Now, now. This is the first time the naysayers have had any concrete evidence about anything at all. Shooting them down immediately is unsporting, at least give them their 15 mins of fame before you point out how ridiculous this is.
[devils_advocate]
If the leaked emails and other data constitutes, as you say "concrete evidence", what is so ridiculous about drawing conclusions from it?
[/devils_advocate]
Seriously, though, regardless of whether the data and science of AGW is sound, some of the ethics of its supporters play right into the hands of their opposition. The truthers and other conspiracy theorists have long been saying that there is a conspiracy to promote AGW theory and stifle criticism and alternate climate theories. Now with the lost original data and leaked emails, this either (depending on your point of view) proves them right, or at least gives them a reason to believe so.
15 minutes of fame isn't going to make AGW doubters go away. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Encouraging open criticism is the only solution. It has prevailed in other scientific disagreements, there is no reason to suppose it won't in this case... eventually. You'll never convince everyone, but you'll convince a whole lot more people with openness than with secrecy.
I considered wording like that, but was trying to avoid possible bias. I went with "create the appearance", because that is neutral. The emails did in fact create that appearance in the minds of many, hence the importance of TFA. Whether that appearance is correct or not is another debate.
Excellent comparison. The difference I see is that in the case of cold fusion, the scientific critique and exposure as fraud was done within the science community. If anything, this proved that rigorous science was robust and the community could correct itself, much like an unjust verdict overturned on appeal proves the legal system works. In the AGW debate, the publicized emails create the appearance that powerful people in the scientific community stifled the dissent, open debate, and peer review that might cast doubt on their views.
So, the main difference is not that scientists might be proved wrong or fraudulent, since that happens from time to time and is proof that the system works. The problem here is that the system itself is alleged to be rigged.
I'll give you a shoe, some nails, and board and have you put the nails in the board with the shoe.
I could do that. Of course, to certain extent, that depends on the shoe, the nail and the board. I'd have a very hard time putting a railroad spike through a 4x4 with a flip-flop.
Or, as started this, would a woman getting a gun to protect herself from her abusive husband make her safer or less safe?
That is going to depend heavily on the woman herself, her level of competence and confidence, and her willingness to carry, wield, and fire a weapon. I'm sure that many women would rather take their chances surrendering themselves to the attacker than fighting back. There was a blurb I heard on TV (yeah, I know, crummy citation) that said women who fought back physically (not necessarily with a firearm) stood an excellent chance of driving off her attacker. On the other hand, those who fought back and lost generally received more abuse than those who complied.
Just to be clear, I realize you haven't argued that the woman shouldn't fight back. My point is that in an attack, there are a couple choices to be made: a) do I fight or comply? and b) if I choose fight, how best to do it. Of course, b) is mostly going to be determined prior to the confrontation based on how she prepared herself, if at all. I still say that she should at have the legal option of using a firearm. At that point, it is her choice, not the government's.
Since I've started using unattributed anecdotes from TV, I might as well continue. This kind of reminds me of a show I saw on bullfighting. I had never been in favor of bullfighting, and I still can't understand why people want to watch it. (So why was I watching the show? Insomnia + channel surfing + mild curiosity.) That being said, something a bullfighting supporter said kind of stuck with me. He said something to the effect of "If you were a bull and you were going to be slaughtered, would you want to go meekly into the slaughterhouse, or would you want to at least have a chance to fight back against your killer?" Regardless of the actual reality of bullfighting vs. the more romanticized anthropomorphic view, the underlying question is "In a bad situation, how do you want to go out?"
Could be. Lack of familiarity with guns and gun owners is the biggest obstacle I've encountered. I've known a number of people who simply feared what they had not experienced for themselves.
Your point was that guns could be turned against their user, and are therefore dangerous and should be banned.
My point was that a) some guns cannot be turned against their owner, and b) pretty much any self-defense item could be turned against its user. Do you agree that other self-defense items should be banned?
