Reply #136: I'm trying to get this clear, really I am

[Euromutt]

I was addressing two SPECIFIC scenarios. I stated a preference for one of them.

In one scenario, someone was killed.
In the other scenario, no one was killed.

In one scenario, the intended victim was not beaten and raped.
In the other scenario, the intended victim was beaten and raped.

You expressed a preference for the latter.

On those BARE FACTS, and on those SPECIFIC CRITERIA ALONE, I preferred one scenario over the other.

By "those specific criteria alone," do you mean "if you ignore the fact that in one scenario, the victim was beaten and raped"? If so, that's rather a crucial factor to choose to overlook, isn't it?

In point of fact, the two scenarios were quite likely apples and oranges.

That's not very plausible. As I pointed out elsewhere, in the scenario in which the assailant got shot, he had first sought out the victim in her hiding place, forcing open a locked bedroom door to get to her. She was using a cordless phone, so if he'd wanted to interrupt her 911 call, he could have located the base station (which is generally located in a common area) and disconnected that, probably in less time than it would have taken to locate her with the handset. And if he'd just been after the DVD player and the PlayStation (or other material possessions, he had ample time to grab those while she was ensconced in the bedroom.

Moreover, the assailant was known to the victim; he'd been stalking her for some time previously, and she'd already filed six complaints against him.

I haven't listened to the other call. I honestly don't have the stomach for it.

No matter how rich the fantasy life of those drooling over women shooting up bad guys to defend their virtue.
<...>
So you know what I see? I see a nice little victim-blaming scenario being set up.

For someone who protests so frequently that she never literally said what is being attributed to her, you certainly have no scruples about drawing inferences--and spurious ones at that--about what other people mean.

All women have to do is pack heat, and pull trigger, and that whole rape thing will just go away. Women don't want to do that? Well damn, whose fault is it when they are abused and assaulted then, eh?

You wanted an example of a "filthy, false statement about someone else here equivalent to the one in issue"? You just made one.

It should be superfluous to say it, but rape is always the rapist's fault. That's my considered opinion, and it would take something truly remarkable to change my mind on that.

I mean, sorry, but do you think we firearms enthusiasts don't have women in our lives that we care about? Spouses, lovers, sisters, friends, co-workers. We're all lefty-type liberals here (by American standards) so chances are we know women who aren't comfortable with owning, let alone carrying, a firearm. Which is fine; some people just aren't comfortable with firearms. Are you seriously suggesting that we'd be fine with those women being raped because they preferred not to own and carry a firearm? Hell, even women we don't know? What a horrible idea.

The answer is no. No, we pro-RKBA types aren't looking to blame the victim. We don't want there to be any victims of rape and sexual assault. The problem is that the causes of rape are myriad, and to a large extent (at present) outside our ability to control by means of public policy. In other words, we don't know how/don't have the ability to eliminate rape at the source, much as we would like to. This goes for violent crime in general. Absent that ability, the best we can hope for is to provide potential victims with the means to defend themselves. And in our considered opinion, firearms are the most reliable tool for that purpose.

You don't have to agree with that, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume our motivations are nefarious.