One Shade of Grey’s Anatomy

About five years ago I binge watched every episode of Grey’s Anatomy, and have kept up with the show ever since. They’ve gone down the political road before, like many “brave” TV shows, but last night Grey’s Anatomy went after women, and shamed those of us who enjoy an evening stroll without the paralyzing fear of those who will gladly take advantage of the weaker sex. I can smell their sanctimonious – “We’re going to get attacked, but we’re doing the right thing!” – mock worthy martyrdom from here.

Usually I take a good 48 hours to breathe before venting, but this subject is so simple and stupid-proof that, quite honestly, anyone with an IQ greater than that of a cantaloupe should be able to gather their thoughts rather quickly. And, well, I’m irritated and feel like writing.

The episode began with a dramatic crisis – per usual – and the team gathers in wait of the approaching ambulance. An eight year-old has been shot by his friend who got a hold of his mother’s gun, which they overemphasized was locked away. The doctors rushed the child to the operating room, and then began to have the following discussion:

Alex: So, his mom just had a gun laying around.

Owen: She said she had it locked up.

Amelia: The mom should be locked up.

Owen: Well, she might be. It could involuntary manslaughter if…

Alex: Don’t even say it. It’s not gonna happen.

Amelia: Do you own a gun?

Owen: No. No. No, I, uh, fix bullet holes. I don’t make them.

Jo: I just mean you’re in the Army. I imagine…

Owen: Well, you need one in the Army. You don’t need one here.

Amelia: Well, every day, someone’s kid is in an O.R. With a gunshot wound. Every single day.

Alex: When are people gonna learn? It just makes things worse.

Amelia: And people always say they need one for protection. They don’t.

Now, I had a slight glimmer of hope when Jo, one of the surgical residents, informed the group that she owned a gun for her own safety. I briefly thought to myself, “Hey! Maybe they’re going to at least give a proper two sided debate!” Of course the rest of the team began to “mansplain” about how she will more than likely have the gun used on her… because nothing says “empowerment” like being told by men that you should willingly be an easier target because the superior sex will probably wind up with the upper hand anyway. The funny part about this is that the characters immediately faded away, and all I pictured were a bunch of elitist actors and actresses with bodyguards telling women like myself that we’re irresponsible for protecting ourselves instead of hanging up the rapist “Welcome!” sign for the good of their ivory tower conscience. 

Unfortunately, my glimmer of hope was destroyed. Near the end of the show, Jo gives a dramatic explanation about her childhood, and how she was homeless and living in her car when she purchased the weapon.

Jo: I lived in my car when I was 16 years old. Every night, trying to fall asleep, I would listen to the voices–people going by, people who had nothing going on, nothing going for them, nothing to lose, scared to death that they would break in and take my stuff, take me. This gun made me feel like I had something, something on them. But then, today, that little boy will never walk again.

Alex: Jo, he’s still alive.

Jo: Barely. You know, back then I, I didn’t value my life all that much, but it’s different now. I’ve outgrown this. I don’t need it anymore. I don’t want it.

Ahhhh, there’s the meat and potatoes, friends. If you are an independent woman who uses a weapon for self-protection, you don’t value your life all that much. If you shed said weapon from your life, you’ve “grown.”

Let’s take a moment and talk about real women who value their life.

Amanda Collins valued her life. Amanda Collins had a handgun that she was trained to use and, as a bonus, was a CCW license holder. Amanda Collins was a law abiding citizen, which included following her campus weapon laws. In 2007, Amanda Collins was raped at gun point between two vehicles in a parking garage on campus – in a gun free zone. This particular parking garage was chosen by a very careful Collins because she felt as though she would be safe. You see, this garage housed the campus police cruisers, and the campus police themselves were roughly 100 feet away from where the rape took place.

Forced to remain unarmed, Amanda Collins was brutally attacked at gun point in that parking garage, and her attacker would go on to make national news after he was found guilty of the highly publicized rape and murder of 19 year-old Brianna Denison, a beautiful young woman – who I’m assuming valued her life, as well – disappeared in January of 2008 and was found in a field, carelessly disposed of, in February.

Amanda Collins later testified in front of the Nevada Assembly:

Collins stated that she remains confident in the knowledge that at some point during her attack, she would have been able to use her weapon had it been on her person. Amanda Collins is a real person. Brianna Denison is a real person, and she’s buried in Mountain View Cemetery in Nevada. Jo Wilson is not a real person facing the dangers that everyday women in America face, she’s a character played by Camilla Luddington. Countless real women are raped daily in the United States, and we are – by far – the most targeted demographic for violent sexual crime.

As I noted in a previous post, the arguments used by gun-control advocates are not only based in skewed stats and manipulated data, they’re demeaning and dehumanizing. They pretend as though women are items unworthy of the most sensible and effective means of protection available.

“Women should know the facts, we shouldn’t just smile and nod when someone puts a handy phone up on campus while they pretend like it’s going to do us any good, like women can just say, “Hold that thought, Jeffrey Dahmer, I need to go over there and use the phone that those swell administrators put up for moments like this.” Because we all know that those morally sound psychopaths normally give women a phone-a-friend before making them a statistic. We shouldn’t agree with a man that hands us a ballpoint pen to use as protection against an attacker, and we should ask if that man would give his own daughter a ballpoint pen as a means of protection. We as women should not sit idly by while bureaucrats legislate our safety and have the audacity to tell us to pee ourselves to deter potential rapists. And the women that push such degrading ideals onto other women should have to turn in their feminist card to be burned and buried, never to be resurrected.”

This is that part of the program where gun-control advocates tell me that America still has more rape and murder than other civilized societies, including the UK, which contradicts the idea that guns save women a lifetime of trauma, or a lifetime lost.

However, here’s the rub:

Women need to educate themselves and fully understand the incredibly important differences between the US and the UK definitions. Our criminal system encompasses a large variation of crimes under broad descriptions, we are unique in this way. Unfortunately, gun-control advocates have used this to their advantage. So, in the United States, let’s say you meet a drunk girl at the bar and take her home, if she doesn’t appreciate your savvy pick-up tactics during her inebriated state the next morning, it is defined as rape. If you are 18 and have consensual sex with a girl 1 year younger, and Daddy gets mad, it is rape and you spend your life on a sexual offender registry. Crime definitions per country are vastly different, and it is almost impossible to get an accurate comparison. By far, the United States has more blanketed definitions, which leads to our higher crime rate.

If you look under the UK legal definition, they are very strict on what they consider to be “rape,” yet the US – as mentioned above – has a much broader definition. I won’t go into incredibly graphic detail (I’m pretty sure you know how to use Google), but rape in the UK is defined by simply a forceful penetration of one person on another, the legal definition of rape in the US includes anyone who commits an unwanted sexual attack. This includes threats, coercion, picking up a drunk girl, sexual attack with an item, statutory, etc… If you tell a girl that you love her to coerce her into bed, you’ve committed rape in the United States, and if she reports it, it goes in the stats even if you don’t face conviction. Most countries have not evolved in this aspect. Not only is the definition for rape different, so is the definition for murder. Homicides in the UK are calculated differently. Since 1967, the UK calculations exclude any cases that do not result in conviction, as well as suicides and cases prosecuted under the grounds of self-defense. We do. If Chicago alone – where a vast number of homicides go unsolved – were not calculated, our numbers would take a dramatic nosedive.

Perspective: In 2012 we had 14,827 homicides, only 7,133 arrests were made for those homicides. The number of convictions are even less. SO, If we JUST went by that one change alone, our murder rate would easily be cut in half.

Additionally, female gun ownership has had a dramatic increase according to the most recent data. At the same time, rape has dramatically decreased. In 1992, 42.8 women out of 100,000 were raped, in 2014, that number was down to 26.4. The problem with the “you’re more likely to be murdered by a gun than saved by one” theories – like those perpetuated by Hollywood elitists – is that you can’t possibly measure one side of the argument.

Back in 1982 and 1983, the U.S. Department of Justice paid Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts to conduct a study on 1,874 imprisoned felons in 10 states. Wright and Rossi both had presuppositions in regards to gun-control, mainly that it deterred crime. However, by the end of the research, they came to the conclusion that just the knowledge of an armed populace deters crime.

Some of their findings:

Dr. Gary Kleck, an award winning criminologist, has also done various studies on the impact of guns in the United States. Kleck is a registered Democrat who, to the best of my knowledge, does not own guns, nor accept money from either side of the debate. He has testified before Congress and state legislatures in regards to gun-control, and his extensive library of research was cited in the Supreme Court case involving D.C.’s handgun ban.

Kleck’s 1994 research concluded that in 1993, there were roughly 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use, compared to roughly 0.5 million gun related crimes. The study found that roughly 46% of the defenders were females, and less than 25% of the total cases presented involved the defender firing their weapon. The majority of the time, merely the knowledge of a gun’s existence was enough to stop the crime. The estimations were drawn from the National Crime Victimization Survey.

