Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[orpheus]

She carries it on her person Orph. It isn't necessesarily comfortable or convenient, but a person gets accustomed to it and it becomes normal, a part of you, after only a small bit of time. The right holster--no need to conceal in one's home--helps a lot.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, GS. The issue here is threat from the woman's husband/boyfriend - with whom she shares the house. Are you suggesting she carry the gun in a holster all the time, 24/7 in their house? I don't see any other way to have the gun accessible to her but not to him. Even that wouldn't work very well.

[Woodbutcher]

Fuck, I thought schools were supposed to educate kids. It seems that five -and six-year olds are being suspended left and right for "gun" crimes, "sex" crimes and "racist" remarks even though they do not know why. What's going on down there? What happened to normal people? Or does the media blow these things out of proportion?

[Gallstones]

She carries it on her person Orph. It isn't necessesarily comfortable or convenient, but a person gets accustomed to it and it becomes normal, a part of you, after only a small bit of time. The right holster--no need to conceal in one's home--helps a lot.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, GS. The issue here is threat from the woman's husband/boyfriend - with whom she shares the house. Are you suggesting she carry the gun in a holster all the time, 24/7 in their house? I don't see any other way to have the gun accessible to her but not to him. Even that wouldn't work very well.

Any woman who would continue to share a domicile with a man she fears and is a threat to her life is a complete retard.

If, on the other hand, proper legal steps have been taken--separation, orders of protection--and the man is still a threat, then she needs to be ready day and night to protect herself. That means in addition to other steps she might consider carrying 24/7.

[orpheus]

She carries it on her person Orph. It isn't necessesarily comfortable or convenient, but a person gets accustomed to it and it becomes normal, a part of you, after only a small bit of time. The right holster--no need to conceal in one's home--helps a lot.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, GS. The issue here is threat from the woman's husband/boyfriend - with whom she shares the house. Are you suggesting she carry the gun in a holster all the time, 24/7 in their house? I don't see any other way to have the gun accessible to her but not to him. Even that wouldn't work very well.

Any woman who would continue to share a domicile with a man she fears and is a threat to her life is a complete retard.

If, on the other hand, proper legal steps have been taken--separation, orders of protection--and the man is still a threat, then she needs to be ready day and night to protect herself. That means in addition to other steps she might consider carrying 24/7.

So you're joining the chorus of people who say "why doesn't she just leave him?!" You do realize that that attitude is widely held to be a) very outdated thinking, b) entirely unrealistic in many circumstances, and c) unbelievably insensitive to the woman's plight.

[aspire1670]

She carries it on her person Orph. It isn't necessesarily comfortable or convenient, but a person gets accustomed to it and it becomes normal, a part of you, after only a small bit of time. The right holster--no need to conceal in one's home--helps a lot.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, GS. The issue here is threat from the woman's husband/boyfriend - with whom she shares the house. Are you suggesting she carry the gun in a holster all the time, 24/7 in their house? I don't see any other way to have the gun accessible to her but not to him. Even that wouldn't work very well.

Any woman who would continue to share a domicile with a man she fears and is a threat to her life is a complete retard.

You're to be pitied rather than mocked.

[Clinton Huxley]

This is getting fucking retarded. Parents are creating hoplophobes, and that is emotional abuse. It is as much abuse as threatening children with hell.

6 Yr Old Suspended for TALKING About TOY Guns

this comment should win some kind of prize.

[JimC]

She carries it on her person Orph. It isn't necessesarily comfortable or convenient, but a person gets accustomed to it and it becomes normal, a part of you, after only a small bit of time. The right holster--no need to conceal in one's home--helps a lot.

Oh shit.

You honestly believe that everybody should go armed, all the time.

And that this makes them "free"

What utterly fucked up paranoid shit this is...

[Blind groper]

Here is a graph of murder rates comparing the USA and other OECD countries. You may note that the average in 2010 for OECD countries was 1.0, at the same time as it was well over 4 for the USA. the USA has a major problem.

Blue line is USA. Red lines for various other OECD nations.

