Is It Time For At Least Some To "Woman Up And Disarm"?

[MobBoss]

It's not that they live in constant fear per se, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is a prevalent concern.

Right, i'm just countering Forms allegation that the primary reason women carry a firearm is because they are afraid they'll be raped. Big difference in being 'concerned' about it and being compelled to carry a weapon because of it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You don't seem to understand the difference between "a primary reason" and "THE primary reason". Gee, what a surprise that you would again misinterpret my basic English sentences.

Not to mention it still doesn't equate to your absurd hyperbolic straw man. Again, why don't you discuss the topic instead of incessantly discussing me?

Besides, what actual proof do you have that fear of crime isn't THE primary reason? What reason do you think there is for so many essentially incompetent people with dubious excuses to now be carrying handguns with them wherever they go, thanks to it now being far too easy to get a concealed carry permit? Because they are wannabe vigilante stealth cops?

 

[LightSpectra]

You could ask this woman, who had the experience yesterday.

Thank you.

Any more like this?

 

[kochman]

It's funny the gun grabbers keep screaming about that people who own guns only do it out of fear...
Yet, in their own fear... try to tell people that guns are so scary and we should take them away from everyone.

Awesome emotional knee jerk article post Formy!

Anyhow, have you worked up the courage to have a beer with me yet?

 

[MobBoss]

Besides, what actual proof do you have that fear of crime isn't THE primary reason?

I posted a link earlier, which is one more than you have in support of your own position.

 

[kochman]

The lady who wrote this, who is at least attractive (was) in those shooting goggles, is a moron, by the way.
One guy tells her, guns are for cowards.
You know what, if you are a woman, you have every right to be scared... women get the short end of the stick way more than they deserve... they are the ones getting raped and overpowered the overwhelming majority of the time.

But she should just "buck up" and accept the rape if it is coming her way.

Again, great article Formy. It's all about conquering fear and submitting to your weaker position, silly woman! It sounds like someone brainwashed by the Koran would think...

 

[LightSpectra]

No-no, you absurd misogynist. Didn't you know that all of the women who protected themselves from sexual assault using a gun were only doing so because they have a primeval love of "destruction veiled as protection"?

Sheesh, talk about victim blaming. At least the abominable monsters that say "pfft, she wanted it" don't pretend to take a moral high ground.

What Orwellian logic it is, that those called misogynists in our culture are the ones who advocate that women be able to protect themselves on the same level that men are able to exploit them, and it's considered gender equity that they have to depend on a male-dominated police force; oh, and that anybody who doesn't patriotically crusade for the right to kill babies in the womb are women-haters.

 

[kochman]

No-no, you absurd misogynist. Didn't you know that all of the women who protected themselves from sexual assault using a gun were only doing so because they have a primeval love of "destruction veiled as protection"?

This whole concept of disarming women really suits the rapists fine, I would imagine.

http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics

Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, the survey found that 1 in 6 women had experienced an attempted rape or a completed rape.

If we have 150 million women in the country... well, that's only a handful of victims. Definitely not worth maintaining the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
How selfish are these women anyway?

They should "woman up" and "disarm"...

 

[Akka]

You see, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but I think your question proves that some lines are simply more reasonable than others.

Refusing to have an item that can kill with the touch of a fingher and enhances agressivity and the illusion of power, seems a pretty reasonable line to be drawn.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No-no, you absurd misogynist. Didn't you know that all of the women who protected themselves from sexual assault using a gun were only doing so because they have a primeval love of "destruction veiled as protection"?

Nice straw man. And are you really calling the female author of the article a "misogynist"?

You seem to think that women arming themselves makes far more sense than taking proactive measures to largely reduce rape in the first place. Measures which are frequently opposed by Republican legislators who advocate gun ownership instead while slashing governmental funding for such programs.

Take even female Republican South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, for example. She just vetoed half a million dollars that was slated to go to rape crisis centers in her own state.

Haley explained these vetoes in the Department of Health and Environmental Control budget by writing, “Each of these lines attempts to serve a portion of our population for which we extend our sympathy and encouragement, but nevertheless, it is only a small portion of South Carolina’s chronically ill or abused. Overall, these special add-on lines distract from the agency’s broader mission of protecting South Carolina’s public health.”

