Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[Stardreamer]

Who is "they?"

Please. YOU are trying to imply that the police can't help you (therefore guns) and that the ONLY way for women to defend themselves is with guns.

I notice none of the women in your sample had assault rifles. Curious that.

No I imply that the police will not always be able to help you in time, short of stationing a police officer on every street corner, that simply a fact of life. That is a point Kuli has brought up repeatedly in these debates.

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is done with hand guns, they are far more practical for both defense and criminal intent. An assault weapon (see below) is in most cases a long rifle though in at least one of these cases one would have worked just as well. The fact is that banning assault weapons will have very little impact on gun violence in the US but the confusion between them and assault rifles make them ideal poster boys for the anti-gun lobby. The one thing that makes them effective in the spree killing situations is that most of them have the ability to support high capacity rapid-changable magazines. If the magazines were regulated then the assault weapon is no more or less dangerous than any other long rifle.

Just for clarity, an assault 'rifle' is a fully automatic machine gun, those are already banned in the US except for holders of a limited number of highly expensive and hard to get federal licenses. To my knowledge only one licensed assault rifle has ever been used in a crime in recent history and none in a spree killing. Assault weapons are a rather loosely define category of firearms based mostly on having features that give them the appearance of military style weapons (many are demilitarized versions of military weapons) but they are all semi-automatic which means they only fire one round at a time like all other civilian guns. As pointed out above the main thing that is different from other firearms is the potential number of rounds they could fire and that could be managed by regulating the magazines.

 

[Stardreamer]

If you want to get murdered (or you want someone in your family to die unnaturally), the single best way to accomplish that is to carry a gun.

Period.

I suggest you tell that to the women in these stories, I suspect they would disagree with you.

 

[Stardreamer]

Prove it..

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

From your source:

Assault weapon refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge that possess the cosmetic features of a military assault rifle that is fully-automatic.

The web site you are using is using the term assault rifles incorrectly, amazing that someone would distort something in advertising? Who would have thought it possible? There were some guns there that might be assault rifles, I saw a AK-47 which I think is a full auto weapon but you couldn't buy it in the US unless you had one of the limited supply of federal licenses which are VERY hard to obtain and consequently make them very unlikely to be used in a crime.

 

[Stardreamer]

"Weapons are used regularly to defend oneself"? Wait, wut? People have guns in their homes and don't use the nail clipper to defend themselves?

*gasp*

Someone bring me a glass of water please...




The topic is as red herring as one could possibly get.

I have been told more than once in other threads that guns were not useful for self defense using what if scenarios about gun users having their guns taken away from them and other arguments implying the superiority of the criminal or clumsiness of defenders in these situations. Since the point is often secondary and divergent in the threads it is brought up in, I decide to bring it up in this thread, specifically so it would not be a 'red herring' to those discussions. The issue of whether guns are practical for self defense is a valid one, the topic in this thread at least and relevant to the overall subject so I don't see the red herring implication.

From Wiki: Red herring is an English-language idiom that commonly refers to a type of logical fallacy in which a clue is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.

Since guns used for defense is the issue of this thread, it is not a red herring here. I encounter the topic in other threads mostly by people trying to deny that guns can be practically be used in self defense which is a red herring in those topics but not by me. This thread was brought up in response to this posts so in a sense it is counter to a red herring used elsewhere.

 

[T-Rexx]

I suggest you tell that to the women in these stories, I suspect they would disagree with you.

Anecdote proves nothing.

Matt Good of Arizona won $587,500,000 in December from the Powerball lottery.

That doesn't mean you're going to get half a billion dollars if you buy a Powerball ticket. The most likely outcome of buying a lottery ticket is that you will lose money.


And the most likely outcome of carrying a handgun is NOT that it will ever protect you from harm. The most likely outcome is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Losing a dollar here or there is a tolerable thing, for most people. Losing a life is not.

 

[Rolyo85]

The actual issue of the topic might be self-defense (and the what if scenarios are perfectly legit, and not exceptions), but the general issue of the gun discussion on JUB has been 2nd Amendment analysis, and arguing what it allows. By going through the "but hey, it does happen" argument, you're basically adding fuel to the "they are trying to get our guns away when they actually work!" paranoia. Or to put it in more clear terms - the topic is not red herring, but its place in the discussion is.

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

 

[Stardreamer]

Anecdote proves nothing.

Matt Good of Arizona won $587,500,000 in December from the Powerball lottery.