In 1995, Marvin E. Wolfgang, known as ″the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world,″ had this to say concerning Kleck’s research:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. […] What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. […] The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

Of course various critics have come out of the woodwork, mainly because the data is difficult to measure. We don’t have rape kits, body bags, or toe tags to count. We have survivors who may not even be aware that they’re survivors. It is impossible to count the crimes that would have been, or to inventory the empty graves. Those who perpetuate the idea that women who own guns are more likely to die from them than be saved are committing the informal fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam; they are assuming their point is true because it is impossible to be proven as false.

We do however have two pertinent facts: We currently have more guns than ever before, and our crime rate – as a whole – hasn’t been this low (per capita) since 1967.

United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People

crime

This particular Grey’s Anatomy episode also made sure the mother insisted that her gun was locked up, and that the kids picked the lock. Of course there are bad gun owners out there, just like there are bad drivers, and bad parents in general. However, the vast number of gun owners are responsible. My nephews live in a house with a handgun safe that requires an adult sized hand for the code, and when tampered with sets off an alarm. My own weapons have a locked safe, and my guns get dismantled and cable locked inside of said safe when my nephews are visiting. We also teach them gun safety and a healthy level of fear; my 9 year-old nephew would be the first to yell at you – and walk out of the room – if he saw you mishandling a weapon.

We are never going to rid the world of stupid parents. Tragedies occur because of irresponsible parenting, not because of inanimate objects. The parents who leave a gun in a shoe box are right up there with parents who throw their two year-old in a vehicle without a car seat, or give their 16 month-old toddler whole grapes and uncut hot dogs. Additionally, the “epidemic” gun-control advocates try to convince you of is really not an epidemic at all. Educated gun owners have worked tirelessly to secure their weapons and teach gun safety to their kids, more so now than they ever have. Gun manufacturers have developed fingerprint safes, gun locks, and programs that teach kids a healthy level of fear and respect for firearms – and it’s working.

According to the statistics, when you remove intentional homicide and suicide, the number of unintentional firearm fatalities has dropped by 58% since 1991. Falling behind accidents involving a motor vehicle, poisoning, falls, suffocation, drowning, fires, environmental, other forms of transportation, and struck by/against object. Children under 14 are much more likely to drown, choke, be accidentally poisoned, etc., than they are to die of accidental gun fire. Since 1990, unintentional firearm related fatalities with children 14 and under have dropped by 74 percent, despite the fact that guns now outnumber people in the United States, and manufacturing has more than doubled.

Just to give you a snapshot of how much the gun industry has grown, in 1990 the United States manufactured 3,959,968 guns and in 2013, despite the war on guns the left has waged, we manufactured 10,844,792 guns. Meanwhile, exports have remained fairly steady at 361,625 and 393,121, respectively. We have more guns, more concealed carry permit holders, and lower crime rates.

Of course, Grey’s Anatomy won’t tell you such facts. Instead they’ll vilify women who refuse to live their lives in fear. The alleged “war on women” is not found in ridiculously false pay inequality rhetoric, in a lack of free contraceptives, or in the random catcall. No, the war on women is found in the fight to manipulate women into being easier targets.

I haven’t outgrown my guns, Grey’s Anatomy, I’ve outgrown the way you vilify women who refuse to be victims.

 

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “One Shade of Grey’s Anatomy

Add yours

  1. Sorry for the very long comment, but I got to writing…

    Not sure Grey’s Anatomy is the showpiece of the insidious liberal agenda or a documentary but I get what irritated you. If it’s confusing as to why real or pretend health professionals wouldn’t be fond of lethal weapons, ok, maybe they make doctors and nurses differently in red states. They certainly make hospital ethics boards differently out there.

    Some questions.

    The studies that show having guns in the house makes you less safe – thoughts on that?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

    We can study battle but until we’ve got a good amount of new work done, how do we know? You really need metastudies like:

    http://annals.org/aim/article/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

    But 16 studies isn’t enough. One interview based/anecdotal felon study also insufficient (not a population known for honesty, also, why do it this way instead of looking at behavior? Interview weakest method avail to them. And only one expert supported it?). I mean, I guess I really appreciate gun owners shooting 1/3 of house burglars (according to the felons) and making them more likely to burgle my home when I’m not there, but wouldn’t getting attacked w/ a baseball bat or golf club be as effective? Or just having the cops called? Or maybe an alarm? Dog? Video? Or maybe do whatever the countries w/ lower break in rates do? Also, as an aside, is it justifiable to kill or maim someone for taking a TV? Especially since it’s often neighbor kids or family members doing the stealing? I liked what my friends Canadian family did, they sat their burglar down and talked to him about his life choices, ended up being friends.

    Why would the NRA and the GOP shut down the CDC’s gun research funding for decades when it was proving that guns made you safer? If you want more gun research done (and you do, because having only one study out of thousands of studies done worldwide has you sliding into anti-vaxxer territory), why vote for the people who prevent it from happening? The answer to critics of that one study you cite is not to provide cherry picked anecdotes but to do more studies. That’s when you can say for sure you are right. The NRA and the GOP have been preventing that and leaving you in an nearly evidence free lurch. Why?

    Most of the deaths are suicides by 55+ yo white men and male teens, followed by women and children shot by husbands/bfs, so defense against attackers isn’t the primary danger (violent stranger rape also being fairly rare), but let’s go w/ it being a sufficient threat to need to concealed carry everywhere. I don’t know if you’ve talked to people who are experienced in hand to hand combat but having a lethal weapon on you in a fight in which you are surprised and immediately overpowered by someone w/ far superior strength and reach isn’t necc conducive to surviving for the same reason you are told not to fight if you can’t get away – it increases your likelihood of getting killed in a situation that does not usually result in death (same reason for increase in personal danger of having a gun in the house in the event of a robbery – makes a non lethal situation into a lethal one for both sides). Was getting in a gun fight w/ the armed guy really the best plan? If he didn’t have a gun I could see it but then of course he’d have grabbed her and incapacitated her immediately, armed he had more options. Citing a case of a serial rapist/killer isn’t helping your argument – those guys are pretty rare. The premise that you have to go around armed 24-7 because men are so dangerous any of them could attack you at any time is a bit like how the President apparently wants us to react to non-white people – it sounds like scare mongering and decreases your traction among women who refuse to live in that kind of constant fear (At this point you will say we should arm all rape victims because of course they live in constant fear. If that’s the case, it’s PTSD and needs medical treatment. Absolutely everyone would be ok w/ arming them anyhow. It’s the proving it would prevent rather than increase number of dead women that’s the sticking point for me.).

    I’m not saying we haven’t all been sexually assaulted. You’re damn lucky if you make it past 15 w/o that happening. The twitter acct in the article below was a good starting point for that convo for me, prob Trump was another for others.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/11/497530709/one-tweet-unleashes-a-torrent-of-stories-of-sexual-assault

    Which also begs the question – how many men would I have shot by now had I been armed?

    I realized I hadn’t even bothered to talk w/ all the men in my life about it because honestly it’s so common it’s hard to even consider it an issue, right? Women just get used to it. You’re supposed to get used to it. If you don’t get used to it, people consider you weak or whiny. Like those rape victims you mentioned that you didn’t consider rape victims (btw one year age diff is only stat rape in Arizona. Usu. it’s 3-4 years diff, varies by state, exception of course for child marriage which is still legal just about everywhere). Legal def of sexual assault in US does not require penetration, for it to be called rape it does, but there is no charge of rape, it is always a charge of sexual assault which is the crime, and rape is merely a descriptor of the act which would be described in detail anyway, it’s not a separate charge, it is also not gendered (FBI: “The revised UCR definition of rape is: Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Attempts or assaults to commit rape are also included; however, statutory rape and incest are excluded.”).

    If you used examples of women shooting their violent rapist husbands/bfs your argument would be stronger. No one’s going to argue w/ the need for that (except the courts of course, but probably only if you’re not white http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-florida-selfdefense-idUSKBN0L02NQ20150127), and it’s certainly the more common problem. Carrying a gun in order to shoot an abuser or defend against a stalker, defense against a known and active threat. Everyone has been in that situation or knows several people who have been. If we could do more studies on this (and given the apparently vast numbers of armed women in this country we could easily get good numbers) we’d know for a fact if it was better to carry, and w/ the science you’d have far more backing than you do now. If it’s safer all the GOP needs to do is re endow the CDC (or the NRA can do it, they’re flush. Or instead of sending money to the NRA which works against most gun owners actual interests NRA members could GoFundMe the work)). Maybe it really does make you safer instead of less safe to concealed carry if you are female. I personally would like to know. I bet you would too. Anecdotes are unlikely to convince anyone because you can cherry pick for either side. The science up to the point where they cut it off wasn’t trending in your direction though (which is why the NRA is not a fan).

