type of drivel spouted from the mouths of people who assume the argument is already won by virtue of their 'superior minds'. I'm guessing you live in a wonderful neighborhood with great police protection, low crime, and are not part of the demographic that is often targeted for assault. I'm happy you get to live your wonderfully enlightened progressive existence. The rest of us will just become one of those statistics that happen when you 'offload' your rights, yes? Of course you don't take your self defense completely in to your own hands - we live in a civilization so that we can organize and protect each other. But, ultimately, you are the only one who can ensure you stay alive. To think otherwise is pretty naive, or comes from a position of entitlement. For the interest of full disclosure, I keep a firearm in my vehicle and one at home. My wife concealed carries. We live in a neighborhood with fairly regular home invasions, and even a few murders over the last few years. We plan on leaving as soon as student loans get paid and we can.
  - drcube 14y ago
    Police are not there to protect you. Their job is to bring perpetrators to justice. If they are nearby, they may or may not attempt to stop a crime in progress, but they are not required to do so, and that does nothing to stop personal assaults that might occur. In the best case, they are purely reactionary, not preventative. In the worst case they are useless. The military is not there to protect you either. Their job is to enforce national policy abroad, put down rebellions and repel invasions. I agree that police and the military make us safer overall, on average. But they do not protect you personally. You can either pay a private security firm to defend you if you are rich, or you can defend yourself. There literally are no other choices.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      In suburban and rural areas where they only show up in response to phone calls, I agree as far as police being reactive. But in urban areas police serve a preventative and direct-intervention role, which is one of the classic functions of "walking the beat". They're physically present at major squares and landmarks, and intermittently present through much of the rest of the city. I pass police officers pretty regularly when I walk to and from work, and I would guess most of the time (barring when I'm in a more remote area), I could get a quite timely response if I yelled for help.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
      - mlbmlb 14y ago
        The important part is: > to come if you call them That is very nice in the situation you described (e.g. someone is shouting threats at you, especially in the comfort of your house), but pretty useless in most other situations. Unless you have a police officer walking with you 24/7/365, when you find yourself in front of attacker, you may or may not be able to even call the police and when they arrive, they would only collect evidence around your dead body. Yes, the attacker would be then removed from the society (usually only temporarily and only if they are found) and some possible new attackers would be deterred by the idea of being found. But before someone like that is convicted, they must perform or try to perform their first crime. Is this some kind of duty, if someone happen to be that first victim, to remain defenseless and sacrifice themselves? Also there are incidents such as road rage or crime of passion, when the attacker has no previous history. PS: Even in the situation you described (guy making threats outside your home), the police may be, and often is, late, when the guy (or more of them) decide to get into the house. Calling the police and waiting for their arrival takes at least minutes. Unless you have a fortress, making a way into your house takes seconds. Recall the woman who had to shoot two robbers while still talking to 911 operator.
  - Jayschwa 14y ago
    > The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Unless you have your own private bodyguard, being prepared to defend yourself isn't ridiculous.
  - mlbmlb 14y ago
    >The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick. Then I suppose you also shun the idea of CPR or the first aid in general. That's what first world society has doctors for...
- _delirium 14y ago
  If you live in an actually civilized area, you shouldn't have to shoot people (or even brandish a gun at someone, or fire warning shots) in order to walk down the street without being harmed. That's pretty much the baseline threshold for living in a civilized area versus some kind of wild-west scenario where you barricade the windows and don't dare leave your home unarmed. I can see that it'd be prudent to be able to engage in some self-defense in rare scenarios, but in a civilized area they really should be extremely rare scenarios. A functioning government and civil society to the extent that people aren't being regularly assaulted in the street isn't that high a degree of public order! I live in a large European city, and I certainly feel safe here without carrying guns (safer than I feel in most American cities).
- Jayschwa 14y ago
  I find the mentality puzzling as well. It seems to confuse idealism for reality. "X does not happen under ideal conditions, therefore, it is wrong/foolish to prepare for X."
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I think the foolish part is advocating that as a solution, like people are doing here, by presenting them as alternatives to this governmental initiative. As an individual, I should protect myself. But I expect my government not to rely on me, or my grandmother, having to learn how to shoot.
theorique 14y ago
A gun? Pepper Spray? You have no idea how the rapist will react to that. By screaming in pain and flopping on the ground, one would hope. And someone shouldn't have to have the burden of ending another human's life just to not be attacked. Well sure, but given the choice of injuring / killing an attacker, or being attacked, what do you think most people would pick? What would you pick?
- matt_ 14y ago
  What if the attacker has a gun/pepper spray?... Not to mention that many women state their bodies just shut down like they weren't even there, even if they had a way out/way to defend themselves.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    And many women recall every horrific detail. Seriously, you sound like you are advocating that any potential rape victim should just shut up and take it. My guess is it would be because your (already stupidly safe) life would be a bit safer without (legal) weapons around. My wife, for what it's worth, will put a bullet in a rapist and not think twice. I told her to put more than one. If that seems 'crass' or 'tacky' or 'unenlightened' or whatever else to anyone here, I really don't care. It's not your body and life we're talking about here, and it's not like she has the ability to fend off a motivated 200+ pound attacker without one.
    - matt_ 14y ago
      No. I'm not. I'm advocating that telling a rape victim that she could have/should have done more to defend herself is stupid and disgusting. I'm fucking thrilled if your wife has the capacity to do that. That's great. I really fucking hope she does. Thinking that every woman can do that, or that it would be possible in every situation (or even most) is absurd.
      - cobrausn 14y ago
        Of course it's not possible to arm every potential rape victim and say "now it's on you!". But it's either something you choose to do, or something you don't. You don't tell them what they should have done to prevent it. But when someone does prevent it, do you tell them they shouldn't have had the ability to?

