Originally Posted by Fish
That study doesn't seem very useful though.
It includes nuggets like this:
But what are we supposed to do with that information? That's like saying "Most vehicle accidents happen within 10 miles of your home." Yes, that's true. You should move, and perhaps your odds of not getting in a vehicle accident will improve. Right?
But think about the statement. It doesn't say that a suicide would be prevented by not having a gun in the house. It just says that when a gun is available, the odds are higher that it would be a gun that's used as opposed to pills or hanging. It says nothing to the safety of the actual weapon. Only that when a suicidal person has choices available, the odds are higher they will choose the most effective method available. Shocker. And why are they even including suicide anyway?
This is a good post, but I think you miss the thrust of what memyselfI was arguing. Which is particularly easy to do, because this thread is so obviously, transparently silly.
Nobody is advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment, nor against the right of women to own firearms. The OP is the umpteenth argument by a gun rights advocate against a strawman position on this forum since Newtown. It's getting pretty repetitive in here.
Where this thread goes into even sillier territory is suggesting that banning all guns (I guess that's what the OP's talking about?) would inherently be bad for women, because they would undoubtedly, unequivocably be exposed to more violence without firearms.
The point of memyselfI's post was to illustrate that this isn't necessarily correct. Having more guns around doesn't de facto
spare women from harm.
None of this detracts, however, from how stupid the OP is.