    Given that, it’s odd the Republican lack of gun victim always seems to be a college age white girl who is afraid of stranger rape. Why not focus on women who are in far more danger from men who are far more dangerous? Native women in danger from white rapists would be your highest risk group if you wanted to stick to stranger rape (which is the rarest kind).

    Rape reporting numbers vary strongly depending on whether or not the law is any good at pursuing conviction/the quality of the cops at handling it, etc. Denmark has a very high reporting rate, because it has a great legal and law enforcement system, but you’re safer there. Lack of reporting does not mean lowering rate. Your description of what constitutes rape in the US vs other countries isn’t particularly accurate either. It’s hard to get a rape conviction in the US if consent is retracted during initially consensual sex, for example, which is not hard to pursue in other countries (see: Julian Assange). I don’t see a lot of other comparable first world countries pulling a Brock Turner with quite the frequency and aplomb that the US does. Or requiring celibacy as the only punishment for rape. Or putting people on the sex offender registry for public urination either. Ah, Puritans.

    This comment bugged me. “So, in the United States, let’s say you meet a drunk girl at the bar and take her home, if she doesn’t appreciate your savvy pick-up tactics during her inebriated state the next morning, it is defined as rape.”

    This is a seeming lack of understanding of how binge drinking works. We all know someone who is totally functional seeming when blacked out, right? Or that friend who is blacked out after two drinks in an hour? Only some people get black out drunk so it’s likely that personal experience isn’t a good enough informer of how alcohol works w/ other people’s brains/metabolisms, and it works differently for men vs. women, so there’s another knowledge gap. This generally does not get taught in schools.

    If it’s sexual assault when you let Trump do it because he’s a star, why isn’t it sexual assault when some frat boy does it to you when you’re too drunk to be conscious?

    We send kids to college not having any education in how to drink safely, with minimal to no consent education, which is usually voluntary anyway. How good is the consent/pleasure education out in the red states (it’s super crappy in blue states. It’s MUCH better at liberal private schools. We do care about our rich kids. The UU’s and PP does a great job too, but those are opt in.)? How early does it start? European countries start teaching it in kindergarten. We fail our kids.

    I bet you have friends who this has happened to. Maybe you should ask them about it. Maybe there is a problem. Maybe it’s an easy fix. Maybe we should work to fix it. Maybe it’s not about whiny weak irreligious whorish drunken liberal little girls who can’t just suck it up when they wake up mid sex underneath a man they’ve never seen before the way a strong conservative woman can (who then to our mutual chagrin mostly vote for Trump. I do not think this choice of narrative about rape victims/liberal lady snowflakes is separate from his attitude, maybe you do, if so I’d be curious as to why). Maybe it’s at least in part about boys/men who don’t understand how blacking out works any better than you do. Or are terribly clear on what consent looks like. Or pleasure, for that matter.

    Maybe you mean like this?
    View story at Medium.com

    Conversations could be had. I know where I would fall on it. I’d be curious as to where you would.

    It’s still odd the condemnation of rape victims, when it’s so easy to not do rapey things, you know? I mean, really really super easy. You recount your example of a “non-rape” with all the blame on the woman. Is there an epidemic of men being forced to have sex w/ drunk women? News to me.

    I do wonder why so few women carry guns compared to men, if it’s women who would benefit so much more. Maybe women trust men not to attack them, by and large? This has been going around liberal Twitter, so perhaps the agreement is not so much in terms of the need for defense as in terms of the intensity of the weapon/need to kill/no trial death penalty for rapists. In practical terms if suddenly attacked you always want your weapon out and ready. Potentially an issue if 100′ away from a cop if it’s a gun though…

    Maybe liberal women are just not into killing people as much as conservative women are? For what is almost always a non-death-penalty crime? Pro-life is confusing to me, but I think most pro-lifers aren’t whole cloth/seamless garment/whatever the kids are calling it nowadays so I guess that’s not a contradiction. The problem you posit may not be that liberal women don’t value their lives as much as conservative women do but that they value the lives of others more than conservative women do.

    We do get accused of being selfish though, so I don’t know how that jibes. Selfish but less inclined to kill? Ah, selfish and weak! Of course.

    My theory about why the rape rate is dropping wouldn’t be that women carrying guns is making that happen (most rape isn’t by strangers, are you supposed to be armed at all times w/ family? friends?). I would think it would be the same reason the domestic violence rate has been dropping. Education of men. Women are people. Law enforcement not as unsympathetic as they have been in the past (oh for a 50% female police force). The drop in domestic violence rate would explain an awful lot of the drop in the rape rate, no? Violent crime has dropped a lot too, and that’s with constantly decreasing gun ownership. This trend is not restricted to the US either. So, not a gun thing. Correlation not valid until you do studies to prove it.

    The purpose of the phones at schools is not to use one mid attack, but to call the campus police anytime you want and have them drive/escort you home/to your destination. Of course you’d have a cell on you anyhow these days but it’s nice to have the option. The idea is you wouldn’t need a gun on campus because you’ve got trained hired guns on call 24-7 and never go anywhere alone if you don’t want to. There’s also usually student protection offered by the women’s center, including DD’s though the cops will do that too within range.

    I’m not sure I’d feel safer on a campus where the guys could carry guns too. I’m not sure if I truly thought I was at risk I wouldn’t carry a gun anyway. I mean, after all, what are they going to do to me? Arrest me ’cause I shot a rapist? At most there’d be a fine and that’s only if I dropped a gun in class or something. Which I wouldn’t because as you said a responsible gun owner never makes a mistake.

    What the Democrats are asking for is licensing/background checks/restrictions on the severely mentally ill/domestic violence perps/violent criminals, and hopefully required safety classes ala reqs for driving cars, which kill fewer people per year than guns do anyhow. Plus ban on assault weapons which I think is the main reason why the right is touchy about it? Pretty sure all that has a high approval rating even among NRA members, so no one reasonable is in conflict on this issue at all. It’s difficult to understand why the Republicans are so defensive on this issue when in fact most are in 100% agreement w/ the Democrats position. Why is it chosen as a fighting point when it’s not? We’re agreed on legislation. People’s personal feelings about guns are irrelevant unless they’re driving votes for the GOP which is against gun control, defying the will of the majority of Americans and the majority of their voters. Makes you wonder why the GOP’s stance. Are you pro guns in school and in the hands of the severely mentally ill?

    There’s no need to take anyone’s guns away because guns are going away on their own. It’s like smoking. It’ll take care of itself.

    Despite plenty of guns around, far fewer people own them and far fewer households have them. Gun ownership households have been declining since forever. So you can’t tie the crime drop to that, unless you want to make the case that people’s personal arsenals are somehow keeping the peace out of localized neighborhood fear of the guy w/ the bunker (this is why the NRA is so pushy about legislation, their market is shrinking and they need every gun owner to keep buying more guns, difficult because they don’t tend to wear out that fast…).

    There are regulations about swimming pools. And choking hazards. The main reason why accidental gun fatalities has gone down is largely because there are far fewer gun owning households out there and because there is an awareness of need for locks instead of just keeping them in the closet or back of the pick up like people used to do (do you still see that out where you live?). I don’t know anyone who bothers to lock up guns, but it’s a rural area so people are still pretty casual about it. States in the US with gun control laws are generally safer, though this could also be due to income/education/etc level, as they tend to be blue states. States that enact these laws become safer. Most NRA members and most Republicans obviously know with this since they are overwhelmingly in support of gun control laws.

    And finally, how is one both pro-life and pro-killing? Confusing to me. I never understood how “Thou Shalt Not Kill” had so many asterisks and conditions on it.

    Bonus for getting through that entire thing! Heard this on the BBC. Longer interview worth hunting down on iTunes (BBC Witness), she’s great and it includes important historical info on the law.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/features/magazine-38498448/38498448

    Like

    1. Hi Emily!

      I appreciate long comments and dialogue, and I’ll try to address yours piece by piece.

      “The studies that show having guns in the house makes you less safe – thoughts on that?”

      The problem with such studies is that one side can’t be measured, as I noted here:

      “We don’t have rape kits, body bags, or toe tags to count. We have survivors who may not even be aware that they’re survivors. It is impossible to count the crimes that would have been, or to inventory the empty graves. Those who perpetuate the idea that women who own guns are more likely to die from them than be saved are committing the informal fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam; they are assuming their point is true because it is impossible to be proven as false.”

