Posted on 06/14/2009 7:45:03 PM PDT by appleseed
Bryce sent me this great link to a very interesting study on women defending themselves from rape and the success rates of these methods. Huge hat tip to him as this is awesome. For those on dial up I will sum it up.
Women who used non violent methods of resistance (crying, pleading, etc) were raped about 96% of the time.
Women who used forceful verbal resistance (yelling, screaming) were raped about half the time.
Running works better then yelling as the women who ran were raped about 15% of the time.
Forceful physical resistance is slightly more successful than running. Those women were raped 14% of the time. Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling.
Finally women who resisted using a knife or a gun were raped less than 1% of the time. I really think that figure speaks for itself. [editor notes the study did not talk about batons, mace, tazers, stun guns, etc. I would wager batons are about the same as guns/ knives and the other miscellaneous weapons would be between the forceful resistance and guns n knives categories.]
Hat tip survivalistblog.com
I have dial-up and waited for several minutes for the pdf site to load. Here's the meat of the article:
Women who used knives or guns in self-defence were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance.
Self Reliant/Survivalist ping list
Think on that a sec.
dial up?
And you maintain that ping list so well!
Bravo Brother!
Bravo!
They want the world to be full of victims, or people who feel like victims. That way, everyone will go running to the government and say "Help me! Help me! I'll pay anything!"
I have drilled this into my daughter's head:
1 - someone WILL NOT take you to a second location - to go to a second location means you will AT LEAST get raped and probably killed as well...
2 - you WILL get ANGRY at the suggested use of violence towards you
3 - you WILL yell FIRE and run and scream
4 - I don't care if they have a weapon, you will do all of the above.
There are also statistics on if you run the chances that someone will shoot - the likelihood that they will hit you - the likelihood it will be a survivable injury and the likelihood it will be a mortal wound. If I remember correctly, its like a 20% chance it will be a mortal wound - with those odds I want my daughter to run for her life! And that is IF they shoot (or even have a gun) which depending on the location - crowded mall parking lot or something - they probably wont do....
Because if you destroy women's self-confidence, and if you can get them to be harmed as a result, you make them fearful victims who will reject personal strength as unreliable and even dangerous. Then their only recourse for perceived safety is the collective, for which they will fight viciously, feeling that their very lives depend upon it's success. And finally, as a result of experiencing all of this manipulation and trauma, they will project their delusional fear into hatred for conservatives as unfeeling evil rapist monsters, and vote Democrat.
Women who are armed with the truth wouldn’t clamor for more state “protection” for one thing. It’s a rice bowl issue.
And liberals hate self-sufficient women... like Sarah Palin. Somehow I cannot see that happening to her without some considerable damage (or fatalities) to her attackers.
> It makes you wonder why those who say if women resist they are more likely to be hurt. The statistics aren’t even close enough where they could fudge them with different sampling methods or definition changes. Why are they so eager to keep women from resisting that they openly lie about it?
That’s easy. Law Enforcement is a self-perpetuating industry. If there are no crimes, there are no criminals. And if there are no criminals, then there is no need to catch them.
My wife uses the handgun, or AR-15, or pump 12ga methods...depending on where she is. :-)
Carry concealed in purse. Pull out and aim at chest. Fire until empty even if they go down. Makes sure the job is done and saves taxpayers the cost of a trial, plus avoids the strong possibility they will just get let loose to attack other women in the future.
The natural inference from their claim would be that by their definition, women who meekly "lie back and enjoy it" are "not hurt".
One advantage of preventing rape with the use of a handgun is it provides an opportunity to prevent any future women from being victimized by emptying the magazine into the head and torso of the perpetrator.
Incredible! I live in a very remote mountain area, with no over the air television of any kind (never has been), and even I don't use dail-up any more. I thought it went the way of the telegraph!
The irony of it that some people seem incapable of seeing, is that getting raped IS getting hurt.
WTH do they mean, if you resist you might get hurt? If you get raped, you WILL get hurt.
Pass this on to any other lady friends you know on FR, ladies.....
ping
On the other hand, some rapists don't intend to leave witnesses from the git go.
Our daughter took a RAD (Rape Aggressive Defense) class when she was in Senior Girl Scouts. A couple of detectives from our local police force taught the class. They taught the girls all kinds of attack moves, and on the final night of class, the girls got to put their new knowledge into practice. The detectives suited up in padding from head to foot, then told the girls to do their worst. Each girl got the chance to fight off her 'attacker', and they were wailing on those guys! They all did a great job, and we moms were proud as could be.
I also bought her a very LOUD whistle for her to keep with her when she's walking or riding her bike on campus. Found it at Duluth Trading, and put it in her stocking last Christmas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.