I'm a little amused
laughter is the best medicine:-)
and confused by your post, here.
I'll try and clarify.
Are you aware that most women spend their entire LIVES understanding that we are prey? Yes I am.
That we don't get into our cars in a parking lot if there is a van parked next to it?
I am very much aware of that. Too bad more men don't have the situational awareness women have.
That we get very nervous when a man gets too close to us in a fairly secluded place, and we don't know who he is?
That I also knew.
That we know that 7 out of 10 of us are raped by the time we hit our 30s?
That statistic is "negotiable" but I understand where you're coming from.
Do you really think that there is no possibility that our assailants are hopped up on something or on a mean drunk?
No and I'm sorry if I made you think that. My point was that women have a different range of considerations than men. I think I'm safe in saying the the majority of men never give consideration to defense against homosexual rape when selecting a personal defense weapon.
Do I fear being *hacked* to pieces? Hm. I spent an undetermined amount of time in a small, dark room with two men who had grabbed me from behind and dragged me in there, then proceeded to rape me repeatedly and then insert a knife into me, lacerating my cervix as their reminder for me to not "tell."
I'm shocked and am at a loss for words. This evening, nothing I've written seems adequate. I'm going to try though. Please be patient with me.
When you were grabbed from behind, was it a surprise or was it a situation where had you been armed, you could have defended yourself?
Going back to my original post about "women fearing being raped and hacked to pieces". The bastards didn't hold a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you told, rather they used a knife. My point from the original post being that one of womens considerations is defense against a knife wielding assailant. Men making gun buying decisions tend not to give much thought to the prospect of defense against a knife.
I know that you don't intend to be condescending, but for a man to post, telling me what women fear, is just that.
I'm sorry you took it that way.
No, a .25 or .32 is not really adequate. Why? Because you never know, do you, whether your assailant is just a nasty little freak or a real unpleasant character.
My point was that since countless women rely on small .25 and .32 caliber handguns, they would be much better off with a compact .22mag revolver. The .22mag packs a whole lot more punch than the .25 or .32.
None of the small guns are intended to have single shot stopping power but empty the cylinder of any of the guns into an assailant at close quarters and you have the effect of hitting him with 12 ga. #00 buck. No one will argue against the stopping power of #00 buck. A single round from a .32 being roughly equivalent to a single #00 buck pellet.
A .22, .25, .32, or .380 is backup, but it is not adequate at all as a primary firearm. That depends on what a person perceives their general threat level to be. A preban Beretta .380 carried 13 rounds in it's magazine. At close quarters, thats like having the total energy of a double barreled 12 ga shotgun in your pocket.
Btw, this mother kept a .357 and a 12 gauge for the amount of protection she wanted for her family. Her daughter, though, keeps a .45 and a 16 gauge. Her mother keeps a .22 and a 20 gauge, but that's because her arthritis is so bad. Good for all of you!
By the way ... I DID tell. And, some years later, I had a firearm and was a rape ATTEMPT survivor.
Am glad you survived, did your assailant?