Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah yeah, you already made clear that you have no answers. I got that. Your vote that this dialogue should be shut down is noted and logged. Thanks for playing, however uninvolvedly. Moving on...

Is that supposed to be a word?

If you go back and read my first post in this thread yu will see I commented on the fact that your idiot copy and paste job included the "myth that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't recall exactly what he said there, but it involved people with guns killing people, which is not, believe it or not, guns killing people anymore than people with knives killing people is knives killing people. If you had done more than copy and paste an entire idiotic rant you would have processed that contradiction, and might have saved yourself a few neg reps for being extremely stupid.

The worst thing about this whole thing is you think the fact that you didn't read the crap before you posted it somehow absolves you from responsibility for posting it.

I give you two cities

, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

Pertinent to this thread, I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Gee, let me think, what are the differences between Detroit, an urban wasteland that has been destroyed by years of Democratic politicians robbing the city to fund their personal parties, and Windsor, which has none of those problems?

I can't imagine why anyone would be stupid enough to try and argue that they are the same just because they are close to each other on a map. Only someone who had never been to an international border and seen what a difference that imaginary line makes in the real world could possibly confuse the issue.

-- so... you're going with "culture"? Get to the point and quit pussyfootin'.

If you define fraud as culture, feel free to call it that. Personally, I will stick to felony politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Negger, please. This thread isn't even about gun control.

Looks like you should have read the " ". Whatever that is.

No, this thread is about the idiocy that passes for intellectual argument form the gun control crowd, specifically the argument that guns kill people if people are using guns to kill people.

Wake up Doofus -- I started this thread, I should know who it's "form". I've never called for "gun control" in my life. I've specifically spelled out, including in this thread, that I don't think it's effective to just throw legislation at the problem and tell ourselves we did something.

Or does that not fit the narrative your puppetmasters told you to assume -- since in a world of simplistic partisan political dichotomy, 'you liberals all look alike?
Duh....

Some of y'all really are like freaking little babies whining that their pacifier might get taken away. Grow up already. I ain't your daddy.

You posted this claptrap.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

You can fact check that all day long, you will end up with the fact that guns don't kill people, yet you called it a myth.

Want to tell me again you aren't pro gun control?

 

[Pogo]

No, it was a response to you. You didn't do anything in this thread but cut and paste a stupid article and then whine about getting negged. Anyone that wanted to correct the multiple errors involved would be forced to teach you basic research skills and critical thinking before they could possibly address all the stupidity in the OP.

Yeah yeah, you already made clear that you have no answers. I got that. Your vote that this dialogue should be shut down is noted and logged. Thanks for playing, however uninvolvedly. Moving on...

__________________________________________________________________​

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

Pertinent to this thread, I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

What's the difference, drug gangs.

Actually the links (the CNN one I think) point out that Windsor also has its drug gangs.
What I'm really getting at here is, gun control or gun culture-- which do you think is the driving force?

(Just want to add here that OKTexas is a class guy who understands what discourse is )

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you go back and read my first post in this thread yu will see I commented on the fact that your idiot copy and paste job included the "myth that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't recall exactly what he said there, but it involved people with guns killing people, which is not, believe it or not, guns killing people anymore than people with knives killing people is knives killing people. If you had done more than copy and paste an entire idiotic rant you would have processed that contradiction, and might have saved yourself a few neg reps for being extremely stupid.

The worst thing about this whole thing is you think the fact that you didn't read the crap before you posted it somehow absolves you from responsibility for posting it.

Do you see my name on the byline, yes or no?

No, I don't rewrite the articles. I simply posted an article for discussion, just as you or anyone else does every day here.
Are every one of those articles flawless? No?? Yet you want mine to be? Well that's the same unethical crap you pull when you come in negging the thread, and then threatening people that you'll do it again if they "squeal". What do you think this is, the Mafia?

Your pitiful attempts at ad hominem, like your mindless negs, really do not interest me. They make no point other than that you'd like the entire dialogue to STFU.

And yes, it's a word once I make it one. When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean; neither more nor less. Break a brain sweat and figure it out.