I suppose that if you reject anything you disagree with as propaganda, you'll never feel compelled to reconsider your position.
From the reference above:
“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year.
Surely you don't think Clinton was pro-gun, do you? Yet even his numbers document the vast number of defensive gun uses made by law-abiding people every year, and these numbers agree with what the gun rights supporters are saying.
According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
Original source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/ This is a well-written paper published in a well-known and respected law enforcement publication. Unfortunately, I believe this copy omits the graphical data, but I'm sure that is simply a google search away.
No one is saying guns are responsible for behavior. I'm saying they are responsible for the results.
That is self-contradictory. Behavior dictates results.
However, a criminal with a gun is more dangerous than a criminal without. And that is the one point that it seems no gun-nut will ever say "yes, I agree with that" to.
Actually, every gun advocate I know agrees with that statement. However, they also go on to say that an armed target is less likely to become a victim, which is a demonstrated and documented truth. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.
Sorry, no respect for someone that makes up things in order to bash.
Right back at you. Oh, and I haven't made up a single thing... unlike you.
Criminologist [sic] John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.
John Lott, a PhD in Economics, (nitpick: I'm not aware whether he is a criminologist, as the article indicates) wrote a few excellent books on guns and crime. Before you engage further in a gun control discussion, you should read them. IIRC, he essentially set out to see what economic impact guns had, approached it from a purely statistical point of view, and came up with some rather dramatic findings. Gun rights opponents don't like his findings, of course, but a majority of his academic peers support his work. Additionally, his critics have to admit that the very least, his work does prove that more permissive gun laws do not increase crime
"We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared."
(Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis", 55 Stanford Law Review 101 (2003))
FWIW, Ayres and Donohue are a couple of Lott's more vocal adversaries.
(yes, people walked around downtown Dallas carrying rifles and shotguns in organized posses about the time CCW was passed, but all the nutters ignore any effe
You make it sound as if no men are ever physically abused by their wives.
That's not my intent; I was merely responding to the scenario that someone else proposed. Reality is messy and complicated, and the legal system has its biases. Guns are not a solution to every violent situation, and responsible gun owners try to foresee the possible consequences. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, or at least the better part of not getting your ass kicked, whether the victim is male or female.
Well, smart guns are a start. Of course, you have to admit that other self-defense items such as mace or pepper spray, or taser-style devices, or knives, etc., can also be turned against their user. Tasers have killed people. So have knives. Pepper spray could leave her too defenseless to even run away from him, leaving her at his mercy. If he's willing to kill her with a gun, what's to stop him from using his fists while she is defenseless? Would you advocate that women should not have these either, because they might be used against her?
[...] and I'll presume you something other than a complete moron.
Personal insults - the refuge of someone who no longer has a tenable position.
Above is a good place to start. They make reference to a number of other resources that make for further reading, ranging from detailed statistical analyses, to historical references and news articles.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
If you would prefer being snarky over maybe looking at things from more than one point of view, that is your choice. It never hurts to learn more about something.
Most people are unlikely to carry a gun. Even in right-to-carry states, gun ownership is very low. However, I think your assumptions are off. There are a number of women I know who carry, and you would never know it by looking at them. Old, young, petite, happy-go-lucky; whatever preconception you have, there's an armed woman out there who breaks it.
Would she use it? That depends on the woman, the training, and the situation. A good number already have.
I don't understand either. I imagine some can't get over their emotional attachment, or have self esteem issues which keep them in abusive relationships. Others may fear they can't hold their family together if they leave, or fear more violent reprisals if they leave or attempt to leave. Thankfully, those are things I can't speak about from experience.
That depends on the "she" you are talking about. first, no weapon or self-defense technique can help her if she is in denial about the problem, and won't defend herself. Guns are absolutely not the solution to everything, they are not a magic cure-all. They are a tool. And in the right circumstances, a very useful one.
