This woman disproves gun control beliefs.....

[Brain357]

I would take my chances with rather than without a gun. Of course there will be situations when you cannot get to your weapon, but there will also be times when you CAN get to your weapon! Good for her.

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

Thankfully, need doesn't enter into the equation. Look, freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous, and always preferable to the alternative. We make decisions every day that put us in danger, but we accept risk as a price we pay to enjoy the freedom. We don't outlaw condoms on the grounds that people contract sometimes deadly diseases and get pregnant despite using them.

Not sure what your point is. The woman shot in the back by her child probably never had a need. Her choice to own only put her in danger. In a free country she is welcome to put herself in danger if she wants, but she should be aware it is dangerous.

 

[2aguy]

U.S.
U.S. GUN OWNERSHIP DECLINES
BY STAV ZIV ON 3/10/15 AT
U.S.GUNSGUN OWNERSHIPGUN LAWS
Updated | The number of American households that own one or more guns has again reached its lowest point, according to data from a survey released March 3.

Gun ownership is now back at the low point it reached in 2010: Only 32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does, compared with about half the population in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS). The survey is a project of independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation.

The poll also found that 22 percent of Americans personally own a firearm, down from a high of 31 percent in 1985. The percentage of men who own a firearm is down from 50 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2014, while the number of women who own a gun has remained relatively steady since 1980, coming in at 12 percent in 2014.




Murder rate down. Numbers of Americans with a gun is down.
So how does the declining murder rate jive with less guns in people's hands?

Must be that ONLY those carrying a gun are targeted by criminals.

And that is a lie....the General Social Survey is run by an anti gunner who has stated he hopes he can use it to get politicians to enact gun control.......other actual surveys show the rate has stayed the same or increased....

And today...expecting gun owners to answer gun ownership questions to anonymous people on the phone is just silly......

There are now 13 million people carrying guns for self defense...and our gun murder rate has gone down, not up....

 

[2aguy]

U.S.
U.S. GUN OWNERSHIP DECLINES
BY STAV ZIV ON 3/10/15 AT
U.S.GUNSGUN OWNERSHIPGUN LAWS
Updated | The number of American households that own one or more guns has again reached its lowest point, according to data from a survey released March 3.

Gun ownership is now back at the low point it reached in 2010: Only 32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does, compared with about half the population in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS). The survey is a project of independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation.

The poll also found that 22 percent of Americans personally own a firearm, down from a high of 31 percent in 1985. The percentage of men who own a firearm is down from 50 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2014, while the number of women who own a gun has remained relatively steady since 1980, coming in at 12 percent in 2014.




Murder rate down. Numbers of Americans with a gun is down.
So how does the declining murder rate jive with less guns in people's hands?

Must be that ONLY those carrying a gun are targeted by criminals.

And here is some truth, facts and reality......

Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report(and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

-------------------------------
Is gun ownership really down in America? | Fox News

Surely, gun control advocates such as GSS director Tom Smith view this decline as a good thing. In a 2003 book of mine, I quoted Smith as saying that the large drop in gun ownership would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations.

Other gun control advocates have mentioned to me that they hope that if people believe fewer people own guns, that may cause others to rethink their decision to own one themselves. It is part of the reason they dramatically exaggerate the risks of having guns in the home.

The Associated Press and Time ignored other polls by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post.

These polls show that gun ownership rates have been flat over the same period. According to Gallup, household gun ownership has ranged from 51 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999. In 2014, it was at 42 percent – comparable to the 43-45 percent figures during the 1970s.

A 2011 Gallup poll with the headline “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993” appears to have gotten no news coverage.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows an even more stable pattern, with household gun ownership between 44 and 46 percent in 1999. In 2013, the ownership rate was 43 percent.

There are other measures that suggest that we should be very careful of relying too heavily on polling to gauge the level of gun ownership. For example, the nationally number of concealed handgun permits has soared over the last decade: rising from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2014.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has grown dramatically over time –doubling from 2006 to 2014.

 

[Brain357]

That's because they don't exist or the defender is involved in criminal activity.

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

The brain already knows the statistics. I, as well as multiple other people, have repeatedly posted the studies for him. He refuses to acknowledge facts.

You have posted debunked surveys that are not supported by anything in reality. The reality is most people have never had a dgu, nor do they know anyone who has. The largest survey is by the NCVS and says about 100k dgu per year. That is probably fairly accurate. Many of those dgu of course aren't actually lawful.