by matt_ 14y ago

A gun? Pepper Spray? You have no idea how the rapist will react to that. And someone shouldn't have to have the burden of ending another human's life just to not be attacked.

cobrausn 14y ago

What is with this absurd first world notion that nobody should ever have anything bad ever happen to them in their life? Self-defense has been part of being alive since the dawn of humanity - living in a civilized (to various degrees) area doesn't negate that. You are either prepared to do what needs to be done to protect yourself, or you rely on passive measures (living in a nice area, avoiding dangerous situations, etc.) and hope you don't become a victim.

hnriot 14y ago
It's a first world notion because that's part of being a first world country. We invest in infrastructure that provides protection. Self-defense has shifted to the much more efficient system where by individuals don't walk around armed because we pay into a system of government that provides both police forces and military defense. The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick. I can't imagine a more dangerous society where we all take self-defense into our own hands. It wouldn't be the first world if we did that. Let's not start spouting the gun toting nonsense here, the audience on hn is too smart to buy that.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  'Gun Toting Nonsense'? God this is absurd elitist bull - the type of drivel spouted from the mouths of people who assume the argument is already won by virtue of their 'superior minds'. I'm guessing you live in a wonderful neighborhood with great police protection, low crime, and are not part of the demographic that is often targeted for assault. I'm happy you get to live your wonderfully enlightened progressive existence. The rest of us will just become one of those statistics that happen when you 'offload' your rights, yes? Of course you don't take your self defense completely in to your own hands - we live in a civilization so that we can organize and protect each other. But, ultimately, you are the only one who can ensure you stay alive. To think otherwise is pretty naive, or comes from a position of entitlement. For the interest of full disclosure, I keep a firearm in my vehicle and one at home. My wife concealed carries. We live in a neighborhood with fairly regular home invasions, and even a few murders over the last few years. We plan on leaving as soon as student loans get paid and we can.
- drcube 14y ago
  Police are not there to protect you. Their job is to bring perpetrators to justice. If they are nearby, they may or may not attempt to stop a crime in progress, but they are not required to do so, and that does nothing to stop personal assaults that might occur. In the best case, they are purely reactionary, not preventative. In the worst case they are useless. The military is not there to protect you either. Their job is to enforce national policy abroad, put down rebellions and repel invasions. I agree that police and the military make us safer overall, on average. But they do not protect you personally. You can either pay a private security firm to defend you if you are rich, or you can defend yourself. There literally are no other choices.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    In suburban and rural areas where they only show up in response to phone calls, I agree as far as police being reactive. But in urban areas police serve a preventative and direct-intervention role, which is one of the classic functions of "walking the beat". They're physically present at major squares and landmarks, and intermittently present through much of the rest of the city. I pass police officers pretty regularly when I walk to and from work, and I would guess most of the time (barring when I'm in a more remote area), I could get a quite timely response if I yelled for help.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - mlbmlb 14y ago
