92% of all women killed with guns in high-income countries in 2015 were from the US.
In 2015:
800-1000 women are killed with guns.
220 are killed with knives
300 are killed with other
Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that the abusive partner will kill his female victim.
4.5 million women have reported being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.
I'm reminded of a a political advertisement that I saw, long ago, intended to promote the position of hoplophobic pussies such as yourself—supporting some gun proposal that was in the works at the time.
It depicts a woman who has fled an abusive relationship, but now her abusive former husband/boyfriend/whatever is banging on her door, trying to break in and yelling threats.
We're intended to believe that the proposal under consideration is necessary in order to insure that the abuser now trying to break into this woman's home doesn't have a gun.
It seems to me that this advertisement did an astounding job of missing its very own point.
In general, men are bigger and stronger and better at the use of violence, than women. If the man in this advertisement had managed to break through the door, then he would not have needed a weapon to inflict further harm on the woman.
The proposal intended to insure that he wouldn't have a gun (as if criminals would obey any such law anyway) would also insure that
she didn't have a gun, and if she did have a gun, in the situation described in this advertisement, she would have been easily able to defend herself.
If your daughter is in an abusive relationship, and there's a gun in the house, tell her to gtfo.
One again, an important point is being missed.
If a woman is in an abusive relationshit, with a man who is so abusive that there is a credible risk that he might try to kill her or otherwise inflict serious harm on her, then she needs to GTFO, regardless of any weapons that the man may or may not have. It's not the gun that is a threat to her life or safety; it is the abusive asshole who is the threat.