And again......you are a moron....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study of gun self defense...it does not even have the word gun in it...and does not ask one question about using a gun for self defense...also...this survey can't even get accurate numbers on the actual crime victimization it is supposed to be studying...

Yet...the anti gun nuts cling to it since it is the only thing putting gun self defense at such a low number....

That's because they don't exist or the defender is involved in criminal activity.

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

The brain already knows the statistics. I, as well as multiple other people, have repeatedly posted the studies for him. He refuses to acknowledge facts.

You have posted debunked surveys that are not supported by anything in reality. The reality is most people have never had a dgu, nor do they know anyone who has. The largest survey is by the NCVS and says about 100k dgu per year. That is probably fairly accurate. Many of those dgu of course aren't actually lawful.

And again......you are a moron....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study of gun self defense...it does not even have the word gun in it...and does not ask one question about using a gun for self defense...also...this survey can't even get accurate numbers on the actual crime victimization it is supposed to be studying...

Yet...the anti gun nuts cling to it since it is the only thing putting gun self defense at such a low number....

It is a crime survey and you need a crime for a lawful dgu. It also clearly asked what happened during the crime. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun surveys are comically small.

 

[2aguy]

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

Thankfully, need doesn't enter into the equation. Look, freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous, and always preferable to the alternative. We make decisions every day that put us in danger, but we accept risk as a price we pay to enjoy the freedom. We don't outlaw condoms on the grounds that people contract sometimes deadly diseases and get pregnant despite using them.

Not sure what your point is. The woman shot in the back by her child probably never had a need. Her choice to own only put her in danger. In a free country she is welcome to put herself in danger if she wants, but she should be aware it is dangerous.

Yes...the thinking of a 12 year old........you never have a need for a gun until you are attacked...then you kinda really need it...and as a 12 year old you don't realize that no one ever knows when that attack is coming......please...let the adults handle the conversation.

 

[2aguy]

There are no numbers to represent the amount of crimes prevented by a perp knowing a homeowner is armed or a potential mugging victim is armed. Crime statistics around the country show a decrease in violent crimes as CCW permits and gun ownership increases. The only place that violent crimes are on the rise is on places with strict gun control.

Actually, they show a decrease as gun ownership rates go DOWN. And violent crime went down across the US. Including States that didn't have CCWs increases.

If the decrease in crime occurs if CCWs are expanded...or if they're not......then clearly CCWs aren't the cause.

And more Americans carrying guns did not increase the gun crime rate, did it?

Violent crime went up in wi when they got concealed carry.

Bull shit.

You obviously didn't bother looking at the numbers.

Political Heat: Has concealed carry made WI safer? The evidence says no

WRong......the democrat mayor in Milwaukee has ordered police to stand down and not backed them up....he was doing the "Ferguson Effect" before Ferguson happened....The police stopped dealiing wit criminals in an aggressive way and their crime rate is going up......

 

[2aguy]

That's because they don't exist or the defender is involved in criminal activity.

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

The brain already knows the statistics. I, as well as multiple other people, have repeatedly posted the studies for him. He refuses to acknowledge facts.

You have posted debunked surveys that are not supported by anything in reality. The reality is most people have never had a dgu, nor do they know anyone who has. The largest survey is by the NCVS and says about 100k dgu per year. That is probably fairly accurate. Many of those dgu of course aren't actually lawful.

And again......you are a moron....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study of gun self defense...it does not even have the word gun in it...and does not ask one question about using a gun for self defense...also...this survey can't even get accurate numbers on the actual crime victimization it is supposed to be studying...

Yet...the anti gun nuts cling to it since it is the only thing putting gun self defense at such a low number....

That's because they don't exist or the defender is involved in criminal activity.

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

The brain already knows the statistics. I, as well as multiple other people, have repeatedly posted the studies for him. He refuses to acknowledge facts.

You have posted debunked surveys that are not supported by anything in reality. The reality is most people have never had a dgu, nor do they know anyone who has. The largest survey is by the NCVS and says about 100k dgu per year. That is probably fairly accurate. Many of those dgu of course aren't actually lawful.

And again......you are a moron....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study of gun self defense...it does not even have the word gun in it...and does not ask one question about using a gun for self defense...also...this survey can't even get accurate numbers on the actual crime victimization it is supposed to be studying...

Yet...the anti gun nuts cling to it since it is the only thing putting gun self defense at such a low number....

