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

[Aunt Spiker]

Not having one certainly guarantees you'll die when a psycho comes calling though.

Ironic - it's easy to die by psycho when they're killing you with a gun. Not like it's hand-to-hand combat. Happens all the time.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ironic - it's easy to die by psycho when they're killing you with a gun. Not like it's hand-to-hand combat. Happens all the time.

if you are female and attacked by a violent young man, a gun is generally about the only way you are going to survive the attack unaided by someone else

 

[Gina]

lOl i need an MD from harvard to determine that some gangbanger with a 9mm hole in his head died from a bullet in his brain

we prosecutors were pretty good at figuring that out. so were the agents who we worked with. we weren't really good in figuring out why normal antibiotics weren't working on the superbugs that are invading even top rated hospitals. Maybe we'd be better off if the CDC worked on the latter problems and left the solutions to criminals shooting people to law enforcement and the courts

Why are you so interested in law enforcement being the only arbiter of gun violence statistics?

 

[TurtleDude]

Why are you so interested in law enforcement being the only arbiter of gun violence statistics?

why is it that you think doctors should be diverted away from disease control to engage in gun control studies

why is it that the ONLY people calling for CDC studies are ones who are less than friendly towards the second amendment

do gun banners or gun restrictionists feel that the average low information voter will be more convinced by doctors claiming guns need to be banned than if law enforcement professionals (who almost always don't support such laws) say something else

 

[TurtleDude]

Why are you so interested in law enforcement being the only arbiter of gun violence statistics?

BTW the people who want the CDC involved are not talking merely about statistics. They want the CDC to make suggestions on how to "eliminate gun violence" and they figure those suggestions will be more and more Democrat style gun restrictions

 

[Aunt Spiker]

if you are female and attacked by a violent young man, a gun is generally about the only way you are going to survive the attack unaided by someone else

I imagine that would ring true for male OR female. "If you are attacked by a violent person, a gun is generally about the only way you're going to survive the attack unaided by someone else."

Unless you think all guys are Heman . . . sad to break it to ya. Most guys would get their asses handed to them in such a situation.

 

[Gina]

why is it that you think doctors should be diverted away from disease control to engage in gun control studies

why is it that the ONLY people calling for CDC studies are ones who are less than friendly towards the second amendment

do gun banners or gun restrictionists feel that the average low information voter will be more convinced by doctors claiming guns need to be banned than if law enforcement professionals (who almost always don't support such laws) say something else

Please answer my question. Why are you so interested in having only law enforcement agencies report gun violence statistics?

 

[Rico Suave]

I'm going to trundle off to sleep but I did manage ro Google Ohio DA shoots mugger.

 

[TurtleDude]

I imagine that would ring true for male OR female. "If you are attacked by a violent person, a gun is generally about the only way you're going to survive the attack unaided by someone else."

Unless you think all guys are Heman . . . sad to break it to ya. Most guys would get their asses handed to them in such a situation.

depends-when I was 18 or so-a fresh black belt and then studying some weapons forms, I was attacked by a guy with a knife. I had a pool cue. normally I would choose a knife and give the other guy the pool cue but I didn't have that choice. what I had was training and I wasn't under the influence of narcotics. So he got his collarbone and arm broken and I kicked his stupid switchblade down the storm sewer and gave him a good ass whipping for trying to cut me with his knife. but now I am 57 and while I still have lots of skills I have some injuries-have had shoulder, elbow and knee surgeries and I am not able to run 100 yards in under 11 seconds nor a 400 in 50 seconds. And I doubt I can run a mile at all without stopping. SO I will remain armed with a firearm and if I know trouble is afoot, with something really serious like an FNH semi auto shotgun or a M4 carbine

 

[TurtleDude]

Please answer my question. Why are you so interested in having only law enforcement agencies report gun violence statistics?

