0
0

CMV: Feminists should stop calling for daddy government help and let free market and rational self interest solve the rape problem (self.changemyview)

AjaxFC1900 が 投稿

Let's assume for a moment that the statement "Every man is a potential rapist and every man would rape in the right conditions" is in fact true (which is not) ; I just don't understand why (given this prior condition ) american women don't act in their own self interest and use the Constitutional Right granted by the 2nd amendment to protect themselves against all potential rapists out there , given that almost every rape situation is caused by a disparity between the physical strength of the 2 parties involved a firearm would be the ultimate equalizer in that sense .

Even better , the solution to the problem comes as cheap as 300$ for a small and discrete firearm ; and that is not even considering the lowering of the prices that would eventually happen because of the raise in the demand . This would be a much more efficient and elegant solution and most importantly it would not involve the government in any way and this also means no taxpayers money wasted and just let free market take care of this issue . It would also mean that many new companies (led by female entrepreneurs) could flourish in this environment in order to produce and market weapons and purses which are practical and designed specifically to facilitate the extraction in case of imminent danger of rape/sexual assault .

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

全 47 件のコメント
並べ替え:
Q&A (提案されたアイデア)
ベストトップ新着論争中古い順

[–]KevinWester7∆ [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

So basically, you're saying that we should not rely on the government to enforce laws, and that when people commit crimes we should revert back to a 'Wild West setting' where people take justice into their own hands using firearms and other weapons?

Seems like a regression vs a progression of society.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

That's a discussion for an other day/thread , I'm only referring to the rape problem here . In the specific case a woman carrying a weapon and in danger of being raped could just use the firearm as an equalizer in order to escape the dangerous situation

[–]stcamellia9∆ [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

So then, any woman could kill any man? She would just lure him somewhere secluded and then shoot him.

It will lead to the same "he said/she said" we try to avoid with a legal system.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

Men can carry guns too...at that point the self preserving instinct would take over do and both parties would back away from each other , because even for a disturbed person (rapist) keep on living would be more important than sexual satisfaction

[–]stcamellia9∆ [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

So then anyone could just kill anyone. It would be a system where you don't dare be caught alone lest someone shoot you and claim you were the aggressor.

Either you advocate for a paranoid society of violence, or you think some sort of libertine equilibrium would eventually arise where everyone is tough and acts kindly out of fear of retribution. Either way, these are opposed to the popular and working concept of society, law and justice.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

So then anyone could just kill anyone

Why would you say that the 2 parties (rapist and victim) would kill each other instead of slowly back away from each other as a consequence of survival instinct taking over?

[–]stcamellia9∆ [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Because that is a denial of the fact that people do, actually, in the real world, meet each other with deadly force until one or more participants are dead. Gun fights, knife fights and other altercations don't just end up as games of chicken. A threat of deadly force should only be used when its meant. No one should just assume pulling a gun will definitely make the other person back down. That Guns 101.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Because that is a denial of the fact that people do, actually, in the real world, meet each other with deadly force until one or more participants are dead

This is not a rape scenario , this is not even a robbery scenario...this is a scenario where both parties desire the death of their opponents (political reasons , industrial espionage , mob retaliation ....)

[–]stcamellia9∆ [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

I think you have a very narrow idea of how certain crimes take place. People are murdered during botched robberies, people are murdered in bar fights over the last bottle of Budweiser, people are murdered over facebook, cold eggs, toilet paper...

Any firearm instructor will tell you to only point your gun at something you intend to shoot. You advocate for senseless escalation based on the idea it will de-escalate the situation. No expert would recommend this.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Let's assume that this is true..and for the first 6 months of the policy there is a spike in sex assault related deaths (sometimes both the rapist and the victim die because they shoot each other , sometimes just the victim and sometimes just the rapist and in a number of cases they back away and both survive) with relative coverage by mass media , now why would a rapist try to assault a woman/man anymore? He/she would not reach his/her goal anyway because either he/she would be dead , his/her victim would be dead or survival instinct would take over and they would both back away from each other . I think you are heavily underestimating the deterrent represented by the rapists knowledge that his/her victim is carrying a gun and ready to use it if should be necessary to protect him/herself

[–]kabukistar3∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Because if someone is pointing a gun at you, shooting them stops them from shooting you first. Backing away doesn't.

[–]KevinWester7∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So you're just saying women should carry guns, but laws around rape will continue to be enforced?