It is a crime survey and you need a crime for a lawful dgu. It also clearly asked what happened during the crime. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun surveys are comically small.

It is not a defensive gun use study....it doesn't ask one question about guns or gun self defense.....you are a 12 year old...

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[Brain357]

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

Thankfully, need doesn't enter into the equation. Look, freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous, and always preferable to the alternative. We make decisions every day that put us in danger, but we accept risk as a price we pay to enjoy the freedom. We don't outlaw condoms on the grounds that people contract sometimes deadly diseases and get pregnant despite using them.

Not sure what your point is. The woman shot in the back by her child probably never had a need. Her choice to own only put her in danger. In a free country she is welcome to put herself in danger if she wants, but she should be aware it is dangerous.

Yes...the thinking of a 12 year old........you never have a need for a gun until you are attacked...then you kinda really need it...and as a 12 year old you don't realize that no one ever knows when that attack is coming......please...let the adults handle the conversation.

Or you never need it and your 4 year old shoots you in the back. Most people never need one. Hence why neither you or I have ever needed one. Like a 12 year old you live in fantasy gun land.

 

[2aguy]

There are no numbers to represent the amount of crimes prevented by a perp knowing a homeowner is armed or a potential mugging victim is armed. Crime statistics around the country show a decrease in violent crimes as CCW permits and gun ownership increases. The only place that violent crimes are on the rise is on places with strict gun control.

Actually, they show a decrease as gun ownership rates go DOWN. And violent crime went down across the US. Including States that didn't have CCWs increases.

If the decrease in crime occurs if CCWs are expanded...or if they're not......then clearly CCWs aren't the cause.

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

And they've dropped in states that didn't significantly increase the number of CCW permits.

As I said, if the decrease in crime occurs if CCWs are expanded...or if they're not......then clearly CCWs aren't the cause.

They dropped more in states that did increase their concealed carry permits......

And again.....allowing Americans to carry guns for self defense does not increase the crime rate or the gun murder rate...right?

The crime rates go down, fewer citizens feel the need to arm themselves. Crime rates go up, more citizens feel the need to arm themselves, and so it goes. Crime rates become a driver, as well as an indicator.

The crime rate has been going down since the 1990s......and as this has been happening more Americans own and carry guns.....and it hasn't increased the crime rate.

 

[2aguy]

There are no numbers to represent the amount of crimes prevented by a perp knowing a homeowner is armed or a potential mugging victim is armed. Crime statistics around the country show a decrease in violent crimes as CCW permits and gun ownership increases. The only place that violent crimes are on the rise is on places with strict gun control.

Actually, they show a decrease as gun ownership rates go DOWN. And violent crime went down across the US. Including States that didn't have CCWs increases.

If the decrease in crime occurs if CCWs are expanded...or if they're not......then clearly CCWs aren't the cause.

And more Americans carrying guns did not increase the gun crime rate, did it?

Violent crime went up in wi when they got concealed carry.

Bull shit.

You obviously didn't bother looking at the numbers.

Political Heat: Has concealed carry made WI safer? The evidence says no

And the truth about Milwaukee, Wisconsin.......a bad mayor who hates cops...

Notice....crime is not up in the rest of Wisconsin.....just the place controlled by a big city democrat who hates the police....

No easy answers to Milwaukee’s spiraling violence

Overworked, overtaxed

But the toughest sentences in the world won't help solve the city's crime problem if police aren't arresting the most violent criminals in the first place, said Michael Crivello, president of the Milwaukee Professional Police Association, which represents rank-and-file officers.

"The way I see it is — whether we're on the advent of travesty or we're already well into it — it was something that was bound to happen," he said.
Crivello and the union believe Flynn's changes in department structure and new policies implemented during his tenure have made it more difficult for officers to do their jobs effectively.

Crivello pointed to a reduction in the number of detectives, which was about 250 when Flynn took over in 2008 and is now about 180. Much of the responsibility for investigating crimes has been shifted from detectives to patrol officers.

"They're so overworked, overtaxed and trying to work with a different skill set, which they don't possess," Crivello said.

The dismantling of the gang and vice squads has allowed more violent criminals to roam free, according to Crivello.

"What you get out of it is human intelligence," he said of specialized squads. "That's how we win wars. You have to know what's going on in the streets. We've lost so much of that."

Flynn defended the changes.


"I think we've struck the right balance between proactive uniform-based policing in the neighborhoods and follow-up investigators," he said.