      Studies like the one found at Annals.org look specifically at firearm-related homicides, but what they’re not noting is that included in those “homicide” stats are individuals killed in self-defense, suicides, and those killed by cops. Additionally, if they’re going off of national data, we calculate homicides differently than other countries. They include CONVICTED cases in the stats, we include everything (as noted in the post). In the end we could point to the fact that as gun production/sales dramatically increases (especially with women over the last few years), crime has dramatically decreased. Those numbers are as basic as we can get, yet those in the anti-gun arena do not accept them, or have other excuses for the coincidence. But in those countries where they restrict guns, we see mass killings, robberies, etc., and their crime calculating methods are so vastly different from ours. However, when you break it down many are far more dangerous (especially for women) than our country.

      Suicide is still not a good factor when deciding on gun control. Suicide stats per country really fall into categories of available options in that country. So if I went off of the studies you linked, clearly firearms lead the way in the United States in terms of suicide, but lack of firearm wouldn’t automatically make someone not be suicidal, or take away their ability to commit suicide. Gun related suicides in the US (according to World Health Org): 60.6% for men, 35.7 for women. In Canada: 21.6 and 3.8, respectively. So other places must be better, right?

      But what about suicide by hanging?
      US: 20.4 & 16.9
      Canada: 44.4 & 36.8
      Japan: 68.7 & 59.9
      France: 48.9 & 29.2
      Germany: 55.5 & 38.9
      UK: 55.2 & 35.9

      Many of the above have a higher suicide rate than we do, as well. Removing the method doesn’t change the end result. Desperate people find other ways. It’s heartbreaking, and we should be focusing funding on helping individuals, not trying to eliminate methods when that’s just going to send them out looking for a different way, proven by other countries.

      As for guns being useless for self-defense, those studies go off of (like noted above) the idea that every time a gun is used for defense someone is killed. Those are the stats they use, but the vast majority (like 99% of the time) of instances guns are used in self-defense, they are never fired. Those numbers don’t go into the stats. Brandishing a weapon will, the majority of the time, cause the individual to flee or back down until police arrive. Once again, it’s the informal fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam; assuming a point is true because it is impossible to be proven as false. Once again, I point to all time high in guns, and the lowest crime rate we’ve had since 1967.

      As for fear mongering, I’m not trying to scare women into owning a gun, I want to retain the right to carry one myself. I would never put a gun in the hands of someone that isn’t trained to use it, or wants to own one. A women that was going to be a part of my family was brutally attacked and murdered, and it’s not constant fear that drives me to protect myself from that, it’s the refusal to give into fear. I don’t live in fear, I reject it. The same arguments you made can be turned around on you, The premise that you should go around scared of gun-owners all the time because they’re so dangerous that any of them could go off at any time is a bit like how the President apparently wants us to react to non-white people – it sounds like scare mongering. But here’s the rub: I am far more likely to be raped than you are to be shot. Far, far, far, far, far more likely. My fears are more justified. And an alarm doesn’t stop someone, and a dog can be killed by the intruder, and by the time the cops get to my house (taking into account the average response time), an intruder could rape and murder me.

      As for your thoughts on my description of sexual assault, I agree 100% with how we define sexual assault. Wasn’t calling anyone a “snowflake” or “whorish drunken liberal.” What Trump did was sexual assault, what Brock Turner did was sexual assault, and when you’re drunk and someone attacks you, it’s sexual assault and it’s not your fault. The point of that portion of the post is that in the US we have a blanketed term, and reported rapes are added to the stats, not just convictions. Basically, our numbers reflect it all, other countries do not. I wasn’t nitpicking at our definitions, just saying that they’re wildly different. Which they are, which makes comparing nearly impossible. European countries might teach consent earlier, and we should as well, but according to how they calculate rape stats, they’re no better than us, many times they’re worse. Maybe more people there understand consent better than we do here, but that’s not stopping the UK rape numbers from being at a record high in 2015. Since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in 03′, their numbers have been at record highs because there’s finally guidelines for reporting that they’re slowly being forced to adhere to, & now some are calling it a “public health crisis.” On top of that, they’re STILL not counting most cases that don’t end in conviction, unlike us, because we count them all.

      “Maybe liberal women are just not into killing people as much as conservative women are?” <— These are the type of comments that sent conservative women running from the left. They’re the type of comments that made a lot of reluctant women vote for Trump. They’re the type of comments that made even more women stay home instead of voting for Hillary. When people ask me “Why did you stay with the GOP for so long?” those are the type of comments I use as an example. Instead of listening to our concerns, or the concerns of rape victims, we’re accused of “enjoying the kill” like animals. The percentage of women who identify as Democrats is dropping, while women who identify as Independents is rising. It’s part of the reason why the 2016 election was such a shock. The polls and assumptions were off the most when it came to women. Many walked in and voted Republican but didn’t broadcast it, and I know some of those women, and they’re tired of being demonized by the other side of the aisle. I don’t think this justifies voting for a madman, but when the other side is accusing you of being into “killing people” when you don’t want to be raped and murdered, it tends to push you in the opposite direction. Like I said above, using a gun for self-protection isn’t about the urge to fire it, the vast majority of the time it is used as a means to deter a crime that destroys lives.

      Guns aren’t going away on their own, we have more guns in the United States than ever before, and record sale numbers. Gun ownership households might be declining, but I’d also guess that under a Democrat President and a rise in hostility towards gun owners, many people questioned aren’t too thrilled to say that they have guns. Regardless, more guns are being made and sold than ever before. A coworker went to a concealed carry class, and he was 1 of 2 men in the class, the rest were women.

      There are regulations on guns too, and look up the stats, when “assault weapons” were banned we had a higher rate of gun deaths and crime than we have now. I’m not against background checks, I’m against useless policies that won’t save lives. The average citizen is not allowed to own military weapons, or what you might call “assault weapons.” AR-15s are not fully automatic weapons like the military uses, and hunting rifles are actually more powerful. It’s the aesthetics that make it look scary. There are regulations on guns, they can't be in schools, airports, government buildings, etc… And I'm not opposed to regulations that work, the problem is that Democrats haven't put any regulations forward that would.

      Like

  2. Impressed that you’re responding to a year old article, thank you for taking the time both to read and respond!

    Attempting to edit for brevity. Not my strength obv. But here goes!

    In chunks because I think it will help…

    —–This q: “The studies that show having guns in the house makes you less safe – thoughts on that?” isn’t rape specific, it’s just house specific. I was curious as to how you felt about that (imagine for a moment you believed it was true). Would that change things for you?

    I do know if you could prove to me that carrying a gun did in fact make me safer I’d have one tomorrow. And you could count on a good proportion of liberal women doing the same. The problem is lack of evidence. I can’t justify carrying a lethal weapon based on feels.

    —-The problem with such studies is that one side can’t be measured, as I noted here:

    “We don’t have rape kits, body bags, or toe tags to count. We have survivors who may not even be aware that they’re survivors. etc”

    ——It is pretty easy to test. You can measure violence averted, or any kind of crime averted. You pick an area, look at crimes committed stats for gun owners vs. non gun owners. If you want to run an experiment you can do that too – arm people vs. unarmed control, let it run, see what pops up.

    You can definitely prove it false. More women get raped/killed w/ a gun on them or more women do not. Straightforward, simple experimental design. Easy to do. Pick a campus, make a proposal, it’ll be legal enough everywhere pretty soon w/ DeVos/Trump and you’ll have plenty of volunteers.

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean later on here. People avoid your house because you advertise that you have guns so you don’t know how many violent criminals just passed on by? Or are you referring to full time open carry? That, I’d grant you isn’t obvious to the individual, but is again easy to test. Same as above. Open carry vs. concealed carry vs. knife (why not) vs. mace vs. taser vs. nada. Let ’em go and see what you get.

    You don’t provide a citation so I can’t rebut your assertion that the studies (tens of thousands?) on Annals.com (which is not your richest source, try PubMed) don’t understand what the word “homicide” means. Perhaps you are only looking at preliminary studies? Look for the direct follow up, they’ll break it down in detail, the short ones are just usu proof of concept off extant data for grant purposes.

    Like

    1. Alright, I’ll try to respond piece by piece on each comment (some will be later or tomorrow because I’ve been crazy busy today, but here’s a start):

      The problem with your hypothetical, and the vast majority of the “more guns = more death” argument is that you’re leaping from correlation to causation. OF COURSE states with more guns will have higher gun related deaths. That was my point yesterday in explaining that yes, we have more suicides by gun, and in Japan that have higher suicide rates, and the vast majority commit the act by hanging themselves. If someone sits down to eat and there are 10 forks and, odds are, they’re going to eat with a fork, and vice versa, but regardless of silverware available, people are going to eat. In Japan they don’t have access to guns like we do, so they use a different means. Over 60% of gun related deaths are suicides. So yes, in states with more guns, firearm deaths will be higher, because there is a correlation, but don’t mistake it for a causation. Comparing states is, as a whole, incredibly difficult.

