SO basically when the anti's put out bs numbers like this:

In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.v In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.vi

You counter by saying it is our philosophical right to bear arms. Firearms related deaths are not important.

I say again, John Q. Public hears numbers like this and votes for stronger gun control.

Again, your argument about it being a philosophical right as worked well in New York.

If you want to beat the other side, you have to beat them at their own game, their game is numbers. I know the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, any type of arms, the general public does not. If all they get is the anti's figures, then that's what they believe.

If you do not believe me, why was Brady passed, why is it still active, when it has proven to be ineffective? Why was the AW passed, when we know the vast majority of crime does not involve AW's?

One last thing, how old are you?

I know of about 1/2 dozen women who have claimed to have been "raped." Every one of them was drunk and didn't resist or say no, just woke up the next morning, found out, and called it rape. Only ONE was NOT at a "party." I think the S.A. Rape problem is mroe of a violent rape issue, than a "didn't think about it" issue. I hate rape and hate it when it happens to a woman, and don't agree with blaiming the victem. But, when you go to a party with guys, get to drunk to object, then do it without trying to stop it, and call it rape? I remember when that was called stupidity. I was always tought not to get into those situations. . . . .

Anyway, I agree, DEF. DO NOT bring it up. Let her.

-Justin.

I'm 18 and I'm not into statistical reasoning. If you were to bring up those above numbers to argue for gun control, I'd ask you to interpret the numbers for me and find flaws with your interpretation. The numbers themselves don't mean much.

I'd ask the public how many of them ever saw someone killed with a gun in real life. I would tell them to find answers from their personal experiences rather than numbers from "experts". The great thing about having the freedom of speech is that we can have meaningful debates on these things. We can all look to our personal experiences and contribute to the discussion. Similar to the rape discussion, I can not say that rape does not occur. But it has never occured to anyone that I know. So in my experience it's not that common. I would prefer to speak from personal experience, things that I have experienced first hand than pass on hearsay or dubious "facts". I believe in the western science notion of experience and empirical evidence.

EAGLE!!  Do I know you?

Its possible are paths have crossed, where are you at in AZ.

Tucson..   I work across from sports park

ok here is your chance:
In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths.

39% were murdered.
57% were suicide.
3% were accidents.
1% unknown intent.

Dispute the numbers, and prove to me why we should allow guns.

BTW I am pro second amendment, I am playing devils advocate right now.

I am in Tucson to, I used to work in the area, what do you do?

check your e-mail

So far as you know. I am willing to bet that female members of your high school would not go around and advertise they had been raped. Society still ostracizes the victims of this crime.

But that is a completely different case.  Presumably, it is based on actual data, whereas the rape statistic is based too much on the goal of those doing the study.  If they want it to look like lots of women are raped to try to draw attention to the problem, then it is easy for them to get an appropriately shocking number because the study is necessarily subjective.  i.e. Many women who are raped never report it, therefore there is no way for those doing the study to actually know how many have been raped.  They make a guess, which negates any possible value of the statistic.

And as jz02 said, being that firearm possession is a fundamental right, pertinent statistics are irrelevant save for the use of trying to convince soccer moms of its legitimacy.

Ah, but soccer moms read the paper and listen to the news. Those are the numbers they hear and believe. When there is nothing to counter what is being said that is what they will go with.

I have used the fundamental right things with anti's, what they listen to is numbers.

The fundamental right arguement is not working. It did not work in Washington D.C., it did not work in New York, it did not work in California, and it is not working in the rest of the country. Want an example, follow what the mayor of Chicago is doing.

Since I like analogies. If your at a football game, and one team uses a passing offense and the other uses a running defense, The defense is not going to work against the offense. The coach will have to adjust the defense to stop the offense.

The fundamental right defense is not working, time to try a new defense.

Fundamental right defense.....to continue hijacking this thread....why don't you ask a jewish person who lived through the camps, why he has a gun.....all the answer I need.

Again, I am not disputing this point. We here on this web site understand this, John Q. Public does not. As far as John Q. Public is concerned, we will never have to worry about a situation such as the death camps. Before you flame me, I know the world history, so don't say it has happened and continues to happen.

As far has Hijacking this thread, all Mr. Computer has to do is ask the conversation to be moved and it will be. I am merely debating with an indivdual(s), the statistic of rape. Part of my argument involves gun statistics.

