For those advocating arms (pepper spray, taser, gun, etc.) as a solution, please get some basic facts straight.
* Most people who are sexually assaulted know their attacker and are not attacked randomly on the street. This makes self defense scenarios unrealistic, as there is already some level of trust between an attacker and the survivor
* Most sexual assaults will go without arrests and prosecution. There have already been cases where women have been arrested and sent to jail for self defense (CeCe Mcdonald's case comes to mind), including the Marissa Alexander case where someone fired a warning shot at their abuser and was sent to jail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Corey#Marissa_Alexander_...
* Sexual assault and rape aren't just about incidents, it is about a culture that supports rapists and demonizes survivors and dismantling that culture is the best way to defeat sexual assault
Statistics don't comfort the victims that could have done something but were restricted from doing so, usually by people who already live safe lives and want them to be safer.
And your second example basically says 'we will prevent you from defending yourself, so just take it and hope the system saves you'.
And if you think this culture 'supports rapists and demonizes survivors', you are in need of getting your facts straight.
EDIT:
I'm beginning to take this whole thing a bit personal. I learned a long time ago to call it quits when that starts to happen on the internet, so I'm out.
My main point is that most people won't have a chance to protect themselves, although I do agree 100% people have a right to protect themselves. It's important to note that self defense isn't a solution to the overall problem and leave those in circumstances where its difficult to defend themselves without options (e.g. someone with a disability).
My second example was to highlight that people defending themselves faces more prosecution than those actually committing assaults. The system will not help you, generally speaking, if you are a survivor of sexual assault and you are likely to be prosecuted for defending yourself. That is a part of rape culture, btw, the legal indifference towards rapists.
I re-read all of the comments on here and didn't feel like ANYONE said anything about victims being 'restricted' from defending themselves.
People on here were stating that the woman should get a gun, or get pepper spray, or get a taser.
Telling women they need to defend themselves in a certain way and it's on them to get a gun and shoot an attacker is what I and a few others were upset about.
You're misrepresenting the Marissa Alexander case. Alexander left the scene of the incident, retrieved a gun, returned to the scene, and shot in the general direction of her estranged husband.
Most US states frown heavily upon indiscriminate gunfire as a communication tool, even in cases entirely unlike that one where the shooter is in danger.
For those who have not been following this particular incident, as a measure of immediate damage control the govt had recently (quite grandiosely) announced a new number: 181. This was a "special" "fast track" number explicitly set up for responding to threats of immediate and sexual nature.
The police, most of them are just incapable of conceiving the notion that they have a duty to respond (helpfully that is) when a woman is in danger. Forget responding to immediate threats, they will point blank refuse to even officially register the assault.
Police officers who have been formally accused of molestation, have routinely got promoted to the top, suffered no consequence at all, won patronage from the highest elected officials of the state. This is almost the standard script, unless the whole country erupts in outrage. Sadly the latter doesnt happen very often.
>“I don’t think this will make any difference in controlling rape cases,” says Sehba Farooqui, a woman’s rights activist in Delhi.
I agree. I don't think someone desperate enough to rape will care if their victim has a wristwatch that can sms instantly. A good amount of potential rapists aren't even going to know about them, even if the government advertises it. A large portion of those who know either won't care, or will rip the watch off the woman.
What would actually help stop a rape is some pepper spray. I don't know the legality of that in India, but I have to say a lot of places in the US make it way too difficult to acquire this very basic and effective self defense item.
> What would actually help stop a rape is some pepper spray. I don't know the legality of that in India, but I have to say a lot of places in the US make it way too difficult to acquire this very basic and effective self defense item.
Self defense gear isn't a great systemic solution to sexual assault and rape, esp. when it occurs with great frequency and police do not take such cases seriously. Even in the US most sexual assault cases will never see an arrest or prosecution and most people are assaulted by someone they know, not by a random stranger on the street.