You posted it, and nothing in your post indicates any disagreement with the positions.

That means you take the heat.

You could always cry to mommy if I am too mean.

 

[Pogo]

No, this thread is about the idiocy that passes for intellectual argument form the gun control crowd, specifically the argument that guns kill people if people are using guns to kill people.

Wake up Doofus -- I started this thread, I should know who it's "form". I've never called for "gun control" in my life. I've specifically spelled out, including in this thread, that I don't think it's effective to just throw legislation at the problem and tell ourselves we did something.

Or does that not fit the narrative your puppetmasters told you to assume -- since in a world of simplistic partisan political dichotomy, 'you liberals all look alike?
Duh....

Some of y'all really are like freaking little babies whining that their pacifier might get taken away. Grow up already. I ain't your daddy.

You posted this claptrap.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

You can fact check that all day long, you will end up with the fact that guns don't kill people, yet you called it a myth.

Want to tell me again you aren't pro gun control?

That's part of the article, pasted verbatim. As you already noted. And regardless who wrote it, it still says nothing about "gun control"
DUH.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah yeah, you already made clear that you have no answers. I got that. Your vote that this dialogue should be shut down is noted and logged. Thanks for playing, however uninvolvedly. Moving on...

__________________________________________________________________​

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

Pertinent to this thread, I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

What's the difference, drug gangs.

Actually the links (the CNN one I think) point out that Windsor also has its drug gangs.
What I'm really getting at here is, gun control or gun culture-- which do you think is the driving force?

(Just want to add here that OKTexas is a class guy who understands what discourse is )

The Windsor Star article said the had a problem with drug gangs but a dedicated police unit and citizen involvement combined to get the problem under control. What's the chances of Detroit citizens cooperating with the police? Like I said before the problem exist because the people there tolerate it. So I guess it is culture, not necessarily gun culture.

 

[Pogo]

If you go back and read my first post in this thread yu will see I commented on the fact that your idiot copy and paste job included the "myth that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't recall exactly what he said there, but it involved people with guns killing people, which is not, believe it or not, guns killing people anymore than people with knives killing people is knives killing people. If you had done more than copy and paste an entire idiotic rant you would have processed that contradiction, and might have saved yourself a few neg reps for being extremely stupid.

The worst thing about this whole thing is you think the fact that you didn't read the crap before you posted it somehow absolves you from responsibility for posting it.

Do you see my name on the byline, yes or no?

No, I don't rewrite the articles. I simply posted an article for discussion, just as you or anyone else does every day here.
Are every one of those articles flawless? No?? Yet you want mine to be? Well that's the same unethical crap you pull when you come in negging the thread, and then threatening people that you'll do it again if they "squeal". What do you think this is, the Mafia?

Your pitiful attempts at ad hominem, like your mindless negs, really do not interest me. They make no point other than that you'd like the entire dialogue to STFU.

And yes, it's a word once I make it one. When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean; neither more nor less. Break a brain sweat and figure it out.

You posted it, and nothing in your post indicates any disagreement with the positions.

That means you take the heat.

You could always cry to mommy if I am too mean.

Well guess what Einstein, I wrote nothing in the OP that took any position at all. I don't do that because I believe an OP should be neutral and open-ended. I simply excerpted the article and said let's go.

Or didn't you bother to read that either??
Have you never been on a message board before today?

What about "saddened by women who don't want to be raped"? Figured that out yet?

Perhaps you're on a third-grade reading level. Perhaps you're mouthing your words as you read this. I don't know but until you learn to read you're a complete waste of time.

 

[Pogo]

What's the difference, drug gangs.

Actually the links (the CNN one I think) point out that Windsor also has its drug gangs.
What I'm really getting at here is, gun control or gun culture-- which do you think is the driving force?

(Just want to add here that OKTexas is a class guy who understands what discourse is )

The Windsor Star article said the had a problem with drug gangs but a dedicated police unit and citizen involvement combined to get the problem under control. What's the chances of Detroit citizens cooperating with the police? Like I said before the problem exist because the people there tolerate it. So I guess it is culture, not necessarily gun culture.