According to Jz02 he has never encountered a rape victim. That is so far as he knows. His experience is very limited, I suggest as he goes to college, joins the military or pursues his chosen career, his experience will change.

Out of the 5 girls I dated in high school, 4 had been raped.  No one is fudging the numbers.  

What the numbers are including are those who are sexually abused and sexually assaulted as well as raped.  Personally I don't see much of a difference between the three, so it makes sense to lump them together.  All three violate the dignity of a woman and harm her in unimaginable ways.

We all know how statistics are manipulated. Incidences of Forcible Rape, which is what we all think of when we hear the term [b]Rape[/b] are very rare. In fact more men are victims of Forcable Rape than women.

When you include "Date" rape (Aka Morning After Remorse) & molestation by brother/uncle/dad/neighbor, then Miss Magnums statistics are believable.

My patrol area, which has 22,000 full time residents, about 100,000 seasonal residents, has only had one reported Forcable Rape since 1989.

There are certain cultures that look down on rape victims. Believing the victim should have fought to the death if necessary to prevent the rape.

O.K.  The 1% can be thrown out since we don't know the cause or circumstances of the firearms use.

The 57% suicide number consists of events that do not physically injure anyone other than the perpetrator.  Also, suicide can be committed just as efficiently with many other devices other than a firearm.  So, this number has no real bearing on firearms ownership.

The 39% murdered is a relavant number.  Firearms are the most efficient means of committing murder(It's hard to slit a victims' wrists and hold them in a tub for 30 minutes).  But, this number of roughly 11976 murders via firearms has to be explored.  How many perpetrators and victims had violent criminal records and were killing amongst themselves?  Also, one must compare this number to the number of crimes prevented by civilian firearm ownership in the same year.  Once you compare the number of crimes(all possible murders) prevented to the number of murders you can see that the use of firearms prevents more murders than are committed with firearms.

The 3% accidents is the most damaging statistic.  The circumstances of the 921 deaths must be known.  Negligence by the owner is probably to blame in most circumstances.  Either leaving a loaded weapon accessable to children, or failure to properly use a weapon resulting in a negligent discharge.  These circumstances have a clear party at fault.  The toughest situation is accidental deaths due to misidentification.  Deaths due to hunters misidentifying targets and people defending themselves against assailants which turn out to be misidentified friends/relatives.  We can only defend this statistic with the fact that occurances are very rare.

Someone else jump in and defend our rights.

NOOOO!!!   [spank]

Very good points. However, the point you made about murder is the exact point anti's attempt to make everyday. If the perpetrator did not have access to a gun the person would not have died. I know he could have been killed with a bat, knife, rock, car, insert any potential weapon.

Further the point about child access and hunting accidents, is the main issues anti's try to use to win their position.

A member here uses the quote, "its for the children", yes it is used sarcastically, but it was heard somewhere before.

The point I am making is this: to not rely on numbers to defend our position is a losing battle.

I know numbers can be manipulated, statistics 101. The point is the anti's are using numbers to win there cause.

If you don't believe me that's fine. Check out my post about New York, California, D.C. and Chicago. Interesting how New York and California have some of the highest electoral votes nation wide.

BTW thanks to all who are participating in this discussion. The discussion has not detriorated to name calling and insulting each other. There are very valid arguements all around.

I am off to work, I will check in later.

No way that 1/3 of women are raped.  I would be interested to see how that statistic was arrived at.  Perhaps some women party alot and get "raped" 7-8 times  a year.  That would skew the statistic badly.  I suspect that a disproportionate number of those surveyed may have been in the high risk segment of society, ie. drug users, etc.  
Kind of like those "how many sex partners" surveys in Cosmo magazine.  Only the sexually liberal reply.

In any case, I certainly hope it's not true.  With 2 sisters, a mom, a wife and a daughter, I have a 160% chance of being required to bring a perpetrator to justice.  Better keep saving my pennies for the defense fund.

Individual anecdotes are meaningless, because as otherwise noted, it all depends on your circle of friends.

The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2000 counted 90,186 forcible rapes of females in the United States.  Forcible rape is defined as the "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."  That is 62.7 rapes for every 100,000 females, or 1 in 1600, for that year.

