HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Remember This When The NR...

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:46 PM

Remember This When The NRA Tells You 'Guns Make Women Safer'


Found on UltraVioletís Facebook page/MoveOn.org

84 replies, 6089 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Remember This When The NRA Tells You 'Guns Make Women Safer' (Original post)
Playinghardball Feb 2013 OP
Macoy51 Feb 2013 #1
Roy Rolling Feb 2013 #13
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #50
kimbutgar Feb 2013 #14
raccoon Feb 2013 #82
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #15
yardwork Feb 2013 #17
onehandle Feb 2013 #19
Squinch Feb 2013 #21
frylock Feb 2013 #30
SemperEadem Feb 2013 #37
rustydog Feb 2013 #60
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #2
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #4
frylock Feb 2013 #32
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #40
Squinch Feb 2013 #52
JimDandy Feb 2013 #58
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #6
frylock Feb 2013 #33
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #55
frylock Feb 2013 #71
frylock Feb 2013 #31
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #43
HockeyMom Feb 2013 #3
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #5
CBGLuthier Feb 2013 #44
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #56
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #57
rustydog Feb 2013 #62
alarimer Feb 2013 #75
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #84
iandhr Feb 2013 #7
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #42
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #59
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #66
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #67
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #70
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #72
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #74
Progressive dog Feb 2013 #77
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #79
Progressive dog Feb 2013 #83
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #80
libodem Feb 2013 #9
yardwork Feb 2013 #18
libodem Feb 2013 #22
yardwork Feb 2013 #23
libodem Feb 2013 #28
JimDandy Feb 2013 #61
libodem Feb 2013 #65
adieu Feb 2013 #10
frylock Feb 2013 #34
ManiacJoe Feb 2013 #11
malthaussen Feb 2013 #12
Marie Marie Feb 2013 #16
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #20
libodem Feb 2013 #24
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #26
Squinch Feb 2013 #25
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #27
Squinch Feb 2013 #29
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #36
Squinch Feb 2013 #41
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #47
Squinch Feb 2013 #49
SemperEadem Feb 2013 #45
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #51
SemperEadem Feb 2013 #81
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #46
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #48
CBHagman Feb 2013 #68
libodem Feb 2013 #73
thucythucy Feb 2013 #78
gollygee Feb 2013 #35
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #38
gollygee Feb 2013 #39
thucythucy Feb 2013 #53
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #64
thucythucy Feb 2013 #69
Beacool Feb 2013 #63
Omaha Steve Feb 2013 #76

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:58 PM

1. Citation Needed

 

But I do wonder how many attackers have been killed/deterred by a woman with a gun? You want to empower a woman against a 200 lb drunken abuser? S&W can do it.


Macoy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:54 PM

13. empower?

Guns are not meant to empower, they are meant to kill. The stereotypes of the frail woman against the 200-pound drunken abuser pointing a gun and then the agressor crawling away are the stuff of fantasy.

The logic doesn't work----an abused woman in a domestic violence scenario is safer by removing herself from that situation and not escalating the violence. If she cannot empower herself to leave a violent situation she cannot empower herself to kill a drunk with a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roy Rolling (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:59 PM

50. I posted this in another thread

I have a friend who killed her abusive husband and the courts let her off. He had also sexually abused the children. This was in the early 80's If I am remembering correctly.

In the 70's when I was working as a nurse the police gave lots of workshops on self defense and one available was a firearm class to empower women.
It was fairly common then and many women I knew took advantage of it. This is but one example I am giving. "Empower" was the word used. It was one of many ways offered to help women take control during a spate of rapes. Other classes taught basic martial arts moves and other techniques to disable an attacker. I certainly found it made me feel more secure and in control to learn these techniques. It is weird how many things that were so acceptable then in the general community and in the feminist community of the time are not now. I am getting old I guess.
Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:18 PM

14. A good swift kick in the balls to the attacker can empower a woman enough

to get a baseball bat or 4x4 to stop them also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:01 AM

82. True, if she can hit the target. If she's quick enough. If he's slow enough or drunk enough

not to see it coming.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:25 PM

15. What a stupid post.

Gun humpers really don't get statistics or facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:34 PM

17. There are several uninformed and downright dangerous posts in this thread.

People ought to educate themselves about domestic violence before posting irresponsible suggestions and judgements on a message board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:39 PM

19. Gun nuts make those stories up ad nauseum.

Just like UFOs, imagery and witnesses are a rare thing.

