Guns stop Rapes

Another despicable act that's left a lady hospitalized and traumatized probably for life, and we still have liberals advocating nonsense (stuff like sensitizing men) that can't and won't stop rapes.

A unarmed populace is a sitting duck story. An unarmed woman is easy prey for deviants.

Its guns that can stop rapes.

Note Katie Pavlich: Reality check: Rape is illegal (which by definition means "don't do it") and as a society we highly condemn it. This doesn't change the fact rape happens often. Luckily thanks to concealed carry, rape and other violent crime has rapidly decreased over the past few years. Maxwell is correct when she says rape often happens with someone a woman may know, but her argument boils down to "if you just ask him not to, he won't," which is asinine and false. Maxwell's comments about "not talking to women at all" but instead talking to men is also ridiculous and a typical liberal way of taking responsibility out of the hands of the individual who needs it most. Not to mention, begging and pleading with a hell-bent rapist in a parking garage or on a college campus won't stop anything, but a firearm will. Rhetoric is great in theory but in a live, dangerous situation it doesn't work to save woman's life or prevent rape.

Read a case in point and more here.


Vishnu Raghavan said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vishnu Raghavan said…
I was reading the statistics of crimes against women in the USA as a test case and was oddly surprised that its quite high. and if i recall the right too bear arms still exists. the statistics are available at,
therefore availability of guns does not seem to have helped matters much. the argument is not meant to deny what happens here in India. the fact is i am apalled- deeply so. this madness must stop. but i would like to be better informed. for in the USA many an armed goon seems to threaten a woman and the carry out his scheme- so arms may not prove a useful deterrent.there must be other means- perhaps better a combination of background checks on who can hold guns and also the right of a decent citizen to self defence. a blind adherence to arming all may on balance prove less useful
interestingly the USA also appears to show a desire to address its problem of gender related crimes. It may take more than just an armed citizenry to stop this menace worldwide-if what Susan B Carbon says is true in the link below

Ray Titus said…

Of course, the US. too suffers from crimes against women. But what I can't understand is how you came to the inferences you've made when there's absolutely no data in any of articles linked to back it up.

You assume just because there is a right to bear arms in the US, everyone bears arms. That isn't true. Which means you don't know if there's greater violence against those who bear arms vis-a-vis those who don't.

If you need the data to that read the most comprehensive research work done on the link between guns and crimes. This work by John Lott comprehensively proves, 'more guns = less crime'!

If you by chance think John Lott's a conservative fixing his data, think again. Read more about why his work is comprehensive and foolproof in the article from Ann Coulter -

The interview article you linked to is more about the circumstances to violence against women. There's nothing in it to connect violence to guns, or otherwise.

As to the advocacy of background checks, I don't get the drift. Background checks to stop criminals from getting guns, or so criminals won't use guns in crimes against women? I mean, what do guns have to do with date-rapes (talked about in the interview)?

I'd really like to know what the bright ideas are that can stop rapes. Please don't tell me liberal nonsense like sensitization is the answer. Attitudes that see Indian men treating women like cattle have been deeply entrenched in the Indian male psyche through years of cultural learning. Sensitization classes will do nothing to change such attitudes, especially with the kind of culture that hangs over all of us.

At least I am not willing take that 'paatshalla - moral science - change attitude' route. My recipe is clear and concise. The guys who do it (of course, after a conviction by a court of law) have to be strung up (read, death by hanging) at the earliest.

The guys who are trying to do it need to have their heads or other parts of their bodies blown up by an 'empowered' woman who's carrying a gun!

If anyone still has better ideas, I am all ears!
Vishnu Raghavan said…

The article I do admit merely highlight crimes against women in the USA. But considering the fact that no thug is going to do a background check, before choosing his victim most of them being opportunistic , the fact that the proabability that a potential victim may be armed seems to deter few of these criminals. An unarmed criminal will be more alert and more wary- less likely to harm an armed decent citizen. weapons for a decent citizen to defend himself are perfectly fine, but then again a thug should be disarmed. this i believe can be done through background checks and then issuing weapons, taking care to keep out criminal elements from the club of gun owners.
My father, Lt Col Raghavan,and my Brother, Captain Raghavan opined that decent citizens should bear arms as there is no way policemen can be there all the time. In fact we own firearms, they are now in my brothers possession since my fathers demise. I suspect that your argument is similar and the logic is perfectly good. alongside this, i believe background checks so as to curb criminals and hsitory sheeters is a must. here is why
- a decent person will most probably carry a handgun and minus practice a handgun has limited use. a handgun or a sword is used in close combat in wars for obvious reasons- ease of use and the same will hold in case of assault- one can shoot off a handgun faster than a high powered rifle or a shotgun,. the reason why a would be criminal should be disarmed is because he will have ample time to practice, a luxury that most of us may not possess. Having fired weapons I know that this holds good and it seems to make ok sense.
wrt premeditated crimes, only an absolutely stupid criminal will use a licensed weapon since a simple ballistics test will do the needful to establish his guilt. There will therefore be a need for stricter law enforcement to clamp down on illegal gun making units.
Moral sermonizing as you said will not help- as Hobbes said, that men everywhere are guided by their greatest motivation- lust for power. The need to come down heavily on criminals I believe falls as one of the duties of the state- it is a subset of the charter of duties f ay responsible state.
Date Rapes well I really am puzzled. It includes cases wherein the victim is drugged and incapacitated-ancient india called this an illegal form of marriage- asura wedding wherein a person has intercourse with someone who is intoxicated, or mentally infirm and it was to be condemned. A gun will not likely serve to deter a would be date rapist as logically one would drug his victim- neither does a would be rapist come with a set of defining characteristics nor does he announce his intentions- so a gun would be pretty useless. One would need to be wary to avert such a situation
Now comes a puzzle I came across in the Novel The Associate by John Grisham.Is it when the person refuses at the outset or when she changes her mind somewhere midway during the process that rape charges are pressed. I suppose when engaged in conversation it sounds plausible that a would be date rapist (not sure if such a term occurs but..) will be deterred. By the presence of a gun. But if she changes her mind while almost engaged in the act I doubt if the weapon will help- it may lie safely away. Of course the idea is not to write obscene stuff but to attempt to describe limitations to the uses of a weapon.
And while guns may provide part of the solution they cannot be the entire solution.
Vishnu Raghavan said…
the aforementioned link is of course to describe that guns may not mean greater or lesser incidence of violent crimes
there may well be other factors that may help regulate.
Ray Titus said…
I don't get it. How will background checks stop thugs with guns? Thugs don't go to stores, present ids and buy guns.

In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.
Unknown said…
But its side effects are dangerous. Other Crimes will increase.
Vishnu Raghavan said…
the weapons obtained by smugglers are class a weapons and their price is bound to be quite high, as is that of the ammunition- such people are not likely to be sitting in some hovel like a defunct factory-

the guys in these seedy locations are not fellows who can afford these- sociologically most big gangsters have been shown to adopt some profession to gain a veneer of respectability in society-

thus the criminals in the case are capable of acquiring weapons made in indian village side foundries- these are doubly dangerous- either the victim or the shooter dies(my father in one of his jocular moments called these kattas(country pistols) as sporting weapons- either the victim falls or the gunman falls
we simply do not know the number of these weapons but they must be substantial. also they are easier and cheaper to obtain, use maintain and dispose of- their use is proliferating and they are difficult to curb
thus cracking down on the makers will help reduce the presence of weapons
same with smuggling

Vishnu Raghavan said…
next the background checks should help in eliminating any access such elements will have to legal weapons

Popular Posts