If you look at the Bureau of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey, which makes a confidential survey of people to ask if they have been a victim instead of just relying on counting crimes reported to the police, you find that they calculated 124,730 rapes against females age 12 and over in 1999.  That comes to 1 in 929 females over age 12.  If you broaden the definition to include the total of rapes, attempted rapes, and sexual assualts, the NCVS calculated 343,830 such acts against females over age 12 in 1999, which is 1 in 337.  However, the vast majority of these rapes and sexual assaults occur against young women, 84% of them against women under 35.  So the average American woman between the ages of 12-35 has a 1 in 152 chance of being raped or sexually assualted each year.  Assuming crime rates aren't changing drastically year-to-year, the average American female has about a 1 in 7 chance of being raped or sexually assaulted between the ages of 12 and 35.  Statistics are sketchier for children, but some of the state-by-state studies show that anywhere from 5% to 30% of rapes occur to children under 12.  That would put the total number for ages 0-35 somewhere in the ballpark of [b]1 in 5[/b] or [b]1 in 6[/b].

----
There are two questions on the NCVS covering rape/sexual assault.  They read as follows:
1. "Has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of the following ways - any rape, attempted rape, or other type of sexual attack?"

2. "Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about.  Have you been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity?"

Yeah! Those are the buttholes we're at war with...

I would not bring it up. However I would suggest that you venture into this relationship with some caution. In my experience women like this often have emotional problems. I have now sworn off women like this. I do not suggest that you do the same, but it is very hard for me to be in a relationship where I am powerless to help a problem which I have not caused, and yet is such a big issue.

i agree.  if she feels the need and has the trust, she will bring it up.

That is why I added the qualifier "save for the use of trying to convince soccer moms of [the legitimacy of owning firearms]."  Of course we need to use propaganda to try to prevent soccer moms from banning our freedoms.  But that is missing my point:  most statistics thrown around on the news are irrelevant and worthless to any thinking person.  This is especially the case for saying "one in three women were raped or molested" or anything else where data are not available. These cases are clearly a product of someone's agenda, however worthy some people may think that agenda is, and are therefore worthless (though sometimes necessary for the reasons stated above).

Edit: After reading the rest of your posts it seems we generally agree on the above...?

This is a very good point.

So in any given year a woman between the ages of 12-35 have 1/152 chance of getting raped (in that broad definition compiled by the feds)

So you multiply this probability by 23 (years between 12-35) and derive at 1/6. I have a problem with this kind of analysis. It's a common mistake in statistical reasoning to assume that odds are cumulative. For example, the odds of a woman having a boy or a girl is roughly 1/2. Knowing that probability, can you conclude that her odds of having a boy is 1 if she had 2 babies? In fact, the actual probability of her having at least a boy is 3/4, because there remains the possibility that she will have 2 girls. Similarly, you can't conclude that since the probability of rape for a woman between 12-35 in any given year is 1/152, that her cumulative probability of being rape is 1/6 over 23 years. It's also very possible that some women get raped repeatedly, due to whatever circumstances they find themselves in. Plus, the questions that you have listed


Does these questions cover the specific past year? Because otherwise the possibility of repeat counting come into play.

Yes, it sounds like we agree on more than we disagree. Specifically with the issue on right to bear arms, i agree, it is the second amendment gaurantee that gives me this right. Having tried the it's my right routine several times for several years, namely with some family members, it does not always work. In fact with some key members, it took a 9/11 to make them understand.

By learning the tactics of the anti's i can counter their points, and make persuasive arguements to win my points.

Your right. It was a close friend of hers.

This may be a coincidence (I highly doubt it though), but she came to me today and told me.

Turns out she was date-raped. She was emotional, but stayed strong. The bastard who did it was one of her "friends". She went to the doctor a couple days after.

It was never reported.

Fucker stole her virginity as well. What a way to lose it.

that really blows. What's the difference between having sex with an unconscious or paralyzed person and having sex with a blow up doll? Can't they just use a painted blow up doll?

jz.. and a few others... y'all are so stuck on the word "rape" that you haven't finished reading the sentence.. it includes "or molested."  Sexual assault.. ALL forms.  We can argue back and forth all day about what constitutes sexual assault but if it was UNWANTED SEXUAL ATTENTION, then it can adversely affect a person.  