The tide is turning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:48 PM

21. Ugh. Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:14 PM

30. a good education will empower a woman. you should get one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:29 PM

37. So will...

the 5 point palm exploding heart technique...



without a shot being fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:21 PM

60. That was a pretty simplistic LaPierre-type response my friend

The simple act of introducing a firearm into a situation does not and NEVER has guaranteed that the holder of that firearm is the winner of said confrontation.
LaPierre's deeply flawed statement that the ONLY solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Nothing could be so idiotic and intellectually wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:01 PM

2. What does that mean exactly?

 



If what is being suggested is that the woman should have something else for self-defense - like a Taser or pepper spray or something like that, instead of a gun - then I'd agree, since the gun could be taken away from her or cause the attacker to behave even more violently - but if what is being implied is that the woman would be better off unarmed, then I'd disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:11 PM

4. There are those who would disarm women regardless of circumstances

except for possibly a can of beans. Of course once women get good at using cans of beans to defend themselves, there will be calls to limit the number of cans one can purchase at a time and bulk packaging at Costco will be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:17 PM

32. speaking of can of beans, that's about all your lessons are worth, professor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:36 PM

40. Who precisely is suggesting that all women should be unilaterally disarmed?

Who precisely is suggesting that all women should be unilaterally disarmed? Or are we merely projecting an absurdity onto others so that we may, in turn, argue against an absurdity?


Smoke 'em if you got 'em, we may be here a while...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 05:34 PM

52. Someone said it's unsafe to have a gun in a domestic violence situation.

Which means that all our pro-gun friends have to run around with their hair on fire saying that everyone is picking on them and trying to take away their guns.

It's all about them, you know. And beans, apparently. But mostly everyone trying to take away their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:17 PM

58. Ugh. Pathetic post. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:16 PM

6. If she is willing to use the gun, it won't be taken away.

If she is grabbing the gun to threaten or to bluff, then she will lose the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:18 PM

33. turn off the teevee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:07 PM

55. Turn on your brain.

It is rather difficult to take someone's gun away from them if they are filling you full of bullets.

If guns are so easy to take away, why do cops and soldiers carry them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:52 AM

71. derpa derpa derp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:16 PM

31. stats aren't implied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:38 PM

43. I believe the only implication is that one is much more likely to be wounded

I believe the only implication is that one is much more likely to be wounded or die from a gun shot wound if one lives in a house containing a firearm...

After that, it's readers choice as to what they want to pretend it says...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:06 PM

3. A woman is more likey to be killed with HER OWN gun

by a member of her own household than use it to defend herself with it against a stranger. Seen and heard more of this than any NRA propaganda.

Nancy Lanza is the poster woman for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:14 PM

5. Living with a violent criminal is very dangerous.

What those studies don't tell you is what kind of man does those shootings of women. In almost all murders, the killer has a prior record of convictions for violent crimes. In most domestic murders the couple have previously been visited by the police and are already known for their fights. The idea of the happy couple having a fight and reaching for guns is a myth. It almost never happens that way.

If a woman's marriage is happy and her partner isn't abusing her, then she is not in danger from the guns in her house and they may save her from an intruder.

If the marriage is miserable and he is a wife-beater, then she is serious danger from any weapon or item that can be used as a weapon, including his fists, and of course any guns in the house, or knives, or clubs, or etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:39 PM

44. yeah cause no one ever snaps overnight

like seems to happen every other week in this country when some adult wipes out all their children and then themselves.

but that only happens to the bad people, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:09 PM

56. They are "law-abiding gun owners".

Right up to the moment they aren't.