Worthy answer. Thanks.

I made the comparison because the contrast is so striking. My thought: If we consider Chicago, which I see brought up all the time as "a city with gun control" that obviously has a murder problem, and if we consider that in this case Windsor plays the part of Chicago, we may tend to eliminate "gun control" as a factor, which would leave culture.

I'll just venture this general posit: if we were all sitting in Canada having the same discussion, the tone of dialogue would be dramatically different in therms of sniping, attacks and emotional meltdowns.

Thoughts?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Go to Canada and find out then.

 

[Pogo]

Go to Canada and find out then.

Oh I have, many times. I'm not asking what I think. I already have that.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually the links (the CNN one I think) point out that Windsor also has its drug gangs.
What I'm really getting at here is, gun control or gun culture-- which do you think is the driving force?

(Just want to add here that OKTexas is a class guy who understands what discourse is )

The Windsor Star article said the had a problem with drug gangs but a dedicated police unit and citizen involvement combined to get the problem under control. What's the chances of Detroit citizens cooperating with the police? Like I said before the problem exist because the people there tolerate it. So I guess it is culture, not necessarily gun culture.

Worthy answer. Thanks.

I made the comparison because the contrast is so striking. My thought: If we consider Chicago, which I see brought up all the time as "a city with gun control" that obviously has a murder problem, and if we consider that in this case Windsor plays the part of Chicago, we may tend to eliminate "gun control" as a factor, which would leave culture.

I'll just venture this general posit: if we were all sitting in Canada having the same discussion, the tone of dialogue would be dramatically different in therms of sniping, attacks and emotional meltdowns.

Thoughts?

Personally I think the people in Canada are idiots for allowing themselves to be disarmed. Of course they have already surrendered to socialism and the nanny state, that being said they have about 1/10 the population of the US so it's hard to make real comparisons. We have the same cultural problems in most major US cities which has been reenforced by our pop culture. When you have people on radio, music, TV, video games and movies telling people gangstas are cool and cooperating with law enforcement is not, what can you expect? If you think about it honestly all this can be traced to relative moral-ism that has permeated our society since the late 50"s to early 60's, where we were all told that disciplining children was abuse and a time out would be as effective as a kick in the ass. Yep look at what that has gotten us, and the left says full speed ahead.

 

[theHawk]

--- and if you actually read them, there is nothing in the link, or the OP, or in any of my posts anywhere, that suggests anything about gun grabbing, gun control, or the Second Amendment. Absolutely zero. What there is is a plugged-in assumption. I can't fathom what's so difficult about reading actual words on a page without plugging in others that are not there. This is Strawman writ large. Strawman is not debate; it's the opposite.

I opened this thread up last night around midnight and it's got 130 posts, so to me that's mission accomplished, since the mission was to open a dialogue about how we view these things; people are talking. Whether any of us are hearing is quite another hurdle, but it's not gonna happen if we plug in our own fantasies of "here's what you really mean". That's just perpetuating ignorance.

One other note about this conversation and the fear of having it: I've been negged three times (so far) just for starting this dialogue, i.e. for the thread itself. I would guess they're all from the " right" -- one of them (California Girl) I've never heard of or intetracted with at all and she's got her inbox turned off so I can't even ask what her basis was. Not one of these lifted a finger to come into the thread and debate a particular point; not one of them tried to refute any point in the neg; they just negged the whole thread. Rather than talk about how we view these things, some would rather they not be talked about at all, ever.

That brings up a larger question -- what kind of people is it that wants to shut down entire dialogue? What does it say when you'd rather tell (what you perceive to be) an opponent to STFU, rather than have the courage to actually engage in the conversation we obviously need to have? Is it insecurity, or just intellectual laziness? In one sense I see it as a manifestation of the raw emotion with which some approach this topic as if it's all they have. We can't make rational judgements out of emotion.