[Seth]

Your assertion is that because some number of women are victimized by their domestic partners, no one should possess handguns.

Not quite.
My assertion is that the high rate of murders of women by their male partners with hand guns shows that having hand guns in the home add to the risk, not reduce it.

Your assertion is pulled out of your ass. Correlation is not causation. How many times do we have to say it. You have presented bald, unsupported assertions, nothing else.

This makes the self defense argument ridiculous. Self defense is a measure taken to save lives. If the measure actually ends up killing more people, which hand guns do, then it is not self defense. More like self destruction.

But it doesn't. That's the problem, you spotlight one particular item and then try to argue that this is a universal truth. It's not, it's just stupidity and unreason. Moreover you haven't proven that the assertion is remotely true, and given the fact that it comes from a notoriously anti-gun organization, I call bullshit.

It doesn't matter in the least what weapon the criminal uses.

It matters a great deal to the victim. If the criminal uses fist, knife or club, your chances of surviving the attack are much higher than if he uses a firearm.

And your chances of surviving are enhanced even more if you have in your possession superior and potentially lethal force with which to deter or stop the attack...like a handgun.

And a much higher incidence of violent criminal victimization

Wrong.
Among the 24 riches nations, in which murder rates are much, much higher in the USA, overall violent crime is similar for the USA compared to the average for the other nations.

Cherry picking.

According to several credible and verified research studies that have not been discredited because the single university study from Harvard, a known liberal anti-gun organization, has itself been rebutted, refuted and discredited by the authors of the original studies.

John Lott's critics are wrong because John Lott says they are wrong. Yes, that is one hell of an argument!

No, they are wrong because they are wrong.

http://blog.bradycampaign.org/category/ ... -misdeeds/

I quote :

“In at least eight published articles, more than a dozen academics have found enough serious flaws in Lott’s model to discount his findings,” says Harvard’s David Hemenway in his fascinating, must-read book Private Guns, Public Health (p.101).

Anyone with access to a computer can find extensive consistent research that RTC laws “are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults,” as a Johns Hopkins report (see p.9) recently reported. Researchers Ian Ayres and John Donohue found that RTC laws “increased crime in substantially more jurisdictions than they decreased crime.” (Stanford Law Review 4/16/2003, p.1271)

In other words, Lott's claims are garbage.

Anecdotes.

If that's the metric you propose to use, then your own claims are anecdotes and therefore invalid.

My claims are statistical - not based on individual anecdotes.

No, your claims are anecdotes based on bogus statistics.

If I tell you that the USA has 5 times the murder rate of my country (which it does) that is data, not anecdote.

Sure it is, because you cite no credible source and you misuse your statistics in a most mendacious and ethically corrupt manner.

Anecdotes as argument are designed to mislead, because they are usually exceptions to a rule.

The point of posting these examples is merely to refute your lie that firearms are rarely used for self defense. The statistical analysis has already been done, by several different researchers including the Department of Justice, and it shows that you're simply wrong.

[Seth]

While I applaud the monomaniacal effort that has gone into this series of threads, it would have been more parsimonious to just post a link to the wiki article on confirmation bias.

It's not confirmation bias, it's evidence.

[Seth]

But your views on guns held by women are simply wrong. When there is a gun in the home, the probability of the woman being murdered increases three fold. This is because her male partner is then a lot more likely to shoot her. This happens inside the home.

So you're saying that an attacked woman can't use a gun in her own home? Balderdash.

No, Blind groper is saying that the man could get to and use the gun as easily as the woman could. And the statistics bear this out.

That's because most women are trained from infancy to be docile and obedient. Women who go to the trouble of obtaining handguns and permits are rather more assertive and independent, and generally don't get into such relationships in the first place. Why should THEY be disarmed merely because some other woman doesn't have the courage or strength to provide for her own safety? Neither you nor BG nor anyone else has bothered to answer that particular question, you just evade it and go on blathering about statistics while ignoring the individual rights of the individuals who face deadly attacks. In other words, you accept and even laud as a moral necessity, the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people who might protect themselves with firearms merely because you falsely believe that it is even possible to disarm violent criminals completely by banning guns. I've demonstrated time and time again that it's not possible to disarm violent criminals, who will use anything from a shotgun to a rock to kill if that is their intent.

