Why These Women Don't Strap Up I'll Never Know

[MickeyW]

Call me old fashioned but I don't think women should ever try to be like men and I certainly wouldn't want them to be hard

Each to their own I suppose

I'd say that you were more than old fashioned.....you want people to be sheep and adore Nanny Govt.

My wife is the sweetest person I know, doesn't smoke, drink alcohol or swear....no ugly tats or body piercings at all....and always looks for the positive in people. But, unlike bloody liberals, she's a Conservative Republican and would have no qualms about shooting a POS who abused her, or someone else, in her presence. She is comfortable with any gun, handguns, rifles, or shotguns.
I'd imagine that would scare the crap out of you.

 

[faithful_servant]

You'll shower with a gun?????? :roll:

You're over-simplifying the situation. A gun won't protect you 24/7/365 for the rest of your life.
It'll improve your odds in many situations, but it's far from being THE ANSWER.

 

[Dragonfly]

Fail is the liberals' willingness to become victims instead of simply taking a gun into their hands to defend themselves.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because people who own guns are NEVER victims. :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because people who own guns are NEVER victims. :roll:

which is akin to saying those who exercise never have heart attacks and those who wear condoms never get STDs. all a gun does is increases your odds of surviving a violent attack. just like wearing a seatbelt increases your odds of surviving a head on collision

 

[calamity]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because people who own guns are NEVER victims. :roll:

I'd rather be George Zimmerman than Trayvon Martin. So...give me a gun, and I'll take my chances.

 

[flogger]

bull****

Your study is heavily biased toward guns owned by men who then use them to kill their partners. Women who own guns are probably at much less risk than women who are married to men who own them.

So why are your violence rates against women so much higher than ours ?

Clearly this whole gun ownership thing isn't working out viz women given they have by far the highest gun ownership in the developed world

 

[Fishking]

Ok.

But I am not going to get on board with yet another way we blame women for being assaulted and murdered.

Whatever she did or didn't do, she is not responsible for that. What if he broke in her window? What, she should just have her gun strapped to her person at all times in her home? Jesus, what if she decides to SLEEP sometime?

This is much more an argument for reforming the bond system and our judicial efficiency, than it is for why we should blame women for being assaulted and murdered.

I was going to say queue the "this is blaming the women" mantra but I'm already too late for that, obviously. There is nothing victim blaming about believing that taking measures to protect yourself is smart and reduces your chances of being a victim. No one is excusing the perpetrator.

I've been on two combat deployments. The first one was early Iraq and our vehicles were severely ill equipped to be rolling in that environment. We had humvees and other vehicles that had zero armor on them. Our "protective measures" was putting sand bags on the floorboards. That people died due to this was not victim blaming and then learning our lessons and having much better armored vehicles for my later deployment to Afghanistan is also not victim blaming.

You know what it is? It's doing what you can to prevent yourself from becoming a victim in the first place.

 

[flogger]

I'd say that you were more than old fashioned.....you want people to be sheep and adore Nanny Govt.

My wife is the sweetest person I know, doesn't smoke, drink alcohol or swear....no ugly tats or body piercings at all....and always looks for the positive in people. But, unlike bloody liberals, she's a Conservative Republican and would have no qualms about shooting a POS who abused her, or someone else, in her presence. She is comfortable with any gun, handguns, rifles, or shotguns.
I'd imagine that would scare the crap out of you.

Nope I just want women to be women not citizens terrified of their world around them

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If I ever found myself in this lady's shoes, I'd immediately go get me a gun and take a few quick lessons.

He Kidnapped, Beat And Tortured His Wife. Free On Bond, He Killed Her. | Huffington Post

Then, the minute I saw that SOB come within 20 feet of me again, for as long as he lived, I'd pull it out and point it square at his head, telling him that if he took one more step, "I'll blow your ****ing head off!" If he came up with some BS about wanting to just talk. I'd tell him he can talk right there, twenty feet away, and if his hands so much as twitch, "I'll blow your ****ing head off!"

I never understood why women in this position do not strap up. Never. Someone holds me captive and I somehow get away, I'll never be unarmed for a single second of my life ever again.

Your question seems strange. He threatened her with a gun several times - and when he was released he kidnapped her and then SHOT HER IN THE HEAD.

I don't think whether or not she had a gun would matter AT ALL. Why on EARTH do you think that would have kept her from getting shot in the head by her psycho husband?

 

[calamity]

Your question seems strange. He threatened her with a gun several times - and when he was released he kidnapped her and then SHOT HER IN THE HEAD.

I don't think whether or not she had a gun would matter AT ALL. Why on EARTH do you think that would have kept her from getting shot in the head by her psycho husband?

She could have shot him first. Obviously, with no gun, she didn't have that option. With a gun, she might have had a chance. And, if she was trained and alert, a damned good chance.

 

[calamity]

Nope I just want women to be women not citizens terrified of their world around them

She had reason to be terrified. The bastard already crossed a line and showed her he would stop at nothing to torment her. If ever someone needed to take a threat serious and strap up, it was her.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

She could have shot him first. Obviously, with no gun, she didn't have that option. With a gun, she might have had a chance. And, if she was trained and alert, a damned good chance.

riiight.

2 months of a few lessons would have made her a quick-draw shooter :roll:

Let's be realistic, here, and stop trying to turn this into 'but what if' . . . . like was pointed out earlier: but what if the justice system actually WORKED RIGHT, she'd still be alive.

Because when the person who tortured you and promised to kill you is set free - you shouldn't be found, you should be in a witness protection program or a safeway house. WHY she wasn't I don't understand. So quit pretending she could have fought him off. :roll:

 

[calamity]

So why are your violence rates against women so much higher than ours ?