Oh.. and jz... I seriously doubt that a woman would confide in you if she had been raped or molested unless you were intimate or extremely close with her.  There really is an air of shame surrounding it.

Hey, my name is Jeff, sorry about whatever you had to go through. But still, if you read my earlier post, I do not agree with the statistical reasoning involved. Statistical probability is not cumulative.

Jeff,

Yeah... statistics can be skewed either way... and rarely are they entirely accurate.  I threw that number out because it IS the current figure but more so to prove a point... that being that every man (unless he's gay) has more than likely already dated or will date a woman who has been sexually assaulted (let's use that term since y'all get so excited about the word "rape").

Another point I'd like to address that has always pissed me off.. the "she shouldn't have had that much to drink" scenario.  Fuck you whoever believes that.  I got into a HUGE argument with a chief during a DARE class when I was in the Navy... almost got asked to leave the class.  Her point (and most people who have their head up their ass's point) is that you "shouldn't drink past your limit."  Reality being what it is.... [i]how do you know your limit unless you've gone past it before?[/i]

All of you guys out there... raise your hand if you've gotten incredibly drunk.  I mean, passed out, puking drunk... Hmmmm.  Interesting.  But when you were in that state, did you ever worry about some guy raping you?  Undressing you and touching you?  Never crossed your mind, eh?  Wow.  

Now consider a young woman goes out and gets to the same level of intoxication.  It is a VERY REAL POSSIBILITY that some piece of shit guy will start feeling her up and will try to go further.  Is that her fault?  Yeah, sure, she shouldn't have had that much to drink but we all go through stages of figuring out our boundaries... how much can I drink, how fast can I drive, etc etc.  

Ideally, we wouldn't be living in a world where sexual assault of women wasn't a concern.  But it is.  And blaming a woman for supposedly getting herself into the situation doesn't help things.. in fact, it makes women less likely to come forward and say what really happened.

This is what I tell young women... if you are going to party, make sure you are with friends who have your back.  Friends who won't let someone take you off somewhere.  Friends who won't leave without you.  

When I go out with my girlfriends (because I usually drive) they all know that everyone who came in my car, leaves in my car.  I don't give a crap how fine that man is, give him your number and see if he calls and he's still wonderful when you're sober.  

I don't know what the statistics really are.

I don't know how people with political agendas have manipulated definitions to increase or decrease the numbers.

All I know is, to quote Dirty Harry, "when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard.  That's my policy... when a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he's not out collecting for the Red Cross!"

I don't have a S&W model 29, but any man I see or hear forcing himself on a woman while I'm around has about 3 seconds to stop, or meet the business end of THIS--

[img]http://www.hunting-pictures.com/members/MolonLabe/MikeTac.jpg[/img]

and possibly "make my day".

I'm still not sold on the argument that someone shouldn't be responsible for their own drinking. For that reason I've decided never to take a drink, ever. That's just a personal choice for me, I will never smoke or drink. Many of my friends smoke or drink or do both, but I've resolved not to. I'm not sure why people drink, my family rarely ever drinks, and even when they do, it's for holidays where only family are present. The fact is, alcohol is a psychotropic substance, and you take it at your own risk. Besides getting raped, you can get killed, injured, or hurt someone else while under the influence of alcohol.

So MM, I guess in my case, I dont' know what my limit is, but I know it's >0. By keeping my BAC at 0, I can stay in my limit without having gone over it.

Correct.  And it's 1/600 using the stricter definition of forcible rape reported to the police.



No.  Although since the probability is much, much less than 1, you can do it that way and still come pretty close.  The actual way to do it is to determine her probability of not being raped or sexually assaulted in a given year, which is about p = 151/152 = 0.9934.  Then take 1 / (1 - p ^ 23) = 7.10.  So the average American woman has about a 1 in 7 chance of being raped or sexually assaulted between the ages of 12-35, according to the National Crime Victimization Report.  Adjusting for guesstimates of child rape and sexual assault, brings the number to down to around 1 in 5 or 1 in 6.

Using the more conservative UCR numbers, you would get a 1 in 17 chance of the average female being forcibly raped between ages 0-35 and reporting it to the police.

What numbers would you come up with and on what basis?



