Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
If you seriously think a Jiu-Jitsu grading is a "friendly sparring competition", I'd suggest you actually go to one. I can assure you friendly does not come into the equation. In my case, the person who struck me in that region did so with enough force to lift my feet off the ground, and I'm hardly a lightweight. If done properly, it can incapacitate an attacker long enough to get away, and that ultimately is more effective than pulling a gun on them and hoping they don't shoot first.
|
There's still a difference. They aren't trying to kill or rape you. There are people there who can stop the thing if it gets really bad. It's still "safe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
Source?
|
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
(About a 3rd of the way down the page)
About 92% of all "incidents" result in no shots fired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
Perhaps not, but it's also erroneous to presume the attacker will be taken down before they fire themselves, which seems to be the implication in all your arguments. What is equally conceivable is that the victim is shot, raped regardless and left with the aftermath of rape and the injuries resultant from the gunshot wound, which could potentially be fatal. That is a constant danger when talking about escalation such as you describe, and again why bringing weapons into the equation is not a magic pill as you allude to.
|
I'm not saying it's going to be a magic pill, I'm saying it's going to give the person a better chance than if they were simply unarmed. You however, are automatically assuming the criminal is always going to shoot first and come out on top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
Based on what, exactly?
|
Based on the fact that if you're unarmed, you're going to become a victim regardless. If you are armed, you have a chance, however slight it may be.
Some chance is better than no chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
I think self-defence techniques aimed at preventing either are a better bet, to be honest. They tend to be more effective and also come without the same risk of being killed.
|
Self-defense techniques aren't preventative in that aspect, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
Sorry, did you actually bother to read what I wrote? If you apply education in a blanket fashion and enforce positive attitudes from the outset, as I alluded to in my post, the "potential rapist" angle becomes completely redundant. If you target the general population with such a message, and in particular make people more aware about consent and basic respect, you reduce the likelihood of harmful attitudes developing. I don't exactly see what the problem is with that statement.
|
The problem with that statement is that you're depending on the rapist, who already knows that rape is wrong, to suddenly come to his senses because you "educated" him that what he's doing is wrong.
Also, how the hell are you going to "enforce" positive attitudes?