You disrespect the rights of the individual in using bullshit statistical arguments to support asinine bullshit conclusions.

But that's to be expected of Marxist useful idiots.

No one, male or female, in the sanctity of their own home, carries a hand gun all the time. it is put aside - hopefully into a gun safe, but much too often simply into a drawer. Then we get a domestic, in which the male partner gets angry. He grabs a gun, which will very likely be his wife's gun, and shoots her. Even if she owns a gun, she will almost certainly not have it on her. After all, this is inside the 'safety' of her own home.

That's tactics, not policy. Just because SOME women may be bad tactical planners is no reason to deny everyone the ability to use good tactics and tools to defend themselves.

What "tactics" should a woman use to keep a self defense weapon in the house accessible to her but not her husband? To prevent him from having access, it could be in a safe, but then it wouldn't be easily accessible to her when needed.

Get trained, get armed and find a better intimate partner. A handgun helps a lot, merely by being on one's belt, when one is kicking some lowlife abuser out of one's house.

And, as GS said:

1. A self defense weapon should be accessible, not stored away in a closet (or gun safe etc).

I believe that if one makes the choice to defend using a weapon they have to mean it and that weapon needs to be accessible in the very moment.

And so rather than discuss tactics, you instead argue that a woman should be DISARMED completely, on the idiotic notion that her gun MIGHT be used against her. How stupid is that?

It was on the American Rifleman program this morning that there are devices that allow a shotgun to be stored out of reach of children but readily reachable/grabbable by adults.

Now, if GS is correct, that a self defense weapon should be "readily reachable/grabbable by adults", then the man could reach/grab it just as easily as the woman could. So what "tactics" should she use, Seth?

Good ones, beginning with getting rid of lowlife scumbag abusers the FIRST time they engage in domestic violence. The mere process of getting a permit and a gun and the training needed to use it effectively in and of itself provides a huge mental and physical advantage to the woman. The reason that many women continue to stay with their abusers is because they have been trained from infancy to be submissive and obedient and afraid, so they have no self-confidence or ability to fight back.

As it happens, my fiancee was physically abused by her first husband...once. He got between her and her children when she started to leave him over his verbal and emotional abuse and he struck her with a coffee mug in the face, knocking out her front teeth. She responded with her Krav Maga training and beat the shit out of him, knocking him unconscious and breaking his jaw. He went to the hospital and then to jail, and he's the one with the felony domestic abuse record. If she had possessed a handgun, she would have been justified in shooting him dead.

The responding police complimented her on her fighting skills.

Most women don't take Krav Maga training, but should. A handgun is the great equalizer, and it's useful not just against an abusive partner, but also against rapists, robbers and other criminal scum that ANY woman may encounter ANY time of the day or night ANYWHERE she might be.

I don't think you've thought this one through very well.

You don't think. At least you got that right. I've not only thought it through, I've been professionally trained and worked in law enforcement for more than 20 years. So if we're assessing who knows their asshole from a hole in the ground, that would be me, not you.

[Seth]

She carries it on her person Orph. It isn't necessesarily comfortable or convenient, but a person gets accustomed to it and it becomes normal, a part of you, after only a small bit of time. The right holster--no need to conceal in one's home--helps a lot.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, GS. The issue here is threat from the woman's husband/boyfriend - with whom she shares the house. Are you suggesting she carry the gun in a holster all the time, 24/7 in their house? I don't see any other way to have the gun accessible to her but not to him. Even that wouldn't work very well.

If she needs to do so because her intimate partner is an abuser, then it's IMPERATIVE that she do so until the scumbag is gone. Most people don't need to carry a gun on their person in their home because most people don't continue to tolerate spousal abuse after the first instance. Domestic abuse is not like a rapist breaking in unexpectedly, it's an ongoing process that continues to escalate until the worst happens. So it's not as if women aren't on notice that they are in danger.