why do you think its merely statistics


and won't tell us why you want the CDC to do law enforcement stuff

Gun Control Research -- CDC Ban Explained | National Review

In other words, the purpose of gun research is to explain why we need gun control. Advocates also want to use federal research money to develop political strategies. Last week two Boston University professors argued that the public health campaign against smoking is a useful model for taking on guns:.......Apparently, they want taxpayer money to be spent on stigmatizing guns in the same way the government stigmatized smoking. Is it any wonder that gun-rights supporters are “anti-science,” when the science in question is undisguised advocacy?

here you go. this is why

 

[Gina]

why do you think its merely statistics


and won't tell us why you want the CDC to do law enforcement stuff

Gun Control Research -- CDC Ban Explained | National Review

In other words, the purpose of gun research is to explain why we need gun control. Advocates also want to use federal research money to develop political strategies. Last week two Boston University professors argued that the public health campaign against smoking is a useful model for taking on guns:.......Apparently, they want taxpayer money to be spent on stigmatizing guns in the same way the government stigmatized smoking. Is it any wonder that gun-rights supporters are “anti-science,” when the science in question is undisguised advocacy?

here you go. this is why

That's not a shocker TD. The link to the CDC assessment was entitled:

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

And I already conceded that point in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...strap-up-ill-never-know-5.html#post1066294507

There is nothing wrong with looking at statistics to see where problems are to improve public safety, as I said in that post. The murdering SOB should never have been released and when he was, he should have had his access to firearms removed. Collecting data like that would be useful in understanding how many people die under these circumstances. So that laws might be adjusted to protect persons like the woman in the OP.

So, you're not against the actual folks doing the studying at the CDC because they come from a medical background but you're against it because you don't want the results presented without the influence of law enforcement. You want to turn a blind eye to victims of gun violence like the woman in the OP because advocating for a law that would protect persons like her would not be in the interest of law abiding gun owners. Though I'm not sure how because he was clearly not law abiding before he killed her. He had been arrested and assessed as a threat to her (hence the restraining order).

 

[TurtleDude]

That's not a shocker TD. The link to the CDC assessment was entitled:

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

And I already conceded that point in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...strap-up-ill-never-know-5.html#post1066294507

There is nothing wrong with looking at statistics to see where problems are to improve public safety, as I said in that post. The murdering SOB should never have been released and when he was, he should have had his access to firearms removed. Collecting data like that would be useful in understanding how many people die under these circumstances. So that laws might be adjusted to protect persons like the woman in the OP.

So, you're not against the actual folks doing the studying at the CDC because they come from a medical background but you're against it because you don't want the results presented without the influence of law enforcement. You want to turn a blind eye to victims of gun violence like the woman in the OP because advocating for a law that would protect persons like her would not be in the interest of law abiding gun owners. Though I'm not sure how because he was clearly not law abiding before he killed her. He had been arrested and assessed as a threat to her (hence the restraining order).

no, I want unbiased government--I don't want my tax dollars being used to fund propaganda designed to limit my rights. I have no idea how you can conclude that the interests of law abiding gun owners is in conflict with keeping someone who has victimized others from being legally armed. and why do doctors somehow have more wisdom than law enforcement? is it because those who want to restrict our second amendment rights believe anti gun doctors are more likely to call for laws that harass honest gun owners than those charged with actually dealing with criminals?

if you have a restraining order against you, you generally are in violation of federal law if you possess a firearm

what is the CDC going to conclude-he violated a law so lets pass another one

Here is the question I ask you

why is it that the people who want the CDC involved are invariably those who aren't exactly friendly to gun ownership?

 

[Gina]

no, I want unbiased government--I don't want my tax dollars being used to fund propaganda designed to limit my rights. I have no idea how you can conclude that the interests of law abiding gun owners is in conflict with keeping someone who has victimized others from being legally armed. and why do doctors somehow have more wisdom than law enforcement? is it because those who want to restrict our second amendment rights believe anti gun doctors are more likely to call for laws that harass honest gun owners than those charged with actually dealing with criminals?

if you have a restraining order against you, you generally are in violation of federal law if you possess a firearm

what is the CDC going to conclude-he violated a law so lets pass another one

Here is the question I ask you

why is it that the people who want the CDC involved are invariably those who aren't exactly friendly to gun ownership?