[–]JeBooble [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Are you suggesting women walk around with guns drawn in a ready stance as they go about their day? Rapists can get the drop on an unsuspecting person. In your model, I would always have to have one hand free (finger on the trigger), eyes in the back of my head, constantly scanning for threats because it is 100% now my responsibility to prevent my own rape.

What happens if a rapist is caught? Should the government hold a trial and pay for the incarceration? Or are you advocating the rape victim be the judge/jury and executioner?

Don't forget that children are sexually abused. Would you hand a gun over to a 5 year old and ask them to carry it around for protection?

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Are you suggesting women walk around with guns drawn in a ready stance as they go about their day? Rapists can get the drop on an unsuspecting person. In your model, I would always have to have one hand free (finger on the trigger), eyes in the back of my head, constantly scanning for threats because it is 100% now my responsibility to prevent my own rape.

If you believe the that "every man is a potential rapist and every man would rape in the right conditions" this is happening all the time anyway , sure you can press charges afterwards , but you are the only one responsible to prevent your own rape , it's not like police can erase your memories of the event

[–]LetsStayCivilized [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

given that almost every rape situation is caused by a disparity between the physical strength of the 2 parties involved

No, violent stranger rape is the exception - most rapes are by someone the victim knows - see http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics

(also, look at the number of rapes of kids below 12. Are guns really a very likely solution there??)

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Even when the assaulter is a friend the physical strength disparity is still the ultimate cause of the rape , because once the "friend" begins to sexually assault her you can make the case that the woman would try to react or leave otherwise we enter in the infamous grey area (rape or not rape) which is not the topic of discussion. Beside my premise was that every feminist claims that every man is a potential rapist and would rape should some circumstances occur , so if they really believe in this statement they should be ready to use their weapon at any given moment even against friends or stay away from men entirely and just use the firearm to protect themselves in public places .

Making statements and then not acting to protect themselves as per their statement authorizes to blame them should an assault happen , e.g.. If I leave my car open with keys in the dashboard in a bad neibhrhood I deserve at least some blame for the inevitable conclusion

[–]stcamellia9∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

react or leave

That is a false dichotomy that any familiarity with crime victims would dispel.

eside my premise was that every feminist claims that every man is a potential rapist

This is not really a factual claim by feminists, but rather an assumption that allows for one to build safely off of. "Trust no one" in the words of Fox Mulder.

they should be ready to use their weapon at any given moment even against friends or stay away from men entirely and just use the firearm to protect themselves in public places .

What about pacifists. They are not ready to meet violence with violence.

[–]Navvana8∆ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You're making a very common mistake about rape. In fact it's the mistake that's so common it's the reason you see this movement.

Rape is nonconsensual sex. That's it.

It isn't just when a guy in a ski mask jumps you as you jog at night pins you down and has sex with you. It isn't just when your drink is spiked and you're abducted. Rape is most common in bedrooms with someone your romantically interested in. It's most commonly practiced by people who don't even know/realize they raped someone. Ever hear the phrase "No means No!"? It wasn't coined to try and stop the ski mask or spiking style rapists.

The entire point of these campaigns is to educate men on what rape is, and how to recognize when your sexual advances aren't wanted. It's a real problem, and that problem isn't all men are rubbing their hands together behind a bush just itching to rape someone. Ignorance is the issue not malice.

Given the above "threaten to shoot them" isn't exactly an elegant solution to what boils down to an education issue.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Rape is most common in bedrooms with someone your romantically interested in

The premise was that my proposed solution was referred to feminists whom claim that "every man is a potential rapist and every man would rape in the right conditions" , now if they really believe that the aforementioned statement is true , they'd stay away from men companionship let alone "romantic" involvement ; so the only risk left is being sexually assaulted by a stranger which could be significantly reduced by carrying a firearm for personal protection

The entire point of these campaigns is to educate men on what rape is, and how to recognize when your sexual advances aren't wanted

Do you realize that you and me and everybody on this planet are a byproduct of non consensual sex , right? Sexual drives disparity between men and women? 80/20 rule? Nothing? This is one of those issues where it's just much more convenient to take care about the problem itself , not the causes of it ; because otherwise in a fair society the ideal solution would be to find an equilibrium by diminishing a bit the sexual drive of men and kick up a notch the sexual drive of women given that the technology to do so is not too distant in the future.

