Reply #122: I see you still need a dictionary

[iverglas]

Do they really not have them in that undergraduate place?

Women who are abused by intimate partners DO NOT NEED FIREARMS.
Naturally. All women who agree with you should be free to act on their beliefs. Others, like perhaps the ones in the OP, not so much. Right?

Now go look up the meaning of "belief". I'm not the first bit interested in their or anyone else's beliefs, as I thought I'd made clear many times. And I wasn't stating any "belief" of mine, so no one else's is of the slightest relevance here.


Personally, I would tend to believe the abused woman, instead of armchair quarterbacking to find "objective" bases to contradict her. It's part of my misogyny.

Perhaps. Is it part of your misogyny to misrepresent everything I say?

Or is it just that you don't have a clue?

An objective basis for the alleged apprehension of serious/injury death is NOT the standard that applies, you see.

That would be why I said: the pattern of abuse and its psychological effects on the women make their claim to have feared for their lives **reasonable**, EVEN IF there was no objective basis for that fear.

(hoping the various emphases will help you)


Being well trained and armed--especially if the abusers are unaware of it--will of course increase the women's helplessness.

I think even you must have got a chuckle when you wrote that.

You are apparently saying that women will do just fine living with abusive partners as long as they have gunz.

Sorry, that is just too weird for me.


Record any number of points desired against whoever advocated for the rights of physical abusers to be armed against their victims.

As soon as you let me know what you're doing to make firearms difficult for said abusers to access ...