If things can get better in 10 years that's great. I'd also like the women I care about to be safe tomorrow. A few dead rapists is a small price to pay for that.

Currently three fourths of the rapists get away scot free.

Unless I'm failing to understand something, this statistic is almost unknowable. Can you explain?

Lastly, you only seem to be considering the sudden-assault-by-stranger sort of rapes, whereas many rapes (and other crimes) are committed by someone who has established a degree of trust, either by default (as a relative or some other social context) or by design (as in date rape or some sort of 'long con' predatory behavior).

The problem with your approach is that it can be used to sideline people who choose not to carry weapons, as well as normalizing the carrying of weapons in every context - 'shouldn't woman take guns with them into the shower, just in case? Isn't it a bit irresponsible to leave oneself defenseless in the shower, where it may be hard to hear someone break into the house?'

One could equally suggest that every woman get herself a large dog. People are extremely respectful of personal space if you step out with a German Shepherd; my neighbor observes that she feels quite safe taking a nap at a park or beach in the company of her dogs. But just because anyone could do this doesn't mean everyone should do this.

It ignores the fact that people have to be 21 to get a gun and gun ownership is not guaranteed.

You migt not think you're blaming the victims but here tou definitely are. You are saying that women who don't carry guns are to blame for being raped, and for other women being raped. Did you realise that when you wrote it? Is this an example of you "asking difficult questions"?

You got me. If I didn't ignore those things I probably would have written this:

"Which do you think will reduce rape right now?...change the culture?"

"Getting the police to do their job would be great. How do you do it?"

"...a Beretta in every purse is the only real solution, but it's also a solution that the government will never support. Only rich people and jewelry stores deserve to be protected by guns."

You are saying that women who don't carry guns are to blame for being raped...Did you realise that when you wrote it?

I didn't realize I was sending secret messages that can only be decoded by you, no.

I'm not defending or attacking his position, I just think these hair-trigger accusations of victim-blaming are harming your cause far more than they're helping, since they make people tune out actual victim-blaming. Regardless of the merit of his suggestion, its silly to say he's blaming the victim when he's not, and clearly didn't intend to. It would be perfectly acceptable to actually argue against his statement, but this "anything that isn't focussed solely on changing society is victim-blaming" is getting ridiculous, and trivializes the disturbing reality of actual victim-blaming. (for example, the quote I read the other day which said "something like that doesn't just happen, she must have done something to get herself in that kind of situation").

As a disclaimer: I don't think his suggestion is a realistic solution on a widespread basis, though it may be helpful in individual cases. Just because someone might suggest, for example, that their sister carry a gun if she goes to the red-light district at night, doesn't mean they're going to blame her if she doesn't carry and gets raped.

Now give us both a gun. I'm probably a better shot, less afraid, and under close-up circumstances I can just wrestle it away. My odds of walking away safe are far worse because she may just shoot me before I can do anything.

Most people who want to be rapists don't need a weapon to do so - men are nearly always stronger than women. Arming both parties brings the odds closer to even.