In close-quarter combat, guns can be quite effective. Most armed self-defense confrontations occur within a few yards. Two things are important: Awareness of one's surroundings (he is drunk and getting belligerent... should I be ready for things to go badly?) is key. Another is familiarity with the weapon and practice. Of course, these things points also apply to any other weapon or method of self-defense, and I am not arguing that other methods of self-defense should be avoided in favor of guns.
What about women who do leave their abusive men and (I can't speak for Portugal's legal system, so forgive me if I use the US instead) seek protective restraining orders? In the US, there are frequent stories in the news about women who are later killed by their ex despite such legal "protection". I can't understand why one of the most effective means of saving her life should not be available to her.
We're talking about drunken husbands beating on their wives, and now you want to argue about whether it would be better if they had FIREARMS? Is this really what our society has come to?
[sarcasm]
So just to clarify, you support keeping women defenseless?
[/sarcasm]
I forgot to include it in my previous reply, but this:
Arming all the criminals won't make the women safer, no matter how much gun-nut kool-aid you drink.
is awful. You have deliberately twisted what I wrote and put words in my mouth. I never said to arm the criminals, did I? Of course not. My entire point was that law-abiding people benefit from owning guns. The criminals who want guns already have ways of getting them. Prohibition is not very effective, but it does ensure the involvement of criminal elements in whatever you try to restrict.
You can use all the invective you like to describe those whose views are different than your own, but you still haven't presented a cogent argument why the right of self-defense should not include owning a gun, and why law-abiding people shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
[pedantic_joke]
Fire arms would be effective for giving him a burning bear hug. Firearms, on the other hand, would allow a ranged defense.
[/pedantic_joke]
Yes, a knife would be quite effective, but it requires close combat, in which she takes the chance that her attacker could disarm her and use it against her. Guns are effective at a distance, so are useful in not just defending oneself, but also in escaping, since they allow you to create, maintain, and increase distance between you and your attacker.
Disclaimer: I do not, nor have I ever, owned a gun.
That's not the way it works in the US, where guns are available.
Citation please. In the US crime has been shown to decrease in areas where gun laws permit carrying a weapon.
And that's just wrong. And the implication that she'd be safer with a gun is wrong too.
Studies in the US have shown that guns were (at the time of the study) used (fired or brandished) 2.5 million times a year, and people brandishing a gun were harmed 5% of the time. Of course, gun control advocates dispute these numbers, but even if the 2.5 million defensive uses are off a whole order of magnitude, (which the lowest number that even strident gun-control advocates admit) that would still mean that conservatively speaking, guns are used about 10,000 times per week to keep someone safe. Of course, we never hear about those stories on the news - just the sensational stories when someone does something wrong with a gun.
I think it has changed after the gang boom in the 70s, but before that, a cop was more likely to be killed by his own gun than all the other guns in the world combined.
The 70s, you say? Maybe? You think? Anything from the last 10 or 15 years?
FWIW, this is easily explained by the following factors: a) when a cop is dealing with a suspect, often the closest gun is the officer's gun, ergo why they would be the suspect's weapon of choice if he can grab it, and b) most guns aren't a threat to law enforcement because they are owned by law-abiding people. If anything, your vague statistic bolsters the view that private gun ownership is generally very safe.
Before you go around telling cops they would be better off without their guns, do some research. I have a cousin who is a cop, and is alive today because he had a gun and was able to defend himself while being attacked. Most cops are damn glad to have a sidearm.
The gun nuts say [...]
Okay, your ad hominem attack indicates you're obviously not approaching this in a balanced, free-thinking, open-minded manner.
As for your wife, she could easily defeat an attacker.
And you say this because you know my wife, and what she is capable of?
A screaming woman will actually stop most attackers,
Have you seen many assaults? From what I've seen, screaming just gives the attacker incentive to shut her up.
when pointing a gun at someone who has a gun is more likely to get them shot.