      – 5 of the top 8 states with the highest amount of rape also rank in the top 10 for strictest gun laws. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/opinion/sutter-alaska-rape-list/
      – Eight of the 10 states with the highest homicide rates and eight of the 10 states with the lowest homicide rates all got “D” or “F” grades from the Brady Campaign analysis on gun control laws. (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/)
      – District of Columbia (I know not a “state”) has few guns but lots of shootings
      – Hawaii has few guns and few shootings
      – Louisiana has more guns and high shootings
      – Wyoming has the highest percent gun ownership (60%) and one of the lowest murder/rape/crimes rates.

      So…. Maybe this is cultural, economical, etc.? As I said, correlation is not causation, but I would contend that lack of correlation proves non-causation.

      And the Annals.com source was a link you used, not my choice. “Homicide” is the killing of one person by another and also envelopes “suicide” in National stats. So when you see “gun related deaths” in the national stats, that includes self-defense, suicide, police shootings, etc… “Murder” is very different. Gun related homicide rates trend with overall homicide rates nationally, yet gun sales are steadily on the rise, and both gun related homicide rates and overall homicide rates are on the fall. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

      Like

  3. Citations agogo. Apologies, was not a humanities major.

    Number of guns per capita vs. firearm related deaths. Guns go up, deaths go up.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955

    Overall violent crime vs. guns/capita. Brandishing a no go on the results front. Add more guns, get more violent crime.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01064462

    As an aside, have you brandished effectively btw? How do you decide you need to make a lethal threat, to whom and under what circumstances? How do you know people are going to attack you ahead of time? Has it been useful w/ dates/bfs? Genuinely curious.

    Where are you finding violence decreases w/ gun numbers increased? Ideally I need a bunch of studies because honestly there’s so much against that finding you need to rebut a fairly firm assertion. Also, if it’s open carry you are suggesting, how young to carry in schools? Started at 10 for me so…

    If looking just at homicides (and I get why you aren’t cool w/ that alone but this is important), if you have a gun, your chance of getting killed by a stranger does not change. Your change of getting killed by someone you know does go up.
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

    So if people buy guns in areas of higher gun ownership ’cause they’re scared of getting shot (totally reasonable), you are as safe w/ strangers and less safe w/ friends/family if you own a gun.

    Which makes sense. Domestic violence being so common.

    Especially, and depressingly, for women. Women are not usually killed by strangers. But they also keep their killing in the family so points for that?
    http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/abstract/1992/07000/men,_women,_and_murder__gender_specific.1.aspx

    Theft, guns not more useful than anything else…
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25910555

    Interestingly, guns are getting less lethal. So ok, screw the gun homicide rate, go w/ the violence rate cited above.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24452421

    Let’s just look at rape. College women in gun free zones vs. women in world w/ access to weapons if they want ’em.
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

    Now the missing puzzle piece for us both of course is rape risk w/ carry vs. rape risk w/o carry.

    All right, I agree that’s insufficient to explore the problem. Can you find any specific peer reviewed reputable studies that tackle that? Which means it needs to be done. The NRA and the GOP are blocking the funding needed to do that study. I bet they’ll listen to you faster than they’d listen to me.

    Worthwhile question that if this is the push point for the gun rights lobby, that they want guns in schools, why aren’t they funding the studies they need to prove that it’s actually a plus? It wouldn’t even cost much to run.

    Like

  4. I do get the idea of being afraid and finding it comforting to have a lethal weapon. My aunt was killed by her husband in front of her kids. My grandpa would hold live grenades against my grandmas head. This touches everyone.

    I have no problem at all with guns, nor am I afraid of gun owners. Liberals are not afraid of gun owners. What they are worried about is public safety. That’s exactly what you’re worried about too.

    It is important to be clear that correlation =/= causation. Any argument based on that is unsupportable. I could as easily say that climbing obesity caused the drop in crime. Which sounds pretty supportable…

    I am completely uninterested in feelings as regards public safety. I am interested in facts. Does that gun actually keep you safer, or does it make you more likely to end up dead? That’s what I want laws based on. I understand it’s useful to have a security blanket and I don’t demean that need. But other measures may make you safer than a gun would. Don’t you want to know what really works? Isn’t that what you want laws based on? Wouldn’t that make you not only actually safer, but feel safer too? If you knew for sure instead of operating your safety plan on feelings alone?

    And in order to find that out, don’t we need to do the research? Or more specifically, don’t you?

    Overwhelmingly the work done so far does not indicate increased safety from having a gun in your home or on you. You have only cited one study. That is insufficient to provide scientific consensus or even to effectively rebut.

    “ but that’s not stopping the UK rape numbers from being at a record high in 2015.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/13/reported-rapes-in-england-and-wales-double-in-five-years

    As I said, nothing to do with rape rate. Lots to do w/ women feeling safe to report/utility in reporting. Rape reporting will go down under the Trump administration, and he will claim he’s making women safer. I think you and I both know what to think of that.

    Domestic violence at all time low. Rape rates at all time low. Violent crime at an all time low. Why the arsenals? Why the open carry movement? It is a bit mysterious, no?

    Like

    1. Once again, the links you’re using are generalizing “firearm related deaths.” As I noted last night, people use whatever tools are at their disposal when committing suicide or a crime. Once again, you’re making the mistake of assuming that correlation = causation. It doesn’t. More people die in Japan from hanging themselves than people with guns die from shooting themselves in America, because the choice to end a life doesn’t hinge upon what weapon is available to get the job done. Are the people in Japan less dead? The links you’re providing have been used by pro-gun control advocates ad nauseam because the number of “gun related deaths” is much more appetizing than “gun related murders.” There’s a huge difference. It lumps every gun related suicide, every time a gun is used by a cop, and every instance of self-defense to attack people like myself. But the question you guys never really answer is this one: Why do the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones? Why do people who want to hurt individuals always pick places where other people can’t protect themselves?

      I have never had to brandish, and I pray daily that I never do. Why exactly would it be useful with dates? Do you think people who carry weapons walk around looking for reasons to use them, or brag about having them on them all the time? The picture so many anti-gun individuals have of the gun owning community is truly disturbing and points to a very large bubble that only accepts the picture of some rogue gun owner walking around with an AR-15 in Walmart. My gun is secured on me when I take late night walks with my dog, or go hiking, or if I’m out walking in the country. Or if I go shopping and will be walking in parking lots at night, or if I’m in a restaurant late at night, etc… The only time that I would ever pull my weapon is if I was convinced that an individual is a threat to my life, that they’ve made their intentions clear. Period. I’ve been in situations where I’ve felt threatened, and I’ve used my German Shepherd as a deterrent, or I’ve used verbal commands to tell someone to stay away from me. If either of those were to fail, it’s VERY clear that my life is in danger.

      Like

    2. “Where are you finding violence decreases w/ gun numbers increased?”

      Pretty simple: Guns are being sold more now than ever before. We currently have more guns in America, among the citizens, than we’ve ever had in the history of our country, and restrictions on gun ownership have been loosened. At the same time, our crime rate as a whole is better than it has been since the 60s.

      “Now the missing puzzle piece for us both of course is rape risk w/ carry vs. rape risk w/o carry.”

      Let’s be honest: Regardless of how the study is conducted, you’d say it wasn’t good enough. They interview attackers with nothing to lose who say they avoided certain women because of fear of a weapon, or certain areas with high gun ownership, etc., and you say it shouldn’t be taken seriously. I can cite the 1979-1985 Justice Department’s Victim Survey that shows that when women resist stranger rape with a gun, the probability of rape completion was 0.1% & victim injury 0.0%, compared to 31% & 40% respectively, and you’ll tell me that the study is too old. Or as this Journal of Criminal Justice study in 2000 found:

      “It is often argued that the victim who is confronted with potential deadly physical force should cooperate with the attacker (see, for example, Zimring & Zuehl, 1986, p. 30). The use of a gun for self-defense, however, appears to reduce injury. Thus, it may well be that the choice of some potential victims to arm themselves does improve their safety. While Cook (1986, p. 417) points out that resistance may either result in greater or lesser harm to the victim, the results above show that having a gun (and being able to use it) reduces harm to the victim.

      Another question relative to the arming of potential victims is how it would affect their injury rates. Using the same set of serious injuries as in Table 5 and the same presumption that 10 percent of the actual unarmed victims were to have guns, this is analyzed and presented in Table 10. The proportion of victims with serious injuries would have fallen in the 1979–1987 data set from 4.69 percent to 4.54 percent, a drop of 3.24 percent. In the 1991 data, the proportion would have fallen from 5.11 percent to 4.84 percent, a drop of 5.23 percent. It may be conjectured that a factor causing the higher actual rate of serious injury in the 1991 data set is that fewer of the victims had guns than in the earlier data set.36

      It follows that there is a social gain to having more of the potential victims possessing guns. This gain is not fully captured by the individual since the reduced level of crime and the lower likelihood of criminals being armed will also benefit those potential victims who do not choose to have guns.”