Using my formula above, you get p = 1 - 0.5 = 0.5.  And then (1 - p^2) = 0.75, which says the probability of having at least one boy is 3/4.  Where's the problem?



They also asked "When?" and "How many times?", so I assume they factored that it into their statistics.  That shouldn't eliminate repeat counting.  

I wouldn't be surprised if some women do get raped or sexually assaulted repeatedly.  And that would skew the numbers.  I couldn't find reliable statiscal evidence about that.  (I found one study that said 23% of the victims had been victims of multiple rapes.  However, I wasn't trying to present whatever some study found.)  I'm just presenting the data here.  You're acting like I'm trying to make a point with it.  Everybody was arguing about the numbers, so I thought I would present what the nation's two official crime counts said.  That's all.  Okay, maybe that is trying to make a point.  But I thought some actual data might help the discussion instead of all this "yes, it is", "no, it isn't" stuff.

So you're saying if a woman wants to avoid being sexually assaulted it would be in her best interests to never, ever, ever have a drink?  

That's very similiar to the "if you don't want to get pregnant or catch an STD, then abstain from sex."  Very idealistic, but it works for very few people.  This is why a responsible parent teaches a child about birth control and condoms.  You may WANT your child to stay a virgin until they are married, but you plan and prepare for the possibility that they won't.

Same thing here... you HOPE that your child never gets so drunk as to be out of control but, if it does happen, you try to instill some safeguards (designated driver, buddy system).  

I'm beginning to see a trend with your posts, darlin'.  If you recall, I was the first to defend your right to a differing, albeit it poorly couched, opinion about 9/11.  You seem very comforted by numbers and histories and very dettached... not a lot of pathos working there.  

Life is not black and white.  There is no one right answer for everyone.  If not drinking works for you, great.  But you're also a guy... and in keeping with the thread topic, you don't have as many statistical reasons to worry about being raped or molested.  

I agree with what you say about wanting to validate statistics with experience.  Having been trained as a physicist, I have learned that any good scientist does the same with his experimental data.

If someone you knew had been murdered, you would  very likely know about it.  It's fairly easy to validate the murder statistics this way.  With rape and sexual assault, it's a lot harder to validate the numbers by experience because women tend to keep it secret.  Of all the women I know, I'm probably only close enough to two, my wife and my mother, to have heard if they had been raped.  I can't even imagine any of my other close female friends telling me that.  So I find hard to see how one could examine this statistic by personal experience, unless, perhaps, one was a police officer who dealt with the reports.

But your formula discounts repeat victims. If we were to assume that the rate of repeating occurance is 23%, which has to be subtract off the compounded rate. So for each year, new incidents are 1/152*0.77. So the actual chance of not being raped in any given year is 1-1/152*0.77 which is 0.995, using this adjusted figure I got 0.8898 as your chance of not being raped. So that means your chance of being raped in those 23 years is 0.11, roughly 1/9. That is much different from 1/3, a difference of 3 times in fact. Not a small difference when you multiply it by the amount of women in this country between 12 and 35.

MM, everyone deals with these things differently. Personally, I choose not to put that much faith in my friends to ensure my safety if I were to get drunk. Especially when your friends are drunk. I'm not saying that girls shouldn't drink, but I think it should go for everyone to drink responsibly.

I guess an analogy would be like I get drunk and leave my wallet. Some guy finds it and choose to steal my identity and ruin my name. Sure, he's a crook and should be totally punished for that, but I would also be partly responsible because I shouldn't have gotten drunk and left my wallet in the first place. If someone takes advantage of you in your incapcitated state, they're an asshole and should get punished, but to say that you had no responsibility in the matter would be denial. You put yourself in a position to be taken advantage of, it doesn't mean that he should've done it, but common sense dictates that bad choices tend to lead to bad outcomes. I would prefer not to bet my personal safety on the goodness of strangers.

Edited to add


I'm not sure what you meant by that.

That's okay, except you're assuming women don't get raped between ages 0-12, which is a bad assumption (and ages 35+, but I already made that assumption, too).  Our statistics aren't very good for ages 0-12, given that the NCVS doesn't survey anyone under 12 and the UCR doesn't break things down by ages.  But we can do better than assuming it's zero.  If we assume 0-12 year-old females get raped or sexually assaulted at the same rate as females 12-35, we come back to a number around 1 in 6, if we accept the 23% repeat occurrence assumption.  However, that's probably a little too high.