[–]cdb03b43∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not pursuing criminals is not logical. Rape is illegal, and one of the most severe crimes on our books. Regressing society to a point of lawlessness is not a good thing.

Also, very few rapes are done by strangers or physical subduing. It is normally done via coercion or drugging by a known person (often family).

[–]ShadyFox [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The safe assumption in any fight is that any weapon you possess can be taken and used against you. From a broken pipe to a gun. With a number of assaults, not just rapes, being the product of surprise attacks/ambushes, you may not only have time to not reach the weapon you have, but to also have it taken from you before you even have a chance to fight back depending on where you're carrying it. Not to mention once you bring any weapon into a fight you've escalated the potential violence. What could have been a mugging/rape may now be a murder - whether the initial perpetrator or victim. Once you bring out a gun, you should damn well be sure you're intending to kill the person because that's how those situations could end. I'm an advocate for people protecting themselves, but I am not an advocate of putting lethal arms into untrained hands.

[–]vl9970∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If "free market" and "rational self interest" are synonymous with guns, does that mean "daddy government" is synonymous with the police?

If so, I don't see why you think the two are mutually exclusive. Second of all, even if the woman has a gun, the rapist still holds the element of surprise, which is arguably much more powerful than a gun in the 'dark alley' type situation I assume you're envisioning. It doesn't matter how well her purse facilitates gun access, even if she were walking with her gun right in hand and finger looped around the trigger, a guy can still jump out of the dark and force her to drop the gun before she can use it with any effectiveness. Then not only is she at the mercy of a more powerful attacker, but that attacker may have her gun in his hand.

[–]stcamellia9∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The point of society is to prevent the sort of escalating violence this solution causes.

american women don't act in their own self interest and use the Constitutional Right granted by the 2nd amendment to protect themselves against all potential rapists out there , given that almost every rape situation is caused by a disparity between the physical strength of the 2 parties involved a firearm would be the ultimate equalizer in that sense .

This is a gross misunderstanding of rights and of the reality of rape. By the same logic, voting should be compulsory, political speech and journalism should be compulsory, etc. I exercise my rights by NOT owning a firearm, or practicing religion or commenting on politics.

Rape is not always a directly violent thing. Most rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows which implies some other element is at play: unconsciousness or a sort of social powerlessness is at play. Simply advocating that everyone reacts to a type of situation with the threat of deadly force is absurd.

Even better , the solution to the problem comes as cheap as 300$ for a small and discrete firearm ;

This discounts the cost of ammunition and to train how to use the new gun safely. Conceal carry class, target practice and gun locks are all very necessary parts of owning a gun for personal protection.

raise in the demand .

The minority of Americans are buying guns and ammo at a rapid pace, which ironically is NOT rectifying in the manner Econ 101 might tell you it would. Look at .22 bullets: demand consistently outstrips supply.

no taxpayers money wasted and just let free market take care of this issue

So I assume the would-be rapist's families will cover the cost of investigating and cleaning the crime scene?

It would also mean that many new companies (led by female entrepreneurs) could flourish in this environment in order to produce and market weapons and purses which are practical and designed specifically to facilitate the extraction in case of imminent danger of rape/sexual assault .

This industry already exists.

[–]Koilos [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

...given that almost every rape situation is caused by a disparity between the physical strength of the 2 parties involved a firearm would be the ultimate equalizer in that sense .

This assumes that there would only be two parties involved. Even a firearm would only do so much good against multiple assailants.

Even better , the solution to the problem comes as cheap as 300$ for a small and discrete firearm ; and that is not even considering the lowering of the prices that would eventually happen because of the raise in the demand .

Even if the prices got lower, it would still mean that the individual's basic right to physical safety would be dependent upon financial ability, which is generally not something a society is comfortable enshrining in law or practice.

This would be a much more efficient and elegant solution and most importantly it would not involve the government in any way and this also means no taxpayers money wasted and just let free market take care of this issue .

I kind of feel like the cost of investigating whether the resulting deaths were murders or legitimate cases of self-defense would actually cost society more. (This source, at least, suggests that the cost of investigating a murder is far higher than it is for other types of crime.) Likewise, the entire reason we have a justice system and attempt to avoid the kind of "Wild West" mentality described here is because it ends up costing society more, in terms of stability, when punishment is applied haphazardly by individuals.