Gunners hate that little fact.

They also think they won't be one of those that snap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:12 PM

57. In a nation of 310 million people, even rare events will sometimes happen.

But they still remain statistically rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:27 PM

62. Have you not seen the national death numbers for gun violence

simply declaring the numbers rare is ignorance on a grand scale.
Do you have any idea how many times guns are taken from schoolkids weekly across this nation?
The number is staggering.

Do you have an active shooter response plan where you work? We do. In Texass, you can murder someone stealing property! We have these deeply flawed laws written by Republican backed ALEC that states you do have the right to stand your ground instead of flee and you can kill another unarmed person if you fear for your life...Trayvon Martin anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:31 AM

75. Ask Pistorius' girlfriend.

Oh wait, you can't, because he SHOT her.

He wasn't a known criminal. We don't really know if he was abusive previously. Some reports had police called to the place before, but he's never been charged with anything before.

But they charged him with premeditated murder, so evidently they think he planned this, that it wasn't spontaneous or a "crime of passion."

Also the girlfriend of Javon Belcher. She didn't expect him to kill her either. Yes, they fought apparently. But he was a "good guy."

Here are just two cases (among many) where guns in the home were used on people who lived there, neither one of whom had prior convictions for violent crimes.

There are endless cases of kids finding guns and shooting themselves or someone else by accident and many more stories of guns "going off" while somebody is cleaning them. Add all those things up, and compare those statistics to the numbers of intruders scared off or shot and I believe you will find a gun is many, many times more likely to be used on someone in the house, accidentally or on purpose.

Home invasions are quite rare, statistically speaking. You'd be better off investing in a good alarm system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #75)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 09:02 AM

84. Put the strawman back in the barn.

Read my post again. I do NOT say that ALL murderers have prior records. I say that ALMOST all do, which leaves a few murderers who will be committing murder as their first offense.

endless cases of kids finding guns and shooting themselves or someone else by accident and many more stories of guns "going off" while somebody is cleaning them. Endless? For kids (Age 12 & under) the accidental death by firearms rate is about 50 per year. That is a rate of about one in a million. Firearms accidental deaths are about 620 per year, all ages.

Nobody knows how many burglars are scared off as those statistics aren't kept. However, I personally know several people who have used a gun, at some point in their lives, to scare away intruders. I have personally pulled my .45 on a burglar. (He dropped what he was stealing, turned his back to me, and left. Since he was then no threat to me, I didn't shoot.)

Criminology is a well established field of study. Statistics have been collected for decades. The fact is that it is rare for a person to commit murder as a first offense, and it is extremely rare for happy couples to explode into murderous rages. Please note that "rare" does not mean "never".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:31 PM

7. Who did the study?

Don't doubt that a gun in the home makes it more likely for someone to be a victim, but it will nice to know who did the study?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:44 PM

8. The answer to this problem is simple:

more guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:37 PM

42. Or less choices.

 

Should the study be relied upon to restrict the choices of women who want to be able defend themselves by owning a firearm in the home?

If so, should that restriction be applied to Dianne Feinstein who owns a firearm for self-defense? Or should an exception be made available to her and other notable anti-gun hypocrites?
http://www.gs2ac.com/NotableAntiGunHypocrites.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 06:12 PM

54. Your comment begs a few questions.

Is it your opinion that no one -- male or female -- should have any restrictions placed on the weapons they use to defend themselves, their homes, and their families?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:20 PM

59. No. At the very least, that's a straw man.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:13 PM

66. Not at all.

Just an attempt to get you to clarify what you meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #66)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:30 PM

67. It's not a straw-man? Not at all? If and when you ever see a post of mine in which I ever assert

 

that "no one -- male or female -- should have any restrictions placed on the weapons they use to defend themselves, their homes, and their families," just let me know.