Stopping sexual assault isn't just an individual's problem, it is a problem for all of society. Why should we live in a culture where 1 in 5 women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime? The kind of systemic problems we face can't be solved by an individual buying a self defense item. We need to focus on defeating a rape culture: http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html
Basically, the Indian govt. is trying to show that its "doing something" to cool down the public temper after the recent rape incident. Mr.Sibal's last comment is enlightening:
>Still, the effort may be of some value. Mr. Sibal noted that, with the same technology, parents would be able to keep tabs on their children.
What happens is: the agency that developed this device has to justify their funding. So they come up with these bullshit ideas.
Wouldn't it be more effective if coupled with some distinctive and excruciatingly-loud alarm, as a means of drawing attention to the scene / getting the attacker to flee before doing anything?
What is with this absurd first world notion that nobody should ever have anything bad ever happen to them in their life? Self-defense has been part of being alive since the dawn of humanity - living in a civilized (to various degrees) area doesn't negate that. You are either prepared to do what needs to be done to protect yourself, or you rely on passive measures (living in a nice area, avoiding dangerous situations, etc.) and hope you don't become a victim.
If you live in an actually civilized area, you shouldn't have to shoot people (or even brandish a gun at someone, or fire warning shots) in order to walk down the street without being harmed. That's pretty much the baseline threshold for living in a civilized area versus some kind of wild-west scenario where you barricade the windows and don't dare leave your home unarmed.
I can see that it'd be prudent to be able to engage in some self-defense in rare scenarios, but in a civilized area they really should be extremely rare scenarios. A functioning government and civil society to the extent that people aren't being regularly assaulted in the street isn't that high a degree of public order! I live in a large European city, and I certainly feel safe here without carrying guns (safer than I feel in most American cities).
It's a first world notion because that's part of being a first world country. We invest in infrastructure that provides protection. Self-defense has shifted to the much more efficient system where by individuals don't walk around armed because we pay into a system of government that provides both police forces and military defense.
The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick.
I can't imagine a more dangerous society where we all take self-defense into our own hands. It wouldn't be the first world if we did that. Let's not start spouting the gun toting nonsense here, the audience on hn is too smart to buy that.
Police are not there to protect you. Their job is to bring perpetrators to justice. If they are nearby, they may or may not attempt to stop a crime in progress, but they are not required to do so, and that does nothing to stop personal assaults that might occur. In the best case, they are purely reactionary, not preventative. In the worst case they are useless.
The military is not there to protect you either. Their job is to enforce national policy abroad, put down rebellions and repel invasions.
I agree that police and the military make us safer overall, on average. But they do not protect you personally. You can either pay a private security firm to defend you if you are rich, or you can defend yourself. There literally are no other choices.
In suburban and rural areas where they only show up in response to phone calls, I agree as far as police being reactive. But in urban areas police serve a preventative and direct-intervention role, which is one of the classic functions of "walking the beat". They're physically present at major squares and landmarks, and intermittently present through much of the rest of the city. I pass police officers pretty regularly when I walk to and from work, and I would guess most of the time (barring when I'm in a more remote area), I could get a quite timely response if I yelled for help.
That is very nice in the situation you described (e.g. someone is shouting threats at you, especially in the comfort of your house), but pretty useless in most other situations. Unless you have a police officer walking with you 24/7/365, when you find yourself in front of attacker, you may or may not be able to even call the police and when they arrive, they would only collect evidence around your dead body.
Yes, the attacker would be then removed from the society (usually only temporarily and only if they are found) and some possible new attackers would be deterred by the idea of being found. But before someone like that is convicted, they must perform or try to perform their first crime. Is this some kind of duty, if someone happen to be that first victim, to remain defenseless and sacrifice themselves? Also there are incidents such as road rage or crime of passion, when the attacker has no previous history.
PS: Even in the situation you described (guy making threats outside your home), the police may be, and often is, late, when the guy (or more of them) decide to get into the house. Calling the police and waiting for their arrival takes at least minutes. Unless you have a fortress, making a way into your house takes seconds. Recall the woman who had to shoot two robbers while still talking to 911 operator.