Whoa there, you're saying that screaming will stop an an attacker armed with a gun, but wielding a gun defensively won't? Please see the defensive gun figures I mentioned above. Also, it is no clear if the attacker in the 'screamer" scenario was armed, vs. the second scenario. Please be consistent in your hypothetical scenarios. For the sake of clarity, with 1 assailant and 1 victim, we have 4 possible combinations:
A) Unarmed attacker, unarmed victim
B) Armed attacker, unarmed victim
C) Unarmed attacker, armed victim
D) Armed attacker, armed victim
Please specify which you had in mind in the above statements.
So, which do you recommend?
I recommend vigorous self-defense. That doesn't mean killing someone. Greater situational awareness can help avoid danger. Verbal skills and body language can diffuse some situations. Unarmed self defense can be quite effective, depending on the situation and the people involved. Brandishing or firing a weapon is a last resort.
The one that most likely results in a dead person, rather than two uninjured people.
What? How many uninjured people? 2? We are talking about assault here, right? Usually that results in at least 1 injured person out of 2. If injury or death is going to result from an assault, I'd prefer it was
Depends. If the women were armed, most or all of them would probably survive. Their abusive husbands/boyfriends might not though. If both are armed, at least the woman has a fighting chance. If he's drunk and she's sober, my money is on the woman.
Gun control leaves women more vulnerable than ever. My wife is 5 feet tall and just over 100 lbs. (152cm, 47 kilos for the metric-oriented here). I am a foot taller, and close to twice her weight. I am much faster and stronger. If she were unarmed and I (or someone my size) were to attack her, there is damn little she could do about it.
A firearm is a great equalizer. A small 9mm pistol takes down an attacker the same way whether it is fired by a little old lady or a weight lifter. No offense, but Portugal's drunk wifebeaters might be less of a problem if your country didn't prevent the women from fighting back effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. And if the Judge and/or Lawyer play Mafia Wars, does the Ethics Advisory Committee assume this means they are involved with the mob?
Why the hell does is seem that I always run out of points just before reading something like this?
Now, now. This is the first time the naysayers have had any concrete evidence about anything at all. Shooting them down immediately is unsporting, at least give them their 15 mins of fame before you point out how ridiculous this is.
[devils_advocate]
... eventually. You'll never convince everyone, but you'll convince a whole lot more people with openness than with secrecy.
If the leaked emails and other data constitutes, as you say "concrete evidence", what is so ridiculous about drawing conclusions from it?
[/devils_advocate]
Seriously, though, regardless of whether the data and science of AGW is sound, some of the ethics of its supporters play right into the hands of their opposition. The truthers and other conspiracy theorists have long been saying that there is a conspiracy to promote AGW theory and stifle criticism and alternate climate theories. Now with the lost original data and leaked emails, this either (depending on your point of view) proves them right, or at least gives them a reason to believe so.
15 minutes of fame isn't going to make AGW doubters go away. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Encouraging open criticism is the only solution. It has prevailed in other scientific disagreements, there is no reason to suppose it won't in this case
I considered wording like that, but was trying to avoid possible bias. I went with "create the appearance", because that is neutral. The emails did in fact create that appearance in the minds of many, hence the importance of TFA. Whether that appearance is correct or not is another debate.
Excellent comparison. The difference I see is that in the case of cold fusion, the scientific critique and exposure as fraud was done within the science community. If anything, this proved that rigorous science was robust and the community could correct itself, much like an unjust verdict overturned on appeal proves the legal system works. In the AGW debate, the publicized emails create the appearance that powerful people in the scientific community stifled the dissent, open debate, and peer review that might cast doubt on their views.
So, the main difference is not that scientists might be proved wrong or fraudulent, since that happens from time to time and is proof that the system works. The problem here is that the system itself is alleged to be rigged.
I'll give you a shoe, some nails, and board and have you put the nails in the board with the shoe.
I could do that. Of course, to certain extent, that depends on the shoe, the nail and the board. I'd have a very hard time putting a railroad spike through a 4x4 with a flip-flop.
Or, as started this, would a woman getting a gun to protect herself from her abusive husband make her safer or less safe?