You've seen enough posts by others to know that is a common straw-man posted by gun-controllers who cannot tolerate the idea that there may be liberal Democrats who own firearms and favor the choice of owning firearms in the home for self-defense.

Usually the intolerant gun-controllers add to the straw-men that they create by falsely suggesting that those who lawfully own firearms for self-defense or other purposes unconditionally want "50-round clips," machine guns, or even nuclear bombs. You've written a great many posts. Have you ever done that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:47 PM

70. I own firearms.

I asked a question. I'm not getting an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #70)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:59 AM

72. Your ownership of firearms means what exactly? Your post at #8 in which you said that "more guns"

 

is the answer appears to be a sarcastic one. It does not appear that you were sincere when you posted it.

My initial questions to you in your post #8, at #42, remain unanswered. Those questions were asked before you asked your straw-man question at #54. You say that you did not receive an answer. Obviously you did. Obviously, from what was written in post #67, you received an answer. Let me help you. At no time, as I indicated at #67, have I ever had the position that "no one -- male or female -- should have any restrictions placed on the weapons they use to defend themselves, their homes, and their families."

I can give you an explanation. I can't give you understanding.

My last question to you at #67 in response to your post #66, like my questions to you at #42, also remains unanswered.

Your statement "I asked a question. I'm not getting an answer." is not supported by the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #72)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:28 AM

74. What a great answer!

I ask a simple question, and you spend your next posts questioning my motivation for asking it.

That's an answer? No, it's rhetorical bullshit.

Please feel free to post another couple hundred words designed to impress yourself with what a marvelous debate tactician you are. You will be the only one reading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #74)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:05 AM

77. Doesn't do much good to talk to them.

Another I'm not against all gun restrictions, only all those that have ever been proposed, gun worshiper.
Anyway, good effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #77)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:52 AM

79. No person is against all gun restrictions.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #79)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:34 PM

83. If we count imaginary restrictions, you are correct nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #74)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:55 AM

80. You said "I own firearms." So does Dianne Feinstein.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:45 PM

9. I imagine a lot of women

And children are terrorized in their own homes by a gun owning psychopath, husband and father.

I was very scared during my separation after I left a domestic violence situation. My ex bought a handgun when, I went to a battered women's shelter. I feared for my own life and my unborn child's life.


If they will hit you to control you, they will brandish, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:35 PM

18. I'm sorry that happened to you. Thank you for posting about your experience here.

There are a lot of very uninformed posts in this thread with advice that, if followed, would endanger women's lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:49 PM

22. Thank you, Yardwork

It was 1984 and I have never been as afraid before or since. This was prior to not letting abusers have a gun when a restraining order was in place. Thank god, that law was passed. Even my attorney didn't seem that alarmed because it could not imagine him killing his unborn child.

I found out from a mutual friend he had said the baby didn't matter to him since he would not be an influence in his life, due to our impending divorce. He was very disturbed. I could go on but it wouldn't serve any purpose now. The whole scenario was a nightmare.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:51 PM

23. I'm glad that you and your baby survived. It must have been terrifying.

People don't realize how dangerous it is for women to leave their abusers, how willing some abusers are to kill everybody if they can't continue to have control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:10 PM

28. I had a two year old

And a three year old that he tried to snatch from me as well. So glad it is all behind me.

The situation does often escalate after the woman makes a break, to get away. I learned a lot in the shelter. We had mandatory class work and group and individual counseling. I might have been lured back despite the violence, if I had not had the strong wisdom and support of the wonderful women and staff..