So he's in violation of the law while under a restraining order, though you say generally. Obviously that didn't keep him from possessing the gun he shot her with. And since you say that is not a hard fast certainty that a person under a restraining order is in violation of law if they have a gun, then some in that situation are fully able to possess their weapons.

I'm suggesting his guns, be removed from his possession. I'm suggesting his name be in the database that will forbid him from purchasing new guns. That is not currently the law. The current law failed her.

But you do want bias because you predict law enforcement entities studying gun violence would come to different conclusions. Data, numbers tell the tale. No one will act on suggestions that are not supported by the data.

I'm not friendly to people getting murdered like this woman. There was much more that could have been done to protect her. Like divesting her dirtbag nutso husband of his weapons and access to new weapons.

 

[flogger]

Actually, possibly as much as 8 to 1 IIRC.

Yeah. When in doubt just make sh*t up right ?

Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.


https://www.newscientist.com/articl...un-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....le_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2014.xls

Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys -- Hemenway et al. 6 (4): 263 -- Injury Prevention

 

[flogger]

Gun control lobby lies.

Stung to the core by another withering response :lol:

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. - PubMed - NCBI

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

 

[Gina]

I'm going to trundle off to sleep but I did manage ro Google Ohio DA shoots mugger.

Moderator's Warning:

Mentioning you are doing searches on members, gets you real close to violating the Privacy rule. There are significant points attached to that infraction.

 

[flogger]

Why are you so interested in law enforcement being the only arbiter of gun violence statistics?

I posted this earlier but in case you missed it you might find it interesting

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-and-violence-against-women/



Now I'd wager there are certainly more women in the US carry a firearm than in any other developed country yet the incidence of rape is nearly three times higher there than the average and the likelihood of being shot dead is some 11 times higher.

Clearly adding even more guns and essentially militarising one gender against the other is not going to be any kind of a solution

 

[Crimefree]

I posted this earlier but in case you missed it you might find it interesting

Now I'd wager there are certainly more women in the US carry a firearm than in any other developed country yet the incidence of rape is nearly three times higher there than the average and the likelihood of being shot dead is some 11 times higher.

Clearly adding even more guns and essentially militarising one gender against the other is not going to be any kind of a solution

Clearly you are using a cherry picked correlations for which you have absolutely no hope of proving causation. Since you know this it is nothing by dishonest and deceitful. Do you have nothing better to do than create crap?

Quoting Everytown must be lowest one can go in gun controls cesspool of lies.

 

[Crimefree]

So he's in violation of the law while under a restraining order, though you say generally. Obviously that didn't keep him from possessing the gun he shot her with. And since you say that is not a hard fast certainty that a person under a restraining order is in violation of law if they have a gun, then some in that situation are fully able to possess their weapons.

I'm suggesting his guns, be removed from his possession. I'm suggesting his name be in the database that will forbid him from purchasing new guns. That is not currently the law. The current law failed her.

But you do want bias because you predict law enforcement entities studying gun violence would come to different conclusions. Data, numbers tell the tale. No one will act on suggestions that are not supported by the data.

I'm not friendly to people getting murdered like this woman. There was much more that could have been done to protect her. Like divesting her dirtbag nutso husband of his weapons and access to new weapons.

It is not possible to divest anyone of weapons any more than it was to divest anyone of illegal drugs, alcohol or pornography. Seriously one would think people would have learnt by now that bans and deprivation simply do not work.

Like every citizen woman must realise that their safety is their responsibility. Nobody else can do it for them and that includes government, laws and the police.

 

[Crimefree]

That's not a shocker TD. The link to the CDC assessment was entitled:

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

And I already conceded that point in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...strap-up-ill-never-know-5.html#post1066294507

There is nothing wrong with looking at statistics to see where problems are to improve public safety, as I said in that post. The murdering SOB should never have been released and when he was, he should have had his access to firearms removed. Collecting data like that would be useful in understanding how many people die under these circumstances. So that laws might be adjusted to protect persons like the woman in the OP.