That is going to depend heavily on the woman herself, her level of competence and confidence, and her willingness to carry, wield, and fire a weapon. I'm sure that many women would rather take their chances surrendering themselves to the attacker than fighting back. There was a blurb I heard on TV (yeah, I know, crummy citation) that said women who fought back physically (not necessarily with a firearm) stood an excellent chance of driving off her attacker. On the other hand, those who fought back and lost generally received more abuse than those who complied.
Just to be clear, I realize you haven't argued that the woman shouldn't fight back. My point is that in an attack, there are a couple choices to be made: a) do I fight or comply? and b) if I choose fight, how best to do it. Of course, b) is mostly going to be determined prior to the confrontation based on how she prepared herself, if at all. I still say that she should at have the legal option of using a firearm. At that point, it is her choice, not the government's.
Since I've started using unattributed anecdotes from TV, I might as well continue. This kind of reminds me of a show I saw on bullfighting. I had never been in favor of bullfighting, and I still can't understand why people want to watch it. (So why was I watching the show? Insomnia + channel surfing + mild curiosity.) That being said, something a bullfighting supporter said kind of stuck with me. He said something to the effect of "If you were a bull and you were going to be slaughtered, would you want to go meekly into the slaughterhouse, or would you want to at least have a chance to fight back against your killer?" Regardless of the actual reality of bullfighting vs. the more romanticized anthropomorphic view, the underlying question is "In a bad situation, how do you want to go out?"
it's really hard to do the statistics
Agreed.
you get all pissy
Not a bit. I don't mind a debate at all.
Apparently, pointing out that guns can be used dangerously is a call to ban them,
That's what gun control proponents generally say.
at least in the minds of the terminally stupid.
I'll let them know your opinion of them.
We should ban nuclear bombs as self-defense
No way. I like mine. It's a little too bulky to carry with me everywhere, but I've never felt safer.
Presidents aren't always the smartest folks, are they?
Could be. Lack of familiarity with guns and gun owners is the biggest obstacle I've encountered. I've known a number of people who simply feared what they had not experienced for themselves.
Your point was that guns could be turned against their user, and are therefore dangerous and should be banned.
My point was that a) some guns cannot be turned against their owner, and b) pretty much any self-defense item could be turned against its user. Do you agree that other self-defense items should be banned?
Of course not. What could be more surprising than a gun at a moment like that? ;)
Great, a propaganda piece
I suppose that if you reject anything you disagree with as propaganda, you'll never feel compelled to reconsider your position.
From the reference above:
“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year.
Surely you don't think Clinton was pro-gun, do you? Yet even his numbers document the vast number of defensive gun uses made by law-abiding people every year, and these numbers agree with what the gun rights supporters are saying.
According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
Original source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/ This is a well-written paper published in a well-known and respected law enforcement publication. Unfortunately, I believe this copy omits the graphical data, but I'm sure that is simply a google search away.
No one is saying guns are responsible for behavior. I'm saying they are responsible for the results.
That is self-contradictory. Behavior dictates results.
However, a criminal with a gun is more dangerous than a criminal without. And that is the one point that it seems no gun-nut will ever say "yes, I agree with that" to.
Actually, every gun advocate I know agrees with that statement. However, they also go on to say that an armed target is less likely to become a victim, which is a demonstrated and documented truth. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.
Sorry, no respect for someone that makes up things in order to bash.
Right back at you. Oh, and I haven't made up a single thing ... unlike you.
Criminologist [sic] John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.
John Lott, a PhD in Economics, (nitpick: I'm not aware whether he is a criminologist, as the article indicates) wrote a few excellent books on guns and crime. Before you engage further in a gun control discussion, you should read them. IIRC, he essentially set out to see what economic impact guns had, approached it from a purely statistical point of view, and came up with some rather dramatic findings. Gun rights opponents don't like his findings, of course, but a majority of his academic peers support his work. Additionally, his critics have to admit that the very least, his work does prove that more permissive gun laws do not increase crime
"We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared."
(Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis", 55 Stanford Law Review 101 (2003))
FWIW, Ayres and Donohue are a couple of Lott's more vocal adversaries.
(yes, people walked around downtown Dallas carrying rifles and shotguns in organized posses about the time CCW was passed, but all the nutters ignore any effe
But those are the most fun!
Now I need to get 2 phones, so I can VMotion from one to the other in case one dies.
You make it sound as if no men are ever physically abused by their wives.
That's not my intent; I was merely responding to the scenario that someone else proposed. Reality is messy and complicated, and the legal system has its biases. Guns are not a solution to every violent situation, and responsible gun owners try to foresee the possible consequences. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, or at least the better part of not getting your ass kicked, whether the victim is male or female.
[...] and I'll presume you something other than a complete moron.
Personal insults - the refuge of someone who no longer has a tenable position.
No hypocrisy intended; I was writing a long post late at night with constant interruptions. It was left out by mistake, not ignorance.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
Above is a good place to start. They make reference to a number of other resources that make for further reading, ranging from detailed statistical analyses, to historical references and news articles.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
If you would prefer being snarky over maybe looking at things from more than one point of view, that is your choice. It never hurts to learn more about something.
Most people are unlikely to carry a gun. Even in right-to-carry states, gun ownership is very low. However, I think your assumptions are off. There are a number of women I know who carry, and you would never know it by looking at them. Old, young, petite, happy-go-lucky; whatever preconception you have, there's an armed woman out there who breaks it.
Would she use it? That depends on the woman, the training, and the situation. A good number already have.
I don't understand either. I imagine some can't get over their emotional attachment, or have self esteem issues which keep them in abusive relationships. Others may fear they can't hold their family together if they leave, or fear more violent reprisals if they leave or attempt to leave. Thankfully, those are things I can't speak about from experience.
That depends on the "she" you are talking about. first, no weapon or self-defense technique can help her if she is in denial about the problem, and won't defend herself. Guns are absolutely not the solution to everything, they are not a magic cure-all. They are a tool. And in the right circumstances, a very useful one.
... should I be ready for things to go badly?) is key. Another is familiarity with the weapon and practice. Of course, these things points also apply to any other weapon or method of self-defense, and I am not arguing that other methods of self-defense should be avoided in favor of guns.
In close-quarter combat, guns can be quite effective. Most armed self-defense confrontations occur within a few yards. Two things are important: Awareness of one's surroundings (he is drunk and getting belligerent
What about women who do leave their abusive men and (I can't speak for Portugal's legal system, so forgive me if I use the US instead) seek protective restraining orders? In the US, there are frequent stories in the news about women who are later killed by their ex despite such legal "protection". I can't understand why one of the most effective means of saving her life should not be available to her.
You're right. Lots of items can be used as weapons. I just don't understand some people's irrational hatred of one of these possible items.
We're talking about drunken husbands beating on their wives, and now you want to argue about whether it would be better if they had FIREARMS? Is this really what our society has come to?
[sarcasm] So just to clarify, you support keeping women defenseless? [/sarcasm]
Arming all the criminals won't make the women safer, no matter how much gun-nut kool-aid you drink.
is awful. You have deliberately twisted what I wrote and put words in my mouth. I never said to arm the criminals, did I? Of course not. My entire point was that law-abiding people benefit from owning guns. The criminals who want guns already have ways of getting them. Prohibition is not very effective, but it does ensure the involvement of criminal elements in whatever you try to restrict.
You can use all the invective you like to describe those whose views are different than your own, but you still haven't presented a cogent argument why the right of self-defense should not include owning a gun, and why law-abiding people shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
[pedantic_joke]
Fire arms would be effective for giving him a burning bear hug. Firearms, on the other hand, would allow a ranged defense.
[/pedantic_joke]
Yes, a knife would be quite effective, but it requires close combat, in which she takes the chance that her attacker could disarm her and use it against her. Guns are effective at a distance, so are useful in not just defending oneself, but also in escaping, since they allow you to create, maintain, and increase distance between you and your attacker.
