“States United to Prevent Gun Violence (SUPGV) is a grassroots network of 31 state affiliates working to make our communities and families safer.” By disarming civilians. Go figure. And while you’re at it, what are we to make of their tweet quoting the equally anti-gun rights Violence Policy Center stat that women are “only” responsible for 6.2 percent of justifiable homicides?
Is that supposed to debunk and discredit the idea that women should be armed in their own defense? [NB: these 2013 numbers represent legally determined justifiable homicides, not successful defensive gun uses, which number in the tens of thousands.] Are we to lament this stat? I reckon it’s a cause for celebration!
I reckon the antis’ idée fixe blinds them to their idée fixe. If you know what I mean.
So, they would have been okay with those 13 women being raped or murdered?
BTW, that sounds like a rather low number, so I’m suspicious of the study right off the bat.
I’ll bet there’s nothing ‘grassroots’ about these groups. My hunch is they’re funded by either Bloomberg or Soros or some other enemy of freedom..
They are just counting justfiable homicides as DGUs. If the assailant is wounded, runs away when shot at or a gun is displayed don’t count as a DGU.
And of course it ignores arguably the most common type of DGU, the ones where the perp sees or hears that a gun will be employed forthwith and so decides to run away and go do something else with his evening, saved from his stupidity only by the grace of God.
The unreported DGUs are impossible to count, for either side. Not sure we get anywhere citing millions of “didn’t happen”. Sorta like keeping a log of all the phone calls you didn’t make/receive.
“The unreported DGUs are impossible to count, for either side.” – only not possible for a direct count. However, we all accept polls/surveys of a representative group to give a good and usable count for all sorts of things, like who is going to win the Presidential election in your state.
Using the same model, it is very reasonable and logically supportable to arrive at a 2+ million number.
Other studies, poll prisoners, to get an estimate of how many times they change their targets based on seeing a gun.
Such studies, come up with some numbers in the 11 million size.
Estimates, polls, opinions….all suspect. Every estimate or poll (no matter how scientific) suffers from; assumptions; skew; crossfeed. For unreported DGUs, there is no measure to control for boast, brag, acceptance, feel good, favor and probably more quirks than I can imagine. Once we get into “unreported” we are in the area of imagination. The anti-gun crowd is more proficient in imagining things than pro-gun people can possible achieve. Better to stick with “directly” countable events; even those are disregarded by the left…on just about any controversy (or fact?).
@Sam I Am:
RIF. I did not mention unreported DGUs but simply DGUs involving a firearm where no one was shot.
In fact, it may be the most common scenario based on various studies.
One of the fallacies that anti-gun people exploit is to only talk about actual shootings as if your only option in using a firearm to defend yourself or to diffuse the situation is to actually shoot or kill someone.
This is obviously incorrect. The threat of lethal force righteously applied, is often enough to change the outcome.
However, to your point there is no doubt that many instances of using a firearm where no one is shot also go unreported, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.
Unreported gun use is a real problem in my location. Presenting a gun in any manner that causes a person to feel unsafe is “brandishing”. According to friends who are supposed to know things, if you are in a situation where you are compelled to draw in defense, you should empty the magazine. Otherwise, you can be arrested on the claim of a perp that they felt unsafe when you unholstered.
I have no doubt there are an interesting number of situations where someone deflated an attack by merely putting a hand on their gun, or just holding it at their side. Problem is making absolute claims about the number of times that happens. Just don’t see that as a useful line of defense/attack/argument. Surveys and estimates always rely on the belief that every respondent is being truthful about every question and response.
If pro-gun advocates do not have enough directly identified DGUs to establish the point that armed self-defense has positive aspects, appealing to a mysterious “estimate” will not carry the day. Indeed, I note the anti-gunners never attempt to use reported “brandishing” events as proof that POTG are dangerous, undisciplined, unreasonable, evil. I see no advantage to providing an opportunity for gun sense people to claim we are making stuff up.
