Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[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.

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 You do realize that that attitude is widely held to be a) very outdated thinking, b) entirely unrealistic in many circumstances, and c) unbelievably insensitive to the woman's plight.

I was that woman.

After getting out I spent some time facilitating a womens support group for women in, or who had been in abusive relationships. I ain't ignorant on the subject.

So I shall claim the privilage of being "insensitve" with the truth.

[Gallstones]

I got to fire one of these today.
I'm still smiling.

Thompson Contender hunting pistol 30-30.
No scope on the one I used.


The long range accuracy was impressive.
Kicks back a bit.
I think the Contender is a new contender for my wish list.


Ray calls it his "Montana derringer."
He also complimented me on my shooting. I'm smiling about that too.

This has been a lovely, lovely day.

[Blind groper]

To Gallstones

Congratulations for being smart enough to get out of a violent relationship.

A pity you are not smart enough to see through Seth's weird lack of logic.

[orpheus]

To Gallstones

Congratulations for being smart enough to get out of a violent relationship.

A pity you are not smart enough to see through Seth's weird lack of logic.

[Seth]

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.

Sure it will, if it's applied properly. Again you evade the challenge that I set. Justify why the fact that (arguendo) 1000 women per year are murdered by their intimate male partner supports the argument that the other however many people who might have used a gun successfully to thwart a crime ought to be rendered helpless by a handgun ban?

You've never yet been able to cogently rebut this argument. Care to give it an honest try?

[JimC]

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.

Far too sensible and rational a post for this thread...

It will make certain people cranky...

[Blind groper]

Seth

Easy to rebut your argument.

I pointed out that most of those women would not be able to use those guns for self defense, since the murders take place in the home, where they are not carrying a gun. Only the most paranoid of people will carry a gun 24 hours per day, and any woman who did would be unlikely to be able to use it, anyway. Her male partner would know she had a gun (not something you can hide in an intimate relationship), and when he got violent, he would make sure her gun was useless. Easy to do if you are male, and much stronger. A quick punch delivered by surprise, and violence afterwards to make her helpless. He grabs her gun and she dies from bullets out of her own gun.

On the other hand, statistics show that having a gun at home increases the woman's risk of being murdered three fold. So not having a gun at home reduces her risk three fold. Thus, restricting hand guns restricts her risk.

As far as other crimes are concerned, you fail to note that making hand guns readily available is mainly going to arm criminals. One in three 'law abiding' citizens will end up owning a hand gun, though the proportion of those who carry them in public will be much lower. However, when hand guns are readily available, which they are throughout the USA (if not in your home state, then next door), a very high percentage of criminals will carry them, and use them. Bang, bang and another murder.

It is totally impossible to arm the citizens without arming the criminals. Much better to disarm everyone, which is what every OECD country, except the USA, has done, with the result that murders drop dramatically.

[orpheus]

Seth

Easy to rebut your argument.

I pointed out that most of those women would not be able to use those guns for self defense, since the murders take place in the home, where they are not carrying a gun. Only the most paranoid of people will carry a gun 24 hours per day, and any woman who did would be unlikely to be able to use it, anyway. Her male partner would know she had a gun (not something you can hide in an intimate relationship), and when he got violent, he would make sure her gun was useless. Easy to do if you are male, and much stronger. A quick punch delivered by surprise, and violence afterwards to make her helpless. He grabs her gun and she dies from bullets out of her own gun.

On the other hand, statistics show that having a gun at home increases the woman's risk of being murdered three fold. So not having a gun at home reduces her risk three fold. Thus, restricting hand guns restricts her risk.

As far as other crimes are concerned, you fail to note that making hand guns readily available is mainly going to arm criminals. One in three 'law abiding' citizens will end up owning a hand gun, though the proportion of those who carry them in public will be much lower. However, when hand guns are readily available, which they are throughout the USA (if not in your home state, then next door), a very high percentage of criminals will carry them, and use them. Bang, bang and another murder.

It is totally impossible to arm the citizens without arming the criminals. Much better to disarm everyone, which is what every OECD country, except the USA, has done, with the result that murders drop dramatically.

All true, and well said.

Your last point will likely be met with cries of "but if you disarm law-abiding citizens, then the criminals will still have guns". Yes, that may be true temporarily. But eventually it will cease to be true; we'll have cut off the supply. So those who want guns for self-defense now are actually doing harm to their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They are putting their own future generations at greater risk of violence. All in the name of self-defense in the present, they are ensuring that children of the future will face better-armed criminals. At best, it's short-sighted. At worst, it's done with full awareness, and not caring about their own descendents.

[Seth]

Seth

Easy to rebut your argument.

I pointed out that most of those women would not be able to use those guns for self defense, since the murders take place in the home, where they are not carrying a gun.

