Posted on 03/08/2012 6:15:28 AM PST by marktwain
When states have (or had) discretionary gun carrying license system, they have often provided that people who engage in “business activities that involve heightened risk, such as the need to carry cash or other ‘street valued’ commodities” should generally get licenses. (See this post, for instance, about the Maryland scheme.) The theory is that these people are at heightened risk of robbery, and the loss to them from the robberies is likely to be especially grave. And this theory seems factually plausible. To my knowledge, no-one has quantified how great the risk tends to be, or required such an empirical showing to justify creating such a category, but it’s certainly reasonable that the danger faced by someone who routinely carries lots of valuables is greater than that faced by, say, me.
But women, especially young women, are particularly likely to be targets of rape. See, e.g., table 4 of this document reporting 2008 data and table 4 of this document reporting 2007 data, reporting an aggregate approximately 0.5% per year rate of attempted or completed rape or sexual assault for women age 20 to 24. This is likely not as high as the attempted or completed robbery rate for men who carry valuables, but it might well be comparable when you multiply probability of the crime by the gravity of the damage to the victim.
In a sense, the women are transporting something that is likewise seen by some criminals as especially worth taking — their bodies. When people who carry lots of money are entitled to tools that help them protect their property (and also help them protect themselves against the death or bodily injury that may stem from attacks by robbers), why shouldn’t young women be entitled to similar tools that help them protect their bodily integrity (and also help them protect themselves against the death and further bodily injury that may stem from attacks by rapists)?
Of course, I recognize that if young women are allowed to carry guns to protect themselves against rape, it will be politically difficult to avoid extending the same right to older women, and politically and constitutionally difficult to avoid extending the same right to men. Thus, the licenses given to people, mostly relatively rich and mostly men, to defend against robbery will lead to less gun carrying than licenses given to young women to defend against rape. But is that basis enough to allow the money-carriers guns to defend against a less serious crime, but to deny the young women guns to defend against a more serious crime?
And why should a convicted felon who has served his time be denied that same right?
I carry my life with me everywhere I go. I consider my life to be extremely valuable.
I carry my life with me everywhere I go. I consider my life to be extremely valuable.
Okay, I’ll bite.
Define “convicted felon”-do you mean a white collar embezzler or a dirty rotten career drug pusher-gangsta- rapist-murderer with a violent felony rap sheet and numerous other trash in tow?
Yes for the former, with caveats like time and application for restoration of rights (they can you know?), irrelevant for the latter perhaps proper punishment from the start like maybe life W/OPOP or death?
Generalistic/simplistic statements don’t usually fly too well.
Very true, I should have been more clear, a non violent felon.However I will also make a notation on that thought. If you are walking around in the free world and not under the authority of any court or judicial order and have satisfied all requirements of a conviction then yes. Many of the people you described usualy have long parole or probation periods and will screw up again and find themselves under the supervision of the courts for most of their lives.
Agreed. The problem is that with such high recidivism rates, we as a society obviously have it wrong. Violent offenders should NOT get light sentences and then let out to see how long they can rack up resume’ items until either they are imprisoned for life, or killed by a victim, or rarely, by the state (which is the body politik).
I think we should be more concerned about victims, rather than the perps.
Take ‘em off the street and crime goes down. Keep them off and it goes down and stays down.
Even in this age of declining violent crime rates, obviously there are still lots of folks getting raped, robbed and or murdered.
CCW has contributed to this trend, and IS directly correlating. We still will have our turds that need to be flushed. Permanently taken off the streets=never another victim by that perp. The left fails to accept that equation, meaning they are logically and morally bankrupt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.