reagansghost
eternal
So a woman goes out alone, is accosted by a stranger, he says "I'm about to assault you, if you have a gun in your purse I'll give ya 5 seconds to use it"
something like that?
Women Need To Carry Guns When Going Out Alone.
- Thread starter philly rabbit
- Start date
So a woman goes out alone, is accosted by a stranger, he says "I'm about to assault you, if you have a gun in your purse I'll give ya 5 seconds to use it"
something like that?
I talked about this with a relative of mine, who was thinking of getting his young-adult children firearms to "keep them safe" at college. The son was well known within the family for anger problems and a history of fighting, while the daughter was a bit of a "goth" type, who seemed to nurture a sense of melancholy. I don't think either of them would be safer if they had convenient access to a gun. Quite the opposite. But people don't tend to think in terms of the high-probability risks, like the risk that the boy would fly off the handle and shoot a girlfriend, or the risk that the girl would get depressed and shoot herself, and they instead think about low-probability risks, like random violence from strangers.
That's terrible. And if there hadn't been a gun on hand, the story may well have gone very differently for that girl. A friend of my family went a bit off the deep end in high school -- similarly in reaction to falling for a guy who used her and then rejected her. She took a bunch of pills then changed her mind. She ended up spending a week in a psych ward. And then she recovered. She went on to get a degree from a good university, married a great guy, had a lovely daughter, and is now a happy, productive member of the society. And she tells people about her run-in with depression as part of sending the message that it gets better -- that the stuff that can look like the end of the world when you're a hormonal 16-year-old can look like nothing but an embarrassing learning experience when you're looking back from age 40. But if she'd had a gun on hand, she wouldn't be around to tell that story.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
How so? Is it just that you don't like the implications of the studies, so you assume they must be crap? Or did you actually read the studies and conclude there was a flaw in their methodology, or that some competing study with a broader sample or better methods concluded the opposite?
I’ve never been in a shootout, when it happens, I’ll let you know.
That right there is the best defense against it. Common sense always wins!
Thank you for this story. I'm so glad that it turned out okay for this young woman.
philly rabbit
Verified User
The problem with your position is the assailants would be worried more about their own safety before they attack women if more women were armed and they knew it. In the meantime, while a woman is being beaten and raped she shouldn't be praying during the assault that she is also not murdered when he finally finishes with her. It is then that a gun in her possession ends the assault by shooting him in the gut or preferably in the face settling the matter before the final act is reached.
There isn't a jury on earth that would convict a woman of manslaughter if she shoots the bastard in the face during the rape regardless of whether or not he decides to murder her.
This has nothing to do with a link between mauco manliness and a gun. it is clearly a matter of self defense only.
And a situation of women opposing women carrying a firearm who haven't been assaulted and raped - yet.
We can test that concept -- for example, comparing rates of serious violent crime in the US (high rates of gun ownership) and Japan (low rates), or comparing such rates between states with similar levels of urbanization but different gun ownership rates (e.g., WV v. ME, FL v. MA, TX v. WA, etc.) If having a higher probability of a potential victim being armed deters crime, we'd expect the higher-gun-ownership places to be safer. Is that what we see, here in the real world? Or does that concept fail to survive the journey from conservative hypothesis to actual reality?
Alternately, we could compare states that start out at a similar place, in terms of violent crime, but where one then has changes that encourage more people to carry guns (e.g., easing of concealed carry requirements), and see what happens to their violent crime rates relative to the states that didn't have such a move. If a rising apprehension that a potential victim might be armed actually deterred crime, we'd expect to see a pattern of places moving to more widespread carrying of guns experiencing better violent crime trends than those that didn't. Is that what we see?
That question has been studied:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/right-to-carry-gun-violence/531297/
I think the test of a good theory isn't whether you can make it sound plausible, nor whether it appeals to your preconceptions, but rather whether it lines up with the data.
I think that we are stuck with the fact that the United States is very unlike civilized countries, and it is difficult to see what can be done about it. I think that the tendency towards opinion-twisting dictatorship will do it in the long run, but more probably you'll have steady mass murder forever. Go and live in Alaska where there are real wild animals? Shoot Trump? The world is full of these moral dilemmas!
I think that we are stuck with the fact that the United States is very unlike civilized countries, and it is difficult to see what can be done about it. I think that the tendency towards opinion-twisting dictatorship will do it in the long run, but more probably you'll have steady mass murder forever. Go and live in Alaska where there are real wild animals? Shoot Trump? The world is full of these moral dilemmas!
Living in Alaska would be a big mistake, if your goal were to avoid violent crime. Despite being a very wealthy state, Alaska is also very politically conservative, and politically conservatives states are mostly in bad shape sociologically. They have a murder rate of 7/100k there. That's literally more than twice the murder rate of New York City, as a point of comparison.
philly rabbit
Verified User
They don't want citizens to have guns. They want to nanny everyone in the working classes. Tell them what's best for them, what isn't.
The American left resents the working middle class like in regions such as the midwest and the south and it is that working class that had the audacity to rise up at the voting booth and give the left their arch enemy, Donald Trump. The low class - working class has never been more unpopular for the left.
The left ridicules the working classes in America and their Democratic party emphasizes that ridicule and disdain. Guns are part of it and guns aren't really their target, it is the working classes having guns that they oppose. Guns in the hands of the elites - the nanny overseers are fine with the left.
As we found out back in the 1830s and 1840s, Capitalism always has more guns. You think because you can play cowboys you are grown-ups? Try and persuade your masters to let you see the rest of the world. Only tribal primitives rely on guns.
You seem to have replied in response to the wrong post, since nothing you said is related in any way to the contents of the post to which you were replying.
philly rabbit
Verified User
No, you were included.
Could you explain in what way your post was response to what I said in that post?
reagansghost
eternal
you'd get shot within 10 minutes
TrippyHippy
free mind and open heart
Holsters have their own issues. If the holster is out in the open, it just alerts a potential assailant of where to grab to prevent the gun from being used against him -- and potentially where to get a gun to use against you, if he's strong enough to overpower you. If, on the other hand, it's a concealed holster, then you have effectively the same issue as with a purse, where it's not necessarily going to be easily accessible in the heat of the moment. For example, if you have something in the small of the back, and some guy pins you, that gun isn't going to help you at all, and could, in fact, put you at greater risk (if he manages to get his hands on it).That's what holsters are for...