'Gun Toting Nonsense'? God this is absurd elitist bull - the type of drivel spouted from the mouths of people who assume the argument is already won by virtue of their 'superior minds'.
I'm guessing you live in a wonderful neighborhood with great police protection, low crime, and are not part of the demographic that is often targeted for assault. I'm happy you get to live your wonderfully enlightened progressive existence.
The rest of us will just become one of those statistics that happen when you 'offload' your rights, yes?
Of course you don't take your self defense completely in to your own hands - we live in a civilization so that we can organize and protect each other. But, ultimately, you are the only one who can ensure you stay alive. To think otherwise is pretty naive, or comes from a position of entitlement.
For the interest of full disclosure, I keep a firearm in my vehicle and one at home. My wife concealed carries. We live in a neighborhood with fairly regular home invasions, and even a few murders over the last few years. We plan on leaving as soon as student loans get paid and we can.
>The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick.
Then I suppose you also shun the idea of CPR or the first aid in general. That's what first world society has doctors for...
I think the foolish part is advocating that as a solution, like people are doing here, by presenting them as alternatives to this governmental initiative.
As an individual, I should protect myself. But I expect my government not to rely on me, or my grandmother, having to learn how to shoot.
And many women recall every horrific detail. Seriously, you sound like you are advocating that any potential rape victim should just shut up and take it. My guess is it would be because your (already stupidly safe) life would be a bit safer without (legal) weapons around.
My wife, for what it's worth, will put a bullet in a rapist and not think twice. I told her to put more than one. If that seems 'crass' or 'tacky' or 'unenlightened' or whatever else to anyone here, I really don't care. It's not your body and life we're talking about here, and it's not like she has the ability to fend off a motivated 200+ pound attacker without one.
Of course it's not possible to arm every potential rape victim and say "now it's on you!". But it's either something you choose to do, or something you don't.
You don't tell them what they should have done to prevent it. But when someone does prevent it, do you tell them they shouldn't have had the ability to?
Not every discussion of self-defense is an exercise in blaming the victim. Hopefully, it's an exercise in stopping people from becoming victims in the first place.
And I think you're selling women short in terms of what they're capable of. Casting women as helpless victims isn't helpful either.
I dunno, with rape then ending their life, but if it was something like a mugging, I'd prefer to part with my shiny phone and get punched in the face than end another human's live. And if everyone carried guns, too many people would end up finding this out the hard way.
Perhaps I am more brutal than most. But if a person threatens me with potential violence to take my phone or wallet, then their life is the least of my concerns - it's essentially forfeit.
Are they going to stab me after they steal my stuff? Are they going to put me in a car and take me to another location? When violence is threatened, you simply don't know where it's going to lead. I'd rather err on the side of caution which is why I support CCP / LTC for responsible and law-abiding citizens.
Most people are sexually assaulted by someone they know and have a level of trust with already, guns do not solve this problem. Also, a lot of people aren't comfortable with owning or using a gun anyway and there is a class issue with having to purchase equipment.
Snark: Not an unreasonable response to predictable [1], pointless chest-thumping.
A reasonable discussion of rape defense / deterrents or even gun ownership would be fine. A quip that romanticizes "the smoking barrel of a 9mm" like it's just that simple is pure bullshit.
* Most people who are sexually assaulted know their attacker and are not attacked randomly on the street. This makes self defense scenarios unrealistic, as there is already some level of trust between an attacker and the survivor
* Most sexual assaults will go without arrests and prosecution. There have already been cases where women have been arrested and sent to jail for self defense (CeCe Mcdonald's case comes to mind), including the Marissa Alexander case where someone fired a warning shot at their abuser and was sent to jail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Corey#Marissa_Alexander_...
* Sexual assault and rape aren't just about incidents, it is about a culture that supports rapists and demonizes survivors and dismantling that culture is the best way to defeat sexual assault