      But you’ll disregard that because it’s old, or the dates studied are old – despite the fact that the individuals studying them found the information relevant. If they studied women who own guns and asked them if they’ve been used to deter a rape, you’d disregard that as partisan theatrics from women who want to stay armed because they like death more than you. Because our side can’t measure the benefit since there isn’t a number for crimes that didn’t occur, or a number of crimes that were thwarted, other than to look at the correlation of lower rapes, and a decline in violence against women as more guns are flooding into our society as a whole. You accuse me of going off of “feelings” yet disregard a study because the NRA used it? Or because you think it’s too old, or the subjects are too biased. You’re completely ignoring the only way we can measure crimes NOT committed (which is personal testimony) and how the high influx of guns can be pointed to as a causation. As a result, you’re ONLY wanting to use “facts” in regards to gun related deaths, but your feelings are getting in the way of you seeing that pretty much every study concludes that the measures you base your “facts” off of are missing a gaping hole of information because thwarted crimes can’t be calculated, so we fall on the drop in national stats as a correlation.

      “Domestic violence at all time low. Rape rates at all time low. Violent crime at an all time low. Why the arsenals? Why the open carry movement? It is a bit mysterious, no?”

      Measles, Mumps, Polio and Whooping Cough are at an all-time low. Why all the vaccinations? It is a bit mysterious, no?

      Like

  5. Not a particularly important point, but a case could be made that my right not to be shot (even if less often) would supercede your right not to be raped. Not the argument I was making at all. What I was worried about was you getting raped more often and then shot more often out of a mistaken sense of safety in a weapon that makes you less safe. Until we get a non GOP or whatever Trump is pres again we won’t know. Unless gun owners crowd fund it.

    US number one in comparative countries for mass shootings. No debate on that. We win. You got numbers that say otherwise happy to see ’em.

    Not sure why it’s important to prove US has lowest rape rate (stats on convictions, reported, and estimated rates are available for all comparable countries) unless your argument is that shooting dicks off or at least keeping men afraid of getting their dicks shot off is what’s been doing it. Without proof either way I can just as easily say you don’t need to worry so much about getting raped in the hyper safe US because American men are enlightened gentle souls. Granted that’s possibly because my very bearish neighbor across the way is pirouetting in a fairy costume and it’s just delightful, but the easy way to figure that out would be to compare rate by state by gun saturation.
    SD and Alaska. Pretty red bottom of that list.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/opinion/sutter-alaska-rape-list/

    Wouldn’t rapists just switch to roofies?

    Now if everyone has a secret arsenal out of gun shame (in red states?!?)/fear of gov’t taking your guns away (red states), impossible to know how many guns out there. Ten for every man woman and child? Still, only roughly two hands per person, and not sure how old a baby has to be to shoot someone but probably at least toddling, right?

    Still more likely to get shot as a baby here than just about anywhere else. Or by one. Or by a dog.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/a-dog-shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/

    You could certainly make the case that since everyone has secret guns no one will follow the law anyway so why bother trying to restrict. Except it does work in states that enact restrictions, so secret guns not relevant/rusty/filled w/ ants?

    Sorry, being flippant, too much typing.

    Legit Q – the women you know who voted Trump. What’s the reasoning? Hard to grasp from this side.

    ” I’m against useless policies that won’t save lives”

    100% agree. My point too. Hence need for actually finding out what will, using what has in the past and does now. Have actually a surprisingly large number of studies out there backing fewer guns given the funding choke, as far as I know only that one you cited backing more. More citations from your side would help.

    Legit need for AR-15….? Banning that type of weapon, whatever you want to call it, did reduce deaths. I know rifles are more powerful. Slower at killing first graders, more my point.

    Do you want guns in schools?

    Like

    1. “US number one in comparative countries for mass shootings. No debate on that. We win. You got numbers that say otherwise happy to see ’em.”

      And those mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. You win, your gun-free zones are working stupendously.

      Not a “secret arsenal,” but people uninterested in answering surveyors, many guns aren’t registered (legally don’t have to be), etc…

      “You could certainly make the case that since everyone has secret guns no one will follow the law anyway so why bother trying to restrict.”

      Well, this is the truth in regards to criminals in Chicago, and pretty much every mass shooting location in the US. Isn’t it weird that it’s always the criminals that don’t follow those laws and the citizens deprived of their right to self-defense that die? With the mass number of guns that we have in the United States, confiscation of any kind wouldn’t work, and if you’d like to see how confiscation doesn’t work, take a look at Australia’s 1996 gun confiscation. The only people you’d be taking guns away from are law abiding citizens like myself who don’t pose a threat. You think criminals are going to hand them over? People who plan to commit murder? Ummm…no.

      “Legit Q – the women you know who voted Trump. What’s the reasoning? Hard to grasp from this side.”

      I don’t agree with justifying a vote for such a man, but as for their reasoning it usually comes down to this: Abortion and gun rights. For the victim of rape who refuses to ever go through that hell again, the left’s demonizing of them, and attack on their rights, is enough to drive them to the voting booth, even for an a-hole like Trump. Fellow women constantly attacking them for thinking differently is just a reminder that the current Feminist movement demands conformity and stands against free thought, which means they’re actively standing antithetical to the original Feminist movement.

      “Legit need for AR-15….? Banning that type of weapon, whatever you want to call it, did reduce deaths. I know rifles are more powerful. Slower at killing first graders, more my point.”

      Start here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-winkler-folly-of-assault-weapon-ban-20151211-story.html

      Assault weapon’s bans don’t reduce deaths.

      “Little wonder then that a 2004 study commissioned by the Department of Justice found that the federal ban didn’t lead to any decrease in gun crime or gun deaths. For starters, rifles, assault or otherwise, are rarely used in gun crime. Notwithstanding the two rifles used in San Bernardino (and a few other memorable mass killings), rifles account for only about 3% of criminal gun deaths. Gun crime in the United States, including most mass shootings, is overwhelmingly handgun crime.

      The nationwide federal ban on assault weapons did accomplish one thing: According to the 2004 study, fewer of the banned guns were found at crime scenes (down from 2% of guns recovered to 1%). Although this suggests that gun laws affect the inventory of guns in the marketplace — again, contrary to the claims of the NRA — the study’s authors concluded that criminals had just switched to other guns.”

      I’m not cheerleading for the NRA, nor am I a member, I think they’ve made mistakes. I think both sides have made mistakes.

      “Do you want guns in schools?”

      I want someone with a gun in schools, yes. Be that a police officer or someone undercover that is well trained. Laws don’t stop people, as in the case of Newtown. Connecticut has had a ban on Assault Weapons for over 20 years, large capacity magazines, and a ban on guns on school property. They also have a very strict vetting process for gun owners, it’s the utopia gun control advocates dream of, yet NONE of that stopped children from being murdered. Criminals don’t obey laws, and I’m not sure why we have to keep explaining this to the left. Yes, someone with training and experience should be on school property to stop those who don’t give a crap about your “no guns allowed” signs.

      Like

  6. Crud, last one didn’t go through. Mercy!

    So – not sure why the opinion of anyone else would change how you vote. We don’t have a club house or anything, liberals are always fractured into a million different views, you saw the march, right? Can’t even agree on a theme. Plenty of pro-life blue voters. Plenty of pro-gun blue voters. No big deal. Right sees us as murderers of the absolute worst kind, doesn’t bother me or change my actions. What could we possibly paint you w/ that would be worse than happy go lucky serial baby murderer?

    This article is an example of “What? Obviously?”.

    Can no one find a Jesuit to ask how to do this thing right?

    Find study that compares rape rate by state vs. gun ownership, no need to compare to other countries (all of whom have detailed non-blanketed/blanketed info avail, comparison easy), then you see if guns protect against rape by scaring men worried about getting their dicks shot off by every woman they encounter. Personally I think they’d just switch to roofies. Or like, grab your hands.

    If you don’t have hand to hand combat training w/ a weapon, you need it.

    Invisible guns a possibility. Hiding from fear of Obama or out of shame?? (what’s getting rid of cigarettes) makes it impossible to know. Could be massive numbers of guns crushing Americans to death in their homes every day. Still, when you enact gun controls incl AR-15 bans on states, they do get safer. Do more invisible guns get flown in emergency drop by the NRA? Maybe they do. Need a citation.

    AR-15, why need?

    Guns in school, great or weird?

    Re: women who you know who voted for Trump, do you think they’d support a Conway presidency?

    Like

  7. Honestly Marybeth you truly don’t have to write back to this ridiculously long screed. It’s too long to read much less respond to.

