The Phenomenon on 19/4/2008 at 23:50
Quote Posted by fett
My point wasn't that they weren't doing enough. My point was that clearly whatever they're doing isn't working, and I didn't understand why she would be opposed to taking more drastic measures. Given the rape statistics, no one in the "anti-rape" campaign has much credibility when it comes to criticizing a new method of prevention. If her "campaign" were actually working, the numbers would be going down not up, so who gives a fuck what she thinks about these devices? Her stance seems to be one of unrealistic idealism - that somehow because the women are required to
do something to prevent the rape, this device is somehow demeaning. As if she's expecting the government and the rapists to "shape up" because of her outrage. I don't get it. Also - sorry to mis-state your original post. "Only problem" is quite different from "least of the problem" - I just got the idea that you were saying rape crime was a low priority in light of the other things going on.
As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry that you live such a place, but you haven't exactly articulated why these devices are a bad idea yet. Obviously I realize that SA is in really, really bad shape, which is why I started the thread to begin with. Restating the fact doesn't bring weight to your argument that the device is a bad idea. It only reinforces the point that something drastic needs to be done. In this case the individual wouldn't be dependent on the government or the mercy of the rapist - they could take the situation into their own hands.
As much as I hate handguns, what you're saying about the SA gun laws terrifies me in light of bans being proposed in the U.S. I used to live in Little Rock Arkansas and unfortunately am very familiar with gang mentality. It doesn't bear thinking about what would happen downtown if civilians couldn't legally purchase a firearm to keep these assholes out of their houses and away from their kids.
Well, its not a anti-rape organization's job to stop rape, in fact, what could they possibly do other than create awareness of the problem? And this they do. This is something the government can do via a police force, because only they have the authority to do so. I just don't understand what you expect these people to do?
Why these devices are a bad idea? Already stated by other people in the thread, but: I never argued for or against them, but I do agree that they are more likely to escalate an already violent situation to something worse. Then again so many rapes turn into murder here already that it might not matter. I don't know really. I don't think these devices increase the chances of your survival when you are raped, least of all in a gang rape scenario. Once the device is discovered it would lead to something far worse.
Gun control is funny if you ask me. If you are in a situation where guns are already everywhere inside your borders (South Africa and many other African countries, the US for examples), placing heavy restrictions on acquiring guns legally is fucking stupid. Because you simply won't dent gun-crime one little bit, and you will only make your law abiding civilians easier targets. By having firearms regulated and registered to specific owners, and thereby enforcing safety standards and competency is the only realistic option there is if you ask me. IE. Force all gun owners to complete a course on using and taking care of the weapon, force people to have a proper safe to store the firearm in etc.
It simply blows my mind that South Africans are not allowed to own firearms for self defense, when our police force is incompetent, our crime rates are sky high and our criminals are well armed with black market weapons that are imported from China and other parts of Africa.
SubJeff on 19/4/2008 at 23:55
That is surprising. Just about all of the South Africans I've ever known owned guns too, but I guess that's because they're all farmers. Guns are crazy easy to get in Africa, for sure. The fallout from the Renamo vs Felimo conflict ending in the early 90s has certainly had an effect in some of the southern states in terms of ease of gun purchase.
What I want to know is what the penalty in SA (and the US) is for owning an illegal weapon.
fett on 20/4/2008 at 00:00
Quote Posted by The Phenomenon
Well, its not a anti-rape organization's job to stop rape, in fact, what could they possibly do other than create awareness of the problem? And this they do. This is something the government can do via a police force, because only they have the authority to do so. I just don't understand what you expect these people to do?
In again before this turns into another gun thread.
You're still missing my point. I don't expect the anti-rape organization to DO anything. However, what they ARE doing is clearly not making an impact. Therefore, why would they be critical of something that might give women a fighting chance to get away or fight back? Not fully understanding the situation there, I'm not in a position to judge whether the devices would be effective or not. It just seems odd to me that the anti-rape organization (which has apparently had NO direct effect on rape crime) is so vehemently opposed to the device because they consider it degrading to women. Isn't being raped MORE degrading?
But I see what you mean about gang rape/murder scenarios - it would be totally ineffective in those cases, and possibly this is why the anti-rape woman opposes the device.
catbarf on 20/4/2008 at 00:34
I used to live in southeastern Africa, and having been to South Africa several times I can completely sympathize with The Phenomenon.
The Phenomenon on 20/4/2008 at 02:26
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
That is surprising. Just about all of the South Africans I've ever known owned guns too, but I guess that's because they're all farmers. Guns are crazy easy to get in Africa, for sure. The fallout from the Renamo vs Felimo conflict ending in the early 90s has certainly had an effect in some of the southern states in terms of ease of gun purchase.
What I want to know is what the penalty in SA (and the US) is for owning an illegal weapon.
Just owning one over here? Not very harsh, but I dont know specifically. You'd probably never even be prosecuted unless you were doing something else illegal and the gun was found on you. However killing an armed intruder with an illegal firearm is going to get you years of jail time. Not that violent criminals stay in prison long, anyway.
Like I said, if you had a gun from before, you still have it now. IT was fairly simple to get a firearm license (for handguns or hunting rifles only mind you) under the previous government provided you had a clean record. NEW license applications however are just not being granted, period.
37637598 on 21/4/2008 at 18:55
Slut- The ultimate rape prevention.
SubJeff on 21/4/2008 at 19:08
What dishwater are you frothing now?
Peanuckle on 21/4/2008 at 20:48
You know, people complain that these things will only induce the rapist to more violence, but how about doping the "teeth" with a powerful tranquilizer? So much blood gets cycled through a man's package that the dose would get to his body pretty quick and depending on the strength, slow him down or KO him, letting the victim-to-be get away and the cops arrest the guy.
Less lethal on both end.
37637598 on 21/4/2008 at 20:59
I thought the same thing, about violence, but a tazing vajay-jay??? That would just shock the chick too, most likely. Good thinking though... Maybe they could just put some chemical on the ends of the hooks, that would put the rapist to sleep, or in so much pain that he could not function.
nickie on 21/4/2008 at 22:14
Quote Posted by Peanuckle
You know, people complain that these things will only induce the rapist to more violence, but how about doping the "teeth" with a powerful tranquilizer? So much blood gets cycled through a man's package that the dose would get to his body pretty quick and depending on the strength, slow him down or KO him, letting the victim-to-be get away and the cops arrest the guy.
Less lethal on both end.
Don't know why, but it occurred to me whilst reading this that there is another point to consider. Women have a hard enough time proving rape in the first place. In the UK, at least, you may well be sued by a perpetrator if you hurt him/her while protecting yourself. In something like this, you may well find that not only can you not prove rape - 'there was consent, officer' - but you could also be sued for damage.