That doesn't mean you're going to get half a billion dollars if you buy a Powerball ticket. The most likely outcome of buying a lottery ticket is that you will lose money.


And the most likely outcome of carrying a handgun is NOT that it will ever protect you from harm. The most likely outcome is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Losing a dollar here or there is a tolerable thing, for most people. Losing a life is not.

But then you have the ruling by the court that says that the right to have that hand gun for self defense OUTWEIGHS any argument about how dangerous the gun is.

 

[Stardreamer]

The actual issue of the topic might be self-defense (and the what if scenarios are perfectly legit, and not exceptions), but the general issue of the gun discussion on JUB has been 2nd Amendment analysis, and arguing what it allows. By going through the "but hey, it does happen" argument, you're basically adding fuel to the "they are trying to get our guns away when they actually work!" paranoia. Or to put it in more clear terms - the topic is not red herring, but its place in the discussion is.

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

The Heller and 7th circuit decisions make this part of the 2nd Amendment analysis, the later basically saying you cannot base a restriction on guns that denies a lawful citizen the right to use a gun for self defense even if it would reduce the threat overall.

the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts. If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

That is a quote from the 7th Circuit ruling itself.

 

[JayHawk]

The actual issue of the topic might be self-defense (and the what if scenarios are perfectly legit, and not exceptions), but the general issue of the gun discussion on JUB has been 2nd Amendment analysis, and arguing what it allows. By going through the "but hey, it does happen" argument, you're basically adding fuel to the "they are trying to get our guns away when they actually work!" paranoia. Or to put it in more clear terms - the topic is not red herring, but its place in the discussion is.

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

Such as? What object can i use to defend myself that can not be used to harm me or end my life once removed forcibly from my possession?

 

[Ambrocious]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet. Take away the guns, wait a few years, see what happens. We have been pissing off many different countries since 2001 when we engaged in a retalitory strike because of the false flag event that is infamously known as 9/11.

I agree that all people of appropriate ages (12 and older) should be able to take gun safety courses as well as target practice. It's not impossible to own a gun and be safe, just like it's not impossible to own a 2 thousand pound car and still manage to NOT run over a whole crowd of people.

 

[Laufey]

Sometimes it can increase the likelihood of them killing you.

For example if they were just gonna rob you and then suddenly you have a gun pointing at them and they react to it.

I'll admit that in individual cases people can gain from having a gun. However I think the total effects of a lot of people owning guns does not make the public any safer... it rather has the opposite effects.

Ambrocious nobody invades you because you have the strongest military in the world... not because the public has guns.

 

[Ambrocious]

RE: T-Rexx


I'm sorry you feel that way and Im sure you have a good reason to say that, maybe something personal happend to you but guns overall are a method of protection. My step dad goes hunting and one time he came back with a nice big Buck and we made some pretty tasty Jerky from it!

Trying to ban guns is not the answer. More education about gun safety IS the answer.

 

[Laufey]

A lot of countries allow hunting type of guns only and have like a 10x lower murder rate than the US.

 

[Ambrocious]

Sometimes it can increase the likelihood of them killing you.

For example if they were just gonna rob you and then suddenly you have a gun pointing at them and they react to it.

I'll admit that in individual cases people can gain from having a gun. However I think the total effects of a lot of people owning guns does not make the public any safer... it rather has the opposite effects.

Ambrocious nobody invades you because you have the strongest military in the world... not because the public has guns.

But those military are coming home from long tours at war, with all the proper training on how to confiscate guns, along with all of the mental scarring that can destroy a person’s mental health. These are still our men and woman who went bravely to war but they have been trained to turn off emotions and do as they are told to do. They are the enforcers of an ever increasing tyrannical system of governance and most of them believe they are doing the right thing, some of them do still do the right thing and that’s good.

The United States is in a swift decline and the way I see it is that that Government has a divide and conquer tactic. They are getting us to fight with each other which makes it much easier for them to get us where they want us: dependent on them so that we are a nation more like North Korea where we are taught to love our government, even if they start killing us off by the thousands openly.

Mexico is an example of where a gun ban is very bad for the people. So many people are killed down there because they don't have the right to bear arms, but the criminal elements down there don't obey those rules and so they kill far too often because of that. The USA is turning into a weird system of degradation. A lot of people want the guns gone because they believe it would decrease violence when in reality; people will become desperate and fearful which will cause a rise in violence in many other ways.

