Why do the Anti-Gun crowd hate women?

[R8ers]

Why do the Anti-Gun crowd hate women?
Why would you want to make it harder or impossible for a woman to defend herself against rape or sexual assault?

Remember, just because you are the wormy squirly girly man type and most women can kick your ass anyway does not mean there are not others out there she can't and may need a little help to equalize..

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

Statistics...
If someone breaks into your house and murders you with a gun it is s gun related death. If you shoot the intruder before he shoots you, it is a gun related death. If a cop kills a crack head pointing a gun at him or trying to stab him with a sharp stick, it is a gun related statistic. Women are more likely to be shot and killed by a criminal than they are to kill the murderer. How shocking. Are women as likely as murderers to be armed? Are they as skilled with a weapon. Did they have advance notice or does the criminal generally get the first shot? If criminals are generally better armed, better skilled and the one imitating the violence does a 80-1 ratio seem surprising? Would women with even fewer firearms improve that statistic or would a better armed better trained female population lower it to 20-1.

I'm not sure how much of this is a response to my post.

The evidence points to the fact that the greater prevalence of guns lead to more gun violence against women.

It's not because women aren't armed enough. It's because greater gun prevalence leads to more gun violence in general.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That's why Direckshun kept trying to talk about "gun deaths" instead of homicides. It's a bullshit statistic, manufactured to make his statements appear to be valid.

Not really.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Not really.

Yes really. Ready to show that I only care about civil rights as they pertain to my ability to possess firearms yet, or have you given up your bullshit accusation?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Yes really.

Well, you got me.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Me.

Yes, I know that you think it's all about you. It's not.

[listopencil]

[Direckshun]

[listopencil]

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm not sure how much of this is a response to my post.

The evidence points to the fact that the greater prevalence of guns lead to more gun violence against women.

It's not because women aren't armed enough. It's because greater gun prevalence leads to more gun violence in general.

I will agree that it is quite difficult to have gun violence without guns. So if neither a would-be rapist and a would-be victim have a firearm, the result of their interaction will not result in gun related statistic. Having admitted this obvious truth, the odds of what I find to be an acceptable outcome to this encounter are more likely to happen if the mythical victim has the ability to negate the likely physical advantage of the hypothetical attacker.

We all want fewer innocent people harmed and to not see another child murdered by an unstable or evil coward. This is something any sane person would agree with but in our attempt to quantify and support our positions, we skip over an uncomfortable truth.

Not all lives are equal.

What? How can that be? I must be some evil person. All Lives are sacred and... everyone has the same intrinsic value. And to that I say

BULLSHIT!

If the price to pay is for 100 crack dealers having the ability kill one another more efficiently guarantees that I have ability to protect my wife and family, I’m more than good with it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

I will agree that it is quite difficult to have gun violence without guns. So if neither a would-be rapist and a would-be victim have a firearm, the result of their interaction will not result in gun related statistic. Having admitted this obvious truth, the odds of what I find to be an acceptable outcome to this encounter are more likely to happen if the mythical victim has the ability to negate the likely physical advantage of the hypothetical attacker.

We all want fewer innocent people harmed and to not see another child murdered by an unstable or evil coward. This is something any sane person would agree with but in our attempt to quantify and support our positions, we skip over an uncomfortable truth.

Not all lives are equal.

What? How can that be? I must be some evil person. All Lives are sacred and... everyone has the same intrinsic value. And to that I say

BULLSHIT!

If the price to pay is for 100 crack dealers having the ability kill one another more efficiently guarantees that I have ability to protect my wife and family, I’m more than good with it.

While I don't disagree with much of your post, there's one major flaw: in the data we have available, guns are clearly much more likely to be used in crime than in self-protection.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

While I don't disagree with much of your post, there's one major flaw: in the data we have available, guns are clearly much more likely to be used in crime than in self-protection.

I don’t doubt that they are. The criminals are the ones initiating the sequence of events. For someone to preemptively brandish or discharge a firearm because they “think” a crime is about to happen would often be a crime in itself. Logic would dictate law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage to those who are not. You just don’t see families on the front porch in their rocking chairs with their Joe Biden Special double Barrel Shotgun across their laps these days. They would mostly get harassed if not arrested by the police for doing so. I understand the wish to do “something” and I really don’t think the intent of those proposing new guns laws is evil but the proposals are going to do less to save live than would mandating all cars be of bright colors so they are more easily seen. IMO to realistically make any difference one would need to ban pretty much all firearms and then it would take decades maybe a century for the numbers in circulation to drop enough to make a fewer mass murders a reality. Eventually your average nut job would have a more difficult time and might need to get a little more creative in how they chose to kill people but those already involved in criminal activities would always have guns available for a price. In the mean time one can reasonably assume robberies, rapes and violent crimes would skyrocket as they did in similar but not the same situations in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Gotta do a bit of work stuff be gone for a bit but Enjoying the discussion

[R8ers]

[R8ers]

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

While I don't disagree with much of your post, there's one major flaw: in the data we have available, guns are clearly much more likely to be used in crime than in self-protection.

Originally Posted by FishingRod

I don’t doubt that they are.

I wouldn’t be so sure. That’s an old trick that dates back to the people that pushed the Brady Bill. Problem is that unless things have recently changed self-defense with a gun is not a stat that is actively tracked. It’s also under reported since if someone successfully defends themselves with a gun and the instance doesn’t end in violence it’s not necessarily reported.

[R8ers]