Statistics Indicate Women Dont Need Guns for Protection?

D

Donna Barnas

Inactive
I happened to stroll onto the Gun Guy's newspage and read an article where anti-gunners reported that women dont need guns for self defense because statistics reveal that 85% of women are victimized by someone they know.

I am outraged by this. Does this mean that because the woman is victimized by someone she knows that the crime is less violent? Some of the most brutal murders and rapes occur by someone the woman has known. Knowing a man doesn't mean that he will be kinder to her when he chooses to victimize her. The report fails to expound and say that it can be a worker who comes to the home, an aquaintance. Someone she has seen before or even said hello to. Even some serial killers have admitted to knowing their victims before killing them. One of the most brutal murders that John Douglas describes in his book JOURNEY INTO DARKNESS was committed by a young man the woman had known. Abusive husbands are also included in this group and some of their deeds are pretty gruesome. (O.J. Simpson)

It is because of this statistic that I think that women should arm themselves with both a gun and a knife.

Did any of you happen to see this on the Gun Guy's page and if you did what were your thoughts?
 
Heya Donna....welcome!

Do you have a link for this article?

Additionally to what you stated, and just for the sake of debate that the stats are "correct":
What about the other 15%? They aren't entitled to protection and should be victimized because they don't know their attacker? What was the sample size the stats were derived from? 15% of 100 women is 15....15% of 1,000,000 is 150,000....They pass gun laws affecting 80,000,000 gunowners based on the deaths of less than 60 kids, but apparently women protecting themselves don't rate, I guess.

Guess I'm too dumb or arrogant to pay attention to such drivel :)....guns and knives are the perfect fashion accessory!

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
http://www.webcom.com/gun_guy/

DC go down the page to Page 2, click, then scroll down to the bottom and you will find the article.

For some reason the url to the page won't work, no doubt due to my incompetence.

Geoff Ross

[This message has been edited by K80Geoff (edited October 18, 1999).]
 
Hi DC,
Here is the Gun Guy's page this tid bit is recorded on.
http://www.webcom.com/gun_guy/news.htm

When I clicked on the link for this study it said that the date expired for this article. Here is the excerp that the Gun Guy wrote into his newspage.


Nationwide, fewer than one in 12 victims were attacked by a stranger, while the rest were killed by someone they knew. Center analyst Karen Brock said the study
was conducted in part to undermine fear tactics used by gun manufacturers to boost sales to women. ''The most common threat a woman faces is not a
knife-wielding stranger, but someone she knows, most frequently her husband or boyfriend,'' she said

DC, The rape crisis centers record this statistic at about 15%. You bring out some great points that I overlooked as well concerning the 15%

The reason that I am sticking with the 15% number is because I tend to trust the numbers provided by the rape crisis centers vs. some woman who is trying to make light of violence against women. Also these statisitics are not even totally accurate because many rapes go unreported and rape crisis centers believe that because of their efforts the numbers of women reporting have increased.
 
Hi, Donna and welcome!

Well, you see, Liberals have their own scales to measure the "badness" of crime.

If you are a victim of a gun-crime, you are very dead and very much a victim.

If you are a victim of a knife-crime, you are a little less dead and a little less of a victim.

If you are raped by someone you know, it is not quite that awful, because after all, al sex is rape and husbands rape wives every day.

If you are black and defend yourself against a white assailant, you and your gun never even make the news, but all the fanfare is reserved for the "motivation of the assailant" and his "hate-crime" (...as opposed to what? a "benevolence-crime?...); if you are white and defend yourself against a black, it is all your fault, and you make the news as a racially-motivated gun-nut who was just "waiting for the perfect occasion".

If you kill your potential killer with a gun, he is more dead than you would have been had he succeeded.

If you are a woman who is the potential victim of any crime, but choose to defend yourself, then you are:
a) A heroine if you used a hatpin, a baby-bottle, a pitching wedge or any other object from the Cosmopolitan School of Self-defence;
b) A politically-incorrect traitor of the woman's cause if you use the most sensible object at your disposal, i.e. a gun.

