Susanann, I now live in fear that you’ll see me, misidentify me as a man, think I’m trying to rape you, and shoot me, just because my car is parked in the adjacent row.
Carrying a gun isn’t going to prevent you from being a crime victim, and it makes you far more likely to become a criminal. Especially with attitudes like yours.
Susanann: most rapists do it again( they dont get rehabilitated) when they get out after 73 months
This Justice Department study indicates the recidivism rate for rapists is about 46%—is that what you meant by “most” rapists?
I read the link, did you read it?
Your statement is extremely misleading, and does not answer how many rapists do it again.
That link, and study does NOT say that “ONLY???” 46 percent of convicted rapists do it again. Furthermore, it does not even mention what the next crime that they are arrested for is. By the way, do you think that a rate of 46% repeat being rearrested is “good”? I dont think that is a very low rate, and who knows how many more never got caught again within 3 years.
The study you linked to says that the police only “catch”("likely to be rearrested ") them again, 46% of the time.
Are you trying to tell everybody that the police catch, and rearrest “ALL” rapists who are repeat offendors?
I suggest, that you should find a study that instead, tells us how many rapists, do only one rape in their entire lifetime. I think that that would be a better indicator of how many rapists are repeat offendors, and how many only do it once in a lifetime.
The study you find should not just depend on those “arrested” for rape, since most rapists are never arrested.
Your link and faulty study depends on “arrest” figures, which grossly underestimates the total number of rapes.
The FBI states that about 82,000 rapes are reported to the police each year in the United States"(http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm).
Only 16 out of 100 rapes are reported to the police. One in eight females in the United States is a victim of forcible rape(http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/rape.html).
"Over half of college males surveyed said they would use force to coerce a female to have sex if they thought they could get away with it. "http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/rape.html
"Even with the limited definition of rape, it is estimated that there are more rape victims (3,750,000) in the United States than combat veterans (2,480,544). Several studies report that approximately 40% of females are victims of attempted or completed rape during their lifetime. Even with such substantial statistics, the number of actual rapes may be greatly underestimated. Rape by a spouse, friend, or date is often unreported and many times not considered as “real” rape by the victims, even though the legal definitions of rape are met.
"http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/rape.html
Yet, there were only 27,469 “arrests” for rape in the year 2000 http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t41.pdf
Using data from “arrest” statistics, and depending on data from "re-arrested for rape, ignores nearly all the rapes that are going on.
I am NOT trying to change your mind.
You can believe what you want, and you can be defenseless if that is what you choose to be. I dont care.
You are free to keep your own opinion and if all the females in your family want to be unarmed, and at the mercy of any rapist or maniac that is out there, then that is your free will choice. More power to you!!!
Every one should decide for himself or herself if they want to be defenseless.
I wish I could quote statistics on how many(rather, how few) women who are armed and trained are raped, but there are so few, that there are no such statistics.
We search through police reports each week, trying to find an armed woman who was raped, and they just never come thru.
Very occasionally, you may find a woman who “owns” a gun or who someone gave her one, but even in those rare instances, the woman was never trained in using it.
By definition, an armed and trained woman is virtually impossible to be raped. Rape is not a consentual crime. No aremed and trained woman ever “lets” herself be raped.
I can give this statistic though on how many armed women are NOT raped each day:
"Over 500 women use firearms to defend themselves against sexual assault or abuse each day – that’s one woman protected every 3 minutes. "http://www.jpfo.org/alert20000607.htm
Susanann, my mother, working in the ER during her residency, treated a woman who had been shot in the abdomen with her own gun by the man who took it away from her, prior to raping her. She had been trained in the use of the weapon.
You deceive yourself if you think that never happens.
You are free to disagree, that is ok.
The alternative, is to put away violent criminals in prison for VERY long periods of time. Quit filling up our prisons with non-violent offendors. About half of people in prison or jail are either drug offendors or other non-violent offendors.
If we kept violent criminals in prison for very much longer periods of time, then police chases may start to make sense and could then be discussed.
It made sense in the old days to chase rapists, when we used to hang them or shoot them. Chasing and catching a rapist meant that he would never do it again, and the public was safer and better off because of the chase.
But when we let murderers out after only 96 months, rapists after 55 months, and robbers out after an average of only 48 months, then police chases do not make any sense at all.
Those same criminals who were chased, even if caught, will be out and about to do whatever evil they want in just a few short months, whether they were chased or not.
Buy all of Paxton Quigleys books, and read them, it will tell your wife all about avoiding getting into dangerous situations. It will also tell her how to defend herself with all defensive tools.
Start your wife a .22 revolver, and have her shoot it out in the forest or valley, many thousands and thousands of times, until she can handle it as well as any other part of her body.
For self defense, get her a revolver with a hammer. Do NOT get her a semi-automatic handgun. Semiautomatics jam, have feeding problems, have safties that need to be pushed or dont have any safties at all like the Glock which is always carried in an unsafe cocked position, are hard to pull back the slide, and break a womans nails.
Revolvers are totally dependable, have no safeties to fiddle with, and are ready all the time, even after years of non use, no worrying about an old magazine spring getting weak, or a safty switch rusting in a locked position, just pull the trigger of a revolver and it will fire, even after 20 years lying in a purse.
I recommend a .38 revolver 3 inch barrel, a name brand.
After becoming completely familiar with the .22, have her shoot the .38 several thousands of times.
