Which is better?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am a lot less upset about the loss of a bad life than damaging a good one.

Understandable. I certainly wouldn't be upset if someone about to get raped shot the rapist, it's just that both outcomes are bad because either way a life is either wrecked or taken away, and that's something that can't be a good thing.
Now... if the potential rapist was shot in the balls, that would be a good thing

[dazzleman]

I am a lot less upset about the loss of a bad life than damaging a good one.

Understandable. I certainly wouldn't be upset if someone about to get raped shot the rapist, it's just that both outcomes are bad because either way a life is either wrecked or taken away, and that's something that can't be a good thing.
Now... if the potential rapist was shot in the balls, that would be a good thing

It's probably more humane to kill a guy than to shoot him there....

Look, I understand your points, but I've seen enough horrible crimes over the years to have lost any sympathy for the criminal element.  When I hear a criminal is killed somehow, I say good riddance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's probably more humane to kill a guy than to shoot him there....

I don't like rapists

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough

[??????????]

Florida's self defense laws are a joke. You can legally kill someone even if you could have safely escaped. Some Democrat should find a way to use that to legally kill all of the Republicans who passed that bill.

Yes, because unlike you, people around here believe in freedom.

[John Dibble]

To the 5 people who have voted for option 1 so far:

Please go tell your wife, girlfriend, mother, or some other important woman in your life that if someone was trying to rape her, you would rather her get raped than her killing the rapist. See what her reaction is to that.

[David S]

There have been some truly disgusting viewpoints in this thread.
The reason i carry a .32 everywhere i go is for the very reason that i will not let myself be raped again without a fight.
A rapist feels no pity or remorse towards the victim and i would not hesitate to put a .32 hollow point into some scumbags skull.

^^^^^^^ 
One rape prevented and one less rapist in the world. Sounds good to me.

[A18]

Wait... so why does TexasGurl oppose the death penalty, then?

[Inverted Things]

To the 5 people who have voted for option 1 so far:

Please go tell your wife, girlfriend, mother, or some other important woman in your life that if someone was trying to rape her, you would rather her get raped than her killing the rapist. See what her reaction is to that.

Would you get off your high horse? You're asking for a lesser of two evils situation. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're choosing an evil.

My answer was a tongue-in-cheek one for that reason. I'd certainly rather any important woman in my life killed rather than allowed herself to get raped if she was in an either/or situation.

You're question was asked in the abstract, and given a woman I don't know and a man I don't know in that situation, I simply do not care about the outcome.

Those five yes answers believe in preserving life--in the abstract. Thus, they prefer the man not getting shot over the woman not getting raped--in the abstract. When you change the question--by assuming familiarity with one or both of the participants--they can change their answer.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There have been some truly disgusting viewpoints in this thread.
The reason i carry a .32 everywhere i go is for the very reason that i will not let myself be raped again without a fight.
A rapist feels no pity or remorse towards the victim and i would not hesitate to put a .32 hollow point into some scumbags skull.

I recommend that you increase the caliber of firearm you carry as a .32 (whether Special or ACP) is inadequate to deal with a determined rapist.

[John Dibble]

To the 5 people who have voted for option 1 so far:

Please go tell your wife, girlfriend, mother, or some other important woman in your life that if someone was trying to rape her, you would rather her get raped than her killing the rapist. See what her reaction is to that.

Would you get off your high horse? You're asking for a lesser of two evils situation. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're choosing an evil.

My answer was a tongue-in-cheek one for that reason. I'd certainly rather any important woman in my life killed rather than allowed herself to get raped if she was in an either/or situation.

You're question was asked in the abstract, and given a woman I don't know and a man I don't know in that situation, I simply do not care about the outcome.

Those five yes answers believe in preserving life--in the abstract. Thus, they prefer the man not getting shot over the woman not getting raped--in the abstract. When you change the question--by assuming familiarity with one or both of the participants--they can change their answer.

It is rather inconsistent to me that anyone believe that a woman they know should be able to kill to stop herself from being raped yet just because they don't know a woman she should not be allowed to kill someone trying to rape her. Are the women in your life somehow 'better' than the ones who are not? Do the women in your life somehow deserve more rights than the women who are not? Sorry if this infuriates you somehow, but I believe that people are equal in their rights to protect themselves regardless of whether or not they are important to me.

[dazzleman]

To the 5 people who have voted for option 1 so far:

Please go tell your wife, girlfriend, mother, or some other important woman in your life that if someone was trying to rape her, you would rather her get raped than her killing the rapist. See what her reaction is to that.

Would you get off your high horse? You're asking for a lesser of two evils situation. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're choosing an evil.