What a sweetheart. Perhaps she should suggest they all carry handguns instead.

I find it revealing that apparently none of the rape prevention sites that cater to women on the internet suggest they get concealed carry permits. At least I can't find any. Some "law and order" advocates should take up the slack and provide them information regarding this important crime prevention tip.

I also find it revealing that rape in the US was 28 times higher in 2009 than it was in Canada, despite concealed carry permits being nearly non-existent in that country. That the per capital rape percentage was slightly higher than England and Wales where the same is also true. I wonder what the Canadians do that makes it so much lower?

 

[kochman]

Nice straw man. And are you really calling the female author of the article a "misogynist"?

Well, she's the one suggesting women just give up on defending themselves and face the rape... so, yeah.
Right in the same category as talking about "legitimate rape" really.

You can be prejudice/discriminatory against your own kind too, you know.
She may not realize it, but this whole article is based in misogyny.

 

[MobBoss]

Refusing to have an item that can kill with the touch of a fingher and enhances agressivity and the illusion of power, seems a pretty reasonable line to be drawn.

I was born and raised into gun culture in the middle of the South. I was shooting guns regularly by the time I was 8 years old. Everyone I knew owned a gun if not several.

Not once as a kid did we have school shootings, people killed with the touch of a finger, or enhanced agressiveness w/illusions of power.

Why was that do you ask? We were taught to respect the gun and what it can do; and we were also taught to respect authority.

We've had guns for a long, long time now. These mass shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon. So whats changed? Hasnt been the guns.

 

[emzie]

I was born and raised into gun culture in the middle of the South. I was shooting guns regularly by the time I was 8 years old. Everyone I knew owned a gun if not several.

Not once as a kid did we have school shootings, people killed with the touch of a finger, or enhanced agressiveness w/illusions of power.

Why was that do you ask? We were taught to respect the gun and what it can do; and we were also taught to respect authority.

We've had guns for a long, long time now. These mass shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon. So whats changed? Hasnt been the guns.

What guns were you shooting though? Growing up in rural Ohio, there were a lot of guns sure, but they were shotguns, hunting rifles and to a lesser extent, handguns.

I'm not sure when AR15s hit the market and rose in popularity, but an M1 was used in the University of Texas shooting in the 60s.

Nevermind that mass shootings aren't actually new. Aside from the University of Texas example I just mentioned, there was the McDonald's massacre that killed more than 20. I'm sure wikipedia has a page on it.

And while the specific guns themselves aren't new, their place in culture certainly is. Man-card renewal and all. Does media have a place in that? Of course. Is it a bit weird that the US freaks out if a nipple is on TV but we see a lot of gun fights on crime / military procedural shows and most people don't mind? I'd say yes. So yes, culture has changed from viewing guns with respect to viewing guns as cool or status symbols. Does that mean we just continue to view the guns as not part of the problem though? Do we really need millions of AR15s out there without asking the owner to prove they're not a nutter and that they're competent? Why must gun violence be addressed from every angle BUT the guns themselves? As a former gun owner and a prospective gun owner today, I don't get why responsible gun owners such as yourself are so against setting rules about gun ownership because they fear their own rights might be infringed down the line. If it's easy for you, a responsible citizen, to get a gun then it's just as easy for an irresponsible party to get the same gun.

 

[MobBoss]

Again, the only real difference in an AR15 and a traditional semi-auto hunting rifle of the same caliber is purely cosmetic. One just 'looks' military.

Also Whitman, the UT shooter, had a whole arsenal of weapons he used that day to kill people with. Pistols, a shotgun and several hunting rifles in addition to the M1.

And I have to disagree about your gun culture remark. Guns have been a part of our culture even prior to the formation of the nation. Thats certainly not anything new at all.

Also, gun violence is pertty much only addressed in one angle only: gun bans. What is needed is far more emphasis on the user instead of the tool.

And I already mentioned in another thread I dont own a gun. I'd like to some time in the future, but not at the moment.