Today, the department is authorized to employ 192 detectives — fewer than in the past — and eight openings in the division should be filled fairly soon, Flynn said.
Crivello also took issue with the department's pursuit policy, which has recently come under criticism from Ald. Bob Donovan, a mayoral candidate. The policy prevents officers from engaging in high-speed chases unless they have probable cause someone in a car is committing a violent felony or is "a clear and immediate threat to the safety of others."

The policy was changed in 2010 and has reduced the number of crashes. On the flip side, criminals who may be wanted on warrants, have a gun under the seat or have a trunk full of drugs know that if they flee police, there is very little the officers can do, Crivello said.

"They can literally flip the finger to an officer and take off hard and fast and get away with it," he said.

Flynn pointed out that critics used a similar argument against the old policy, saying officers were taking undue risks by chasing motorists who may not have guns or drugs. Research indicates that the vast majority of pursuits turn out to be for minor traffic violations, he said.

-------

 

[Brain357]

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

The brain already knows the statistics. I, as well as multiple other people, have repeatedly posted the studies for him. He refuses to acknowledge facts.

You have posted debunked surveys that are not supported by anything in reality. The reality is most people have never had a dgu, nor do they know anyone who has. The largest survey is by the NCVS and says about 100k dgu per year. That is probably fairly accurate. Many of those dgu of course aren't actually lawful.

And again......you are a moron....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study of gun self defense...it does not even have the word gun in it...and does not ask one question about using a gun for self defense...also...this survey can't even get accurate numbers on the actual crime victimization it is supposed to be studying...

Yet...the anti gun nuts cling to it since it is the only thing putting gun self defense at such a low number....

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

The brain already knows the statistics. I, as well as multiple other people, have repeatedly posted the studies for him. He refuses to acknowledge facts.

You have posted debunked surveys that are not supported by anything in reality. The reality is most people have never had a dgu, nor do they know anyone who has. The largest survey is by the NCVS and says about 100k dgu per year. That is probably fairly accurate. Many of those dgu of course aren't actually lawful.

And again......you are a moron....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study of gun self defense...it does not even have the word gun in it...and does not ask one question about using a gun for self defense...also...this survey can't even get accurate numbers on the actual crime victimization it is supposed to be studying...

Yet...the anti gun nuts cling to it since it is the only thing putting gun self defense at such a low number....

It is a crime survey and you need a crime for a lawful dgu. It also clearly asked what happened during the crime. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun surveys are comically small.

It is not a defensive gun use study....it doesn't ask one question about guns or gun self defense.....you are a 12 year old...

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

It asks this question:“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”

That would obviously include any dgu. Stop being a child.

 

[2aguy]

the anti gun nuts tell us that women can't use a gun against a man. They tell is the gun will be easily taken away from her. They tell us that any attack will be an ambush and no woman will be able to use a gun to stop that kind of attack......

Except this woman did......she was ambushed, had her head banged against an object, probably her car, and was forced into her car....and then shot the a**hole twice......

I don't think she is a Navy Seal....

Woman Shoots Stalker in Neck, Buttocks

‘When the elevator opened on the sixth floor, the victim states she began to run to her vehicle, which was parked about 10 spots away from the elevator. The victim stated the suspect gave chase,’ the police report states.

She ran to her car where Ganobick pushed in behind her. He held her at knifepoint and screamed at her to give him all of her money while smashing her head into an unknown object. The victim stated Ganobick repeatedly used his knee to force her into the passenger seat, fearing for her life, she pulled out the great equalizer.

‘The victim stated she was afraid that she would be raped or murdered and as she fell across the passenger seat of her vehicle, she was able to reach into her purse and grab her gun and attempt to fire a shot at the suspect,’ the report states.

The woman pulled a Beretta handgun out of her purse and began to squeeze the trigger. She states the gun did not fire at first, so she continued to pull the trigger until it did, finally shooting Ganobick in the neck, but that didn’t stop him.

I would take my chances with rather than without a gun. Of course there will be situations when you cannot get to your weapon, but there will also be times when you CAN get to your weapon! Good for her.

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

There are also people in jail who thought they had a lawful defense. Lot of responsibility with guns.

Yes....1,500,000 Americans used guns to stop a violent criminal attack according to bill clinton and barak obama...their Department of Justice and CDC studies...........those 1,500,000 people needed their guns....but they just didn't know they did until the attack happened....

vs.

357,000,000 million guns in private hands....