Taking few notes from gun grabbers I’ll ignore the facts and just say that if only one life is saved it was worth it!
The better question is how many lives do anti gunners want loose to criminals who follow no laws and still find a way obtain guns.
Two things you need to understand about leftists:
– A woman is more likely to be injured or killed if they resist assault
– If some theory, action, principle endorsed by non-leftists is not 100% effective, that theory, action, principle is useless
So they should just lay back and think of England, then? And here I was thinking that feminists were against rape culture. /sarc
Yes to the first, boo on you for the second. You are self-identifying as one of the deplorables. There is no place for you in the safe, monotone, enlightened future where no behavior is not excusable….except yours.
“A woman is more likely to be injured or killed if they resist assault” – This is exactly false by every authorities’ source that I have ever found.
In fact, the statement is false on the face of it. Just as people hide in a corner and wait for the active shooter to get to them. They have no chance where someone that puts up a fight has at least some chance.
Another way to state the same lie: “The theory that a woman, raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got those fatal bullet wounds in his chest and forehead!”
We don’t disagree. The comment was to bring focus back to the mind of the left. Any yes, women (even men) who die due to some “unnatural” cause are more valuable because those deaths (and injuries) help support the need for more government intrusion. And those deaths and injuries leave intelligent people beginning their arguments with, “Nobody wants to see….”. Which is immediately converted to agreeing with the left.
Their tweet gives me the impression that they want more women tooled up, that they are lagging in DGU’s.
That’s what I was thinking, women obviously need to man up and take responsibility for their own security (so to speak).
Women have been trained to surrender, not to fight.
To be honest it’s substantially genetic not just trained. See also why women don’t belong in the military/combat units.
They don’t belong in combat units because they are more likely to express emotions in overdramatic ways (on average), lack physical strength and endurance, and have sanitary issues. I know exactly 1 woman I would trust my life to in a war, and she is downright scary.
Let us all agree, that police/government has no duty or responsibility to protect any individual as ruled by the SCOTUS and multiple other high courts.
Also we also know that most violent crime (domestic or otherwise) happens very fast without much or any immediate warning. Police can generally not arrive in time to actually stop any violence but react to the damage that is the result of such violence.
If you as an individual, regardless of sex or skin color, are not trained or do not have the necessary tools then you have not met your responsibilities.
Right. Not nearly enough women are justifiably killing their attackers. Arm up and train up ladies.
Good job bringing this to our attention States United.
They’re referring to domestic violence (see hashtag at end of tweet), attempting to refute the notion that women with abusive spouses should arm themselves for their own protection. They want to take guns out of the hands of the abusers instead. With new laws. Go figure.
While I’m all in favor of armed women, there are usually more effective things women can do to avoid being beaten and killed by their husbands. Like, you know, get the hell out.
Unless you’re talking ‘get out of town’, this is a fallacious argument. Just because a woman leaves the home, doesn’t mean the abuse stops. Women should be ready, willing, and able to stop the threat especially after moving out of the house or kicking the abuser out because this often precipitates an escalation of the violence. Not all women can pick up stakes and leave town or have relatives to stay with.
Moving out of state doesn’t solve anything either.
This guy was made famous by Dateline NBC for stalking his ex-wife years before he went across state lines to try to break into an ex-girlfriend’s new home.
http://www.guns.com/2016/09/01/man-fatally-shot-while-stalking-ex-girlfriend/
Getting out is just the first step. There are a multitude of charitable organizations, churches and social service agencies that can help with subsequent steps and keep her protected.
But way too many women are killed by the guy they were living with at the time, a guy with a long history of abusive and violent behavior.
Not to mention most of them are masochists.
Why not simply prohibit abusers from marrying or being in intimate relationships?
Well then…..we need to get those numbers up!
We need to arm those ladies and have more defensive shootings while reducing the number of assaults on the ladies.
Win-win.
I think you got the acronym wrong.
States United to Prevent Gun Ownership should be abbreviated SUPGO.
That’s not nearly enough justifiable homicides, I think.
Maybe if Steinberg over at the Chicago Sun Times gets drunk and beats up on his wife again, the percentage will move up just a tick.
I’m not sure if that qualifies as flaming or not.
Make citizens safer : through bad law and disarmament. Below is a perfect example of why Democrats in Pennsylvania ( and many other states ) fear preemption laws , ( HB – 2258 ) they simply want to pass any law they can , in any township they can , because it ‘ feels ‘ good. Note pages 11-14 of the LMT link. Lower Makefield , Bucks County , Pa.
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=310443
http://www.lmt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BOS-SEP-7-16-Meeting-Minutes.pdf
Speaking of “safer”>Breaking News! Chicago Tribune endorses Gary Johnson for President! ?I guess they’re trying to “atone” for their unabashed worship of Bury Soetoro…
Headline: “Chicago Tribune endorses Gary Johnson!”
Johnson says, “Thanks, but I never heard of Chicago.”
It’s a very violent place, because of all those people converting semi-autos into machine guns by removing a pin.
Well, People Against Only Some Kinds of Violence, whatever their false-flag this week, are more bugged by you using a gun, than they are by you getting killed.
Because getting killed adds to the death tally that drives their agenda. So better you are killed so more control can be had.
Now, that is a very interesting theory. We need to develop that and urge all the pro-gun orgs to spread it around.
Most males (except your “modern” metrosexual skinny jeans wearing pajamaboy emasculated living in mommy’s basement type with far too much estrogen) are born with a fighting instinct that their soccer-mom mothers and SJW teachers spend the next 20 years trying to shame or beat out of them.
Most women (except your tough, smart, prepared, responsible for her own safety type with more guts than pajamaboy will ever be able to muster) are born with the instinct to surrender because everyone is somebody’s child, even the bastard who’s going to rape them and leave their dead bodies in an alley.
Maybe it’s something in the water.
“Most women (except your tough, smart, prepared, responsible for her own safety type with more guts than pajamaboy will ever be able to muster) are born with the instinct to surrender because everyone is somebody’s child, even the bastard who’s going to rape them and leave their dead bodies in an alley.”
Maybe, but I think this phenomenon in women is just as recent, and just as manipulated, as the metrosexual male one.
The analogy of human mothers to the “Mamma Bear” exists for a reason.
Although, I have read research that shows of all the primates, human females rank near the lowest on ‘protective mother instinct’ and among the highest (if not THE highest) for ‘tendency to harm their own children.’ Susan Smith, for example…
That’s a troubling thought to a LOT of people that just want to believe “mother” = “give it all up for the child” in every case when it clearly doesn’t.
But, all that said, I come back to my initial point: there are many human females, like my wife, that would rip a person to shreds, violently and without compulsion, if they tried to harm her children.
I see regional/genetic/cultural patterns to this, too. And that’s ANOTHER thing that too many folks find troubling to face head-on.
Let’s just say that a man must choose wisely in choosing a mate.
Don’t worry about me I’m tooled up and ready to go
I’ve seen this same scam countless times. I always reply:
“If you’ve only defended yourself with a gun if somebody gets shot to death, does that mean that you’ve only defended yourself with the martial arts if you’ve beaten, kicked or choked somebody to DEATH? What kind of chemical spray do you recommend, Sarin?”
The only bigger liar than an anti-gun cultist is a Holocaust denier, and not by much.
Liberalism is a mental dis-order.
It is against nature to sit defenseless and welcome your murder.
Back in 2007 I was speaking to an Amish woman. I asked her if murder was a sin. She said of course it is a sin.
I asked if suicide was a sin and got the same answer.
I then posed the question, If you do not defend yourself aren’t you doing both?
Bravo !!
Very good. Gonna swipe that story.
A poem in the Old West, often engraved on a small revolver…
Be not afraid of any man,
No matter what his size,
When danger threatens,
Call on me and I will Equalize
Sam Colt was the Father of Women’s Libeation
Comments are closed.