BTW, I was one of several pregnant women, there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:26 PM

61. Bravo for you!

I was a volunteer for a short time in the 80's on the YWCA Women's Help Line and some of the calls were chilling (I am a female). I often wondered if the women who called ever really got away from their abusers. Glad to hear your story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #61)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:46 PM

65. This was a YWCA facility as well

The rules were strict but the structure and life skills were very valuable. It allowed me to get out and get back on my feet. I lost everything but the clothes on our backs. More or less. I really had to start over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:47 PM

10. I believe the study

looked at gun deaths and asked, was that gun from the house or from outside the house. Apparently, 5x as many gun deaths occur with a gun belonging to someone living in the house, compared to gun deaths by a gun brought to the house by an intruder.

That's my take on the claim given. I don't know if there is any such analysis, but that's how I'm reading the statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:19 PM

34. you got it. it's a shame many other posters don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:48 PM

11. This seems to be the supporting article according to the FaceBook post:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:54 PM

12. Hey, once she's dead, she's safe.

Nobody going to hurt her after that.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:26 PM

16. If she does use the gun to kill her abuser, then she damn well better be able to prove that

it was self-defense. And that burden of proof too often rests heavily on the victim (wife). Any idea how many women are currently in prison for killing their abusive spouses? First she is beat up by her husband and then by the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:45 PM

20. So what are you advocating? Let's take away their choice to have a gun for self-defense?

 

Are you saying that we, or some of us, are smarter than women?

Are you saying that none of them should have a choice to defend themselves with a firearm?

That none of them should even have the choice to prepare to defend themselves with a firearm?

Under this reasoning, if some women have owned fire extinguishers in the home but not all fire-extinguisher owning women have been able to successfully put out all home fires, no women should be allowed to own fire extinguishers in the home?

Let's take away their choice?

What about their wardrobes? Have you seen the clothes that some of the women wear? Under such reasoning, why not restrict their clothing choices to wearing berkas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

24. If you are storing your firearm correctly

The gun should be locked and the ammo in a separate place. How is that gunna work in an unexpected emergency? If it is loaded under your pillow, the result is another dead two year old. No kids should be able to access it.


Unless you are prepared to shoot to kill then and there, chances are it is going to be wrenched out of your hand and used on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:06 PM

26. Are women who choose to own firearms incapable of storing their firearms correctly?

 

Do they inherently place loaded firearms under their pillows?

Do they inherently allow two-year olds and other children access to their firearms?

Are they incapable of being prepared to shoot to kill?

Somehow I think that only the smugly superior are capable of believing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:58 PM

25. I believe that the poster is saying that

having a gun in a domestic violence situation increases a woman's risk of being killed by 500%.

He or she didn't say anything about fashion. Or your intelligence. Or choices. Or fire extinguishers. He or she was simply saying that having a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the woman's risk of being killed by 500%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:10 PM

27. By 500%? Not 550%? Not 450%? And not 507% or 503.23%? But exactly 500%?

 

Somehow I think that only a person who cannot reason by analogy, or who rejects reasoning by analogy, can believe that.

It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that the "500%" number is a bogus one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:12 PM

29. So you are upset by the percentage number? OK, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:24 PM

36. Comprehension problem?

 

I challenge the credibility of the person who made up the "500%" number. It's bogus.

I've trained women how to shoot for self-defense. Whether women such as Dianne Feinstein want to own a firearm for self-defense should be their choice, not those who are smugly superior to them or to others who own firearms for self-defense.

If you don't own a firearm, that's your choice.

If you want to think that you are superior to women like Dianne Feinstein who own firearms for self-defense, that's your choice as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:37 PM

41. Again. I believe what the post was saying was that if a woman has a gun in a domestic

violence situation, the chances of her death are 500% greater.

You are all over the map reading all kinds of things into that post, and then you are getting mad about all the things you are reading into the post.

No one is saying they are superior to Dianne Feinstein. No one is being smugly superior. No one is saying anything negative about anyone who owns firearms for self defense. No one is saying that people should not have guns.

But, as happens in so many discussions about guns, you are seeing all kinds of demons in a simple statement, you are furious at those demons - the ones that you have projected onto a simple statement, you are snarking an me over your projections, and you are, it seems, certain that someone is coming to "grab" your gun.

