CDZ Women should embrace both owning and carrying guns as acts of personal empowerment.

[Pop23]

All you had to do is read my posts to see the math. You don’t and that’s your problem not mine.

Ignored

Translation: I made the whole thing up and ignored 20,000 lives lost in the process. Got it.

Translation: I can’t argue with Pops numbers so I’ll try to save face by asking for them 2 dozen more times. Got it

I was really trying to understand where you got your ratio. Surely you know there are not 300,000,000 gun owners in the US; right? It’s more like 100 million. Surely you know that the topic is about female gun owners so the ratio is even less; right? Surely, you know that the 20,000 people who kill themselves with guns almost always had another avenue to pursue to kill themselves but chose a gun so their deaths are relevant to the discussion at hand; right?

Of course you don’t. Sucks to be you.

Dumbass, you know that gun owners aren’t the lone individuals killed in gun accidents? Right?

Car owners aren’t the only ones killed in car accidents.

So to be statistically valid it is the odds anyone dies in said accident.

Get a grip and grow the hell up.

Damn you’re dense. We were talking about brining a gun into the home for safety; hence gun owners. Unless you happen to live in a commune, it’s pretty much limited to you and you’re family.

You really are stupid.

So let’s look at it your way.

You’re chances of an accidental shooting, if you own a gun and it’s in your home is:

1.55 in roughly 100,000,000

Feel better now Sally?

And you’re freaking out about that?

How the hell do you function on a daily basis?

 

[candycorn]

Translation: I made the whole thing up and ignored 20,000 lives lost in the process. Got it.

Translation: I can’t argue with Pops numbers so I’ll try to save face by asking for them 2 dozen more times. Got it

I was really trying to understand where you got your ratio. Surely you know there are not 300,000,000 gun owners in the US; right? It’s more like 100 million. Surely you know that the topic is about female gun owners so the ratio is even less; right? Surely, you know that the 20,000 people who kill themselves with guns almost always had another avenue to pursue to kill themselves but chose a gun so their deaths are relevant to the discussion at hand; right?

Of course you don’t. Sucks to be you.

Dumbass, you know that gun owners aren’t the lone individuals killed in gun accidents? Right?

Car owners aren’t the only ones killed in car accidents.

So to be statistically valid it is the odds anyone dies in said accident.

Get a grip and grow the hell up.

Damn you’re dense. We were talking about brining a gun into the home for safety; hence gun owners. Unless you happen to live in a commune, it’s pretty much limited to you and you’re family.

You really are stupid.

So let’s look at it your way.

You’re chances of an accidental shooting, if you own a gun and it’s in your home is:

1.55 in roughly 100,000,000

Feel better now Sally?

And you’re freaking out about that?

How the hell do you function on a daily basis?

So you really thought there were 300M gun owners??? You’re actually dumber than I thought and that is saying something.

 

[Pop23]

Translation: I can’t argue with Pops numbers so I’ll try to save face by asking for them 2 dozen more times. Got it

I was really trying to understand where you got your ratio. Surely you know there are not 300,000,000 gun owners in the US; right? It’s more like 100 million. Surely you know that the topic is about female gun owners so the ratio is even less; right? Surely, you know that the 20,000 people who kill themselves with guns almost always had another avenue to pursue to kill themselves but chose a gun so their deaths are relevant to the discussion at hand; right?

Of course you don’t. Sucks to be you.

Dumbass, you know that gun owners aren’t the lone individuals killed in gun accidents? Right?

Car owners aren’t the only ones killed in car accidents.

So to be statistically valid it is the odds anyone dies in said accident.

Get a grip and grow the hell up.

Damn you’re dense. We were talking about brining a gun into the home for safety; hence gun owners. Unless you happen to live in a commune, it’s pretty much limited to you and you’re family.

You really are stupid.

So let’s look at it your way.

You’re chances of an accidental shooting, if you own a gun and it’s in your home is:

1.55 in roughly 100,000,000

Feel better now Sally?

And you’re freaking out about that?

How the hell do you function on a daily basis?

So you really thought there were 300M gun owners??? You’re actually dumber than I thought and that is saying something.

No dumbass. And you are simply a troll.

Grow the fuck up

Only a pussy is afraid of such long odds.

Get it pussy?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Surely you know that the topic is about female gun owners so the ratio is even less; right?

If I may interject into your conversation a bit I'd like to point out that there is a significant difference between bringing a weapon into a home with an existing domestic violence situation as opposed to one where there is not. And it's because it's damn near impossible to secure that weapon from your abuser when you live together. The victim has to sleep, and shower and sometimes ferry children back & forth to school or go places where the weapon is not allowed. There are a ton of logistics involved with using a firearm for protection for a female who is in a domestic violence, stalking or other situation where she may be the victim of a crime (threats made to witnesses to intimidate them from testifying, etc.).