As I said to a poster last night, this list and the resources behind it were not done overnight; so it's not necessary to jump on it, positively or negatively in five minutes, without due diligence -- it's not a race. The message board isn't going anywhere, so let's take the time to talk and ponder what we're saying and why we're saying it. Lashing out with emotional outbursts is counterproductive and makes no point. When we construct our points rationally/calmly, we can finally stop wasting time on all that crap.

I'm sorry to burst your ego, but the "dialogue" on this issue started long before your OP.

You're certainly not adding any genuine dialogue with sketchy statistics about gun ownership. I mean, what do they prove? That bad people with guns will do bad things? Wow, what a shocking revelation. Has it ever occurred to you that if you to want stop bad people from doing bad things with guns, you can lock up the bad people instead of everyone's guns? Do you have any statistics of how many violent offenders are repeat offenders? How many violent criminals are released back into the public only to commit crimes again?

But, liberals don't want to open that dialogue, they just want to talk about guns.

Of course it did. But it's not done. Trust me, if "ego" were my interest I never would have posted this thread. It's here because pressing the examination is the right thing to do.

What do they prove? That we're living on a lot of unsubstantiated myths.

As far as liberals and dialogue, this country was founded by liberals who saw dialogue as sacrosanct. Here I've been attacked several times by those from the right (which is not the same thing as "attacked by the right", because I refuse to descend into labelism) just for the crime of opening this dialogue. They didn't even render opinions, just registered objections to the very existence of the dialogue itself. I knew those attacks on the very idea of debate would be coming; obviously if my objective were "ego", this would have been exactly the wrong thing to do. It's not something I like and it's not something easy. I did it because it needs doin'. Period.

So yeah, tell me all about "opening dialogue". What could I possibly know about that.

Sheeesh.

LOL, yea, this country was founded by "liberals". The liberals of those times were nothing like our "liberals" of today. Modern liberals only started using the name when the word "progressive" became a such a bad word they needed a name change to disguise their idiotic progressive agenda.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Okay..............so you gun rights people have said that guns don't kill people, but rather that people kill people.

Don't you think that background checks should be implemented then? We'd be able to identify those that may be a bit off who think it's okay to kill others. Even if it means a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or even a pillow to smother them.

Background checks would help a great deal. Even LaPierre said it was a good idea in the late 90's, but then he decided to go against what he'd said, because Obama said it was a sound idea.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Because criminals and crazies will abide by these background checks? Also, how do one check to see if someone is mentally ill, unless a registry of mentally ill people are also created?

Such a registry of mentally ill people would be an invasion of privacy. Some people deserve that violation of privacy, like CHILD MOLESTERS. Yes, they are on an easy to view registry. However, are you saying that the mentally ill must now register themselves publicly? Can the government label you as mentally ill, just like they can label you a terrorist without due process?

Off to bed for tonight, expect my follow up response within 8 hours.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Because criminals and crazies will abide by these background checks? Also, how do one check to see if someone is mentally ill, unless a registry of mentally ill people are also created?

Such a registry of mentally ill people would be an invasion of privacy. Some people deserve that violation of privacy, like CHILD MOLESTERS. Yes, they are on an easy to view registry. However, are you saying that the mentally ill must now register themselves publicly? Can the government label you as mentally ill, just like they can label you a terrorist without due process?

Off to bed for tonight, expect my follow up response within 8 hours.

So.............your answer is no registry, even if the people are totally unstable?

Unstable people are the ones responsible for things like the CO shooting in the movies, and the shooting at Sandy Hook.

I'd also be willing to believe that unstable people were the ones that did the VA shooting, as well as the one at the Amish community, and even those that happened at Columbine.

Your answer is to let anyone own a gun, even if they're mentally unstable?

Do me a favor, write your manifesto on USMB so that I might read it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have to comment on the tactics of some gun supporters to these threads.

Pogo mentioned being neg repped by posters who hadn't commented on the thread - I also got neg repped by Darkwind (who I haven't seen posting on the thread) for my apparently wanting to confiscate guns. In fact, I don't recommend confiscating guns, and would not support such a move.

In all, I've been neg repped 5 times on this thread, and yet everything I have posted has been linked, sourced can be confirmed elsewhere.

I'm also amazed how many simply fatuous arguments we have seen here - insisting the US can not be compared to Germany, the UK or France - and then comparing the US with Switzerland. Presenting UK crime figures - from 1997. Posting material without links or sources.

Any neutrals reading through these threads would do well to consider what this all means....

You get neg repped because you post stupid shit that you refuse to defend and then whine about it. Your points have been refuted about 6,000 times and you persist with the same nonsense.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because criminals and crazies will abide by these background checks? Also, how do one check to see if someone is mentally ill, unless a registry of mentally ill people are also created?

Such a registry of mentally ill people would be an invasion of privacy. Some people deserve that violation of privacy, like CHILD MOLESTERS. Yes, they are on an easy to view registry. However, are you saying that the mentally ill must now register themselves publicly? Can the government label you as mentally ill, just like they can label you a terrorist without due process?

Off to bed for tonight, expect my follow up response within 8 hours.

So.............your answer is no registry, even if the people are totally unstable?

Unstable people are the ones responsible for things like the CO shooting in the movies, and the shooting at Sandy Hook.

I'd also be willing to believe that unstable people were the ones that did the VA shooting, as well as the one at the Amish community, and even those that happened at Columbine.

Your answer is to let anyone own a gun, even if they're mentally unstable?

Do me a favor, write your manifesto on USMB so that I might read it.

All the unstable people you mentioned were law abiding citizens right up until they started shooting people. What is your solution? Anyone you think might be a little off loses constitutional rights without due process?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So.............your answer is no registry, even if the people are totally unstable?

Unstable people are the ones responsible for things like the CO shooting in the movies, and the shooting at Sandy Hook.

Apparently these shooters are SANE enough to go to GUN-FREE-ZONES. You are aware that the movie shooter purposely avoided all of the theaters CLOSER to his residence because they permitted customers to carry handguns.

If someone is SANE enough to figure out they can only carry out their plans at GUN FREE ZONES, then they are not CRAZY, they are EVIL.

THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL

EVIL PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO APPEAR SANE TO PROFESSIONALS

FACT: HE SAW THREE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, AND FOOLED THEM ALL INTO THINKING HE WASNT AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO ANYONE OR HIMSELF.

As for those who are TRULY INSANE (lack cognitive decision making), they would never be able to figure out how to buy/purchase the gun, and train themselves how to use it, what ammo to buy/etc. Why? Because they are truly crazy.

If you want protection from every criminal/evil person in your schools/movie theaters/public locations, you can CARRY YOUR OWN GUN. Here are statistics showing HOW MUCH SAFER YOU ARE IF YOU CARRY YOUR OWN GUN:

You are far more likely to survive
a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 60
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 61
U.S. Department of Justice 62
U.S. Department of Justice 63
British Home Office – no a pro-gun organization by any mean

From these same studies.

Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact:
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes are
successful, compared to 32% when unarmed.

Fact:
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than
resisting with a gun.

Fact:
27% of women keep a gun in the house.

Fact:
37.6 million women either own or have rapid access to guns.

Fact:
In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/55878NCJRS.pdf

Also, please be aware that the police do NOT have any obligiation to protect you, at any time, according to the SUPREME COURT. In fact, the SUPREME COURT even said that you are SOLELY responsible for your own safety.

June 27, 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection.

the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

(1) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."

(7) Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."

(8) Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

(9) New York Times, Washington DC, "Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone" by LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005, "The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

 

[The Rabbi]

That wasn't my quote. Just saying.

 

[JoeB131]

One anecdote does not mean evidence. Fail.

So why aren't you holding skullhead to that same standard.

We had 16,000 gun suicides and 11,000 gun murders last year.

and only 201 cases of homicide in self-defense.

No one tracks self defense statistics unless the person involved is charged and acquitted. That number, where ever you dug it up from, if it is real, actually indicates the number of times people were charged with murder when they shouldn't have been, not the number of times someone killed an attacker in self defense.

Actually, the number tracks how many times a murder was ruled a justifiable homicide...

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

Happens about as often as people dying from lightening strikes.