The post is saying is that it is dangerous to have a gun around in the case of a domestic violence situation. That's all. So calm down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:45 PM

47. What are you, his ventriloquist? Can't he answer for himself? Does he need you to provide

 

imaginative answers?

And why are you using your imagination to believe that someone such as myself is "getting mad"?

In contrast to being "mad" as you say, I think that foolish posts, especially the ones that are obviously foolish, are sometimes amusing. No one is going to take away the firearms owned by women in their homes for self defense. No one is going to do so other than in their own imaginations. Even you admit knowing that neither you nor anyone else is going to be able to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #47)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:48 PM

49. Sigh. Have a nice night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:42 PM

45. I don't believe the person who came up with that figure for that graphic

is on this site, so what's with the combativeness with unrelated people when you're whole gripe is aimed at the person who created that graphic with the percentages with which you take issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 05:32 PM

51. You are right that the person who came up with the figure for the graphic is probably not

 

on this site, but I think that you are overstating the rest.

The response at #27 was directed to the post at #25, not at the OP. Your conclusion that my "whole gripe is aimed at the person who created that graphic with the percentages," like the conclusion of the poster for #25, is not supported by the facts as can be seen by my post at #20.

I object to those who want to take away choices, and I particularly object in this thread to those who want to take away choices of those women who want to own firearms in their homes for self defense. As I see the world, the choice should be theirs to make. This is neither a pro-gun nor anti-gun position. When an advocate wants to restrict choices by using a number or statistic that appears to be unsupportable, I think that it is sometimes worthwhile to point out that the anti-choice position is not strengthened by the use of bogus-appearing numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #51)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:58 AM

81. nice

... but but but... he said it first!!!!!

I stand by what I said. You can make your point without being combative and overly disagreeable just because people either challenge your assertions or feel their point is just as valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:44 PM

46. And if one feel smugly superior to others because one own a gun, that's one's choice as well...

And if one feel smugly superior to others because one own a gun, that's one's choice as well...

However, I imagine you'll rationalize your own smugness over that of others as either not existing or merely justified, yet it's still six og one and half a dozen of the other...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:47 PM

48. The ones who are smugly superior are those who want to restrict choices.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:51 PM

68. Research on firearms and the murder of abused women.

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/dvfirearmsdeadlycomvination/dvfirearmsdeadlycomvination.pdf

Nearly two-thirds of all women killed by firearms were killed by an intimate partner. Firearms are the most frequently used weapons in intimate partner homicide, eclipsing all other weapons combined. In 2005, 1182 women were reported murdered by an intimate partner -- more than 3 women each day -- accounting for approximately 30 percent of all women murdered. Additionally, the presence of a firearm in a home increases the risk of homicide for women by five times.

https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/B5A632B2F7980384852570880070E703

National studies confirm the fact that firearms and domestic violence is a deadly combination. Family and intimate assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to end in fatality than those not associated with firearms.2 Households with guns are almost eight times more likely to involve a firearm homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance than homes without guns.3 Two-thirds of intimate partner homicides in the U.S. are committed using guns.4 One-fourth of intimate offenders killed themselves after killing the victim with a gun.5

Most domestic homicide firearms are kept in the home where the homicide occurred, and one out of every four battered women who attempt suicide use the gun located in their homes.6 Abusers who use guns to kill their intimate partners may also injure or kill innocent third parties, including children, interveners, and innocent bystanders.7 In light of such alarming statistics, federal and state lawmakers have responded by passing laws prohibiting abusers and stalkers from possessing firearms and ammunition.


http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Firearms%20and%20Intimate%20Partner%20Violence.pdf

Compared to homes without guns, the presence of guns in the home is associated with a
3-fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk increases to 8-fold when the
offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when
previous domestic violence exists.8

A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living
in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their
homes. The same study concluded that women killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance,
or close relative were 7 times more likely to live in homes with 1 or more guns and 14
times more likely to have a history of prior domestic violence compared to women killed
by non-intimate acquaintances.9