The idiocy of your argument is demonstrated by the fact that you seem to think that intimate partner homicides just happen out of the blue, in an instant, with no opportunity for the victim to retreat, fight back or arm him/herself. This is because you actually know nothing about domestic violence, and you're bloviating about things you have no understanding of.

You have no evidence that such attacks are so sudden as to disallow the effective use of a firearm. Here's an example of the use of a firearm to prevent an attack by a former intimate partner after he has been ejected from the home, a not infrequent occurrence:

Armed Woman Defends Herself Against Home Invading Stalker
Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
LearnAboutGuns.com > Gun Related News > Armed Woman Defends Herself Against Home Invading Stalker

As reported, a Phoeniz, AZ woman fired at and killed a violent ex who broke into her home. Terry Milburn, 45, reportedly went to the woman’s home at about 2:30am – despite a court order or protection. The woman, whose name was not released by police, refused to let Milburn into her house and called 911. As she was on the phone, Terry Milburn broke a window and forced his way inside her home. The woman fled to her bedroom, and Milburn followed her. She then fired several shots in self defense, saving her own life.

Here, we have yet another woman whose life was saved by her gun, as a violent ex ignored a court order of protection, ignored the laws against home invasion, and ignored her pleas for him to leave. And here we have another case in which the police did not get there in time. Indeed, all that separated this woman from the fate of these home invasion victims was her gun, and her willingness to use it in self defense.

It is cases like this that underscore the importance of having a gun for home defense – and why I just cannot bring myself to vote for anti gun rights politicians.

As we can see, the danger of domestic violence is not limited to in the home, and women are stalked, attacked and killed by former partners in many other places, including in public. Restraining orders are pieces of paper that do nothing to defend a victim. Many law enforcement officials have recognized this truth, which is why, by way of example, Colorado offers a short-cut concealed weapons permit process for the victims of domestic violence who have restraining orders. Rather than the usual weeks or months long delay for background checks, the permit may be issued by the Sheriff IMMEDIATELY upon an application meeting the criteria.

Only the most paranoid of people will carry a gun 24 hours per day, and any woman who did would be unlikely to be able to use it, anyway.

Your idiotic argument assumes that all domestic violence happens in the home, and that fatal attacks also happen in the home on the spur of the moment. You have presented absolutely no evidence to support this, and as a law enforcement professional I can tell you with great confidence that many fatal domestic assaults happen outside the home, at a place of work or somewhere the victim goes frequently, and it occurs only AFTER the victim has filed a complaint and had the abuser ejected from the home. That's when the abuser, who until then was happy to have a cowed, fearful, submissive woman under his thumb in the home, realizes that he's lost control of her and she has "ruined his life" by filing charges. It is at this point that many abusers go off the deep end and stalk and kill their partner...AFTER they have been forced from the home.

So your argument doesn't work because a concealed handgun carried by a partner who has filed the charges and gotten the restraining orders is extremely useful in protecting her from attacks by the former partner OUTSIDE the home, which is where such attacks frequently occur.

Her male partner would know she had a gun (not something you can hide in an intimate relationship), and when he got violent, he would make sure her gun was useless. Easy to do if you are male, and much stronger. A quick punch delivered by surprise, and violence afterwards to make her helpless. He grabs her gun and she dies from bullets out of her own gun.

And still you evade the fundamental issue, which is that even if what you say is true (and it's not all that true) how does that justify disarming those women who WOULD be protected by a gun?

On the other hand, statistics show that having a gun at home increases the woman's risk of being murdered three fold. So not having a gun at home reduces her risk three fold. Thus, restricting hand guns restricts her risk.

No it doesn't. First of all the statistics are, as you like to say, "anecdotal", second, they are the product of biased analysis by known anti-gun groups, and third, you ignore every instance in which a gun in the hands of a domestic abuse victim has prevented a murder. You can't use your factoid to support your argument if you fail to quantify properly how often firearms are used to stop such attacks.

As far as other crimes are concerned, you fail to note that making hand guns readily available is mainly going to arm criminals.

Complete horseshit.

One in three 'law abiding' citizens will end up owning a hand gun, though the proportion of those who carry them in public will be much lower.

I certainly hope so. I'd like to see it be one in every one.

However, when hand guns are readily available, which they are throughout the USA (if not in your home state, then next door), a very high percentage of criminals will carry them, and use them. Bang, bang and another murder.

And a larger number of law abiding citizens carry them and use them to stop all sorts of crimes, some 800,000 to 2.5 million times a year, which dwarfs even the overall violent crime rate. Without those guns, those citizens would be the victims of crime.

It is totally impossible to arm the citizens without arming the criminals.

So what? Arm the citizens and they will take care of the armed criminals in short order.

Much better to disarm everyone, which is what every OECD country, except the USA, has done, with the result that murders drop dramatically.