My answer was a tongue-in-cheek one for that reason. I'd certainly rather any important woman in my life killed rather than allowed herself to get raped if she was in an either/or situation.

You're question was asked in the abstract, and given a woman I don't know and a man I don't know in that situation, I simply do not care about the outcome.

Those five yes answers believe in preserving life--in the abstract. Thus, they prefer the man not getting shot over the woman not getting raped--in the abstract. When you change the question--by assuming familiarity with one or both of the participants--they can change their answer.

You don't care about the outcome of a criminal case between two people you don't know?  That's pretty callous, man.  When I hear about a criminal case, I think "there but for the grace of God go I" and I want to see justice done for the real victim, regardless of whether I know the person or not.  I daresay I'd support the true victim even I knew or was related to the criminal.

I have noticed that many people on the left seem to have that callous attitude toward crime victims.  They seem far more concerned with historical crimes committed by people long dead than real criminals and flesh-and-blood victims.  Pym Fortuyn also has exhibited the same attitude.  You really ought to rethink it; I hadn't thought you were that type of guy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me cite three specific cases:

Consider the plight of Tammy Renee Thompson of Augusta, Georgia, for example.  In February 2001 Tammy’s ex-boyfriend was arrested for assaulting and pointing a weapon at her.  He was released from jail after posting a $16,250.00 bond and was awaiting trial when he again tried to attack her in July 2001.  After shattering a window next to her front door, he let himself into her home and tried to assault her with a piece of concrete.  She fired .38-caliber revolver and struck him dead center in the right eye.  “She was afraid for her life, and she took steps to lessen the threat,” said Sgt. Wayne Bunton.  No charges were filed.

Leslie Joni Prater of Clarksville, Tennessee found herself in similar jeopardy, but like Tammy was prepared to defend herself.   Leslie was asleep in her bed when she was awakened by the sounds of her ex-boyfriend breaking into her home.  A struggle ensued as she tried to keep him out of the house but her strength was no match for his.  As he came into the room, Leslie ran around to the other side of the bed to get a .38-caliber pistol.  The ex-boyfriend lunged across the bed at her and she fired.  Her first shot missed; the second struck him in the stomach.  According to investigators, the man had been stalking Leslie for months and had broken into her home just three weeks earlier.  Police commented that Leslie was lucky to be alive.

Consider also the case of Maria Cruz of Las Vegas, Nevada.  Maria’s common-law husband kept her tied up for at least part of the four days she was held captive in the couple’s home.  He tortured her by heating a butter knife over a gas stove and burning her hands, legs, breasts and vaginal area with it.  She was bruised from numerous beatings (a neighbor described her face as a “bloody pulp”) and subjected to threats that she would be killed.  Maria managed to convince her husband that she needed to care for her children – ages 12, 2 and 1 – to prompt him to untie her.  She retrieved a handgun and fired five times, killing her torturer.  The husband had a history of domestic violence and threatened to kill Maria if she ever reported it to authorities.  No charges were filed.

Would these women be with us today if they had not had access to a gun?  No one can say for sure, but one thing is certain: The guns in their homes were a far greater threat to the attackers than they were to the women who used them

[Citizen James]

There is an old saying that it is better to be sitting in a courtroom explaining to a jury why the person who broke into your home is lying on a slab in the morgue, than it is to be the one lying on that slab.

Still, shooting a Jehovahs witness that rings your doorbell at 10 am may be overreacting a bit, and it is important to have good safety training so you don't accidently shoot your teenager sneaking in after curfew.

Background checks to make it harder for criminals to get guns would be a good thing too, as would having quality regulations for firearms so that 'junk guns', which are cheap, poor quality, and designed to be used and discarded by criminals (such as the infamous saturday night special), are not easily atainable either.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There is an old saying that it is better to be sitting in a courtroom explaining to a jury why the person who broke into your home is lying on a slab in the morgue, than it is to be the one lying on that slab.

Still, shooting a Jehovahs witness that rings your doorbell at 10 am may be overreacting a bit, and it is important to have good safety training so you don't accidently shoot your teenager sneaking in after curfew.

Background checks to make it harder for criminals to get guns would be a good thing too, as would having quality regulations for firearms so that 'junk guns', which are cheap, poor quality, and designed to be used and discarded by criminals (such as the infamous saturday night special), are not easily atainable either.

James, apparently you are falling for the lies of the hoplaphobes in the mass media.  Most criminals do NOT purchase the firearms they may wield from a dealer, but rather either steal them, or purchase them from an acquaintance who has stolen them/ or is feencing them.