Looks like a gun opponent couldn't resist tagging me as a troll. I guess that's what I get for taking a position they don't agree with.
That's not the way it works in the US, where guns are available.
Citation please. In the US crime has been shown to decrease in areas where gun laws permit carrying a weapon.
And that's just wrong. And the implication that she'd be safer with a gun is wrong too.
Studies in the US have shown that guns were (at the time of the study) used (fired or brandished) 2.5 million times a year, and people brandishing a gun were harmed 5% of the time. Of course, gun control advocates dispute these numbers, but even if the 2.5 million defensive uses are off a whole order of magnitude, (which the lowest number that even strident gun-control advocates admit) that would still mean that conservatively speaking, guns are used about 10,000 times per week to keep someone safe. Of course, we never hear about those stories on the news - just the sensational stories when someone does something wrong with a gun.
I think it has changed after the gang boom in the 70s, but before that, a cop was more likely to be killed by his own gun than all the other guns in the world combined.
The 70s, you say? Maybe? You think? Anything from the last 10 or 15 years?
FWIW, this is easily explained by the following factors: a) when a cop is dealing with a suspect, often the closest gun is the officer's gun, ergo why they would be the suspect's weapon of choice if he can grab it, and b) most guns aren't a threat to law enforcement because they are owned by law-abiding people. If anything, your vague statistic bolsters the view that private gun ownership is generally very safe.
Before you go around telling cops they would be better off without their guns, do some research. I have a cousin who is a cop, and is alive today because he had a gun and was able to defend himself while being attacked. Most cops are damn glad to have a sidearm.
The gun nuts say [...]
Okay, your ad hominem attack indicates you're obviously not approaching this in a balanced, free-thinking, open-minded manner.
As for your wife, she could easily defeat an attacker.
And you say this because you know my wife, and what she is capable of?
A screaming woman will actually stop most attackers,
Have you seen many assaults? From what I've seen, screaming just gives the attacker incentive to shut her up.
when pointing a gun at someone who has a gun is more likely to get them shot.
Whoa there, you're saying that screaming will stop an an attacker armed with a gun, but wielding a gun defensively won't? Please see the defensive gun figures I mentioned above. Also, it is no clear if the attacker in the 'screamer" scenario was armed, vs. the second scenario. Please be consistent in your hypothetical scenarios. For the sake of clarity, with 1 assailant and 1 victim, we have 4 possible combinations:
A) Unarmed attacker, unarmed victim
B) Armed attacker, unarmed victim
C) Unarmed attacker, armed victim
D) Armed attacker, armed victim
Please specify which you had in mind in the above statements.
So, which do you recommend?
I recommend vigorous self-defense. That doesn't mean killing someone. Greater situational awareness can help avoid danger. Verbal skills and body language can diffuse some situations. Unarmed self defense can be quite effective, depending on the situation and the people involved. Brandishing or firing a weapon is a last resort.
The one that most likely results in a dead person, rather than two uninjured people.
What? How many uninjured people? 2? We are talking about assault here, right? Usually that results in at least 1 injured person out of 2. If injury or death is going to result from an assault, I'd prefer it was
I wonder how many women would survive?
Depends. If the women were armed, most or all of them would probably survive. Their abusive husbands/boyfriends might not though. If both are armed, at least the woman has a fighting chance. If he's drunk and she's sober, my money is on the woman.
Gun control leaves women more vulnerable than ever. My wife is 5 feet tall and just over 100 lbs. (152cm, 47 kilos for the metric-oriented here). I am a foot taller, and close to twice her weight. I am much faster and stronger. If she were unarmed and I (or someone my size) were to attack her, there is damn little she could do about it.
A firearm is a great equalizer. A small 9mm pistol takes down an attacker the same way whether it is fired by a little old lady or a weight lifter. No offense, but Portugal's drunk wifebeaters might be less of a problem if your country didn't prevent the women from fighting back effectively.