Additionally, your post only address sexual assault directed against adult women. What do you suggest should happen when sexual assault is directed at males or children? Should they always have the obligation to be armed as well? And if you believe the government should respond in these cases, why are you singling out women as the sole targets to be denied access to legal redress?

[–]yaxamie6∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The second amendment has been intact for hundreds of years and to date no secondary discrete firearm market has emerged.

[–]JesusaurusPrime [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

A raise in demand would RAISE prices.

[–]AlwaysABride5∆ [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Don't you think the government is going to get involved on the back end if women just start up and shooting every guy they think raped them?

Your plan may work fairly well for the "stranger in the bushes" rapist, but it is just going to land women in jail for murder in other cases like the "I thought he was rich" rapist, and the "I regretted it the next day month" rapist, and then "I was drunk" rapist, and the "oh shit, my boyfriend found out" rapist.

In current conditions, all those other types of rapists can be punished in some method or another. Either through prosecution by "daddy government" or by "daddy government" turning a blind eye when the victim shames the rapist on social media, or actual media.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Men can carry guns in order to protect their lives too...I always referred to firearms as equalizers , not as an advantage for only one of the 2 parties involved

[–]AlwaysABride5∆ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

to protect their lives

Right. But you're suggesting that women should carry guns to protect themselves from assault, not merely to protect their lives.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

If both the rapist and the victim have loaded gun pointing at each other survival instinct will take over and they'd both back away in order to preserve their own survival

[–]Makapi88 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Or the one with the best reaction time/aiming will win.

[–]NaturalSelectorX53∆ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

given that almost every rape situation is caused by a disparity between the physical strength of the 2 parties involved a firearm would be the ultimate equalizer in that sense .

Are you sure about this? Are you completely unaware of how women are drugged or taken advantage of after drinking?

Let's assume your premise is correct. What situation are you imagining? It could be that the woman is fine with kissing, but doesn't want sex. Is the woman gripping a gun while passionately kissing their partner just in case? Do you think a rapist will announce their intentions and allow a woman to grab her gun?

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

My argument is specifically directed to women who think that "every man is a potential rapist and every man would rape in the right conditions" these people would stay way clear of romantic relationships let alone dates , being with a man in a position where she is vulnerable and would not have time to react in case of assault etc etc

[–]AutoModerator∞∆[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]singlerider6∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How are you envisioning this overcoming problems with date rape?

[–]GreyDeath [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The vast majority of rapes are not done by boogeymen snatching women in the dark, but rather by people known and often close to the victim. Even in the best of cases people are often uncomfortable in killing another human. A potential rapist with less remorse is more likely to escalate the incident into a murder. Additionally, this would not help in any of the cases where a women was incapacitated by either alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

My argument is specifically directed to women who think that "every man is a potential rapist and every man would rape in the right conditions" these people would stay way clear of romantic relationships let alone dates , being with a man in a position where she is vulnerable and would not have time to react in case of assault , alcohol , drugs etc etc

[–]GreyDeath [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

these people would stay way clear of romantic relationships let alone dates

This is not really a reasonable approach. The fact is that while you may disagree with these women they still people, and thus will still want to interact with people in the same way everybody else does, including dates. While is is feasible that every woman who has this mindset buy a gun, realistically it will never happen. It's like abstinence only sex education...sure abstinence works on paper (its certainly simple and elegant like your proposed solution), but realistically people don't do it so it fails in its applicability. So ultimately, it doesn't matter how elegant or simple a solution is if its not applicable.

Additionally, not every woman has this mindset, but not having this mindset doesn't prevent a woman from being sexually assaulted. When feminists try to tackle the problem of sexual assault it is on behalf of not just women who share their view, but also women who don't.

[–]JimCrackedCornAndIDC1∆ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Don't most rapes happen when one or both parties are intoxicated? I'm pretty sure it's illegal to be intoxicated and also carry a weapon.

[–]AjaxFC1900[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

My argument is specifically directed to women who think that "every man is a potential rapist and every man would rape in the right conditions" these people would stay way clear of romantic relationships let alone dates , being with a man in a position where she is vulnerable and would not have time to react in case of assault , alcohol , drugs etc etc

[–]JimCrackedCornAndIDC1∆ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Do people like that even exist though? Seems like a straw man honestly. How is the government even involved with women who fit into this category? I feel like I'm missing something.