Like I said, bad tactical and strategic planning on the part of some women is NO EXCUSE to disarm every law-abiding citizen while doing absolutely NOTHING to disarm violent criminals. The idea that you can't understand this simple point is astonishing...well, not really because I've known for decades that hoplophobes are hopeless idiots to begin with and are immune to any sort of reason or logic. But still...

[Seth]

She carries it on her person Orph. It isn't necessesarily comfortable or convenient, but a person gets accustomed to it and it becomes normal, a part of you, after only a small bit of time. The right holster--no need to conceal in one's home--helps a lot.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, GS. The issue here is threat from the woman's husband/boyfriend - with whom she shares the house. Are you suggesting she carry the gun in a holster all the time, 24/7 in their house? I don't see any other way to have the gun accessible to her but not to him. Even that wouldn't work very well.

Any woman who would continue to share a domicile with a man she fears and is a threat to her life is a complete retard.

If, on the other hand, proper legal steps have been taken--separation, orders of protection--and the man is still a threat, then she needs to be ready day and night to protect herself. That means in addition to other steps she might consider carrying 24/7.

So you're joining the chorus of people who say "why doesn't she just leave him?!" You do realize that that attitude is widely held to be a) very outdated thinking, b) entirely unrealistic in many circumstances, and c) unbelievably insensitive to the woman's plight.

No it's not, it's just scary to contemplate. But if domestic abuse victims really understood that their chances of being murdered are extremely high and get higher with every passing day, they would arm themselves, defend themselves and get out. The real problems is that pussies and hoplophobes insist on being "sensitive" rather than squarely facing the issue and advocating direct immediate action to remove the threat, and indoctrinated women all over the world listen to these dumb motherfuckers and so they continue to get abused and killed.

[Seth]

More data:

Wed Mar 06 21:36:20 PST 2013
Spokane homeowner shoots, kills intruder crawling through doggie door

The homeowners stated they had been receiving threats from the subject and that they believed he was armed with a large knife at the time of the shooting, according to police. view full article

A man was shot and killed by a homeowner after he attempted to break into a home in Spokane, Wash. by entering through the doggie door.

Police say the homeowners knew the man who attempted to break into their home. The incident occurred at around 7 p.m. Wednesday night.

A witness told police that the man, armed with a large knife, attempted to force his way into the home though the doggie door, KREM-TV reports. The homeowner then shot the intruder in the chest.

The suspect, identified as Marshall J. Balduff, 28, died from a gunshot wound to the chest, the medical examiner confirmed. Officers performed CPR on the suspect but the effort was not successful.

The homeowners told police that Balduff had been threatening them and they believed he was holding a large knife as he was attempting to break into the home. It turns out they were right as police recovered a large knife at the scene that they believe belonged to Balduff.
Homeowner Shoots and Kills Home Intruder in Spokane, Wash.

(KREM-TV)

“All involved parties were cooperative with the police investigation. Police said the coroner and forensic unit may also join in the investigation looking for evidence,” KREM-TV adds.

An investigation is still underway but no charges have been filed in the case.

[Blind groper]

I had a look under the grabstats web site for statistics.
Turns out that almost a third of all women murdered in the USA are killed by their intimate male partner, which comes to about 1,000 murders per year. So this is not a small problem.

I would tend to agree that a woman should leave, if she is being physically abused. Sadly, too many women seem to have a big emotional commitment to the relationship and seem to be unwilling or unable to leave. It is quite impractical for a woman in that situation to carry a hand gun 24 hours a day. Nor would that help, since her male partner would know about it, and act to make sure it was ineffective. No guy who realises his female partner is carrying a hand gun is going to hit her and then stand back so she can shoot him. He is far more likely to use his greater physical strength to incapacitate her violently, and then take the gun off her, and then quite likely shoot her dead. Knowing she is carrying a gun would simply increase his rage and make him even more violent. Which means the gun simply increases her risk.

Yes, in a violent relationship, she should leave. The best and most effective response. But lots of women, for whatever reason, do not. And a gun will not help.