The small S&W 5 shot revolvers are very small, very light, and totally dependable. The chrome ones with pearl handles are very pretty. You can use a variety of loads, depending on how frail she is. I taught a 90 pound 65 year old woman to be deadly accurate with a .38 using standard factory loads. You can also use lightpowered loads that dont kick at all. The S&W can also handle hollow point +P bullets with much more power. Intermix the bullets carried in the revolver, with hollow points and lead(suggested mix is 3 hollow points and 2 lead for a 5 shot revolver).
The .38 has a one shot stopping power of 80%, and if your woman is accurate, and empties her gun on an attacker, the stopping power increases to 100%, and the attacker usually decides at that point to go after a totally defenseless woman instead of bothering further with your armed woman.
If your woman can easily handle a .38, then, and only then, try her out with a small lightweight .357. The Taurus Titanium is still on the medium size, is light weight, has 7 shots, and has very little kick because of holes at the top of its barrel.
You are right and “Never” is a very long time.
Yes, even very big men, 20 year well trained veteran police officers have had their guns taken away from them, and have been shot by their own poilce issued weapon when they got careless.
Well trained veteran police officers have also shot themselves when they got careless. Being “well trained” does not make anyone less of a fool.
Anyone can get careless.
Yet, the majority of our police officers still carry guns for selfdefense.
Did you ever wonder why our police carry guns? even though there have been many of police officers who have had their guns taken away? even though there have been many police officers accidentlally shoot themselves?
Ask yourself why the police “STILL” carry guns(I dont know about where you live, but around here they do anyway, all the police where I live still carry guns), even though some police have shot themselves, even though some police have had their guns taken away.
Susanann, what’s your point? Are you now retracting your claim that carrying a gun makes you immune to rape (and your husband immune to carjacking)? Or do you still hold these beliefs?
Yeah, Susanann, what’s your take on that? It seems to me you’ve done an awful lot of backtracking, and you’re straying off topic.
You failed to respond to my questions posed to you about the OP.
IIRC, this was originally about police chases, etc. etc.
Your question is off-topic, but let me try to help you understand.
Maybe this will clarify:
We are no more likely to be raped or car-jacked, than any well trained, “non-careless” and well armed police officer is likely to be.
Sorry, but I cant give you the exact mathematical possibiity that a well armed, very well trained, and very carefull off duty policeman will be raped or car-jacked tonight, but the odds should be about the same.
We personally have absoultely no concern nor worrieds at all about the possiblitiy of being raped nor car-jacked, day or night. I sincerely hope you feel the same way.
It is also my opinion that I think it is more likely that an unarmed, careless, defenseless person will be car-jacked or raped tonight.
You are free to disagree, and apparently, neither one of us is going to change our minds. As long as we both have no worries over being a vicitim of crime, that is all that matters, right?
I carry a Ruger P95DC. It’s a 9mm semi-automatic magazine fed pistol and I keep one 15 round magazine in it and another in the holster when I carry it.
It has no mechanical saftey and is never carried in the cocked and locked position. It’s heavier than your average Glock because the slide is steel, not composite, but it does have composite grips that are not too big for my hands.
The number one most important thing in getting a carry pistol is that the person who will be carrying it has to be 100% comfortable with it. The pistol must feel like nothing more than an extension of the hand to be truly effective. If you can get to a range that will rent pistols, try many of them. Find the one that feels the best in hand and go with that.
You’ll hear a lot of people talk incessantly about caliber, but in reality I’d rather my mom carry the .22 caliber I know she can hit a dime twice at 30 feet in under a second with than a .40 caliber she couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn at point blank range with. A carry pistol is something you have, you train with, you become good at using by reflex, you eventually treat as an extension of yourself, and you hope you never have to put that to practical use and fill someone’s chest cavity with lead. But if the person carrying it isn’t comfortable with it, it’s useless.
So that’s my suggestion. Spend the time with your wife to find exactly the gun she will be most comfortable pulling out and putting 2 or 3 shots on target in 1 second or less, and then take handgun self-defense classes and train with it. Pick out her carry pistol, don’t force her to carry someone else’s choice.
Back to the actual OP:
In 1997, during a high-speed chase of a hit skip suspect through downtown Cincinnati and NoKY, an officer killed a kid when a ran a stop sign while trying to join the pursuit.
Here’s a little background, and a googling for cincinnati + chase + berting should yield plenty more:
Anyway, the officer in question was attempting to join the pursuit from halfway across town, in direct contradiction to departmental policy. He eventually lost his job and his license, and the original guy who was being chased is serving 13 years for reckless homicide.
Clearly, given the number of lives that were ruined, it would have probably been better if they broked off chase and attempted to catch the guy by other means.
I mean, some sort of cost-benifit analysis is in order. If letting the guy go would present a greater danger to the community than chasing him, by all means, burn rubber. But every chase has the potential to kill a cop, suspect, or innocent bystander. I’m willing to pay the price of having a handful of speeders get away if it means that I won’t get mown down when I’m minding my own business.
John Bunnel: “This crook thought he could get away in a stolen vegetable truck, but now he’ll have plenty of time to toss salads, in jail!”
[sub]Well, not really.[/sub]
This strikes me as a really bad example. An officer who doesn’t follow correct procedure should not be the standard setter. A well trained and cautious police force will be able to make the right call on a high speed chase. At least, in theory. 