Liberalism is an IDEOLOGY, kind of like a faith. They create their own "evidence", they write their own "bible".
The mistake we make is to try and interpret and refute their statements through facts, rationality, "real" statistics, fair arguing and open-mindedness. It will never work. Liberals are, per se, militants and facinorous, they like to win at any cost and they love to talk over their opponents.

The only way to prevail upon them is, unfortunately, not by reasoning (as a Christian, no one could reason me out of my Faith either); it is by drumming up enough noise to silence them in the forum of ideas; to defeat them politically and to dwarf them on the scale of public debate.

I have taken it upon myself to write as many letters as possible to newspapers, radio and TV stations, to call my representatives and to get with my friends, my gun club members etc, and make that noise. And believe me, the more women appear and speak on our behalf, the better for our cause. There is nothing more persuasive than a well-articulated, slightly impassionate woman arguing a case (hence the success of Brady).

Keep your chin up! We'll win eventually!!!!

------------------
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLVM

Constitution-RKBA=a weakened document!
 
Guess the stupid broads at the range I just visited can't read. Lots of them were out, some with competently used 10mm Glocks and other handcannons (I tried a 10mm recently, it was actually mild in recoil). I am seeing a lot more women at the range lately. More non-whites, too. Glad that NAACP isn't actually speaking for any real people. I let a number of others shoot my guns yesterday and hope that qualifies as "promoting diversity within my community" as far as the leftists are concerned :)
 
I believe I have read that husbands murdering their wives rarely use a gun, prefering to stab, choke or some other method. However, wives killing abusive husbands, perhaps in self-defense, most often use a gun, to overcome the strength advantage. So self-defense against a relative or "friend" (ahem) is still a good reason to own a gun.
 
A few weeks ago, an anti-dv spokeswoman and DJ in Colorado Springs was killed by her husband. The @$$hole beat her out into their front yard, sat on her chest, and choked the shinola out of her. Took about 5 minutes before she quit kicking.

Their neighbor saw the whole incident and called 911. Dimbulb 911 droid said, "Go back inside; he may have a weapon." I guess hands don't count as weapons, hm?

Cops showed up 15 minutes later, by which time, the victim was well dead.

If Cindy (the victim) had had a gun to point at Gerald (her husband/murderer), think she'd still be alive? If the neighbor had had a gun to point at Gerald, think Cindy'd still be alive?

If I'd been the neighbor, think Gerald'd still be alive?

The stupidity of the anti-gun freaks never ceases to amaze me.

------------------
"Janet Reno is the fire that ignites my loins."
--Joe Cartoon
 
Statistics also indicate that standing outside during an electrical storm is almost completely safe; after all, do you know anybody who was hit by lightning? Forget wearing your seatbelt, the odds are on your side. Smoke detectors? They're for worry-warts, chuck yours in the trash and save a few pennies a year on batteries. Door locks are unnecessary, too, given that your attacker is going to be your husband or boyfriend who has a key.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

------------------
"...the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation."
Prof. Frank H. Knight
 
The "study" that produced these statistics was commissioned by the Violence Policy Center with the express purpose of finding a way to counter the claims of various gun manufacturers that women would be safer if they acquired firearms for their own self protection.
In a couple of articles that appeared in local papers here in Louisiana, some of the other reasons (besides the classic "easy" availability of guns) that contributed to the high murder rate included poverty, a lack of community services available to women in abusive relationships and an old and persistent local attitude that women are merely the property of men.
I guess that perspective is everything because as I read these articles I kept thinking that these women needed to arm themselves and not rely on others to deliver them from their abusive situations.
The VPC looked at the same information and somehow concluded that because these women knew their attackers, being their husbands or boyfriends, they couldn't (?!) use a gun to protect themselves.
Huh?!
 
One of the stories I'm writing in my new book concerns a woman whose boyfriend beat her over and over for years. The last time he did it, she took a shotgun and killed him. Although it seemed to be a straight-up case of self-defense (he had beaten her black and blue again), she was convicted of aggravated assault and given five years in prison. In my interview with her, she told me she'd rather do five years in prison than be six feet under, which is one way of looking at it, I guess.

Robert
 
Really glad to see this discussion. IMHO, women now hold the key to the RKBA. They'll either use those brains (and, they generally have plenty to work with), and finally figure out that a gun is indeed an equalizer - or, they'll fall 'victim' to their own emotions, and help do us all in.