Clearly this whole gun ownership thing isn't working out viz women given they have by far the highest gun ownership in the developed world

The US is a much more violent country than the UK. Why that is can be debated. However, one fact stands tall. Most of our violent crime is committed by two groups of minorities: Blacks and Hispanics. If you take their numbers out of the equation, our rates are probably not much different than those in your country.

 

[RetiredUSN]

The US is a much more violent country than the UK. Why that is can be debated. However, one fact stands tall. Most of our violent crime is committed by two groups of minorities: Blacks and Hispanics. If you take their numbers out of the equation, our rates are probably not much different than those in your country.

Racist comment.

 

[calamity]

Racist comment.

 

[calamity]

riiight.

2 months of a few lessons would have made her a quick-draw shooter :roll:

Let's be realistic, here, and stop trying to turn this into 'but what if' . . . . like was pointed out earlier: but what if the justice system actually WORKED RIGHT, she'd still be alive.

Because when the person who tortured you and promised to kill you is set free - you shouldn't be found, you should be in a witness protection program or a safeway house. WHY she wasn't I don't understand. So quit pretending she could have fought him off. :roll:

lol..so you want to not turn this into a what if by throwing out a what if.

 

[Fishking]

riiight.

2 months of a few lessons would have made her a quick-draw shooter :roll:

Let's be realistic, here, and stop trying to turn this into 'but what if' . . . . like was pointed out earlier: but what if the justice system actually WORKED RIGHT, she'd still be alive.

Because when the person who tortured you and promised to kill you is set free - you shouldn't be found, you should be in a witness protection program or a safeway house. WHY she wasn't I don't understand. So quit pretending she could have fought him off. :roll:

Your "what if" doesn't change the reality that she is dead now. Being armed and not being a quick-draw shooter is irrelevant. Maybe she'd still be dead, if she was armed. I don't know if the outcome would have been different. What I do know is that being armed would have provided an option that wasn't there. As it's been said, it's better to be armed and not need it than to be unarmed and need it.

Police respond to incidents that have already happened. They don't prevent them. Only the individual person has a chance at preventing it, even if it is a small one.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

lol..so you want to not turn this into a what if by throwing out a what if.

I should have known you'd miss my point.

Here's another: but what if people were logical and serious with their pro-gun beliefs rather than humping a dead rat as it floated down a river?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Was a poor attempt at humor.

 

[calamity]

Was a poor attempt at humor.

I know...but, I couldn't resist.

 

[calamity]

I should have known you'd miss my point.

Here's another: but what if people were logical and serious with their pro-gun beliefs rather than humping a dead rat as it floated down a river?

I think it's logical for women to arm themselves and learn to shoot---and shoot well.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Your "what if" doesn't change the reality that she is dead now.

EXACTLY. That was my point, there, behind turning that 2nd statement into a what-if statement, to show the senselessness of it. I was being a bit cynical with it. (though I don't think you realized that was my point, either).

What should be talked about are what can people do differently IN THE FUTURE - quantifiable changes. The list of absurd what ifs can go on forever. Why waste the time, here?

 

[RetiredUSN]

I know...but, I couldn't resist.

Don't ever hit me with facts...............they make my head hurt!

 

[jimbo]

Hard to say-years ago-a couple years into private practice, I get a call from my girlfriend who is half hysterical and asks me to meet her at the state courthouse. Her best friend was there and the police wanted the girl to testify against her boyfriend who had beat the living crap out of her. split lip, broken nose, it was brutal. She didn't want to-so I spent an hour with her trying to get her to testify and she refused. I talked to the detective and I was shocked when he told me "it was common". three weeks later she got it worst-this time I met my GF at the ER-her friend had a broken jaw, broken eye socket, severe concussion. fortunately, someone witnessed it and it was the witness's testimony the cops used to arrest the guy and which the DA used to put the guy away for a year for felonious assault

yeah she went back to him when he got out and within a month he beat the snot out of her again but they had moved out of the area and I don't know what ultimately happened.

Showing you can't fix stupid.

I've got a couple of LEO friends, and they all say the same thing. Most domestic violence calls are not first time situations.

 

[Visbek]

I was going to say queue the "this is blaming the women" mantra but I'm already too late for that, obviously. There is nothing victim blaming about believing that taking measures to protect yourself is smart and reduces your chances of being a victim. No one is excusing the perpetrator.

I've been on two combat deployments....

I'm tempted to point out the differences here. Namely:

You were a trained soldier, who signed up for combat.

She was a 48 year old civilian, trapped in an abusive marriage for most of her life. She had been kidnapped, beaten, pistol-whipped, strangled, and burned by the man she loved, and thought loved her.

Unfortunately, the differences don't matter as much as you might believe -- as trained soldiers are also victims of intimate partner violence. E.g. women vets and active soldiers are often victims of emotional and physical abuse. Although it can be difficult to nail down the statistics, high rates of women veterans report IPV during their lifetime (up to 74% in some studies) and during the past year (24-29%).

As I'm sure you can imagine, conditions like PTSD, TBI and military sexual trauma not only make these vets more vulnerable to IPV, they also compound the harm. IPV can also increase the risks of homelessness for women vets.

There is one similarity here, though. Namely, someone made an oversight that resulted in preventable harm. In your case, it was soldiers traveling in unarmored vehicles, under attack with IED's; in her case, it was a violent husband let out on bail, and an ankle bracelet that failed to notify police when he cut it off. The victims were not responsible for either of those decisions.

You know what it is? It's doing what you can to prevent yourself from becoming a victim in the first place.

Sorry, but... No, it isn't.

While there can be some warning signs, most people don't realize they are in an abusive relationship until they are... in an abusive relationship.

It's easy to play the tough guy/girl and say "no way I'd put up with that" or "don't get into an abusive relationship." It's difficult to actually be a person in an abusive relationship, and figure out what to do about it.