Also, there are NO inexpensive firearms.  Look around.

Moreover, on average criminals are dumber than the population norm.  I would rather they try to use a poor quality firearm, rather than a high quality firearm (I doubt if many of them would know the difference).

[Inverted Things]

To the 5 people who have voted for option 1 so far:

Please go tell your wife, girlfriend, mother, or some other important woman in your life that if someone was trying to rape her, you would rather her get raped than her killing the rapist. See what her reaction is to that.

Would you get off your high horse? You're asking for a lesser of two evils situation. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're choosing an evil.

My answer was a tongue-in-cheek one for that reason. I'd certainly rather any important woman in my life killed rather than allowed herself to get raped if she was in an either/or situation.

You're question was asked in the abstract, and given a woman I don't know and a man I don't know in that situation, I simply do not care about the outcome.

Those five yes answers believe in preserving life--in the abstract. Thus, they prefer the man not getting shot over the woman not getting raped--in the abstract. When you change the question--by assuming familiarity with one or both of the participants--they can change their answer.

You don't care about the outcome of a criminal case between two people you don't know?  That's pretty callous, man.  When I hear about a criminal case, I think "there but for the grace of God go I" and I want to see justice done for the real victim, regardless of whether I know the person or not.  I daresay I'd support the true victim even I knew or was related to the criminal.

I have noticed that many people on the left seem to have that callous attitude toward crime victims.  They seem far more concerned with historical crimes committed by people long dead than real criminals and flesh-and-blood victims.  Pym Fortuyn also has exhibited the same attitude.  You really ought to rethink it; I hadn't thought you were that type of guy.

I misspoke when I said I don't care. I should have said "I have nothing vested in the result of either the situation or the criminal trial."

As Dibble pointed out, we tend to be protective of our family members. If the situation included my brother, I would much prefer him to be alive so that a misunderstanding might come to light, or he might get therapy.

This is why I won't answer the question in general.

[John Dibble]

To the 5 people who have voted for option 1 so far:

Please go tell your wife, girlfriend, mother, or some other important woman in your life that if someone was trying to rape her, you would rather her get raped than her killing the rapist. See what her reaction is to that.

Would you get off your high horse? You're asking for a lesser of two evils situation. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're choosing an evil.

My answer was a tongue-in-cheek one for that reason. I'd certainly rather any important woman in my life killed rather than allowed herself to get raped if she was in an either/or situation.

You're question was asked in the abstract, and given a woman I don't know and a man I don't know in that situation, I simply do not care about the outcome.

Those five yes answers believe in preserving life--in the abstract. Thus, they prefer the man not getting shot over the woman not getting raped--in the abstract. When you change the question--by assuming familiarity with one or both of the participants--they can change their answer.

You don't care about the outcome of a criminal case between two people you don't know?  That's pretty callous, man.  When I hear about a criminal case, I think "there but for the grace of God go I" and I want to see justice done for the real victim, regardless of whether I know the person or not.  I daresay I'd support the true victim even I knew or was related to the criminal.

I have noticed that many people on the left seem to have that callous attitude toward crime victims.  They seem far more concerned with historical crimes committed by people long dead than real criminals and flesh-and-blood victims.  Pym Fortuyn also has exhibited the same attitude.  You really ought to rethink it; I hadn't thought you were that type of guy.

I misspoke when I said I don't care. I should have said "I have nothing vested in the result of either the situation or the criminal trial."

As Dibble pointed out, we tend to be protective of our family members. If the situation included my brother, I would much prefer him to be alive so that a misunderstanding might come to light, or he might get therapy.

This is why I won't answer the question in general.

I suppose that's understandable. However, if someone I cared about tried to rape a woman, I'd still rather the woman shoot him dead than him rape the woman. Of course, there's also the matter that the people I care about or would care about aren't the type of people who would rape someone, and if they did try to rape a woman my caring about them will go down bigtime because my respect for them will go down as well.

[Richard]

Florida's self defense laws are a joke. You can legally kill someone even if you could have safely escaped.

Sounds good to me.

[CARLHAYDEN]

In the world JFern would impose on us, criminals would run the world, and decent people would have to flee when then attack us.

[dazzleman]

Background checks to make it harder for criminals to get guns would be a good thing too, as would having quality regulations for firearms so that 'junk guns', which are cheap, poor quality, and designed to be used and discarded by criminals (such as the infamous saturday night special), are not easily atainable either.

While I agree with background checks, I think we need to recognize the reality that background checks only make it more difficult for law-abiding people to get guns in most cases.  Criminals obtain guns from illegal sources completely outside of the whole gun control structure.