You seem to have missed the interesting conclusion of several major studies including the CDC that have all concluded there is absolutely no trace of evidence to suggest gun control can reduce crime. What these studies have concluded to please the sponsors and continue their own funding is that the methods of data gathering and evaluation are not able to determine the result wanted. THEREFORE the problem is a lack of studies that use different methods. Neither the CDC or the Academy of sciences could propose methods of finding this elusive result. So far nobody else has as well. All that happened after conclusive evidence gun control has in 200 years of application failed completely was doubt was cast upon the results by claiming that some method existed but had not been found yet.

So, you're not against the actual folks doing the studying at the CDC because they come from a medical background but you're against it because you don't want the results presented without the influence of law enforcement. You want to turn a blind eye to victims of gun violence like the woman in the OP because advocating for a law that would protect persons like her would not be in the interest of law abiding gun owners. Though I'm not sure how because he was clearly not law abiding before he killed her. He had been arrested and assessed as a threat to her (hence the restraining order).

The total output of the "folks" at the CDC doing gun control studies was shown to be unevidenced lies. Not one research paper could be shown to be worth the paper it was printed on. The CDC was conducting research at public expense that was proven to be no more than gun control propaganda. Who in their right mind wants these liars producing research for the public at public expense?

The researchers should have been fired. Quite rightly congress cut the CDC grants and forbid the CDC from producing ADVOCACY instead of sound research. The CDC was welcome to produce sound scientific research on gun control. Just not propaganda. Since the CDC does not know how to do that it wants the freedom to generate propaganda again.

The fact no gun control law or intervention every proposed can be show to have succeeded is not a mistake it is fact. Proposing more gun control laws is simply pandering to the fear and lies gun control spreads.

 

[calamity]

Ironic - it's easy to die by psycho when they're killing you with a gun. Not like it's hand-to-hand combat. Happens all the time.

Let's put it this way. If you knew a psycho ex was out to kill you, would you rather be armed with a gun or a phone with which to call 911?

 

[Crimefree]

Yeah. When in doubt just make sh*t up right ?

Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.


https://www.newscientist.com/articl...un-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....le_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2014.xls

Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys -- Hemenway et al. 6 (4): 263 -- Injury Prevention

When are you going to stop presenting these flawed research results? None of these studies show how many criminal attacks were stopped without being reported. You know this for a fact

 

[TurtleDude]

So he's in violation of the law while under a restraining order, though you say generally. Obviously that didn't keep him from possessing the gun he shot her with. And since you say that is not a hard fast certainty that a person under a restraining order is in violation of law if they have a gun, then some in that situation are fully able to possess their weapons.

I'm suggesting his guns, be removed from his possession. I'm suggesting his name be in the database that will forbid him from purchasing new guns. That is not currently the law. The current law failed her.

But you do want bias because you predict law enforcement entities studying gun violence would come to different conclusions. Data, numbers tell the tale. No one will act on suggestions that are not supported by the data.

I'm not friendly to people getting murdered like this woman. There was much more that could have been done to protect her. Like divesting her dirtbag nutso husband of his weapons and access to new weapons.

You assume that Law enforcement is more pro criminal than left wing doctors? You never did address the point I made about the CDC is not experts in crime control issues

 

[Gina]

It is not possible to divest anyone of weapons any more than it was to divest anyone of illegal drugs, alcohol or pornography. Seriously one would think people would have learnt by now that bans and deprivation simply do not work.

Like every citizen woman must realise that their safety is their responsibility. Nobody else can do it for them and that includes government, laws and the police.

Sure it is. A search warrant is executed and the police go in and confiscate them. The authorities should take every necessary step to disarm people like this. Period. He is not a law abiding citizen at that point. His 2nd amendment rights should be forfeited.

 

[TheGoverness]

Let's put it this way. If you knew a psycho ex was out to kill you, would you rather be armed with a gun or a phone with which to call 911?

Both.