    Short version: concern of both of us is actual safety based on facts. I want a study done, easy to experimentally prove, probably could do it off extant data sets if you could dig up the profs. Majority of work done does not indicate increased safety from proximity to/ownership of firearms. We won’t agree on that I don’t think, not possible for you to get more studies to support yourself or you’d have them already, not possible to conjure new ones out of air to solve the exact argument at hand. So, bleh.

    Evidenced based legislation required, impossible due to funding block to CDC by GOP/NRA for… reasons? Not gonna turn around this administration.

    If the argument is that the right to the complete control of one’s own body at the potential expense of ending someone else’s is legal, yes, liberal philosophy in agreement.

    Didn’t know there was an actual team to switch to? Just vote how you want? Isn’t that what everyone does?

    Oh, and yeah, suicide, pretty preventable.

    Like

    1. “Honestly Marybeth you truly don’t have to write back to this ridiculously long screed. It’s too long to read much less respond to.”

      Exactly what are you writing in reply to me? So I should take the time to read your ridiculously long screeds and respond to them, but you shouldn’t take the time to read and respond to mine? Seems a bit hypocritical, Emily.

      “suicide, pretty preventable.”

      Talk to the other countries who have more suicides than us regardless of weapon. I’m not disinterested in preventing suicides, Emily, that would be a pretty silly notion. I’m just against you wanting my right to self-protection removed so that suicidal individuals hang themselves instead of shoot themselves so that you can tout lower gun deaths.

      Like

  8. One more thought on not feeling welcome in a new/different group than usual – there’s a lot of, let’s say irritation (if it were me feeling it I’d call it legitimate anger), at the liberal (however blue or not, especially if super dem) newbies to the movement, that despite all of these issues (refugees, deportation, BLM, Flint, Native American rights, etc) being present since forever, what finally got the white people out there was this lunatic of a president finally stepping on our toes (w/ particular annoyance at white women 1) for majority voting for Trump and 2) for being people who experience prejudice/oppression/etc themselves and therefore w/ personal experience into how that feels and works and still until just now sort of skating along, caring, but not doing much of anything by and large.
    An example of how much work there still is to do on this front, look at the people tying themselves to the wheel well of ICE vans. We should be seeing white suburban blue state soccer moms doing that.
    And that anger is 100% legit. And we should feel shame. Despite the occasional donation and voting for civil rights the vast majority of liberal women including me and everyone I know should be ashamed. We were deliberately turning our eyes away because it was easier to ignore it, like walking past homeless people and averting your eyes even though you know the problem is there.

    This feeling of rejection/unwelcome because of personal beliefs or failure to defend others in the past is a good feeling to have, because it causes you to self examine in a way many of us haven’t really ever needed to. That’s what exposure to different people gets you. I think it’s the point of your writing. And I very much appreciate the effort on your part because it’s something everyone needs to be doing in all directions at all times and we’re scarce on socially conservative Republicans around here (fiscal sure, but rich, so…).

    But I don’t think the uncomfortable feeling we get when we are forced to face other people’s opinions is a bad feeling to have, at all.

    Like

    1. “This feeling of rejection/unwelcome because of personal beliefs or failure to defend others in the past is a good feeling to have, because it causes you to self examine in a way many of us haven’t really ever needed to. That’s what exposure to different people gets you. I think it’s the point of your writing. And I very much appreciate the effort on your part because it’s something everyone needs to be doing in all directions at all times and we’re scarce on socially conservative Republicans around here (fiscal sure, but rich, so…).”

      You don’t need to self-examine? You’re telling potential rape survivors who carry guns that they must like the idea of killing people more than you, and you don’t think you need to self-examine? You say that I needed exposure to other people, but maybe you need that too. I’ve always cared deeply about minorities, refugees, and immigrants, and that’s why I left my party when they failed to represent issues I cared about. You’re disregarding every stat that doesn’t fit your agenda. The feelings of rejection and unwelcoming attitudes aren’t me feeling guilty for my beliefs. My party moved radical, so I walked away, something leftists haven’t had the guts to do in quite a long time. I’m not looking at your side and wishing for a more embracing atmosphere, I’m looking at it and wishing that the sensible would learn to meet us half way. But from reading your comments it looks as though they won’t, but will instead try to hold us hostage and force us to vote for those we vehemently disagree with just to fight people like Trump, and to those hostage takers I say “good luck.” I don’t justify people who voted for Trump, because they were wrong. But I would advise people like your “my way or the highway” self to do some serious self-reflection, otherwise be prepared to lose to individuals like Trump. Your party couldn’t even beat Trump, maybe that has to do with some of the verbiage you’re using again innocent women who don’t want to be raped. Pretty sure that if I was a part of a party that couldn’t even beat Trump, I’d probably do some self-reflecting.

      Like

  9. Eight states allow you to carry on campus. Here’s how you get your study done on the cheap.
    Get a college student in a relevant field to make this their independent study, honors, or summer internship research project. Pref from a liberal school, can’t accuse of bias. Women’s colleges good idea.
    Study before and after right to carry on campus sexual violence levels.
    Publish in peer reviewed journal.

    This is effectively free.

    Like

  10. You’re also going to want to not cite any studies pre the 1990’s crime drop. Incidentally this is also the first study I’ve found that parses out rape frequency w/ and w/o RTC.

    http://media.law.stanford.edu/publications/archive/pdf/ssrn-id1632599.pdf

    Bronchitis and insomnia are a heady mix, can’t usefully dig into the statistical analysis at the moment, but looks interesting, if not precisely what we were looking for.

    Here’s your felon interview paper, always link to actual paper when possible, if you Google it it’s all NRA links, quoting almost verbatim from a gun lobby not helping your argument, looks lazy if you aren’t scouring the literature. As a self-reported chronicle from your more incompetent criminals, the multiple choice interview format is less than ideal. Not really interested in a very limited psych eval of criminals, more interested in actual crime stats.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/97099NCJRS.pdf

    Like

  11. This lady might be a good start w/ your research project:
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/faculty-and-staff/azrael-deborah/

    If the NRA wants to present an appropriate data backed rebuttal to those who disagree w/ their premise that more guns = safer, their website should look like hers.

    This might be a good read.

    Hemenway, David; Shinoda-Tagawa, Tomoko; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates across 25 populous high-income countries. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association. 2002; 57:100-04

    Like

  12. “Exactly what are you writing in reply to me? So I should take the time to read your ridiculously long screeds and respond to them, but you shouldn’t take the time to read and respond to mine? Seems a bit hypocritical, Emily.”

    I did respond to yours, point by point. But I felt it was asking too much of you to read mine because it was so long, that it was impolite of me to write so much. Feel free to respond if you’ve got the time.

    Like

  13. “suicide, pretty preventable.”

    Talk to the other countries who have more suicides than us regardless of weapon.

    -Why?

    I’m not disinterested in preventing suicides, Emily, that would be a pretty silly notion.

    No?
    https://twitter.com/girlscouts

    I’m just against you wanting my right to self-protection removed so that suicidal individuals hang themselves instead of shoot themselves so that you can tout lower gun deaths.

    So am I. But if your right to self-protection makes you more likely to die then if you didn’t have a gun, you can’t call it self-protection, can you. It would be unethical of me to encourage you to make your choice in ignorance. As it stands right now, 99% of the evidence so far says you are in more danger of dying w/ that gun.

    Which is fine, your choice. But is it ok for you to tell others it makes them safer?

    Like

  14. “You don’t need to self-examine? You’re telling potential rape survivors who carry guns that they must like the idea of killing people more than you, and you don’t think you need to self-examine? You say that I needed exposure to other people, but maybe you need that too. I’ve always cared deeply about minorities, refugees, and immigrants, and that’s why I left my party when they failed to represent issues I cared about. You’re disregarding every stat that doesn’t fit your agenda. The feelings of rejection and unwelcoming attitudes aren’t me feeling guilty for my beliefs. My party moved radical, so I walked away, something leftists haven’t had the guts to do in quite a long time. I’m not looking at your side and wishing for a more embracing atmosphere, I’m looking at it and wishing that the sensible would learn to meet us half way. But from reading your comments it looks as though they won’t, but will instead try to hold us hostage and force us to vote for those we vehemently disagree with just to fight people like Trump, and to those hostage takers I say “good luck.” I don’t justify people who voted for Trump, because they were wrong. But I would advise people like your “my way or the highway” self to do some serious self-reflection, otherwise be prepared to lose to individuals like Trump. Your party couldn’t even beat Trump, maybe that has to do with some of the verbiage you’re using again innocent women who don’t want to be raped. Pretty sure that if I was a part of a party that couldn’t even beat Trump, I’d probably do some self-reflecting.”

    None of the rape survivors I know think carrying a gun would prevent rape.

    The data backs them up, as far as murder goes. Rape needs study. Of course, most people would rather be raped than murdered, but I think you said you were more worried about rape, so obv. ymmv.