1,500,000 defensive gun uses...

19,000 non fatal gun accidents..

505 accidental gun deaths...

Gee....I wonder what number is bigger?

 

[2aguy]

I would take my chances with rather than without a gun. Of course there will be situations when you cannot get to your weapon, but there will also be times when you CAN get to your weapon! Good for her.

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

Thankfully, need doesn't enter into the equation. Look, freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous, and always preferable to the alternative. We make decisions every day that put us in danger, but we accept risk as a price we pay to enjoy the freedom. We don't outlaw condoms on the grounds that people contract sometimes deadly diseases and get pregnant despite using them.

You are trying to explain the truth, facts and reality to a poster who thinks at the level of a 12 year old......

 

[2aguy]

the anti gun nuts tell us that women can't use a gun against a man. They tell is the gun will be easily taken away from her. They tell us that any attack will be an ambush and no woman will be able to use a gun to stop that kind of attack......

Except this woman did......she was ambushed, had her head banged against an object, probably her car, and was forced into her car....and then shot the a**hole twice......

I don't think she is a Navy Seal....

Woman Shoots Stalker in Neck, Buttocks

‘When the elevator opened on the sixth floor, the victim states she began to run to her vehicle, which was parked about 10 spots away from the elevator. The victim stated the suspect gave chase,’ the police report states.

She ran to her car where Ganobick pushed in behind her. He held her at knifepoint and screamed at her to give him all of her money while smashing her head into an unknown object. The victim stated Ganobick repeatedly used his knee to force her into the passenger seat, fearing for her life, she pulled out the great equalizer.

‘The victim stated she was afraid that she would be raped or murdered and as she fell across the passenger seat of her vehicle, she was able to reach into her purse and grab her gun and attempt to fire a shot at the suspect,’ the report states.

The woman pulled a Beretta handgun out of her purse and began to squeeze the trigger. She states the gun did not fire at first, so she continued to pull the trigger until it did, finally shooting Ganobick in the neck, but that didn’t stop him.

I would take my chances with rather than without a gun. Of course there will be situations when you cannot get to your weapon, but there will also be times when you CAN get to your weapon! Good for her.

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

There are also people in jail who thought they had a lawful defense. Lot of responsibility with guns.

Never said that twit......you are the one who says no one needs a gun...ever.......

 

[Brain357]

I would take my chances with rather than without a gun. Of course there will be situations when you cannot get to your weapon, but there will also be times when you CAN get to your weapon! Good for her.

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

There are also people in jail who thought they had a lawful defense. Lot of responsibility with guns.

Yes....1,500,000 Americans used guns to stop a violent criminal attack according to bill clinton and barak obama...their Department of Justice and CDC studies...........those 1,500,000 people needed their guns....but they just didn't know they did until the attack happened....

vs.

357,000,000 million guns in private hands....

1,500,000 defensive gun uses...

19,000 non fatal gun accidents..

505 accidental gun deaths...

Gee....I wonder what number is bigger?

And you are lying. The CDC did not do a study. Your 1.5 is fantasy. But yes 19,000 injured in accidents and 500 killed. Compare to other countries with fewer guns, lower crime rates, and almost no accidents.

 

[Brain357]

I would take my chances with rather than without a gun. Of course there will be situations when you cannot get to your weapon, but there will also be times when you CAN get to your weapon! Good for her.

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

There are also people in jail who thought they had a lawful defense. Lot of responsibility with guns.

Never said that twit......you are the one who says no one needs a gun...ever.......

I clearly stated Most people in this country have no need for a gun. That is a fact.

 

[2aguy]

A woman with a gun has an option that a woman without a gun does not. It comes down to this, do we trust a woman to use a weapon to defend herself or not? Apparently, anti-gunners do not trust women to make that decision for themselves.

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

There are also people in jail who thought they had a lawful defense. Lot of responsibility with guns.

Yes....1,500,000 Americans used guns to stop a violent criminal attack according to bill clinton and barak obama...their Department of Justice and CDC studies...........those 1,500,000 people needed their guns....but they just didn't know they did until the attack happened....

vs.

357,000,000 million guns in private hands....

1,500,000 defensive gun uses...

19,000 non fatal gun accidents..

505 accidental gun deaths...

Gee....I wonder what number is bigger?

And you are lying. The CDC did not do a study. Your 1.5 is fantasy. But yes 19,000 injured in accidents and 500 killed. Compare to other countries with fewer guns, lower crime rates, and almost no accidents.

