In another episode of “The Numbers Speak For Themselves”, Hsoi provides us a link to a very interesting study (*.pdf warning) containing the below excerpt:
Women are often advised to use non-aggressive strategies against sexual assault. Research suggests that this is a poor advice. According to one study, women who used non-forceful verbal strategies, e.g, crying or pleading with the assailant
were raped about 96% of the time.Forceful verbal resistance, including loud screaming was more effective than non-forceful verbal resistance. These strategies were associated with completion of rape from 44%-50% of the time.
Running works even better than verbal resistance. Researches indicate that only 15% of women who attempted to flee were raped.
Forceful physical resistance is an extremely successful strategy. The completed rape dropped to 14% when the rapist’s attempt was met with violent physical force. Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling. Physical resistance also appeared to be more effective when assault occured outdoor.
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.
(Emphasis added.)
Personally, I would categorize “running away” with “physical resistance”, given that you must first free yourself from an assailant before you can escape him, but the points remain the same: fighting back against a rapist works. Period. And fighting back against a rapist with lethal weapons works even better. Period.
The most important and powerful weapon you will ever posses is already right between your ears, and the willingness to use it is the first and most significant step in ensuring your safety and security. However, once you have chosen to be willing and ready to fight back against agressors, I am all for fighting back efficiently and effectively… and “reducing the rate of injury to statistical insignificance” seems pretty darned effective to me.
And, as usual, reality continues to support my assertion that those who would disarm law-abiding citizens are, in fact, aiding and abetting criminals. The best target for a criminal is an unarmed, defenseless individual, as is already being proven by once-Great Britain, and anyone looking to disarm potential victims is directly contributing to the job security of criminals.
It really does make you wonder how anti-rights activists can sleep at night.
related posts:
another myth bites the dust | what hoplophobes want | those annoying little “facts” |
Thanx for the link.
As for how they sleep, I guess it depends on the particular one. Some sleep in an ivory tower. Some in gated communities with armed security details. Others just in the “lucky-so-far” illusions of their life.
How does the old joke go? What’s a Democrat/Liberal? A Republican/Conservative that’s never been mugged.
No worries – it was a good find.
As for the hoplophobes, I just do not understand how they can doom so many people to defenseless victimhood, and then proclaim it to be a “good” thing. I suppose the possibility exists that they are that far disconnected from reality, but that is just a scary thought indeed.