Own a Gun ?...you are a rape denialist !!!

[Brain357]

More than that, he wants to watch.

He probably wants to rape women . . . and men.

Good to see you are both still morons. Can't debate the subject so resort to attacking me. Very childish.

Not our fault that you want to see women get raped and murdered.

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

 

[ChrisL]

He probably wants to rape women . . . and men.

Good to see you are both still morons. Can't debate the subject so resort to attacking me. Very childish.

Not our fault that you want to see women get raped and murdered.

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Ignoring my links, rapey?

 

[Brain357]

2.5 million times? So the last 30 years there have been 75 million defenses. Wow thats enough for every single gun owner. Yet I don't know a single one with a defense.

Of course, you would deny the facts presented before your dumb stupid face, loser. You're a rapist, aren't you? That is the only logical explanation for wanting to leave women defenseless. You're a no good piece of shit.

Those aren't facts. They are from flawed surveys mostly. More name calling? You revert to child so quickly.

Look, BRAINLESS, I hate your guts.

I don't care. You post like a child.

You post like a rapist.

According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals. There is a war on women, and it’s coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):

• In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
• In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
• Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
• As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
• Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

I don't see that on the fbi site. Please link it.

 

[ChrisL]

He probably wants to rape women . . . and men.

Good to see you are both still morons. Can't debate the subject so resort to attacking me. Very childish.

Not our fault that you want to see women get raped and murdered.

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here are some FACTS. Debate them.

According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals. There is a war on women, and it’s coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):

• In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
• In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
• Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
• As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
• Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

 

[westwall]

He probably wants to rape women . . . and men.

Good to see you are both still morons. Can't debate the subject so resort to attacking me. Very childish.

Not our fault that you want to see women get raped and murdered.

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here you go.

"In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes."

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

 

[Brain357]

2.5 million times? So the last 30 years there have been 75 million defenses. Wow thats enough for every single gun owner. Yet I don't know a single one with a defense.

Of course, you would deny the facts presented before your dumb stupid face, loser. You're a rapist, aren't you? That is the only logical explanation for wanting to leave women defenseless. You're a no good piece of shit.

Those aren't facts. They are from flawed surveys mostly. More name calling? You revert to child so quickly.

Look, BRAINLESS, I hate your guts.

I don't care. You post like a child.

You post like a rapist.

According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals. There is a war on women, and it’s coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):

• In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
• In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
• Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
• As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
• Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

So if like 8% are wounded that is 168,000 criminals shot. Only about 230 criminals are shot and killed each year. Are these people using paintball guns?

 

[Brain357]

Good to see you are both still morons. Can't debate the subject so resort to attacking me. Very childish.

Not our fault that you want to see women get raped and murdered.

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here you go.

"In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes."

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

Did Orlando gun training reduce rapes Deltoid

Cute. The rates for the period 1958-1972 can be found in Kleck &
Bordua [1]. Their most notable feature is the extreme variation from
year to year. By picking the right two years to compare you can get
any result you want. For example, if I wanted to play the game, I
would say:

“Since the training program started in 66 and ended in 67, we should
compare 65 (last complete pre-training year) with 68 (first complete
post-training year). Results? Three less rapes. In the whole
period 61-72 the year with the closest rate to 65 is 68. In any
case, the rate in 69 was 25% higher than in 65.”

 

[westwall]

Not our fault that you want to see women get raped and murdered.

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here you go.

"In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes."

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

Did Orlando gun training reduce rapes Deltoid

Cute. The rates for the period 1958-1972 can be found in Kleck &
Bordua [1]. Their most notable feature is the extreme variation from
year to year. By picking the right two years to compare you can get
any result you want. For example, if I wanted to play the game, I
would say:

“Since the training program started in 66 and ended in 67, we should
compare 65 (last complete pre-training year) with 68 (first complete
post-training year). Results? Three less rapes. In the whole
period 61-72 the year with the closest rate to 65 is 68. In any
case, the rate in 69 was 25% higher than in 65.”

The effect was IMMEDIATE. There is no doubt about what occurred so once again you are presented by facts that absolutely, positively refute yours and you ignore them.

As I said, you are a troll. I don't waste my time with trolls.

 

[Brain357]

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here you go.

"In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes."

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

Did Orlando gun training reduce rapes Deltoid

Cute. The rates for the period 1958-1972 can be found in Kleck &
Bordua [1]. Their most notable feature is the extreme variation from
year to year. By picking the right two years to compare you can get
any result you want. For example, if I wanted to play the game, I
would say:

“Since the training program started in 66 and ended in 67, we should
compare 65 (last complete pre-training year) with 68 (first complete
post-training year). Results? Three less rapes. In the whole
period 61-72 the year with the closest rate to 65 is 68. In any
case, the rate in 69 was 25% higher than in 65.”

The effect was IMMEDIATE. There is no doubt about what occurred so once again you are presented by facts that absolutely, positively refute yours and you ignore them.

As I said, you are a troll. I don't waste my time with trolls.

Why was 69 higher than 65?

 

[koshergrl]

You're an idiot. People do not LIVE in corporations. People do LIVE on college campuses. See the difference between a college campus and going to work, moron?

You know that all you will ever get from Brian is dishonesty -- right?

Brainless wants women to be raped on college campuses.

As I have proven, almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. You are trying to sell guns, not lower rape.

You didn't prove anything like that, douche.

I posted everything for you, what is it you question?

You didn't post anything except a bunch of non-confirmed nonsense, liberally sprinkled with flat out lies and fairy tales.

 

[ChrisL]

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here you go.

"In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes."

