Women and Guns...

[JoeB131]

A couple of our resident gun nuts have argued that a gun is a great equalizer between criminals and women, and if you don't support the right of Nancy Lanza to buy an AR-15, you don't care about women.

Conservatives should avoid emotional arguments. They suck at them.

Here's the reality.

Gayle Trotter's fantasies of fighting off violent men don't have anything to do with women's realities.

The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an "equalizer" is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women. Most violence against women is perpetrated by men the victim knows in situations that are intimate or social, where guns aren't usually out. If someone during a domestic violence incident scrambles for the gun, it's rarely going to be the person who doesn't want this situation to get more violent. It's particularly outrageous for Trotter to float this line of nonsense so soon after the headline-grabbing murder of Kasandra Perkins. Having guns in the house didn't save her, and if Jovan Belcher hadn't been able to unload nine bullets into her by simply grabbing a gun on hand, it's likely she'd still be alive.


The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

 

[OODA_Loop]

1998 called and wants its study back.

 

[JoeB131]

1998 called and wants its study back.

Well, true, after there were enough studies like the 1998 study and Kellerman that showed guns for protection was bullshit, the NRA got Congress to stop funding gun studies.

If only the Tobacco companies had thought of that!

 

[chikenwing]

A couple of our resident gun nuts have argued that a gun is a great equalizer between criminals and women, and if you don't support the right of Nancy Lanza to buy an AR-15, you don't care about women.

Conservatives should avoid emotional arguments. They suck at them.

Here's the reality.

Gayle Trotter's fantasies of fighting off violent men don't have anything to do with women's realities.

The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an "equalizer" is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women. Most violence against women is perpetrated by men the victim knows in situations that are intimate or social, where guns aren't usually out. If someone during a domestic violence incident scrambles for the gun, it's rarely going to be the person who doesn't want this situation to get more violent. It's particularly outrageous for Trotter to float this line of nonsense so soon after the headline-grabbing murder of Kasandra Perkins. Having guns in the house didn't save her, and if Jovan Belcher hadn't been able to unload nine bullets into her by simply grabbing a gun on hand, it's likely she'd still be alive.


The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

Liberal should avoid arguments that require rational and logical thought,they really suck at those two things.

 

[JoeB131]

A couple of our resident gun nuts have argued that a gun is a great equalizer between criminals and women, and if you don't support the right of Nancy Lanza to buy an AR-15, you don't care about women.

Conservatives should avoid emotional arguments. They suck at them.

Here's the reality.

Gayle Trotter's fantasies of fighting off violent men don't have anything to do with women's realities.

The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an "equalizer" is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women. Most violence against women is perpetrated by men the victim knows in situations that are intimate or social, where guns aren't usually out. If someone during a domestic violence incident scrambles for the gun, it's rarely going to be the person who doesn't want this situation to get more violent. It's particularly outrageous for Trotter to float this line of nonsense so soon after the headline-grabbing murder of Kasandra Perkins. Having guns in the house didn't save her, and if Jovan Belcher hadn't been able to unload nine bullets into her by simply grabbing a gun on hand, it's likely she'd still be alive.


The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

Liberal should avoid arguments that require rational and logical thought,they really suck at those two things.

So its logical to promote guns as a women's issue when a woman is 83 times more likely to be killed with a gun than protect herself with one?

 

[GuyPinestra]

A couple of our resident gun nuts have argued that a gun is a great equalizer between criminals and women, and if you don't support the right of Nancy Lanza to buy an AR-15, you don't care about women.

Conservatives should avoid emotional arguments. They suck at them.

Here's the reality.

Gayle Trotter's fantasies of fighting off violent men don't have anything to do with women's realities.

The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an "equalizer" is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women. Most violence against women is perpetrated by men the victim knows in situations that are intimate or social, where guns aren't usually out. If someone during a domestic violence incident scrambles for the gun, it's rarely going to be the person who doesn't want this situation to get more violent. It's particularly outrageous for Trotter to float this line of nonsense so soon after the headline-grabbing murder of Kasandra Perkins. Having guns in the house didn't save her, and if Jovan Belcher hadn't been able to unload nine bullets into her by simply grabbing a gun on hand, it's likely she'd still be alive.


The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

Addressing your bolded portion, I see what you did there. "Killed by an intimate partner" doesn't say anything about whether or not a gun was used to do the killing.

EVERY argument you gun-grabbers bring has been full of this same kind of false equivalence.

Goebbels would be SO proud...

 

[asaratis]

A couple of our resident gun nuts have argued that a gun is a great equalizer between criminals and women, and if you don't support the right of Nancy Lanza to buy an AR-15, you don't care about women.

Conservatives should avoid emotional arguments. They suck at them.

Here's the reality.

Gayle Trotter's fantasies of fighting off violent men don't have anything to do with women's realities.

The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an "equalizer" is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women. Most violence against women is perpetrated by men the victim knows in situations that are intimate or social, where guns aren't usually out. If someone during a domestic violence incident scrambles for the gun, it's rarely going to be the person who doesn't want this situation to get more violent. It's particularly outrageous for Trotter to float this line of nonsense so soon after the headline-grabbing murder of Kasandra Perkins. Having guns in the house didn't save her, and if Jovan Belcher hadn't been able to unload nine bullets into her by simply grabbing a gun on hand, it's likely she'd still be alive.


The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

For a member of a group that trots little children out on the stage to argue for gun control and tug at people's hearts, you certainly have gall in accusing the other side of introducing emotional argument.

Your 1998 study likely does not include an accurate count of how many times a woman used a gun in self defense.Many instances are likely never reported.

Go back to the drawing board.

 

[GuyPinestra]

A couple of our resident gun nuts have argued that a gun is a great equalizer between criminals and women, and if you don't support the right of Nancy Lanza to buy an AR-15, you don't care about women.

Conservatives should avoid emotional arguments. They suck at them.

Here's the reality.

Gayle Trotter's fantasies of fighting off violent men don't have anything to do with women's realities.

Liberal should avoid arguments that require rational and logical thought,they really suck at those two things.

So its logical to promote guns as a women's issue when a woman is 83 times more likely to be killed with a gun than protect herself with one?

A PERFECT example of that false equivalence in action!!

Idiot!!

 

[OODA_Loop]

How many women used a gun in self-defense from the study ?

 

[asaratis]

How many women used a gun in self-defense from the study ?

He doesn't know. He expects you to multiply the number of woman killed by intimate partners by 83 and be satisfied..

 

[JoeB131]

For a member of a group that trots little children out on the stage to argue for gun control and tug at people's hearts, you certainly have gall in accusing the other side of introducing emotional argument.

Your 1998 study likely does not include an accurate count of how many times a woman used a gun in self defense.Many instances are likely never reported.

Go back to the drawing board.

If a study would ever validate the NRA's claim, they wouldn't have pressured Congress into preventing the CDC and other agencies from conducting them.

The reason why little kids are so effective is because little kids were killed at Newton. Little kids who died because Bushmaster marketted their product to Nancy Lanza on the notion that she needed to be prepared for the Zombie Apocolypse or whatever she needed 8 guns to protect herself from.

Probably should have been more worried about the Zombie she was living with.

 

[asaratis]

For a member of a group that trots little children out on the stage to argue for gun control and tug at people's hearts, you certainly have gall in accusing the other side of introducing emotional argument.

Your 1998 study likely does not include an accurate count of how many times a woman used a gun in self defense.Many instances are likely never reported.

Go back to the drawing board.

If a study would ever validate the NRA's claim, they wouldn't have pressured Congress into preventing the CDC and other agencies from conducting them.

The reason why little kids are so effective is because little kids were killed at Newton. Little kids who died because Bushmaster marketted their product to Nancy Lanza on the notion that she needed to be prepared for the Zombie Apocolypse or whatever she needed 8 guns to protect herself from.

Probably should have been more worried about the Zombie she was living with.

It's all because the Chinese invented gunpowder, dude.

That argument makes just as much sense as yours.

 

[JoeB131]

For a member of a group that trots little children out on the stage to argue for gun control and tug at people's hearts, you certainly have gall in accusing the other side of introducing emotional argument.

Your 1998 study likely does not include an accurate count of how many times a woman used a gun in self defense.Many instances are likely never reported.

Go back to the drawing board.

If a study would ever validate the NRA's claim, they wouldn't have pressured Congress into preventing the CDC and other agencies from conducting them.

The reason why little kids are so effective is because little kids were killed at Newton. Little kids who died because Bushmaster marketted their product to Nancy Lanza on the notion that she needed to be prepared for the Zombie Apocolypse or whatever she needed 8 guns to protect herself from.

Probably should have been more worried about the Zombie she was living with.

It's all because the Chinese invented gunpowder, dude.

That argument makes just as much sense as yours.

No, not really. But I know you are trying.

Someone should have said, "Hmmmm.... this Nancy Lanza really is an odd duck. Keeps talking about Prepping and buying guns. And that kid of hers. Oh, shit, they've got guns!"

But she was like the key demographic for Bushmaster.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Hey Joe, ignoring the fact that you are spewing propaganda doesn't alter the fact that it IS propaganda.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey Joe, ignoring the fact that you are spewing propaganda doesn't alter the fact that it IS propaganda.

Dude, I'm ignoring you because you are a crazy person.

The facts are the facts. Guns in the home are more dangerous to the people in the home. Kellerman proved this. The Harvard study proves this.

The fact that other G-7 countries that either ban or severly limit private gun ownership and have a fraction of our murder rate proves this.

The only ones doing propaganda is the NRA, which has a financial interest in gun sales...

 

[Seawytch]

A couple of our resident gun nuts have argued that a gun is a great equalizer between criminals and women, and if you don't support the right of Nancy Lanza to buy an AR-15, you don't care about women.

Conservatives should avoid emotional arguments. They suck at them.

Here's the reality.

Gayle Trotter's fantasies of fighting off violent men don't have anything to do with women's realities.

The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an "equalizer" is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women. Most violence against women is perpetrated by men the victim knows in situations that are intimate or social, where guns aren't usually out. If someone during a domestic violence incident scrambles for the gun, it's rarely going to be the person who doesn't want this situation to get more violent. It's particularly outrageous for Trotter to float this line of nonsense so soon after the headline-grabbing murder of Kasandra Perkins. Having guns in the house didn't save her, and if Jovan Belcher hadn't been able to unload nine bullets into her by simply grabbing a gun on hand, it's likely she'd still be alive.


The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

Ironically, this Trotter woman is opposed to the Violence Against Women Act.