I agree with you that the difference between in 1/3 or 1/6 or 1/9 is big.  The numbers I found pointed toward something more in the 1/6 range.  That's still quite a bit different than 1/3.  However, it's not in a totally different world than that.

Those statistics are based on ESTIMATES which take into account the probability of women not coming forward to report the crime against them.  Basically, its another "assault weapons are not accurately represented in gun crimes, so we'll add another 20% since its likely that people don't know an assault rifle when they see one pointed at them."  

Poppycock!  I'm friends with mostly women and I've only known 2 to claim they were raped, one was by an ex boyfriend and the other was by a friend after getting too drunk to know what was happening until 5 hours later.  I'M NOT SAYING ITS THEIR FAULT, but considering I'm friends with roughly 37 women (knowing everything about them and having no secrets), then I find that stat absolutely shit.  I'm hoping you're wrong, not just because I think its BS, but because I'd probably kill for any of my friends if they told me they were raped in the past.

statistics as a method of evaluating data are perfectly fine.  just like with firearms, it is the manipulation by [i]Homo sapiens[/i] that screws things up.  i used statistics a lot in college and never once manipulated the data to get what i wanted.  btw, it's the data that gets manipulated, not the statistics themselves.  sure, you can change your confidence values, but you have to be able to justify them. even so, this isn't a flaw in statistics as much as it is in the human performer.

i really, really hate the knee-jerk reaction to completely disregard all statisitcs because some people misuse them.  they're just tools.  an intelligent person wouldn't disregard them outright without a serious investigation behind the methodology used and the actual data set too.  IMO it's just as stupid and foolish to completely write statistics off as useless as it is to manipulate them for a certain agenda.  they're just polar opposites.  one isn't any better than the other.

But we can't actually account for it in our models because no hard data exist. We may assume that they do not get raped at the same rate as those 12-35 segment. And 35+ doesn't get raped at the same rape either. Well the numbers I got is actually around 1/9.2, so we'll just say that it's somewhat more than 1/9.2

What disgusts me the most is that given a subject as sensitive as rape, someone would go lie about the statistics to push their agenda. It's as if saying, rape isn't a serious enough issue, we have to stretch it a bit to make it worth your time to consider addressing it. I'd be pissed if anyone I know ever got raped, that's for sure.

ARLady, I perfectly understand your point. The only problem is that often times the methodologies for obtaining those statistics aren't readily available. We're only given numbers without their source or any background information on how they were derived. I completely agree that statistics is just a tool, and it's the people who abuse them who messed things up.

Given that most of the time statistics are just provided as is, I tend to have that knee jerk reaction to be skeptical. Of course if I have any interest in the matter I would ask for methodologies and background, but just keep in mind that often they're not readily available. Ask people who going around saying the 1/3 women are raped how they got that number, they probably wouldn't know. (At least people here are intelligent enough not to make the next leap in logic that 1/3 women raped means that 1/3 men are rapists. Some people I know seem to have bought that line of reasoning) [:(]

I meant that you seem stuck in your head... everything is cerebral to you.  Regardless of the numbers, [i]every single one of them[/i] is a human life... a sad story.  The same with the WTC tragedy... you pointed to lives lost in previous horrific episodes in human history.  It seems like words in a book or numbers on paper to you.  Every person that died was loved and is missed by a spouse or child or parent or friend.

THAT is what you are missing.... and why your posts come across as so insensitive... because they are.    

Who said 1 in 3 women are raped?  I know I didn't.... and I was the person who threw out the 1 in 3 statistic... but, AGAIN, it was regarding rape AND molestation.  For someone who seems like such a stickler for detail you sure are missing a rather large one.  [rolleyes]

As for where I got that statistic?  It was in an actual seminar on preventing sexual crimes.  In fact, it was a specific example in that seminar that put me over the edge and into very firm RKBA ground.

I hope you read what I wrote previously about my personal experiences because I am deleting them.  I was trying to share something with you and it seems to be falling on deaf ears.


 

When I was a teenager I dated a girl that was date raped not long before I met her...

Took a long time to get "close" to her...

We stayed together for 6 years before we grew apart...
Never had a relationship as good as that since...
Not even my marriage...

Patience and sensitivity are most important...