[rtl49]

It's amusing that this article states outright that carrying a gun can "not really" make people safer, because guns are banned in so many places. Instead, Indians need "better policing" and "changing attitudes."

Is there anyone who believes this nonsense? What percentage of the population would need to be police in order to prevent every rape? What change in attitude is going to stop sex-deprived men from acquiring what they are programmed to want more than anything else?

This particular gun won't do much -- you'd have to be more than a good shot to stop a gang rape with a six-shot .22 -- but to claim that personal defense is best delegated to the authorities in these cases is simple nonsense. But perhaps this claim is more palatable to their audience than that they would prefer live with a certain amount of rape and other violence so long as there are no guns being carried around.

[jeremysmyth]

What change in attitude is going to stop sex-deprived men from acquiring what they are programmed to want more than anything else?

This statement is profoundly insulting to the billions of men who have enough self-control every day not to destroy another person's bodily integrity and dignity to fulfil a temporary need. Just because some people cannot control themselves to obey the law and common respect does not suggest that their attitude is normal or cannot be changed.

There's a similar argument used in certain conversations about rape to the effect that you wouldn't dangle a tasty slice of bacon in front of a dog and expect him not to jump for it. While that might be true of feral dogs, I've known many domesticated dogs who are capable of even that degree of self control, and I absolutely would not apply the same metaphor to humans, or otherwise suggest that we are incapable of distinguishing ourselves from feral animals in the face of certain desires. We're better than that, and for you to suggest otherwise is abhorrent.

[rtl49]

False indignation is a poor way to arrive at the truth. "Insulting," "destroy," "abhorrent," etc. Sheer emotion.

You seem not to be familiar with Indian society at this moment in history. I won't trouble you with the details, since that might require setting aside one's ego for a moment. But for the sake of appealing to your strong sense of emotion, I'd like you envision a life where you live in abject, degrading poverty, you have no prospect of a better future, premarital sex and pornography are stigmatized, there are more men than women, prostitution is illegal, and there is essentially no realistic prospect you will ever have any consensual sexual encounter with a member of the opposite sex for the rest of your life. Maybe you'd feel slightly more like the feral dog than you do at the moment.

We are animals, in no way set apart from the other species. Those of us who exert "enough self-control every day not to destroy another person's bodily integrity" are merely lucky. To suggest otherwise simply reflects this profound, Utopian ignorance of the human condition that only the world's most pampered are privileged enough to relish without consequences.

[DanBC]

US has more guns per capita than any other country. Rape is still common.

[rtl49]

Obviously the presence of guns is not the only variable that differs between the US and countries with lower rates of sexual assault.

[gonvaled]

Obviously you have no study to backup your claim that carrying arms is helping in these kind of problems, since there are no studies where the absolute only differing variable is the presence of guns.

[rtl49]

I don't believe "a study" is needed to arrive at every conclusion under the sun. Just as I don't need a study to assert that I'm looking at a computer monitor right now, I don't need one to assert that people who are armed are in general better defended against violence than those who are not.

That being said, I was only calling out a simplistic remark about the association between guns and the incidence of violence.

[gonvaled]

Just because you think this is simple issue and you think that the answer is obvious, doesn't make it so.

>> I don't need one to assert that people who are armed are in general better defended against violence than those who are not

Just raising some simple questions:

1. Who does own the arm? The good guy, or the bad guy?

2. Can you shoot?

3. Can you shoot under pressure?

4. Can you make sure nobody (kids, thieves, ...) is getting hold of the arm?

5. You with your gun in front of another armed guy: are you really more secure?

6. Will you be able to use you gun tomorrow? Next week? In three years? When you break your leg? Will you really be better protected when you are not actively practicing?

And the question that interest society, and thus the government:

7. Even if you are one of those lucky few who will be better defended owning and carrying a gun: will society be more secure allowing people like you to carry a gun? You may think you are the good guy, or that you are an excellent shoot, but I may think you are not.

So, you need a study to prove that guns are indeed increasing security. But you rightly pointed out above that there are no studies which only correct for guns / no guns. Therefore, you can not prove that guns are increasing security.

I can also not prove that they decrease security, but I do not pretend I can (or, even worse, that I know), or that it is obvious they do.

[JoeAltmaier]

Be reasonable; all social science studies have that flaw. So we look for correlations.

[gonvaled]

No, we do not: "correlation does not imply causation"

And to top it: there is a strong correlation of fewer guns and less violence (Europe vs USA)

[JoeAltmaier]

Cherry picking! There are plenty of places with fewer guns and more violence, and where it makes no difference.