So while I support certain innocuous forms of gun control, I am under no illusion that it can ever be very effective.  The only thing that can be effective is SEVERE punishment of anybody caught using a gun in the commission of a crime. 

The funny thing is that the people who prattle on about gun control tend to be the same ones who recoil from holding criminals responsible for their actions.  I think liberal support of gun control is a mental placebo to ease the guilt they feel implicitly placing the interests and rights of criminals above those of law-abiding citizens.

[dazzleman]

I misspoke when I said I don't care. I should have said "I have nothing vested in the result of either the situation or the criminal trial."

As Dibble pointed out, we tend to be protective of our family members. If the situation included my brother, I would much prefer him to be alive so that a misunderstanding might come to light, or he might get therapy.

This is why I won't answer the question in general.

Dude, do you really believe you have nothing vested in the result of a criminal trial of a person who is attacking people in your neighborhood.  Even if he attacks a stranger this time, it could be you or a loved one next time.  That is why I am so concerned with criminals being locked up, even though I have really never been the victim of a crime.

It seems to be common among liberals not to recognize the effects of being indifferent to crime until it hits you personally.  That's one of the major things that have given liberals a bad name.

[Inverted Things]

I misspoke when I said I don't care. I should have said "I have nothing vested in the result of either the situation or the criminal trial."

As Dibble pointed out, we tend to be protective of our family members. If the situation included my brother, I would much prefer him to be alive so that a misunderstanding might come to light, or he might get therapy.

This is why I won't answer the question in general.

Dude, do you really believe you have nothing vested in the result of a criminal trial of a person who is attacking people in your neighborhood.  Even if he attacks a stranger this time, it could be you or a loved one next time.  That is why I am so concerned with criminals being locked up, even though I have really never been the victim of a crime.

It seems to be common among liberals not to recognize the effects of being indifferent to crime until it hits you personally.  That's one of the major things that have given liberals a bad name.

If the person is attacking people in my neighborhood, then yes I do have something vested in it.

If it happens 1000+ miles away, then I have so little vested in it that it becomes next to nothing.

I'd hardly say I'm indifferent to the situation. I'd much prefer the situation didn't arise. However, I've pointed a situation where I would prefer not killing, and Dibble pointed out a situation wherein I would prefer killing.

Rape is not a very nice thing, and killing is not a very nice thing. Both of these things leave lasting scars. In the situation described, someone is going to end up doing a not-very-nice thing to someone else. I approve of self-defense, and would fully understand the woman killing a would-be rapist. I also approve of leaving the criminal alive so that he might recieve therapy and become a productive member of society (that the liberal in me talking).

If the woman was in a kill-or-get-raped situation, and there was absolutely no alternative, then I will come down on the side of the woman, in general.

If there is an alternative (like shooting the rapist in the leg, or getting away), I'd prefer the alternative.

[dazzleman]

If the person is attacking people in my neighborhood, then yes I do have something vested in it.

If it happens 1000+ miles away, then I have so little vested in it that it becomes next to nothing.

I'd hardly say I'm indifferent to the situation. I'd much prefer the situation didn't arise. However, I've pointed a situation where I would prefer not killing, and Dibble pointed out a situation wherein I would prefer killing.

Rape is not a very nice thing, and killing is not a very nice thing. Both of these things leave lasting scars. In the situation described, someone is going to end up doing a not-very-nice thing to someone else. I approve of self-defense, and would fully understand the woman killing a would-be rapist. I also approve of leaving the criminal alive so that he might recieve therapy and become a productive member of society (that the liberal in me talking).

If the woman was in a kill-or-get-raped situation, and there was absolutely no alternative, then I will come down on the side of the woman, in general.

If there is an alternative (like shooting the rapist in the leg, or getting away), I'd prefer the alternative.

I guess what I find disturbing about your analysis is your effective granting of moral equivalency to the attacker and the attacked -- your statement that rape is a bad thing, but so is killing.  This makes no allowance for who the attacker was, who instigated the whole thing.  Quite honestly, I think the effect of the situation on the innocent person being attacked is far, far more important than the effect on the attacker.  I would venture to say that the effect on the attacker is of no concern to me at all.

[Democratic Hawk]

Option 2

Dave

[MaC]

That is why I say Option 1

Killerpollo, okay let me explain this to you in words you can understand.
1. A murderous and horny homosexual male breaks into your house and attempts to ass-rape you.
2. You have a sword you want to slash him with, before that happens.  However, since you say option 1 you are now de-virginized in the asscrack.

Sorry, to anyone if I'm obscene, but I figure this is the best way to make a point to him.