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

Did Orlando gun training reduce rapes Deltoid

Cute. The rates for the period 1958-1972 can be found in Kleck &
Bordua [1]. Their most notable feature is the extreme variation from
year to year. By picking the right two years to compare you can get
any result you want. For example, if I wanted to play the game, I
would say:

“Since the training program started in 66 and ended in 67, we should
compare 65 (last complete pre-training year) with 68 (first complete
post-training year). Results? Three less rapes. In the whole
period 61-72 the year with the closest rate to 65 is 68. In any
case, the rate in 69 was 25% higher than in 65.”

The effect was IMMEDIATE. There is no doubt about what occurred so once again you are presented by facts that absolutely, positively refute yours and you ignore them.

As I said, you are a troll. I don't waste my time with trolls.

He's a rapist and wants women to be defenseless against rapists.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, you would deny the facts presented before your dumb stupid face, loser. You're a rapist, aren't you? That is the only logical explanation for wanting to leave women defenseless. You're a no good piece of shit.

Those aren't facts. They are from flawed surveys mostly. More name calling? You revert to child so quickly.

Look, BRAINLESS, I hate your guts.

I don't care. You post like a child.

You post like a rapist.

According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals. There is a war on women, and it’s coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):

• In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
• In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
• Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
• As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
• Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

So if like 8% are wounded that is 168,000 criminals shot. Only about 230 criminals are shot and killed each year. Are these people using paintball guns?

Are you retarded or something? As you have been told, you don't have to SHOOT the perp to discourage him from raping you. If an unarmed man breaks into my home and I wave a gun in his face, he is going to run away more often than not.

 

[koshergrl]

How do you know he's a rapist?

 

[westwall]

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here you go.

"In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes."

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

Did Orlando gun training reduce rapes Deltoid

Cute. The rates for the period 1958-1972 can be found in Kleck &
Bordua [1]. Their most notable feature is the extreme variation from
year to year. By picking the right two years to compare you can get
any result you want. For example, if I wanted to play the game, I
would say:

“Since the training program started in 66 and ended in 67, we should
compare 65 (last complete pre-training year) with 68 (first complete
post-training year). Results? Three less rapes. In the whole
period 61-72 the year with the closest rate to 65 is 68. In any
case, the rate in 69 was 25% higher than in 65.”

The effect was IMMEDIATE. There is no doubt about what occurred so once again you are presented by facts that absolutely, positively refute yours and you ignore them.

As I said, you are a troll. I don't waste my time with trolls.

He's a rapist and wants women to be defenseless against rapists.

That's certainly what it sounds like.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, you would deny the facts presented before your dumb stupid face, loser. You're a rapist, aren't you? That is the only logical explanation for wanting to leave women defenseless. You're a no good piece of shit.

Those aren't facts. They are from flawed surveys mostly. More name calling? You revert to child so quickly.

Look, BRAINLESS, I hate your guts.

I don't care. You post like a child.

You post like a rapist.

According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals. There is a war on women, and it’s coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):

• In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
• In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
• Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
• As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
• Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

I don't see that on the fbi site. Please link it.

Dr. Kleck's study. The DOJ funded the study that Dr. Kleck performed, you asshole.

 

[ChrisL]

How do you know he's a rapist?

Why in the hell else would he want women to be defenseless? Can you think of any good reason?

 

[ChrisL]

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

Here you go.

"In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes."

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun Ownership Stops Rape/

Did Orlando gun training reduce rapes Deltoid

Cute. The rates for the period 1958-1972 can be found in Kleck &
Bordua [1]. Their most notable feature is the extreme variation from
year to year. By picking the right two years to compare you can get
any result you want. For example, if I wanted to play the game, I
would say:

“Since the training program started in 66 and ended in 67, we should
compare 65 (last complete pre-training year) with 68 (first complete
post-training year). Results? Three less rapes. In the whole
period 61-72 the year with the closest rate to 65 is 68. In any
case, the rate in 69 was 25% higher than in 65.”

The effect was IMMEDIATE. There is no doubt about what occurred so once again you are presented by facts that absolutely, positively refute yours and you ignore them.

As I said, you are a troll. I don't waste my time with trolls.

Why was 69 higher than 65?

Why do you want women to be defenseless against rapists?

 

[ChrisL]

He probably wants to rape women . . . and men.

Good to see you are both still morons. Can't debate the subject so resort to attacking me. Very childish.

Not our fault that you want to see women get raped and murdered.

I've already shown almost no rapes are defendable with a gun. How about we debate that?

No, you haven't. You have trotted out some factoids that do nothing of the kind. Yes, the majority of rapes occur between people who know each other. So what. You think that a woman is going to not shoot some prick because she knows him?

Dude. You bring new meaning to the word troll. You provide nothing but opinion and well refuted facts. And you keep trotting them out as if them are meaningful even after they have been shown to be false.

Just go away and yap to yourself in the mirror.

I've explained why those aren't decendable with a gun. Let's debate that if you wish.

And you refuse to back up anything. Where is backup for your FL claim? I'm still waiting.

"Decendable?"

 

[Brain357]

Those aren't facts. They are from flawed surveys mostly. More name calling? You revert to child so quickly.

Look, BRAINLESS, I hate your guts.

I don't care. You post like a child.

You post like a rapist.

According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals. There is a war on women, and it’s coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):

• In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
• In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
• Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
• As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
• Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

So if like 8% are wounded that is 168,000 criminals shot. Only about 230 criminals are shot and killed each year. Are these people using paintball guns?

Are you retarded or something? As you have been told, you don't have to SHOOT the perp to discourage him from raping you. If an unarmed man breaks into my home and I wave a gun in his face, he is going to run away more often than not.

It is from your post. Why did you post it if you don't even believe it.

 

[ChrisL]

The Defensive Gun Use Statistics

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.