If it's easy for you, a responsible citizen, to get a gun then it's just as easy for an irresponsible party to get the same gun.

Actually, its probably easier for the less responsible person to get it because they might be willing to break the law to procure it. That being the case, thats why gun bans inevitably wont work in this nation. I'd be like trying to ban alcohol.

 

[kochman]

I'm not sure when AR15s hit the market and rose in popularity, but an M1 was used in the University of Texas shooting in the 60s.

He used the Remington 700 to do his shootings from the tower. He finally used the M1 when the police stormed him... didn't do any good.

Nevermind that mass shootings aren't actually new. Aside from the University of Texas example I just mentioned, there was the McDonald's massacre that killed more than 20. I'm sure wikipedia has a page on it.

He wasn't using a semi-automatic rifle. He used an Uzi machine pistol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre#Massacre

And while the specific guns themselves aren't new, their place in culture certainly is. Man-card renewal and all. Does media have a place in that? Of course. Is it a bit weird that the US freaks out if a nipple is on TV but we see a lot of gun fights on crime / military procedural shows and most people don't mind? I'd say yes.

Yes, I agree completely... which is why I agree that we do need to restrict access... but banning all people from having it isn't the answer. That's what Obama et al want to do.

Because our culture has glorified violence, we need to adjust... because we know we won't get any respect from Hollywood about chilling it out, or video game makers, etc... Violence sells, and we want capitalism. We have to take it with all its warts and pimples. We have to adjust to the consequences of what us having capitalism means.

Do we really need millions of AR15s out there without asking the owner to prove they're not a nutter and that they're competent?

We should have tighter restrictions to own, but that isn't what is going on here. We are getting a complete removal of the guns from the system.

I don't get why responsible gun owners such as yourself are so against setting rules about gun ownership because they fear their own rights might be infringed down the line. If it's easy for you, a responsible citizen, to get a gun then it's just as easy for an irresponsible party to get the same gun.

I agree... however, what you are suggesting isn't what the gun grabbers here in the USA are going for... everything that has been floated so far will lead to the removal of all semi-auto rifles and pistols (1 "military characteristic" is way to strict) from the people within the lives of one generation.

That's the problem, and why responsible gun owners get pissed... because there has been these lax laws and more importantly, poor enforcement of the laws we do have (hell, our own government was selling guns to Mexico with the intent on then doing studies on the violence it causes... amazingly ridiculous and devious)... and something happens... the knee jerk reaction we see, again and again, TAKE THE GUNS AWAY!

But the guns they want to take away aren't the guns used in these incidents. And they barely mention restrictions.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, mass shootings are not a "relatively recent phenomenon". They have actually been declining since their peak in 1929.

The use of assault weapons to kill even more people is though. And so is the use of extended capacity magazines.

 

[LightSpectra]

Nice straw man. And are you really calling the female author of the article a "misogynist"?

Why not? Half the people on this board are happy to call pro-life women "misogynists", that seems to be the meaning of the word when it's convenient.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Name one and provide a source.

 

[kochman]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, mass shootings are not a "relatively recent phenomenon". They have actually been declining since their peak in 1929.

The use of assault weapons to kill even more people is though. And so is the use of extended capacity magazines.

As has been pointed out, semi-automatic rifles have absolutely NOT been used in more mass shootings... Period.
If you think I am wrong, please show me. I've shown you how every example where people think it was a Semi-Auto Rifle, which you've personally railed about, was used was actually not a Semi-Auto Rifle issue... including CT, the AR-15 was in the car the whole time.
People don't use them because they can't hide them effectively.

Some of the incidents have included LCMs, however, just as many didn't. That's not an issue at all... because if you think reloading a semi-automatic, which is designed for nearly effortless and rapid reload, is going to stop these guys, you aren't paying attention to the facts of the matter.

Let's take the Uzi incident of the San Ysidro McD's massacre.
Nearly 300 rounds were fired. That's a lot of magazine changes, no matter the capacity.

 

[LightSpectra]

Name one and provide a source.

Post #28 on this page? That's the only post which explicitly says it, but the whole thread is full of accusing pro-life women of being stupid and/or misogynists themselves.