Except of course that laws that attempt to disarm everyone only actually disarm the law-abiding and have absolutely no effect on disarming criminals, with the result that violent crime in places like the UK skyrockets while the violent crime rate in the US continues to go down as more and more people opt to carry personal firearms.

Those facts refute your silly arguments completely.

[Gallstones]

To Gallstones

Congratulations for being smart enough to get out of a violent relationship.

A pity you are not smart enough to see through Seth's weird lack of logic.

I just love backhanded compliments.

It's also just a tiny bit patronizing for you to presume to suggest to me that I need to think better, or that my intellect falls short of some measure you hold. Your own ignorance makes less smart than you think you are.

Think about that.

[Gallstones]

FYI the woman is in greatest danger at the point where she tries to leave.

If you had more information about the dynamics of an abusive relationship you would not think leaving, nor staying, was so easy.

But this thread isn't about that.

[Seth]

Seth

Easy to rebut your argument.

I pointed out that most of those women would not be able to use those guns for self defense, since the murders take place in the home, where they are not carrying a gun. Only the most paranoid of people will carry a gun 24 hours per day, and any woman who did would be unlikely to be able to use it, anyway. Her male partner would know she had a gun (not something you can hide in an intimate relationship), and when he got violent, he would make sure her gun was useless. Easy to do if you are male, and much stronger. A quick punch delivered by surprise, and violence afterwards to make her helpless. He grabs her gun and she dies from bullets out of her own gun.

On the other hand, statistics show that having a gun at home increases the woman's risk of being murdered three fold. So not having a gun at home reduces her risk three fold. Thus, restricting hand guns restricts her risk.

As far as other crimes are concerned, you fail to note that making hand guns readily available is mainly going to arm criminals. One in three 'law abiding' citizens will end up owning a hand gun, though the proportion of those who carry them in public will be much lower. However, when hand guns are readily available, which they are throughout the USA (if not in your home state, then next door), a very high percentage of criminals will carry them, and use them. Bang, bang and another murder.

It is totally impossible to arm the citizens without arming the criminals. Much better to disarm everyone, which is what every OECD country, except the USA, has done, with the result that murders drop dramatically.

All true, and well said.

Your last point will likely be met with cries of "but if you disarm law-abiding citizens, then the criminals will still have guns". Yes, that may be true temporarily. But eventually it will cease to be true; we'll have cut off the supply.

No you won't have. First, "temporarily" means at the very least, a time span measured in CENTURIES. Modern firearms aren't going to disappear any time soon. Moreover, you can still kill someone with a 200 year old musket or pistol, and killers will have access to modern handguns and other firearms for the next thousand years or so.

Second, firearms are not difficult to make, and anyone with a lathe, a mill, a drill press, some hand tools and relatively basic machining skills can make a modern semi-automatic or revolver. Hell, kids have been making "zip-guns" sincfor e before WWII.

So, what you'll have is a black market producing arms for criminals, smuggling on a vast scale, just like marijuana, from other countries where controls are lacking (think Russia and China).

Where there is a market for arms, arms will be supplied. Always have been, always will be. Venezuela, by way of example, has hundreds of thousands of illegal fully-automatic weapons in the hands of "Chavistas" right now. The police and military look the other way because if they don't, they and their families get dead. Same thing would happen here, only on a larger scale.

And in this "temporary" centuries-long time span that you suggest, millions or billions of human beings will be murdered, injured and victimized by violent criminals unnecessarily because they have been disarmed by the government.

You don't give a fuck about those people, do you? Nope, you don't care what the actual blood toll is for your agenda, so long as you get to salve you conscience knowing that you've "banned guns."

Typical deranged liberal hoplophobe idiocy.

So those who want guns for self-defense now are actually doing harm to their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They are putting their own future generations at greater risk of violence. All in the name of self-defense in the present, they are ensuring that children of the future will face better-armed criminals. At best, it's short-sighted. At worst, it's done with full awareness, and not caring about their own descendents.

Actually, they are caring for their descendants, and their nation's future, by stockpiling arms and ammunition today. Despotism never sleeps, and our grandchildren will face the same assaults on their liberty as we face today, and will need those arms to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, the nation, and themselves against the worst of the criminal element in the US: Disloyal, traitorous, criminal hoplophobes both in society and especially in the halls of power.

[Gallstones]

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.

Far too sensible and rational a post for this thread...

It will make certain people cranky...

It made me cranky because it is shit. Blind groper doesn't know what he's talking about.

[orpheus]

Ok, taking a break for a while; I've work to do. Seth, GS, your posts are cute; thanks for the giggles.

[Gallstones]

Ok, taking a break for a while; I've work to do. Seth, GS, your posts are cute; thanks for the giggles.

Passive aggressive much?