      The important part is: > to come if you call them That is very nice in the situation you described (e.g. someone is shouting threats at you, especially in the comfort of your house), but pretty useless in most other situations. Unless you have a police officer walking with you 24/7/365, when you find yourself in front of attacker, you may or may not be able to even call the police and when they arrive, they would only collect evidence around your dead body. Yes, the attacker would be then removed from the society (usually only temporarily and only if they are found) and some possible new attackers would be deterred by the idea of being found. But before someone like that is convicted, they must perform or try to perform their first crime. Is this some kind of duty, if someone happen to be that first victim, to remain defenseless and sacrifice themselves? Also there are incidents such as road rage or crime of passion, when the attacker has no previous history. PS: Even in the situation you described (guy making threats outside your home), the police may be, and often is, late, when the guy (or more of them) decide to get into the house. Calling the police and waiting for their arrival takes at least minutes. Unless you have a fortress, making a way into your house takes seconds. Recall the woman who had to shoot two robbers while still talking to 911 operator.
- Jayschwa 14y ago
  > The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Unless you have your own private bodyguard, being prepared to defend yourself isn't ridiculous.
- mlbmlb 14y ago
  >The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick. Then I suppose you also shun the idea of CPR or the first aid in general. That's what first world society has doctors for...
_delirium 14y ago
If you live in an actually civilized area, you shouldn't have to shoot people (or even brandish a gun at someone, or fire warning shots) in order to walk down the street without being harmed. That's pretty much the baseline threshold for living in a civilized area versus some kind of wild-west scenario where you barricade the windows and don't dare leave your home unarmed. I can see that it'd be prudent to be able to engage in some self-defense in rare scenarios, but in a civilized area they really should be extremely rare scenarios. A functioning government and civil society to the extent that people aren't being regularly assaulted in the street isn't that high a degree of public order! I live in a large European city, and I certainly feel safe here without carrying guns (safer than I feel in most American cities).
Jayschwa 14y ago
I find the mentality puzzling as well. It seems to confuse idealism for reality. "X does not happen under ideal conditions, therefore, it is wrong/foolish to prepare for X."
- icebraining 14y ago
  I think the foolish part is advocating that as a solution, like people are doing here, by presenting them as alternatives to this governmental initiative. As an individual, I should protect myself. But I expect my government not to rely on me, or my grandmother, having to learn how to shoot.

theorique 14y ago

A gun? Pepper Spray? You have no idea how the rapist will react to that. By screaming in pain and flopping on the ground, one would hope. And someone shouldn't have to have the burden of ending another human's life just to not be attacked. Well sure, but given the choice of injuring / killing an attacker, or being attacked, what do you think most people would pick? What would you pick?

matt_ 14y ago
What if the attacker has a gun/pepper spray?... Not to mention that many women state their bodies just shut down like they weren't even there, even if they had a way out/way to defend themselves.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  And many women recall every horrific detail. Seriously, you sound like you are advocating that any potential rape victim should just shut up and take it. My guess is it would be because your (already stupidly safe) life would be a bit safer without (legal) weapons around. My wife, for what it's worth, will put a bullet in a rapist and not think twice. I told her to put more than one. If that seems 'crass' or 'tacky' or 'unenlightened' or whatever else to anyone here, I really don't care. It's not your body and life we're talking about here, and it's not like she has the ability to fend off a motivated 200+ pound attacker without one.
  - matt_ 14y ago
    No. I'm not. I'm advocating that telling a rape victim that she could have/should have done more to defend herself is stupid and disgusting. I'm fucking thrilled if your wife has the capacity to do that. That's great. I really fucking hope she does. Thinking that every woman can do that, or that it would be possible in every situation (or even most) is absurd.
    - cobrausn 14y ago
      Of course it's not possible to arm every potential rape victim and say "now it's on you!". But it's either something you choose to do, or something you don't. You don't tell them what they should have done to prevent it. But when someone does prevent it, do you tell them they shouldn't have had the ability to?