In my experience, 'liberals' are quite willing to sacrifice those who wish to help themselves, in favor of their improved 'policy' for societal bliss. And, they are apparently willing to sacrifice a bunch of us - at least 15%, according to this study, eh?

Donna, thanks for speaking up.

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited October 18, 1999).]
 
I'm confused!

A gun dosn't work against someone you know?

Then how come we keep hearing the statistic about a gun in the house being XXX times more likely to be used against someone you know than against a criminal!

It's enough to make my brain hurt!
 
Cactus reminded me of something....I admit to a lack in my knowledge base: Where did that statistic that "a gun is 47 times more likely to kill someone you know than a stranger" come from? Can someone give me a citation?

I'm doing a slow and fierce burn about this thread...who the hell are these morons that think these statistics are germane and relevent? Like Donna said, is the crime less bad?

Gads! If I'm ever assaulted, given where I live and my lifestyle, it is better 85% that I will have some degree of "prior aquaintance" with the BG...Live out in the sticks, you need local knowledge to even find my place much less stumble upon it.

What the %$@&! is that article supposed to mean? I'm serious here...what is the point they are trying to make?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
G-Freeman...

Ahhh, the infamous Kellerman paper! A big cyber kiss to you...you made me investigate it. My arrogance hadn't let me read anti-gun Medical journal reports, I dismissed them off-hand.
Upon reading it, my intutition to dismiss it as fraudulent science was correct, but we should all read it for familiarity and to be able to take it apart.

I urge all to read G-Freeman's citation (above) and this one:
http://www.webnexus.com/users/ncrkba/schaffer.txt

And this, from a Canadian sociologist: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/kellermann.txt

Kellerman wouldn't get a passing grade in a 6th grade science project

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!



[This message has been edited by DC (edited October 18, 1999).]
 
BTR, Bestdefense357, and DC here is a statistic,

Family violence kills as many women every five years as the total number of Americans who died in the Vietnam war.

I forgot where I found this bit of info but I read that women who defend themselves against their batterers are more likely to be incarcarated than a male who kills in self defense. Then when the woman gets to prison she will have to deal with rape and abuse all over again from male guards. The issue of female victimization by male guards in women's prisons is so widespread and serious that it has become an issue taken up by Amnesty International.

The irony of the whole thing is that those who claim that they champion women's rights (liberals) dont really champion them at all but want to keep women in their place. i.e. relying on Big Brother and being controlled by him.

Concerning Speaking up about these things, tell me, speak up to who? To a media that wont listen to us because we dont hold the politically correct viewpoint, to a female public who shutter at the thought of carrying weapons for their defense?

Back to the original article, DC, they are morons because they fail to point out that being victimized by someone you know doesn't mean the victimization will be pleasant, the person who wrote that is not on this planet that is for sure.

For some good articles concerning violence against women and which site the same statistics but reveal them in their correct light you might want to read either of the following. Some of the stories of the violence committed by husbands and boyfriends are pretty horrific.
http://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/articles/articles.html


[This message has been edited by Donna Barnas (edited October 18, 1999).]
 
The sad thing about this entire thread is it is very rare a woman is surprised her husband turned out to be a violent a**hole. He more than likely exhibited the same tendencies when they were dating, but she felt she could change him after they are married, have a child, he just quits drinking, gets off of drugs, etc..

Suggesting that abused women would turn into lions if they only had a gun is pointless. They first have to decide their life is worth something, leave the jerk, and then they will be in a position to decide if they can use deadly force to protect themselves.

Any decision by a woman to obtain a firearm while she is still in an abusive household will only be used by a prosecutor to show premeditation.
 
Ladies and gentlemen,

FWIW, Kellerman is backing down on the number 43. He was here in Colo Spgs last week, addressing a forum on guns as a public health issue.

His revised number is 4, which he came up with after a few hundred gunnies rose as one and called him out. Of course, his data are seriously flawed, but it's a little better.

Also FWIW, Kellerman very loudly and clearly disavowed any association with HCI or VPC.

Finally, his resemblance to Mas Ayoob is spooky. :)

------------------
"Janet Reno is the fire that ignites my loins."
--Joe Cartoon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top