At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Using your own statistic of 1700 rapes in the military in 2005...
First of all, it was 2004, according to the BBC article you cited.
Second of all, the article states that
Quote:
Of the 1,700 cases reported in 2004:
880 involved an alleged assault by a military person against another
425 involved an alleged assault by a military person against a non-military person
99 involved an alleged assault by a non-military person against a military person
296 involved an unidentified assailant against a military person
Seems to me that the only one that is germain to our discussion of rape in the military is the first and last ones combined. That's not to say that the others aren't important, they are. But the only ones that are germain to the discussion of gun control are military vs military or unidentified vs. military. Combined that makes 1,176 cases. Not a small number. However, considering that there are roughly 1,400,000 people in the military, that number becomes 84 per 100,000 of population. That is still a large number... easily as large as Alaska, which has the worst rate of rape in the USA.
So we need to ask a few questions.
1) Where any of the victims carrying guns? I would guess not. A gun isn't a deterrent if they aren't available to be used.
2) Where the assailants carying guns? Probably not. If they were, they would have shot their victims to keep them from talking at all.
3) Where did the rapes take place? Was it in view of people who were armed? Again, probably not, or else the armed bystanders would have stopped the rape from taking place.
4) What is the actual level of gun availability in the military? Do people walk around armed all the time, even if their duties have nothing to do with carrying a gun? Usually not.
5) What has been the law enforcement environement? Gun availability alone is not enough to stop crime. Gun availability combined with proper law enforcement are required to do the job properly. And it seems to me that the military has NOT been doing enforcement propely vis-a-vis rape cases.
So in fact, gun availability played no part in the crime, and not having a gun left the victim unable to defend herself. If the victims had a gun, they probably would have used it. If witnesses had a weapon, they would have stopped the rape fom occuring. So having a gun would have changed the entire event, wouldn't it?
As for the 37 women who came out of Iraq and claimed to have been raped, please keep in mind that there were at the time of the article roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. That means that the number of rapes was roughly 28 per 100,000 of population. That actually makes it lower than the national average, and comparable to the lowest third of all states. And yet even that number is too high. No question about that.
So why were these women unarmed? And if they were armed, why didn't they use their weapon?
This is not to blame the victims. I blame a system that disallows anyone to carry a weapon in a dangerous environment. I blame a bureaucracy that keeps weapons out of the hands of female soldiers who are not considered "combat" troops.
Duckling, don't you think that these women would have been better served to be armed than unarmed when they were attacked? I certainly do.
Nor am I arguing that guns can take the place of law enforcement. If the hierarchy of the military isn't taking law enforcement seriously, the result can only be an increase in crime. However, in cases where law enforcement does their jobs seriously, gun availability can add to crime prevention. I blame the military for that lack of enforcement.
There is one thing that I have a bit of a problem with, Duckling, and that is your use of the word "torture". As far as I can tell, none of these women have been water-boarded, forced to sleep in cold cells, or any of the other acts that have been categorized as torture in the media. Have these women suffered? Certainly, and I do not diminish their suffering. But torture is a LEGAL term, and it is one that does not apply in these cases, by-and-large.
Now... you might think that my post is minimizing the problem. I'm not. I'm just looking at it through the lens of analysis. I look at the facts unemotionally and draw conclusions based on those facts. Oftentimes that is seen as "cold" or "harsh". But that is the only logical way to go about gathering data and reviewing it. Emotion clouds judgement. I deal with facts, not emotions.
Fact: guns, while more prevalent in the military than outside the military, are NOT widely available and are in fact restricted to certain personnel.
Fact: none of the victims were armed.
Fact: none of the witnesses, if there were any, were armed.
Fact: the military has been lax with regard to sexual crimes law enforcement.
Conclusion: if the victims or witnesses had been armed, the rapes might not have taken place. Restriction of guns did not prevent these crimes, whereas gun availability might have prevented these crimes. The military needs to take a stronger hand in enforcement as well.
As i have said before and ill say it again. I see the main difference in our point of views as a cultural one. It is ingrained into your minds. Thats fine. I respect that. Where as me and where im from it isnt. We arent taught that is a attack on our freedom to not carry a gun. We dont think that way.
No problems that you do. Its just hard to fathom for most of us! Like it is for you to fathom our thinking!
Yup, not everyone got a boat ride out of England
What I've typed below might sound a little bit repetitive at first, but I hope it helps you to understand a larger spectrum and more details. It's long but I promise it's not boring.
First of all, we have always had guns, guns made this country, our forefathers hunted with them, etc. They are such a regular part of life here. My grandpa needs his gun quite a lot to keep wild animals like deer, red squirrels, etc. from chewing up his wiring or eating his crops. A lot of people live like this here. The US isn't just NYC, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and the big cities, there are a ton of people here living the way I explained my grandpa lives. To them, they think: Why should this perfectly practical tool, which everyone in my family has used in the past, be taken away from me?
However, I think you are more upset about gun crimes in big cities. Drive-bys, school shootings, little boys finding daddy's Glock. You have to narrow down on this specific problem or else people will get guns taken away who don't deserve it. Frankly, I don't think my grandpa and many others are quite fit enough to be chasing a deer with a spear, they need that .22 sometimes.
I agree that a handgun is for killing a man. I see no other use out of it. But people who use guns to murder, many times use illegal guns. If guns were banned, criminals could still easily obtain them. Here's an example: Cocaine is illegal in the US (you're smart enough to figure the rest of this one out).
If guns were banned, responsible farmers and similar people would loose their tool, hunters would lose their sport, everyone would lose their tradition and freedom, and people in big cities would be defenseless against criminals with illegal guns.
What I've typed below might sound a little bit repetitive at first, but I hope it helps you to understand a larger spectrum and more details. It's long but I promise it's not boring.
First of all, we have always had guns, guns made this country, our forefathers hunted with them, etc. They are such a regular part of life here. My grandpa needs his gun quite a lot to keep wild animals like deer, red squirrels, etc. from chewing up his wiring or eating his crops. A lot of people live like this here. The US isn't just NYC, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and the big cities, there are a ton of people here living the way I explained my grandpa lives. To them, they think: Why should this perfectly practical tool, which everyone in my family has used in the past, be taken away from me?
However, I think you are more upset about gun crimes in big cities. Drive-bys, school shootings, little boys finding daddy's Glock. You have to narrow down on this specific problem or else people will get guns taken away who don't deserve it. Frankly, I don't think my grandpa and many others are quite fit enough to be chasing a deer with a spear, they need that .22 sometimes.
I agree that a handgun is for killing a man. I see no other use out of it. But people who use guns to murder, many times use illegal guns. If guns were banned, criminals could still easily obtain them. Here's an example: Cocaine is illegal in the US (you're smart enough to figure the rest of this one out).
If guns were banned, responsible farmers and similar people would loose their tool, hunters would lose their sport, everyone would lose their tradition and freedom, and people in big cities would be defenseless against criminals with illegal guns.
This was a good post and i agree with you for the most part. I just want to stress that i am in no way advocating the banning of guns used as 'tools'. I think it would be silly to ban farmers and the likes if your grandpa having a gun. He needs it to survive just as our farmers in Australia needs theres to keep pests at bay. He and they NEED to have it. And im sure he would have it legally registered and only uses it where necessary. My gripe is by no means with your grandpa and his gun. I would never want to take that practical tool away from you.
My gripe is why does Elliot need to carry his sniper rifle? Why does he need this? He claims he needs it for protection because the police cant. Well perhaps therein lies the whole problem. Policing. Perhaps the Government needs to spend more on policing in the US rather than policing the rest of the world. Im sure if the trillions of dollars spent on the War in Iraq was spent at home in the US fighting crime then perhaps the police and government would live up to their side of the social contract and Elliot wouldnt need to carry his gun?? But alas, no, he still needs it for the day he and the rest of america take down the government.
Put simply i see much credit in the argument that some form of gun control reduces crime. Im sorry if i have come across that i want guns used as tools taken away. Not at all. I stress that point. Guns used for work and sport should be registered legally and stored according to some sort of strict code. If a gun is owned for clay shooting then store it at the rifle range. If a farmer needs his gun for work then there should be strict conditions on where and how is to use his weapon.
I just find it perplexing to think that someone cant walk down the street and feel safe unless they have a handgun. I actually feel sorry for you. We dont have this problem here. I have lived in some of the worst parts of Sydney (our biggest and most 'dangerous' city) and have never ever felt the need for a gun.
To me Elliot is an irresponsible gun owner. He wants it shoot another human. To me you will never justify that. Your grandpa however is the responsible one and id never take it from him!
But thanks for your post. It makes a lot of sense to me and i agree with you!
Well thanks skell , but the part of my post where I said criminals will always have guns is what I must stress the most. If more gun laws come, crime will just evolve again like it always has and guns will be out there again. Plus, all of the old guns in black market circulation will still be out there. Gun control wouldn't really do much. From what I've seen, the guns used in the worst crimes, like where there are innocent bystanders, are illegal in the first place. I saw something on TV about a little girl being shot while one guy was chasing another guy with a fully automatic AK-47. People order the parts from other countries and put them together, or just have them smuggled into this country.
As for handguns, like I said, they aren't good for anything else but killing. But thank god we have them because if a woman is in her bedroom and she turns around to see a man in a ski mask approaching her, I hope she has a pistol to save her life with (This happened to a lady my mom knew). As for Elliot, who is from NY, right? Improved policing won't do anything for him. Imagine this scenario:
Bad guy: Gimme ya money, now!
Elliot: One moment, let me grab my cell phone and contact the police
Bad guy: Uuuuu...........POW!
What can I say, it will always be the wild west over here. It's good that you want to keep people from dying, but fire is sometimes best fought with fire.
Yes but Galliant fellow citizens owning guns doesnt seem to stop this violent crime. Even in the cities where gun laws are non existent violent crime is still higher than that in most other western countries. To me it doesnt seem that guns are helping too much.
So perhaps the problem is deeper than simply gun control. Perhaps it is policing. I too still think that it is culture. Australia has a violent culture but not as violet as the US according to statistics. I think a reason for this is that we have limited the use of guns. It has changed our culture. At the time of gun laws being introduced there was an outcry, however now a decade or more on there is barely a whimper of discontent. We still have violent crime, but it doesnt involve near as many gun deaths and violence. The next step is controlling knives and other weapons. This i would argue will contribute again to a change in culture.
Crime will always occur and indeed crime has not changed much since our gun laws have been introduced. robberies have gone from robbery by gun to by knife. But a telling stat for me is that mass murders / shootings have reduced significantly. In fact they have ceased to exist except for ONE involving two people only.
Where as in the States you have an epidemic of mass murders involving guns. It may not reduce crime but it will reduce murders and thats a start! Ive never heard of 32 people being stabbed to death in one go!
Perhaps the US should look at better policing and changing a culture. Then maybe one day you guys will be happy to turn in your guns because you no longer live in fear. I doubt though that day will ever come. And if it does Elliot still needs his to shoot down the government.
Well perhaps therein lies the whole problem. Policing. Perhaps the Government needs to spend more on policing in the US rather than policing the rest of the world. Im sure if the trillions of dollars spent on the War in Iraq was spent at home in the US fighting crime then perhaps the police and government would live up to their side of the social contract and Elliot wouldnt need to carry his gun??
The police can't prevent every crime as it is committed. In any country!! Even yours! You read the part about acknowledging the police are re-active not pro-active, right?
If the US Gov't turned the focus on fighting crime here, we'd all be in a group hug while terrorist over-run us.
What I see is the citizen's here have the constitutional right to own firearms, if desired, and YOU don't like it.
Further, I see you have an opinion on US policy, but we do, too. You want to change our policies and our opinions, but you can't. You've clearly stated the US isn't involved in any way in your country, why your intense concern for ours?
You can't change my thoughts about personal liberties, and I have NO interest in even knowing yours.
I've said it before but it seemed to get lost in all of the other posts so I'll say it again. If you want to get rid of something that is dangerous why not start with swimming pools.
Swimming pools kill more people in United States than guns do. Swimming pools have no use except for recreation. A swimming pool often take the youngest most innocent of our society. So given this information should we ban swimming pools? They clearly present more of a danger to the public than guns do. What about cars? They are kill more people that swimming pools and gun combined. Cars are very often used to avoid police and commit murder. Where does it end? Once cars, swimming pools and guns are gone. Do we get rid of pointy objects just how far do we take this train of thought
So perhaps the problem is deeper than simply gun control. Perhaps it is policing. I too still think that it is culture.
Like Captain Rich said: police are re-active, not pro-active. And as for our culture: A huge capitalist economy + much racial tension = excessive violence. That's why our culture is so violent. I know how we can solve this problem, we can just kick out all of the other races, throw Adam Smith's and the founding father's ideas in the garbage, and start a new country where the cream stays at the bottom. Sounds good, right? If people can't handle this jungle, then they can get plane tickets to another English speaking country like Australia where they can be perfectly safe and perfectly average.
Has anyone considered punishment as a factor….Saudi Arabia has a very very low % of violent crimes….Hmmmmm, wonder what kind of sentence a person gets, and I bet they don’t provide movies and great food.
Linear Mode