Family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than
non-firearm assaults. This research suggests that limiting access to guns will result in less
lethal family and intimate assaults.10

A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-
fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a
firearm.11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #68)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:13 AM

73. Thank you

For bringing this to the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #68)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:15 AM

78. Thank you for posting these facts.

A much needed dose of reality inserted into a discussion that too often lurches into the absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:21 PM

35. Or maybe the number was rounded? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:32 PM

38. Yea, well, they might have more credibility if they make up another number which at least has

 

some appearance of precision.

And how did they make up this number?

In Puritan times, didn't they debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? You remember the Puritans, don't you? They were the busybodies who spent their time disapproving of others and trying to restrict choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:33 PM

39. Well I assume it was written somewhere as "have a 5 times greater chance . . ."

and it got translated to 500% by the poster to make it look more dramatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 05:59 PM

53. Actually, the Puritans never debated

the angels on the head of a pin issue. It was debated by Catholic theologians, and the Puritans were Protestants.

And the Puritans were quite fond of their guns. Basically every household had one, which came in handy for exterminating Native Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:39 PM

64. What's your authority re "the Puritans never debated the angels on the head of pin issue"?

 

At a minimum, according to William E. Phipps who wrote, on page 97 in his book Supernaturalism in Christianity: Its Growth and Cure, when a question was asked as to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", a Puritan who thought that dancing was sinful, answered "An infinite number could, but no self-respecting one would."

http://books.google.com/books?id=6cLpshQuj7sC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=puritans+angels+can+dance+on+the+head+of+a+pin&source=bl&ots=iuwVC_QMtL&sig=AKu0Az-kLJOMJ8W8-E9z4b9W3Yg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-O0eUZC4K6fY2gWd-4GABw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=puritans%20angels%20can%20dance%20on%20the%20head%20of%20a%20pin&f=false

History indicates that the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and the English lived peacefully with the Indians until 1637 until the Pequot Indians sought to kill some Dutch sailors and mistakenly killed some English instead. There is nothing to indicate that the Puritans ever intended or ever made an effort toward "exterminating Native Americans."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #64)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:18 PM

69. The question had been argued in various

Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

permutations by Catholics going back as far as Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, written ca. 1270. When Protestants discussed it, it was generally to ridicule the sophism of Catholic theologians, as in the instance you note, which strikes me as more sarcasm than an actual debate of the question. The Puritans were in fact in part a backlash against such theological nitpicking, seeing themselves as a purified (hence "Puritan") reading of the Bible which eschewed such theological esoterica, as indulged in by Catholics and Anglicans alike.

As for exterminating Indians, there were quite brutal conflicts from the middle of the 17th century on, including King Philip's War, leading to slaughters on both sides, which ended with most of the native American populations of New England reduced to a pittance of their former populations and lands. The hostility between New England settlers and Native Americans is one reason why Native Americans allied themselves first with the French against the Bay Colony, then with the British against the revolutionaries, losing out in both instances. Whether the Puritans "intended" to exterminate Indians or not, the fact is that Native Americans were hardly treated fairly, and indeed their populations and polities were, for all intents and purposes, exterminated. Are are you arguing that the Massachusetts, Massasoit, Nipmuck, Narragansett, Mohegan, and Pequot nations still exist as thriving polities with anything like their former power and dominions?

BTW, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock were not the same as the Puritans who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. People often use the terms interchangeably, but they considered themselves different camps of Protestantism, and were hostile to each other. Read Thomas Shepherd's autobiography for some insight on the differences between the two groups.

At any rate, the Puritans were hardly against gun ownership, which is where this discussion began, and your likening those who favor reasonable gun regulation to "Puritans" is hardly apt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:30 PM

63. Not if she shoots first.

Which is what I would do if any SOB tries to beat me up.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:41 AM

76. Here is a link to the source

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread