Woman uses gun to stop violent ex from attacking her, anti gunners are sad.

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So which would you prefer, this woman being able to defend herself but 11,000 people dying, or the reverse?

You're saying that you would prefer that this woman had become the 11,001st gun death victim than for her to have been able to save her own life? Self-preservation is the strongest instinct of every living being even though our society has done a damn good job in trying to brainwash us into believing that our lives aren't worth preserving if the method of doing so makes others uncomfortable or unhappy, even when we've done nothing unlawful.

Surely there is someone whom you care enough about that you would use lethal force to protect if you had to? I mean I understand the sentiment that we shouldn't have to live in a society where guns are so prevelant but they are and they're not going anywhere so we need to be knowledgeable and prepared for whatever the future may hold. And this woman was in her home so she had ever right to have a weapon in her living space for self defense. What would you have prefered she used to defend herself? If she could have inflicted the same amount of damage with a knife would you have been okay with that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So which would you prefer, this woman being able to defend herself but 11,000 people dying, or the reverse?

You're saying that you would prefer that this woman had become the 11,001st gun death victim than for her to have been able to save her own life? Self-preservation is the strongest instinct of every living being even though our society has done a damn good job in trying to brainwash us into believing that our lives aren't worth preserving if the method of doing so makes others uncomfortable or unhappy, even when we've done nothing unlawful.

Surely there is someone whom you care enough about that you would use lethal force to protect if you had to? I mean I understand the sentiment that we shouldn't have to live in a society where guns are so prevelant but they are and they're not going anywhere so we need to be knowledgeable and prepared for whatever the future may hold. And this woman was in her home so she had ever right to have a weapon in her living space for self defense. What would you have prefered she used to defend herself? If she could have inflicted the same amount of damage with a knife would you have been okay with that?

No, I'm clearly not saying that.

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I think people should be able to defend themselves, but Alaska with all its guns has the highest rape rate in the US.

There's not a steady correlation, the problem with rape statistics is they don't show all rape. They show what has been recorded. But Alaska's is HIGH.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There's not a steady correlation, the problem with rape statistics is they don't show all rape. They show what has been recorded. But Alaska's is HIGH.

That's an interesting piece of information about Alaska. My first thought was that maybe the isolation there has something to do with it or maybe the majority of those armed are men?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero

I don't really have time right now to go into the bolded portion above, but I've been pondering your question ever since you posed it. I'd be happy to continue this conversation tomorrow or at a more convenient time but acknowledging or accepting that she would have suffered is simply not acceptable.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, by definition, no matter what anyone says, those of us who are not saddened by this are not "anti-gunners". We can still have our opinions and not be castigated with this term. Good.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, she stopped violence, and 11,000 people have to die so she can stop this?

11,000 don't have to die for someone to lawfully own and use a firearm to defend themselves.

Nevertheless they do die.

By your "logic" every man is responsible for every rape simply because all men have penises

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, she stopped violence, and 11,000 people have to die so she can stop this?

I don't understand your correlation. What does being a crime victim have to do with this woman doing what she could to ensure that she didn't become another domestic violence statistic?

This is the same old flawed logic Weirdo has been using

If you own a gun you are responsible for the crimes other people commit with guns.

 

[2aguy]

So, she stopped violence, and 11,000 people have to die so she can stop this?

I don't understand your correlation. What does being a crime victim have to do with this woman doing what she could to ensure that she didn't become another domestic violence statistic?

The point being made by the OP is that guns in society allowed this women to stop violence.

The very same guns in society end up leading to 11,000 deaths.

So which would you prefer, this woman being able to defend herself but 11,000 people dying, or the reverse?

So, again, by your post, you are saying it is better that this woman is raped, beaten and murdered rather than having that gun to defend herself..... my point is made.

As the CDC shows, Americans use their guns 2.4 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack every year. Those are rapes, robberies and murders stopped.

The Department of Justice research puts that number at 1.5 million times a year.

So, which number is bigger? 11,004 gun murders in 2016, or the million or more times guns are used to save lives each year.

and another fact.....As more Americans own and carry guns, our gun crime rates have gone down, not up...again, lives actually saved.

Again.... you have to explain how it is that with the theory that more guns = more crime....how gun crime rates went down in this country over 21 years as more Americans own and carry guns....please, explain how that happened...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

So, she stopped violence, and 11,000 people have to die so she can stop this?

I don't understand your correlation. What does being a crime victim have to do with this woman doing what she could to ensure that she didn't become another domestic violence statistic?

The point being made by the OP is that guns in society allowed this women to stop violence.

The very same guns in society end up leading to 11,000 deaths.

So which would you prefer, this woman being able to defend herself but 11,000 people dying, or the reverse?

And even more truth.... that shows you are flawed in your belief about guns and gun ownership.... of those 11,004 gun murder victims, 70-80% of the victims are not innocent people, but criminals engaged in criminal activity or lifestyle, and of the rest of the victims, many of them are freinds, family and other associates of the very criminals who shoot or are shot.

So.... you have shown in two posts that the point made in the original post is true. You would rather that this woman is beaten, raped or murdered instead of being allowed to own a gun to stop it....

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero

I don't really have time right now to go into the bolded portion above, but I've been pondering your question ever since you posed it. I'd be happy to continue this conversation tomorrow or at a more convenient time but acknowledging or accepting that she would have suffered is simply not acceptable.

Well, think about it in terms of statistics.

 

[2aguy]

So which would you prefer, this woman being able to defend herself but 11,000 people dying, or the reverse?

You're saying that you would prefer that this woman had become the 11,001st gun death victim than for her to have been able to save her own life? Self-preservation is the strongest instinct of every living being even though our society has done a damn good job in trying to brainwash us into believing that our lives aren't worth preserving if the method of doing so makes others uncomfortable or unhappy, even when we've done nothing unlawful.

Surely there is someone whom you care enough about that you would use lethal force to protect if you had to? I mean I understand the sentiment that we shouldn't have to live in a society where guns are so prevelant but they are and they're not going anywhere so we need to be knowledgeable and prepared for whatever the future may hold. And this woman was in her home so she had ever right to have a weapon in her living space for self defense. What would you have prefered she used to defend herself? If she could have inflicted the same amount of damage with a knife would you have been okay with that?

No, I'm clearly not saying that.

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I think people should be able to defend themselves, but Alaska with all its guns has the highest rape rate in the US.

There's not a steady correlation, the problem with rape statistics is they don't show all rape. They show what has been recorded. But Alaska's is HIGH.

Yes... in Alaska they have hunting rifles.... which are hard to carry around town, and difficult to access if they are locked up in a cabinet.

And here are the studies that show how often Americans use their guns to actually stop rape, robbery and murder...the statistic you don't want to acknowledge...the fact that Americans use their guns more often to stop crime and save lives than criminals use them to murder other criminals and some innocent people.

On top of that, governments around the world have murdered more, unarmed citizens in their countries than all the criminals combined...yet that doesn't figure into your reasoning either......

The studies...that you refuse to admit show you are wrong...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

So which would you prefer, this woman being able to defend herself but 11,000 people dying, or the reverse?

You're saying that you would prefer that this woman had become the 11,001st gun death victim than for her to have been able to save her own life? Self-preservation is the strongest instinct of every living being even though our society has done a damn good job in trying to brainwash us into believing that our lives aren't worth preserving if the method of doing so makes others uncomfortable or unhappy, even when we've done nothing unlawful.

Surely there is someone whom you care enough about that you would use lethal force to protect if you had to? I mean I understand the sentiment that we shouldn't have to live in a society where guns are so prevelant but they are and they're not going anywhere so we need to be knowledgeable and prepared for whatever the future may hold. And this woman was in her home so she had ever right to have a weapon in her living space for self defense. What would you have prefered she used to defend herself? If she could have inflicted the same amount of damage with a knife would you have been okay with that?

No, I'm clearly not saying that.

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I think people should be able to defend themselves, but Alaska with all its guns has the highest rape rate in the US.

There's not a steady correlation, the problem with rape statistics is they don't show all rape. They show what has been recorded. But Alaska's is HIGH.

Yes..... violent crime in Britain is sky rocketing....people are raped, robbed and murdered...but as long as the criminals, with guns....don't murder them, they citizen should be happy to be alive....accept the rape, the robbery and the murders that do happen, and just be glad that the wolves only pull down a few of the sheep at any one time.

So....women in the U.K. are being raped at higher levels than here in the U.S.....and that is a good thing because the best way to stop rape is for the woman to use a gun...and that just is not acceptable to frigid....who, in another post admits that it is better that a woman is violently raped, likely beaten, good chance of being murdered, rather than to stop it with a gun......

Psychologist Bemoans U.S. Gun Ownership, Admits Higher Level of Rape in Gun-Free U.K. | Breitbart

Dr. Rowell Huesmann criticized private gun ownership while speaking to President Donald Trump’s Federal Commission on School Safety. Afterward, he released written notes in which he admitted the level of rape in gun-free U.K. is higher than in the U.S.
-----

He wrote:

A comparison of the frequency of types of violence in the United States and the United Kingdom is illuminating in this regard. Contrary to what many think, well done studies have shown that the risk of being violently victimized in the United Kingdom has been higher than in the United States for most years since about 1995. That is true for assault, robbery, rape, and many other violent crimes, but it is not true of homicide, of firearm assault, or school shootings. Obviously, weapon availability makes a difference.

 

[2aguy]

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero

I don't really have time right now to go into the bolded portion above, but I've been pondering your question ever since you posed it. I'd be happy to continue this conversation tomorrow or at a more convenient time but acknowledging or accepting that she would have suffered is simply not acceptable.

this is happening in Britain... and the victims of these criminals....should just grin and bear it..no matter how life changing the attack is......that is what frigid is advocating.....

Thousands of violent and sexual crime suspects released without conditions

Thousands of suspects in violent and sexual crimes have been released without conditions since changes to police bail came into effect, it has been reported.

More than 3,000 people were released under investigation for offences such as murder and rape by 12 police forces over a three-month period, according to the BBC.

Figures released to the broadcaster under the Freedom of Information Act, covering April to June 2017, found these included 1,692 people arrested for violent crimes, 768 rape suspects and 31 questioned on suspicion of murder.

 

[2aguy]

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero

I don't really have time right now to go into the bolded portion above, but I've been pondering your question ever since you posed it. I'd be happy to continue this conversation tomorrow or at a more convenient time but acknowledging or accepting that she would have suffered is simply not acceptable.

And keep in mind..... in Britain....their criminals are using guns despite the ban and confiscation...so frigid doesn't even have a point about gun control since women are raped at higher levels than here in the U.S. and they don't even get an advantage in lower gun crime. The only reason that Britain has a lower gun murder rate than the U.S. is that British criminals do not pull the trigger, cross the line, and murder their victims with their illegal guns.

So they get more rape and violent crime, without any reduction in gun possession by criminals...

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

 

[2aguy]

In the UK she might have suffered, but there wouldn't have been 11,000 deaths, maybe one, maybe zero

I don't really have time right now to go into the bolded portion above, but I've been pondering your question ever since you posed it. I'd be happy to continue this conversation tomorrow or at a more convenient time but acknowledging or accepting that she would have suffered is simply not acceptable.

And here you see that Britain's gun control measures.....haven't reduced violence against innocent people....it has increased it, since their people can't use guns to stop criminals...that is the trade off for the innocent. Criminals still get guns....innocent people are victimized even more.....the only thing keeping them from getting murdered with illegal guns? The criminals simply don't pull the trigger with their illegal guns.....

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.




-------

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Well, think about it in terms of statistics.

The best that any of us can do is what we can to mitigate the damage and adverse impact in the event a tragic and unforeseen incident should occur. So I live my life prepared for the worse while striving for the best. I've done what I can to avoid becoming a crime victim statistic including moving to a state which respects my 2nd amendment rights, educating myself, training and doing what I can to assist others. It's not only morally wrong to take the position that any person should be willing to tolerate some harm to their person in order hypthetically for others to gain some advantage, but it's also not a valid legal premise nor is it ethical. If you have any doubts of this all you have to remember is George Bush's reaction when it was suggested that maybe his daughters should be subjected to water boarding when he stated it wasn't torture and "not that bad" or the visceral reaction that the Trump family had when someone suggested that perhaps Barron should be torn away from his family and tossed in a cage as this administration has done to the children of those at our southern border seeking asylum.

ANYTHING that anyone suggests it is okay to do to someone else, yet they go ballistic if anyone even in jest suggests that they or one of their loved ones be subjected to the same thing should be the only indicator that anyone should ever need to know that they are not only wrong but dishonest and oftentimes hypocritcs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, think about it in terms of statistics.

The best that any of us can do is what we can to mitigate the damage and adverse impact in the event a tragic and unforeseen incident should occur. So I live my life prepared for the worse while striving for the best. I've done what I can to avoid becoming a crime victim statistic including moving to a state which respects my 2nd amendment rights, educating myself, training and doing what I can to assist others. It's not only morally wrong to take the position that any person should be willing to tolerate some harm to their person in order hypthetically for others to gain some advantage, but it's also not a valid legal premise nor is it ethical. If you have any doubts of this all you have to remember is George Bush's reaction when it was suggested that maybe his daughters should be subjected to water boarding when he stated it wasn't torture and "not that bad" or the visceral reaction that the Trump family had when someone suggested that perhaps Barron should be torn away from his family and tossed in a cage as this administration has done to the children of those at our southern border seeking asylum.

ANYTHING that anyone suggests it is okay to do to someone else, yet they go ballistic if anyone even in jest suggests that they or one of their loved ones be subjected to the same thing should be the only indicator that anyone should ever need to know that they are not only wrong but dishonest and oftentimes hypocritcs.

Okay, but imagine that you have a choice of where to live. A place where you have a 1% chance of dying or a place where you have a 0.1% chance of dying.

You're less likely to have to deal with bad circumstances. You're less likely to need a tool to fight back with.

Even you yourself has said you'd move. But even with your a gun in your hand, you're more likely to die an early death than someone in say the UK.

I don't want people to have to suffer. But humans seem to like to make others suffer. With guns they do it far more efficiently than without.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Okay, but imagine that you have a choice of where to live. A place where you have a 1% chance of dying or a place where you have a 0.1% chance of dying.

You're less likely to have to deal with bad circumstances. You're less likely to need a tool to fight back with.

Even you yourself has said you'd move. But even with your a gun in your hand, you're more likely to die an early death than someone in say the UK.

I don't want people to have to suffer. But humans seem to like to make others suffer. With guns they do it far more efficiently than without.

There are some people who like to make others suffer with or without a gun however normal people are not afraid of those who are armed among us. That's one of the things that never made sense to me, the anti-gunners lament about legal gun owners who carry concealed because then they don't know who's carrying but also complain about people open carrying because they complain it's an intimidation tactic. So that says to me that the only real complaint is that they don't want anyone carrying at all so that when they commit their crimes they have greatly reduced their chance of getting injured or killed.

On the other hand, people plotting and carrying out criminal activity should and deserve to be concerned/worried about those who can lawfully end their lives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, think about it in terms of statistics.

The best that any of us can do is what we can to mitigate the damage and adverse impact in the event a tragic and unforeseen incident should occur. So I live my life prepared for the worse while striving for the best. I've done what I can to avoid becoming a crime victim statistic including moving to a state which respects my 2nd amendment rights, educating myself, training and doing what I can to assist others. It's not only morally wrong to take the position that any person should be willing to tolerate some harm to their person in order hypthetically for others to gain some advantage, but it's also not a valid legal premise nor is it ethical. If you have any doubts of this all you have to remember is George Bush's reaction when it was suggested that maybe his daughters should be subjected to water boarding when he stated it wasn't torture and "not that bad" or the visceral reaction that the Trump family had when someone suggested that perhaps Barron should be torn away from his family and tossed in a cage as this administration has done to the children of those at our southern border seeking asylum.

ANYTHING that anyone suggests it is okay to do to someone else, yet they go ballistic if anyone even in jest suggests that they or one of their loved ones be subjected to the same thing should be the only indicator that anyone should ever need to know that they are not only wrong but dishonest and oftentimes hypocritcs.

Okay, but imagine that you have a choice of where to live. A place where you have a 1% chance of dying or a place where you have a 0.1% chance of dying.

You're less likely to have to deal with bad circumstances. You're less likely to need a tool to fight back with.

Even you yourself has said you'd move. But even with your a gun in your hand, you're more likely to die an early death than someone in say the UK.

I don't want people to have to suffer. But humans seem to like to make others suffer. With guns they do it far more efficiently than without.

You assume the murder rate of the entire US is homogeneous when in reality 70% of all murders take place in very distinct areas in just a few urban areas

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, but imagine that you have a choice of where to live. A place where you have a 1% chance of dying or a place where you have a 0.1% chance of dying.

You're less likely to have to deal with bad circumstances. You're less likely to need a tool to fight back with.

Even you yourself has said you'd move. But even with your a gun in your hand, you're more likely to die an early death than someone in say the UK.

I don't want people to have to suffer. But humans seem to like to make others suffer. With guns they do it far more efficiently than without.

There are some people who like to make others suffer with or without a gun however normal people are not afraid of those who are armed among us. That's one of the things that never made sense to me, the anti-gunners lament about legal gun owners who carry concealed because then they don't know who's carrying but also complain about people open carrying because they complain it's an intimidation tactic. So that says to me that the only real complaint is that they don't want anyone carrying at all so that when they commit their crimes they have greatly reduced their chance of getting injured or killed.

On the other hand, people plotting and carrying out criminal activity should and deserve to be concerned/worried about those who can lawfully end their lives.

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if they actually were scared and that put them off. But it doesn't. People with guns tend to think they're invincible or something. Which causes problems.