    You don’t care about the mentally ill, which is a minority.

    Your party hasn’t changed. It’s the same people. One guy got into office who lets them do everything they’ve always want to do. Do you see any resistance to Trump from your senators and representatives? At the federal level? Even much at the state level? In a red state?

    It’s a bit telling.

    “but will instead try to hold us hostage and force us to vote for those we vehemently disagree with just to fight people like Trump, and to those hostage takers I say “good luck.””

    This is very unclear to me. Everyone votes for whoever they want to. No one is being taken hostage. I can’t even imagine how that would work.

    Do you have any idea how much pure Hillary hate their is/was in blue states? Putin didn’t restrict his propaganda arm to the right.

    “again innocent women who don’t want to be raped”

    Again, that’s not what I’ve said at all. I am saying you are more likely to be killed w/ a gun in the picture, and I don’t think guns prevent rape. I think they increase it (violence against women goes up w/ guns in the mix). From the women I know, in my family and not, who have been raped, no one carries a gun and none of them would. It’s useless in close combat, surprised situations etc.

    Now if you want to get a posse together, to hunt down rapists and serial killers, sure, you’d need guns. Because then you’re the one surprising someone.

    The thing about having a gun – best case scenario, your rapist just moves to the next girl. If women on campus are more likely to be armed, rapists will just change tactics. Then your gun becomes a liability against you. It’s a bludgeon even if it’s fingerprint recog’d.

    Have you taken a hand to hand combat course? Have you physically fought a man?

    Like

  15. “I’m just against you wanting my right to self-protection removed so that suicidal individuals hang themselves instead of shoot themselves so that you can tout lower gun deaths.”

    If you looked at any of those studies (I read the one you cited in it’s entirety), you’d see you are incorrect re: hanging.

    I get the feeling you don’t know anyone who is mentally ill. Unlikely, but if your friends and family aren’t telling you about it, one way to increase trust is to express that you value their lives.

    Like

  16. “You say that I needed exposure to other people, but maybe you need that too. ”

    That is why I am reading you, and talking to you.

    ” I’ve always cared deeply about minorities, refugees, and immigrants, and that’s why I left my party when they failed to represent issues I cared about. ”

    I didn’t say you were uncaring. I didn’t say people who vote red are uncaring. The RNC’s policies certainly are. But the people aren’t.

    “You’re disregarding every stat that doesn’t fit your agenda.”

    You have one paper. Only one source would be insufficient for a homework assignment in middle school. If you have more sources, please cite. Referring me to a website is not citing, especially since that website is more full of support for my position than yours. It is not my responsibility to do the work to defend your point, although I did in fact try to find papers that support your hypothesis.

    ” I don’t justify people who voted for Trump, because they were wrong.”
    No they weren’t. They were voting for perfectly justifiable reasons. There were no more racists voting Republican than in any other election.

    “But I would advise people like your “my way or the highway” self to do some serious self-reflection, otherwise be prepared to lose to individuals like Trump”

    Am I “my way or the highway”? If you have proof that you are correct, please cite it. If it doesn’t exist, please acknowledge that and provide a plan for how to obtain that proof.

    We didn’t lose to Trump. A non-sensical unique to US vestige of slavery election method + Russian interference in the election, which was known to the Republican party, and the restraint of President Obama lost us the election.

    Admittedly, Trump’s assertion that he would refuse to accept the results of the election helped keep people’s mouths shut. When the incoming party is heavily armed and voting for someone clearly maniacal you can see why you might want to hedge your bets against a second civil war.

    “maybe that has to do with some of the verbiage you’re using again innocent women who don’t want to be raped. ”

    What verbiage? That carrying a weapon indicates an increased willingness to kill? Isn’t that what you said was the point?

    Like

  17. I’m also 100% completely willing to change my opinion re: guns don’t prevent rape/keep women safer once you present some real backing for your opinion. I don’t think you are that open. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

    Like

  18. Here’s another place to find your pro-gun scientist. Honestly surprised there has not been a single pro-gun person who has done the work, undergrad or post, to prove your assertion. Are you guys that rare? Doesn’t the NRA offer scholarships?

    http://mitpe.mit.edu/Pirate-Certificate/

    Here’s funding, although of course MIT is free and provides funds to all students to pursue independent research.

    http://www.competitions.nra.org/collegiate/nra-scholarships.aspx

    Like

  19. One other place to look for info/help would be the US military. Not sure that there’s going to be much work on it now w/ the new admin, but Obama did order review and the military was very motivated to fund and provide data for rape reduction, given their high rates for both men and women.

    Like

  20. Screwed up the Girl Scouts link. Here it is!

    And the report

    http://www.girlscouts.org/en/about-girl-scouts/research/state-of-girls.html

    Here you go, w/ one study you might want to use on your side?

    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

    I’d also still really like to hear from your friends who have attempted, what do they think?

    Like

  21. And if you know anyone who is older than college age, who doesn’t have a degree and wants one for free, Wellesley, Brown, Yale, Smith, Mt. Holyoke and maybe Wesleyan? Simmons? Ugh, feel like I’m missing one (there are plenty of schools w/ debt free/loan free/income dependent tuition (aka free if you aren’t rich) but these are easier to get into. Ok, not Yale or Brown). Programs for female non-trads (over 24 usu), free unless you’re loaded, some stipend you so you don’t have to work, housing, supplies sometimes too. Need 1 year comm college w/ good though not necc perfect grades +/or kickass career hx (strong enough to be considered and credited as independent study).

    In case you know anyone w/ three or four years more or less free and a hankering to prove guns make women safer.

    Like

  22. How’d you feel about that bill today that made it (kept it, law against it wasn’t supposed to be in effect ’til April) legal for the severely mentally ill (i.e. on disability and w/ a financial guardian appointed by the state, so actually they’d have to ask their financial guardian for money to buy it, because they aren’t sane enough to be allowed to control their own money) to purchase firearms?

    Like

  23. “I’ve always cared deeply about minorities, refugees, and immigrants, ”

    Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think I caught you using “all lives matter” in your Twitter (which is how I got to this article).

    Have you asked your minority/refugee/immigrant friends about that choice of phraseology?

    Like

  24. “” I’ve always cared deeply about minorities, refugees, and immigrants, and that’s why I left my party when they failed to represent issues I cared about. ””

    If what you wanted enacted was the same R agenda they’ve been pushing since forever, Trump is an ideal president. He is effectively doing nothing himself, is both easily manipulated and highly compromised but also extremely distracting, while allowing the R congress and state leg to do everything they’ve ever wanted.

    Look at the bills they are enacting. Everything is in line w/ the same platform they’ve always had.

    No help w/ education. End Obamacare, kill any chance of single payer, cut free health care to low income people. Cut Social Security and Medicaid. End of restrictions on banks and businesses. End of enviro protection. End of public housing. Guns for all. Damage women’s healthcare for poor women. End of safe abortion. Drastically cut welfare for people, up it for corporations. Limit gay and transgender rights.

    On the theory that will bring about jobs and prosperity and promote Christian values.

    This is what they’ve been running on since forever. Nothing new. This is the platform you wanted enacted if you’ve supported the Repub platform in the past.

    On the bright side now’s your chance to shoot a wolf.

    Like

  25. “minorities and immigrant” – there is no way you can possibly claim the Republican party has ever cared about these groups in any way except to openly seek to restrict their ability to vote. If those are your values, the R’s have never represented you.

    Like

  26. Here’s your subject group. You prove arming these women keeps them safer, you have concealed carry in every state w/ 100% liberal support and the NRA giddily funding your ad campaign bc it can sell to a whole new market (while selling even more guns to conservatives who are afraid of trans people). They’ll love it. Added benefit is that because these women experience the highest rate of violence against them you’ll get good results fast. Under this presidency, extra fast.

    http://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-calls-increased-and-accurate-media-coverage-transgender-murders

    Like

  27. ““Maybe liberal women are just not into killing people as much as conservative women are?” <— These are the type of comments that sent conservative women running from the left. They’re the type of comments that made a lot of reluctant women vote for Trump. "

    I still 100% stand by this. You have a lot of vegan conservatives out there? Ever attended a meeting of over 100 people over whether or not to chop down a completely unremarkable pine tree on the border of a forest containing millions of pine trees? How many people do you meet in a week who won't eat honey because bees are killed in it's production?

    If you are carrying a gun you have accepted the possibility that you will be killing someone, in your case, apparently for a crime that does not have the death penalty. If you were merely carrying to brandish you would not need a real gun, excellent plastic facsimiles are easy to find, and you could legally carry those any where you wanted. If conservative women are carrying guns more than liberal women (safe bet), they are in fact more comfortable with killing other human beings, because that is what carrying a real working gun is for.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: