Protecting Women from Gun Control Nonsense

logo_cap1

 

The left-leaning Center for American Progress is pushing a “fact” sheet on Protecting Women from Gun Violence and, unusually enough, they appear to have hardly fudged the data at all. On the other hand they really don’t provide any context to go with their raw numbers which can be misleading without any actual deceit. I recall from my high school history text that when doing some pre-war strategizing, Hitler assured Mussolini that Germany would be safe from an Allied blockade (a tactic used in The Great War) because they had more than 130 million tins of food stockpiled. Il Duce was reportedly quite impressed by that number, not realizing that since Germany had a population of over 65 million, that meant two tins of food per person. So we’ll provide the context ourselves . . .

The authors start out with such a statistic:

Five women are murdered with a gun in the United States every day, most often by an intimate partner.

This is absolutely truthful. According to the CDC, between 2002 and 2011 (the latest year the CDC’s WISQARS site has posted) 18,220 women were murdered with firearms, which works out to 1,822 annually or 4.99 per day. Applying some context to this number, however, gives us a much clearer picture of what that means:

Screen Shot 2014-10-05 at 10.07.59 AM

Hmm. Maybe those murderous guns aren’t so murderous after all. And maybe in the absence of firearms, there are other (I would say far more horrific) options for domestic killers. Options like acid attacks and stoning come to mind.

The authors then clarify things a bit by pulling out the intimate partner numbers:

From 2001 to 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in this country by an intimate partner using a gun.

But wait, that turns out to be only 1.5 per day! I dunno what language CAP speaks, but in my language, the word most means:

  1. Almost all, the majority of
  2. Greatest in amount or degree

And in any language you wish to use, I don’t think 534.2 out of 1,822 (or 29.3%) qualifies as “most”. Hmm, maybe I was too quick to absolve CAP of prevarication. At any rate the authors continue:

A key factor in reducing murders of women is, therefore, preventing dangerous domestic abusers from having easy access to guns.

Well that would be a neat trick if you could actually accomplish it. Unfortunately H. Beam Piper’s veradicator[1] has not yet been invented, nor has Lois Bujold’s Fast-Penta. That makes it a little harder to figure out who murderers are before they commit the crime. Department of Pre-Crime anyone?

On a more serious note, “preventing” objectionable individual of the day “from having easy access to guns” would most assuredly not be a neat trick since this is exactly the rationale used by victim disarmers from time immemorial to disarm Welsh bowmen, Native Americans, Blacks, Southern Europeans, Indians, Australians and Englishmen. As L. Neil Smith said, “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

Unlike other antis who just spout platitudes, however, CAP actually has some specific suggestions:

There are four policies that states and the federal government should enact to block domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns and prevent murders of women: [emphasis added]

Okay, before going into their proposals we need to look at that word prevent. One of the standard come-backs from the antis when we point out that gun control laws don’t work is to say something along the lines of “So just because laws against murder don’t work we should just repeal them?” This is the classic faulty comparison logical fallacy. You see the primary purpose of laws against murder is not to prevent murders, but rather to punish murderers. Yes they do have the effect of preventing some murders (some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them) but most everyone acknowledges that taking the life of another human being is a terrible thing although sometimes it is necessary to do so in order to save your life or the life of another.

There are even fancy Latin legal terms for the differences between these sorts of laws: Mala prohibita literally means wrong (or evil) because proscribed (or prohibited) while mala in se means wrong or evil in and of itself. A good example of mala prohibita laws are those regarding so-called assault weapons; having a flash-hider, telescoping stock or bayonet lug isn’t something that’s wrong all by itself. In general laws which are designed to try and prevent bad things are mala prohibita while those which mean to punish malefactors are mala in se.

Anyway, on to the specific proposals:

  • Bar all convicted abusers, stalkers, and people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from gun possession.

So would convicted abusers include the guy who got arrested after his girlfriend attacked him because the local cop shop had an “arrest the man” policy for domestic violence calls and he copped a plea because “it’s just like a parking ticket, it’ll never even show up on your record” and the alternative was staying in jail for a couple more weeks, waiting for an opening in the trial judge’s calendar? As for stalking, the definition I found at The Free Dictionary specifically states:

Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal.

When you add that to the “ideal” anti-stalking law I found at VictimsOfCrimes.org which says:

In any prosecution under this law, it shall not be a defense that:

  1. the actor was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or
  2. the actor did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress.

We are once again entering a realm which would require either clairvoyance on the part of the “perp” or Fast-Penta on the part of the prosecution.

As for people who are “subject to a domestic violence restraining order” since they can’t approach their victim anyway, why do they need to turn in their guns[2]?

CAP provides three more suggestions which amount to no more than “expand background checks” and “allow cops to ignore those pesky 4th and 5th Amendments by empowering them to steal peoples’ property” (hmm, where have we seen those sorts of excesses before)? None of their suggestions, however, will help a victim of domestic violence actually protect him or herself, completely ignoring the multiple studies which have shown that the safest and most effective self-defense tool in existence, bar none, is a firearm coupled with the will to use it.

It also strikes me as very odd that, although their title speaks of protecting women from gun violence, they focus exclusively on domestic violence, ignoring non-domestic criminal violence completely. As I mentioned in my previous piece Schooling an Annoyed Librarian:

If you want to talk about a “war on women” don’t forget to mention that when a woman is armed with a gun or knife only 3% of attempted rapes are completed, compared to a 32% completion rate against unarmed women. Furthermore, between 1995 and 2003 Australia and the UK tightened gun laws and the USA loosened them; in the same period Aussie rape rates rose 26.5%, UK rates rose 59.8% and US rates dropped 13.5%. Coincidence?

It seems CAP is unwilling to actually address real world issues of assault and self-defense, preferring instead to vilify firearms and believe that if we pass just one more law (or four, in this case) somehow, magically, bullying misogynists will stop beating and murdering women that CAP would rather see lying dead in a pool of their own blood instead of standing, smoking gun in hand, over their tormenter’s body lying in a pool of his own blood.

 

[1] A 100% accurate lie detector

[2] And yes I know that under the Lautenberg Amendment such people are already considered “prohibited persons” but I prefer not to give any ground to the antis, and arguing against such a law because it already exists is tantamount to agreeing that such a law is desirable. It isn’t. Anyone who can’t be trusted with a firearm can’t be trusted without a keeper.

comments

  1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “A key factor in reducing murders of women is, therefore, preventing dangerous domestic abusers from having easy access to guns.”

    Who needs a gun to murder…? I mean, I know it’s awful to talk about, but seriously, the notion that the lack of a gun can quell domestic abuse is absurd.

    The average man wouldn’t need a gun to kill, or otherwise injure, the average women, if he had a mind for it. Men are bigger, stronger, and more agressive by nature. And you can’t legislate that away.

    Abuse is not about what’s in the hand, it’s about what’s in the head and heart.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Prohibiting intimate partners would seem to be a more effective method.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Kill anything with a penis at birth.

        That’ll fix everything.

        1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          From Blazing Saddles, “Too Jewish”. Hedley Lama

    2. avatar DJS588 says:

      It makes me wonder: What will CAP do (other than ignore) if the intimate partner/significant other is of the same sex?

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      Because murder committed with a gun is WAY deadlier than murder committed with a knife.

  2. avatar publius2 says:

    Wikipedia doesnt do justice to the background of the Soros funded CAP. Wiki-pedia calls it “independent”. It is no such thing.

    It is a progressive/left collaborative funding, activism, and disinformation machine, that has been deliberately built to strategically and tactically advance the favored causes and sources of power of the progressive movement.

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6709
    http://www.muckety.com/Center-for-American-Progress/5008021.muckety
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Center-for-American-Progress

    More here if you are interested: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/

  3. avatar Fred says:

    It’s not about empowering women but disarming men. If it were suggested that women be empowered in any real sense that would make things more equal and they wouldn’t want that because it would erode their victim culture and mentality. Ultimately they just want to make the abused the abuser to make things equal in their own sick way instead of finding a real solution to end the abuse.

  4. avatar tdiinva says:

    There is that “domestic partner” violence statistic again. Murder among actually lawfully married people is quite low. Most of it occurs among those who don’t follow the social straight jacket of middle America. Where does most “domestic partner” violence occur? If you guessed among the social classes that are most likely to commit crimes then you would have guessed correctly.

  5. avatar neiowa says:

    A key factor in reducing murders of women is, therefore, is to persuade stupid women from hanging out in stupid places at stupid times with stupid people. Including some POS they “love”.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      But that would imply personal responsibility. That is so last century. . .

  6. avatar Dish says:

    If women want to protect themselves from dangerous domestic abusers they could start by picking decent men. I am not kidding.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Sure, let’s see them put THAT into a law.

  7. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I have known of partners killing the insignificant other with cars and trucks. This might explain some of the high rate of motor vehicle accidents.

  8. avatar GP1935 says:

    +1 for the H. Beam Piper reference. Anybody who read Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen can figure out what he would have thought of the anti-gun industry.

  9. avatar Suzan says:

    Forty years ago I was raped and barely escaped with my life. I have reason to think my attacker went on to become a serial murderer.

    When I was young I studied Taekwondo and other martial arts. I have carried a weapon most places since that attack.

    I have taught self defense to women. Between my personal training and watching other women study means of self defense I have grown committed to to the idea that firearms provide the only real form of self defense that is practical for most women.

    I am an old woman now, my partner and I work gun shows in Texas. We are heartened to see more and more gun manufacturers sponsoring women like Jessie Duff and Julie Golob as their presence in shooting sports helps interest young women in those sports.

    Gun manufacturers adding features such as interchangeable back straps are making guns that are ergonomic for women. The pink guns seem silly at times but if that is what it takes to get women into feeling comfortable with firearms then I support it.

    It is a dangerous world out there.

    For what it is worth kudos for this post along with the one on the Pink Pistols. Too often women and various minority groups are left out of the discussion of firearms self defense when they are often victims of violent crime.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      Thank you for your post.

      More firearms in the hands of women!

      The great equalizer, and a great way to empower women.

  10. avatar Frank says:

    From Wikipedia:
    “The Center is a nonpartisan organization “dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action”, and as such features many prominent liberals and progressives in the United States”
    That, my friends, is one of the stupidest statements of all time.
    These people don’t even know the meaning of nonpartisan.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      That’s a perfect example of an internal contradiction. Charlatans.

    2. avatar Tim says:

      They aren’t partisan: They have Democrat, Socialist, and Communist party members.

  11. avatar Omer Baker says:

    As I love saying “Anyone who has control of their faculties and can not be trusted with a firearm should be incarcerated or executed.”

  12. avatar LongPurple says:

    “Features many prominent liberals and progressives in the United States.”

    Yeah, “non-partisan” = composed of statists and socialists from both major parties, and maybe a few from the outer fringe as well.

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “A key factor in reducing murders of women is, therefore, preventing dangerous domestic abusers from having easy access to guns.”

    I still have not figured out how removing firearms from a deranged husband or boyfriend stops them from killing their live-in wife/girlfriend’s with a hammer, club, rock, knife, axe, etc. while the wife/girlfriend is sleeping in their bed.

    Come to think of it, I haven’t figured out how removing firearms will prevent a deranged husband or boyfriend from killing their live-in wife/girlfriend with poison, either … or their car, or … .

    1. avatar An English Person says:

      Indeed; the firearm ’tis merely the medium of abuse and not the cause, and the abuse itself is the symptom of the the cause the anti’s all want us to ignore.
      Blame money, blame religion, blame those who blame… blame lack of education – emotional and intellectual, blame the mass media, corporate and cultural influences, and blame the law.

  14. avatar An English Person says:

    Dear Mr Krafft,

    That is the most intelligent article I have read in so long.

    Any time you want to come to England and advise our government and/or teach our children, you are most welcome.

    Your sincerely,
    An English Person.

  15. avatar Anonymous says:

    Excellent rebuttal Bruce.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email