The CDC studied all of the research.....try that again...the CDC studied all the research on guns and found between 500,000 and 3,000,000 defensive gun uses each year......and they did this under orders from obama...who gave them 10 million dollars to do it in 2013.....

And the 1,500,000 is not a fantasy and it is not my number....it comes from bill clinton's Department of Justice study on defensive gun use.......complain to him.

 

[Brain357]

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

There are also people in jail who thought they had a lawful defense. Lot of responsibility with guns.

Yes....1,500,000 Americans used guns to stop a violent criminal attack according to bill clinton and barak obama...their Department of Justice and CDC studies...........those 1,500,000 people needed their guns....but they just didn't know they did until the attack happened....

vs.

357,000,000 million guns in private hands....

1,500,000 defensive gun uses...

19,000 non fatal gun accidents..

505 accidental gun deaths...

Gee....I wonder what number is bigger?

And you are lying. The CDC did not do a study. Your 1.5 is fantasy. But yes 19,000 injured in accidents and 500 killed. Compare to other countries with fewer guns, lower crime rates, and almost no accidents.

The CDC studied all of the research.....try that again...the CDC studied all the research on guns and found between 500,000 and 3,000,000 defensive gun uses each year......and they did this under orders from obama...who gave them 10 million dollars to do it in 2013.....

And the 1,500,000 is not a fantasy and it is not my number....it comes from bill clinton's Department of Justice study on defensive gun use.......complain to him.

Why do you insist on being so dishonest? You have been corrected on this many times.

* The CDC report made no effort to reconcile the differing estimates of DGUs, except to note that the estimate provided by the Kleck group was larger by an order of magnitude than the estimate arising from the NCVS. The CDC report noted that the estimate of DGU provided by the Kleck group is twice again as large as the estimate of the Dept. of Justice that there are 1.3 million crimes committed with a gun in the USA every year.

 

[hadit]

Guns aren't for everyone. Take the woman who was just shot by her 4 year old. She was not responsible enough for a gun. I don't see how gender matters.

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

Thankfully, need doesn't enter into the equation. Look, freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous, and always preferable to the alternative. We make decisions every day that put us in danger, but we accept risk as a price we pay to enjoy the freedom. We don't outlaw condoms on the grounds that people contract sometimes deadly diseases and get pregnant despite using them.

Not sure what your point is. The woman shot in the back by her child probably never had a need. Her choice to own only put her in danger. In a free country she is welcome to put herself in danger if she wants, but she should be aware it is dangerous.

Yes...the thinking of a 12 year old........you never have a need for a gun until you are attacked...then you kinda really need it...and as a 12 year old you don't realize that no one ever knows when that attack is coming......please...let the adults handle the conversation.

A gun is like a sneeze guard on a salad bar. You hope like heck it's never needed...

 

[Brain357]

Women are more vulnerable to attack than men are for several reasons. They're generally smaller than men and they get raped a lot more often than men do. They thus benefit from personal protection to a greater degree than men do. And no, guns are not for everyone. I don't see anyone trying to make that case. What I do see happening is people trying to make the case that women should not be able to choose if they want a gun for personal protection. Sure an assailant MAY be able to get a gun away from a woman, but should it not be her choice if she wants to take that chance?

Have you not seen 2aguy? He will tell you everyone needs a gun at all times.

A woman can do everything a man can. Not aware of anyone saying they should not have the option. They should be aware however that for many people having a gun just makes them more likely to have an accident like the shot in back woman, Walmart woman shot dead by her kid, or woman with bra holster who shot herself dead. Most people in this country have no need for a gun.

Thankfully, need doesn't enter into the equation. Look, freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous, and always preferable to the alternative. We make decisions every day that put us in danger, but we accept risk as a price we pay to enjoy the freedom. We don't outlaw condoms on the grounds that people contract sometimes deadly diseases and get pregnant despite using them.

Not sure what your point is. The woman shot in the back by her child probably never had a need. Her choice to own only put her in danger. In a free country she is welcome to put herself in danger if she wants, but she should be aware it is dangerous.

Yes...the thinking of a 12 year old........you never have a need for a gun until you are attacked...then you kinda really need it...and as a 12 year old you don't realize that no one ever knows when that attack is coming......please...let the adults handle the conversation.

A gun is like a sneeze guard on a salad bar. You hope like heck it's never needed...

And most never will.