People who own guns should not be made out to be the "bad guys" because they aren't. Owning a gun and knowing how to properly use it is very empowering and the fear that you might have had, it just melts away. Not everyone who owns a gun is the same man who killed those kids, that’s profiling a whole group of people AS THOUGH they were that one person. Anytime you wrap up a whole group of people in one package because of something they have in common, well heck, what is it called when straight people don't like gays? It's rooted in a large fear and ignorance basis that groups of people are hated selectively and we should be above those type of tactics being since we are gay and we know how it feels to be a target of hate crimes more than most people do.

I have no fear when I see people armed in public because I know that as long as we still have the right to bear arms, we are still free. Taking that right away is like taking away the breaks to a speeding car.

 

[T-Rexx]

But then you have the ruling by the court that says that the right to have that hand gun for self defense OUTWEIGHS any argument about how dangerous the gun is.

Yes. The courts have consistently ruled that we are allowed to be stupid enough to kill ourselves left and right.

But, just because we're allowed to be stupid doesn't mean we should be.

 

[T-Rexx]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet.

You may be right.

No one wants to invade a country where the residents are killing each other in the name of self-defense.

 

[Rolyo85]

But then you have the ruling by the court that says that the right to have that hand gun for self defense OUTWEIGHS any argument about how dangerous the gun is.

Well then the court made the wrong ruling and now that different judges are on the panel, needs to make a better one. Times change, societies change and the law should change with them.

- - - Updated - - -

Such as? What object can i use to defend myself that can not be used to harm me or end my life once removed forcibly from my possession?

Such as a tazer or pepper sprays. Of course either could potentially kill you, but chances are that you won't die if the criminal takes them from you and uses them on you. You will be stunned, paralyzed, blinded or otherwise harmed, but the "sharp/fast moving objects not piercing your body" thing tends to keep the end result outside of the fatal area. Ultimately, the goal of a mugger is NOT to kill you, it is to overpower you. Using your own tools of "defense" to achieve THAT goal will produce the result that the tool is best equipped to serve. Which, in the case of guns, is death.

- - - Updated - - -

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet. Take away the guns, wait a few years, see what happens. We have been pissing off many different countries since 2001 when we engaged in a retalitory strike because of the false flag event that is infamously known as 9/11.

I agree that all people of appropriate ages (12 and older) should be able to take gun safety courses as well as target practice. It's not impossible to own a gun and be safe, just like it's not impossible to own a 2 thousand pound car and still manage to NOT run over a whole crowd of people.

Um, false. Nobody gives any amount of fuck about your guns. In fact, the average European DOESN'T KNOW you own guns. I didn't, until I came to live in the States, and I come from a very well informed background. We don't know that much about your daily lives, and we don't care enough. The reason you haven't been invaded is MOSTLY economic, and also because the First World doesn't invade countries anymore. Also, you have the largest military on the planet. None of these has any relation to your personal guns which are no deterrent whatsoever when it comes to invasion.

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to ban guns is not the answer. More education about gun safety IS the answer.

Um, no, the answer is SEVERELY limiting guns AND more education about gun safety.

 

[T-Rexx]

RE: T-Rexx


I'm sorry you feel that way and Im sure you have a good reason to say that, maybe something personal happend to you but guns overall are a method of protection.

It's not a matter of how I "feel."

It's a fact. The single most likely outcome, if any, of owning a gun is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Only an idiot would buy a gun for "protection" when it accomplishes precisely the opposite of protection.

 

[Stardreamer]

Actually the single MOST likely outcome, if any, is absolutely nothing will happen as is proven every day by the vast majority of households that have guns in them where nothing unusual happens. Yes owning a gun may statistically increase the possibility of death slightly but so does owning a car. Which was the courts point I think, the right being established and a legitimate use existing, you cannot deny the use of that right by statistical what ifs alone. The best one can do is apply reasonable restrictions to reduce the risk without hindering the use such as we do with cars.

 

[Stardreamer]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet. Take away the guns, wait a few years, see what happens. We have been pissing off many different countries since 2001 when we engaged in a retalitory strike because of the false flag event that is infamously known as 9/11.

I agree that all people of appropriate ages (12 and older) should be able to take gun safety courses as well as target practice. It's not impossible to own a gun and be safe, just like it's not impossible to own a 2 thousand pound car and still manage to NOT run over a whole crowd of people.

Well the US has been invaded in 1812 and citizen militias played a role in repelling it. But I doubt the current unorganized militia is a major deterrent in the planning of any attack the US, the military is a more relevant deterrent there. Though any successful occupation of the US would be a nightmare because of the number of guns in the population.