The preferred solution is to help the victims find a safe way out of the situation first & foremost however if a firearm is desired because the perpetrator refuses to cease & desist their unlawful activities, we should be supporting these women (and men) and seeing to it that they gain the training, competency and confidence needed to efficiently defend their lives. The truth of the matter however is that a determined abuser will use whatever means necessary to take out their target and it's no reflection on the victim if they are unable to prevent them from achieving that goal, firearm or not.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So you really thought there were 300M gun owners??? You’re actually dumber than I thought and that is saying something.

It's always been reported that there are roughtly the same amount of guns in the U.S. for every man, woman & child. The present population of the U.S. is around 320,000,000. That's probably where he got that number.
A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear

 

[candycorn]

So you really thought there were 300M gun owners??? You’re actually dumber than I thought and that is saying something.

It's always been reported that there are roughtly the same amount of guns in the U.S. for every man, woman & child. The present population of the U.S. is around 320,000,000. That's probably where he got that number.
A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear

Correct. When we talk about fatal accidents, the number of owners is the prime factor; not the amount of guns they own.
In the context of the thread and overall safety (i.e. empowerment), one cannot ignore the 20,000 gun deaths by suicide since they almost always had other means available (and most likely did before they plunked down 50-400 bucks on a gun)

 

[candycorn]

Surely you know that the topic is about female gun owners so the ratio is even less; right?

If I may interject into your conversation a bit I'd like to point out that there is a significant difference between bringing a weapon into a home with an existing domestic violence situation as opposed to one where there is not. And it's because it's damn near impossible to secure that weapon from your abuser when you live together. The victim has to sleep, and shower and sometimes ferry children back & forth to school or go places where the weapon is not allowed. There are a ton of logistics involved with using a firearm for protection for a female who is in a domestic violence, stalking or other situation where she may be the victim of a crime (threats made to witnesses to intimidate them from testifying, etc.).

The preferred solution is to help the victims find a safe way out of the situation first & foremost however if a firearm is desired because the perpetrator refuses to cease & desist their unlawful activities, we should be supporting these women (and men) and seeing to it that they gain the training, competency and confidence needed to efficiently defend their lives. The truth of the matter however is that a determined abuser will use whatever means necessary to take out their target and it's no reflection on the victim if they are unable to prevent them from achieving that goal, firearm or not.

Good post. I would suggest using your funds to relocate instead of buying a gun and hoping you have it on you when the need arises due to the environment you live in.

 

[MaryL]

Empowering whom? The Gun manufacturers and their lackeys, the NRA?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

one cannot ignore the 20,000 gun deaths by suicide since they almost always had other means available

People choosing a tool of convenience to end their own lives shouldn't adversely impact the rights of those who do not unlawfully use their firearms.

It's not that I don't have compassion for others or those that they leave behind, it's more like the difference between a person losing their life in an automobile accident and losing it to the deliberate act of another person utilizing their vehicle as a weapon. The police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an "accident".

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I would suggest using your funds to relocate instead of buying a gun and hoping you have it on you when the need arises due to the environment you live in.

It always blows me away when the first response to a victim is to completely upend their life instead of taking measures to restrict the perpetrator. Not everyone can afford to move particularly when the person after them just continues to violate the law no matter where the victim is.

In my state, they've just passed an "extreme risk protection order" which can be used to remove the weapons from certain individuals without going through the normal due process channels. The police here have utilized it in a few cases which showed up in the news but I have concerns that a particularly crafty criminal will attempt to use it to disarm their victim so that they can continue their aggression and crimes without worry about being shot or killed.

 

[candycorn]

one cannot ignore the 20,000 gun deaths by suicide since they almost always had other means available

People choosing a tool of convenience to end their own lives shouldn't adversely impact the rights of those who do not unlawfully use their firearms.

It's not that I don't have compassion for others or those that they leave behind, it's more like the difference between a person losing their life in an automobile accident and losing it to the deliberate act of another person utilizing their vehicle as a weapon. The police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an "accident".

True. The Police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an accident. Neither do I.

Did the person who decided to bring a gun into their house have a means to kill themselves before they made the decision? True.
Did the person who decided to kill themselves use a gun instead of the other means in the 20,000 statistic? True.
Did the person above still have other means but chose the gun because it was quick, effective, and supposedly painless? Probably.

So the stat is relevant.

The point is that if the gun wasn't there, they wouldn't have committed suicide. You can draw that conclusion because they had the means previously and chose not to. It is true that person's situations do change over time so there is that.

Now, you mentioned rights. Let me state again, that I do not want to prevent people from buying guns, owning guns, shooting guns, etc... In some rural areas of the nation where there is 100 miles (or more) to the nearest police station and it may be staffed by one officer; it would be irresponsible not to have some form of protection. My position is that the gun doesn't make you safer statistically. If the nearest cop is 100 miles away; I'll take my chances. If I'm in most areas where folks live, I wouldn't. That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe.

 

[candycorn]

I would suggest using your funds to relocate instead of buying a gun and hoping you have it on you when the need arises due to the environment you live in.

It always blows me away when the first response to a victim is to completely upend their life instead of taking measures to restrict the perpetrator. Not everyone can afford to move particularly when the person after them just continues to violate the law no matter where the victim is.

In my state, they've just passed an "extreme risk protection order" which can be used to remove the weapons from certain individuals without going through the normal due process channels. The police here have utilized it in a few cases which showed up in the news but I have concerns that a particularly crafty criminal will attempt to use it to disarm their victim so that they can continue their aggression and crimes without worry about being shot or killed.

That wouldn't be my first response.

 

[Pop23]

I would suggest using your funds to relocate instead of buying a gun and hoping you have it on you when the need arises due to the environment you live in.

It always blows me away when the first response to a victim is to completely upend their life instead of taking measures to restrict the perpetrator. Not everyone can afford to move particularly when the person after them just continues to violate the law no matter where the victim is.

In my state, they've just passed an "extreme risk protection order" which can be used to remove the weapons from certain individuals without going through the normal due process channels. The police here have utilized it in a few cases which showed up in the news but I have concerns that a particularly crafty criminal will attempt to use it to disarm their victim so that they can continue their aggression and crimes without worry about being shot or killed.

Don’t worry, candycorn has no interest in reality and will come back dozens of times with the same question.

As for my numbers. What are the odds that on any given day you will die from an accidental gun shot.

The answer is 1.55 in 300,000,000

505 accidental deaths from accidental gun shots per year in a country of 327,000,000 = 1.55 per 300,000,000

That is a fact

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

My position is that the gun doesn't make you safer statistically.

You mean me specifically, females or just generally?

That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe.

The psychology is that a person who carries has the means to immediately terminate a life at the tips of their fingers. Knowing when you can lawfully utilize that weapon is also psychological. I think this is what makes most people who are anti-gun uncomfortable because they have no choice but to trust that the person who is lawfully armed not only knows the difference but has the integrity to only utilize it under the appropriate circumstances. I would venture to say that trust is just not there when it comes to lawful gun owners while they seem to be completely oblivious to all of the unlawful gun owners running around (also known as criminals if they're unlawfully in possession of said weapon)

So to help the anti-gun crowd understand the difference between the two it really just comes done to this - if a person uses their weapon to coerce or threaten a person into doing anything that they don't want to do or are otherwise not legally obliged to do (turn over their wallet, keys, wife, children, virtue, etc.) then that's a criminal use of a firearm. On the other hand if a person uses their weapon to prevent the criminal from attempting to force compliance with any of his/her demands, even if it comes down to having to use lethal force, then that's what self-defense is all about.

I'll admit, not everyone who is legally allowed to possess a weapon should be in possession, but going after the firearms of those who are legally allowed and don't have a history of mishaps with firearm or of making threats or violence (domestic violence or stalking) shouldn't be penalized for the idiots in our midst. Weed out the obviously bad actors first, then we can talk about everything else, in my humble opinion.

 

[candycorn]

My position is that the gun doesn't make you safer statistically.

You mean me specifically, females or just generally?

That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe.

The psychology is that a person who carries has the means to immediately terminate a life at the tips of their fingers. Knowing when you can lawfully utilize that weapon is also psychological. I think this is what makes most people who are anti-gun uncomfortable because they have no choice but to trust that the person who is lawfully armed not only knows the difference but has the integrity to only utilize it under the appropriate circumstances. I would venture to say that trust is just not there when it comes to lawful gun owners while they seem to be completely oblivious to all of the unlawful gun owners running around (also known as criminals if they're unlawfully in possession of said weapon)

So to help the anti-gun crowd understand the difference between the two it really just comes done to this - if a person uses their weapon to coerce or threaten a person into doing anything that they don't want to do or are otherwise not legally obliged to do (turn over their wallet, keys, wife, children, virtue, etc.) then that's a criminal use of a firearm. On the other hand if a person uses their weapon to prevent the criminal from attempting to force compliance with any of his/her demands, even if it comes down to having to use lethal force, then that's what self-defense is all about.

I'll admit, not everyone who is legally allowed to possess a weapon should be in possession, but going after the firearms of those who are legally allowed and don't have a history of mishaps with firearm or of making threats or violence (domestic violence or stalking) shouldn't be penalized for the idiots in our midst. Weed out the obviously bad actors first, then we can talk about everything else, in my humble opinion.

The data is for all gun owners.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The data is for all gun owners.

But every gun owner is not like every other gun owner nor are the reasons for owning or carrying the same.

Furthermore, safety and self-defense are not the same thing. Alarms and cameras are safety measures to alert a home owner that his perimeter has been breached but they do nothing to help defend the owner's life other than giving him a heads up. The weapon is what is used for defense.

 

[koshergrl]

Empowering whom? The Gun manufacturers and their lackeys, the NRA?

You don't think battered women should have the ability to defend themselves?

We know who the real misogynists are. The ones who authorize Planned Parenthood to abuse women and facilitate human trafficking and sexual abuse...and the ones who want to deny women the right to defend themselves from their stalkers.

Leftists ALWAYS protect wife beaters, rapists, and butchers. They despise women and they work hard to make sure they can be fully victimized.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The preferred solution is to help the victims find a safe way out of the situation first & foremost however

No, that's one obvious solution given there's an identifiable victim of violence actually seeking help as opposed to say: two abusers, both screaming bloody murder about the other daily, but never actually doing a thing more to resolve the problem,... for example.

if a firearm is desired because the perpetrator refuses to cease & desist their unlawful activities, we should

Refer to said "unlawful" "perpetrators" properly as "criminals", arrest them, charge them with violent crimes, and remove them not just from the household, but from society at large. Obviously. Well, apparently not so much to you because. lemme guess, you're here "first & foremost" to promote guns and otherwise don't really give a rat's ass. Correct?

 

[2aguy]

one cannot ignore the 20,000 gun deaths by suicide since they almost always had other means available

People choosing a tool of convenience to end their own lives shouldn't adversely impact the rights of those who do not unlawfully use their firearms.

It's not that I don't have compassion for others or those that they leave behind, it's more like the difference between a person losing their life in an automobile accident and losing it to the deliberate act of another person utilizing their vehicle as a weapon. The police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an "accident".

True. The Police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an accident. Neither do I.

Did the person who decided to bring a gun into their house have a means to kill themselves before they made the decision? True.
Did the person who decided to kill themselves use a gun instead of the other means in the 20,000 statistic? True.
Did the person above still have other means but chose the gun because it was quick, effective, and supposedly painless? Probably.

So the stat is relevant.

The point is that if the gun wasn't there, they wouldn't have committed suicide. You can draw that conclusion because they had the means previously and chose not to. It is true that person's situations do change over time so there is that.

Now, you mentioned rights. Let me state again, that I do not want to prevent people from buying guns, owning guns, shooting guns, etc... In some rural areas of the nation where there is 100 miles (or more) to the nearest police station and it may be staffed by one officer; it would be irresponsible not to have some form of protection. My position is that the gun doesn't make you safer statistically. If the nearest cop is 100 miles away; I'll take my chances. If I'm in most areas where folks live, I wouldn't. That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe.

The point is that if the gun wasn't there, they wouldn't have committed suicide.


You can't even say that with any degree of intelligence......countries with extreme gun control, Japan, Korea, China, where only criminals and cops can have guns have higher suicide rates than we do.....and then this...

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

And you can't say this either...

That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe

No...statistics do not show this......if you are a criminal, an alcoholic, a drug user than having a gun is a problem...but normal, law abiding people with guns in their home are not less safe.....

 

[koshergrl]

The preferred solution is to help the victims find a safe way out of the situation first & foremost however

No, that's one obvious solution given there's an identifiable victim of violence actually seeking help as opposed to say: two abusers, both screaming bloody murder about the other daily, but never actually doing a thing more to resolve the problem,... for example.

if a firearm is desired because the perpetrator refuses to cease & desist their unlawful activities, we should

Refer to said "unlawful" "perpetrators" properly as "criminals", arrest them, charge them with violent crimes, and remove them not just from the household, but from society at large. Obviously. Well, apparently not so much to you because. lemme guess, you're here "first & foremost" to promote guns and otherwise don't really give a rat's ass. Correct?

So you think the victim and the perpetrator should be arrested and released.

How does that protect the victim?