Women Need To Carry Guns When Going Out Alone.

[philly rabbit]

You seem to have replied in response to the wrong post, since nothing you said is related in any way to the contents of the post to which you were replying.

No, you were included.

[Oneuli]

No, you were included.

Could you explain in what way your post was response to what I said in that post?

[reagansghost]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...821-story.html

you'd get shot within 10 minutes

[TrippyHippy]

Unfortunately, guns aren't very useful to women as defensive weapons. They're fantastic if you've got the initiative -- for example, you're a rapist or murderer who is happy to draw first. But if you're a law-abiding citizen, it's a different story. I could have a loaded pistol in my purse and it's not going to do me a damned bit of good if someone comes up behind me and grabs my purse. In fact, I may be worse off, since now my assailant has a gun, if he didn't already. This may be part of the reason that statistical studies show that people in households with firearms are at higher risk of being victims of violence.

That's what holsters are for...

[Oneuli]

That's what holsters are for...

Holsters have their own issues. If the holster is out in the open, it just alerts a potential assailant of where to grab to prevent the gun from being used against him -- and potentially where to get a gun to use against you, if he's strong enough to overpower you. If, on the other hand, it's a concealed holster, then you have effectively the same issue as with a purse, where it's not necessarily going to be easily accessible in the heat of the moment. For example, if you have something in the small of the back, and some guy pins you, that gun isn't going to help you at all, and could, in fact, put you at greater risk (if he manages to get his hands on it).

[TrippyHippy]

Holsters have their own issues. If the holster is out in the open, it just alerts a potential assailant of where to grab to prevent the gun from being used against him -- and potentially where to get a gun to use against you, if he's strong enough to overpower you. If, on the other hand, it's a concealed holster, then you have effectively the same issue as with a purse, where it's not necessarily going to be easily accessible in the heat of the moment. For example, if you have something in the small of the back, and some guy pins you, that gun isn't going to help you at all, and could, in fact, put you at greater risk (if he manages to get his hands on it).

Have you ever actually used a gun holster? You seem to be implying it's troublesome and clumsy to take a gun out of it's holster, but in reality most halfway decent holsters (for concealed carry or otherwise) are made with that specific problem in mind. With little practice, you could have your gun out and a bullet in your assailant in no time at all. That's what they were made for. The secure transport of your firearm as well as the ability to quickly remove it in a bad situation. The rare chance of some kind of accident, which *is* rare if you have any semblance of gun and physical self defense training, is probably largely preferable to being a sitting duck waiting to get raped. It gives you a fighting chance, at least.

[Oneuli]

Have you ever actually used a gun holster?

Yes.

You seem to be implying it's troublesome and clumsy to take a gun out of it's holster

If you think that's what I seem to be implying, then please reread.

you could have your gun out and a bullet in your assailant in no time at all

To be more specific, in precisely the same amount of time it would take for him to have it out and have a bullet in you.

The rare chance of some kind of accident, which *is* rare if you have any semblance of gun and physical self defense training

Accidents are not rare. There are about 70,000 injuries by firearm per year, a sizable portion of which are accidental shootings. Even just counting the ones that leave someone dead, we are talking hundreds every year. And these include people with a high degree of gun and physical self defense training, including a number of famous examples of firearms instructors, police, and military personnel being responsible for accidental shootings.

is probably largely preferable to being a sitting duck waiting to get raped

I'm open to an evidence-based argument to that effect, but what I've seen so far are just assertion-based arguments (basically, you're better off if you have a gun because I say you're better off if you have a gun.) An evidence-based argument would be based around statistical trends -- for example, something showing that in otherwise similar areas, those with higher gun ownership tend to have less rape. Or something showing that in places that start out with similar crime numbers, if one moves towards liberalizing gun carry laws and the other doesn't, the one moving that way will tend to end up with better crime numbers. I've nosed around through published studies and it looks like the opposite is true.

[philly rabbit]

Could you explain in what way your post was response to what I said in that post?

You don't want women to defend themselves with a firearm.

You don't want middle class people to have guns.

Okay?

[Oneuli]

You don't want women to defend themselves with a firearm.

You don't want middle class people to have guns.

Okay?

I haven't said a word against women defending themselves with firearms, nor against middle class people having guns. I've simply pointed out that the best evidence suggests that guns could actually make you less safe.

[sear]

" I've simply pointed out that the best evidence suggests that guns could actually make you less safe. " O #204

Over the decades the reports of studies I've read on that corroborate your assertion.

[philly rabbit]

I haven't said a word against women defending themselves with firearms, nor against middle class people having guns. I've simply pointed out that the best evidence suggests that guns could actually make you less safe.

Would Mollie have had a better chance to survive with a gun?

[philly rabbit]

you'd get shot within 10 minutes

What are you talking about?

[philly rabbit]

Over the decades the reports of studies I've read on that corroborate your assertion.

It depends who you're talking to. The people who want to take guns away from the working classes will always offer evidence that guns are a danger and make you less safe.

The people who support the second amendment don't make assertions based on studies but use common sense over an armed citizen vs. an unarmed citizen who is assaulted.

[Oneuli]

Would Mollie have had a better chance to survive with a gun?

That depends on which Mollie you mean. But remember the question isn't ultimately one for anecdotes, but rather specifics. If there are ten instances when a person wouldn't have died if she'd had a gun, and twenty where she wouldn't have died if she didn't have a gun, then you're less safe with a gun, notwithstanding the existence of genuine counterexamples.

[Oneuli]

It depends who you're talking to. The people who want to take guns away from the working classes will always offer evidence that guns are a danger and make you less safe.

If you have an argument against the evidence, you should offer it.

The people who support the second amendment don't make assertions based on studies but use common sense over an armed citizen vs. an unarmed citizen who is assaulted.

Common sense says we should go with the best available evidence. I think what you're talking about isn't common sense, but rather "gut reaction." Gut reactions aren't always a very good guide.