For gun control groups like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, it’s all about that gun, ’bout that gun, ’bout that gun, no trouble. Instead of helping prevent people from becoming bad guys, or help good guys protect themselves from bad guys (e.g., arming women against killers), or punish bad guys for doing bad things, they focus on laws regulating the purchase and possession of hunks of plastic and steel that fire projectiles. Truth be told, the laws they love only succeed in disarming good guys, leaving them defenseless against bad guys. And yet, in MDA’s Orwellian world, laws that restrict good guys’ firearms freedom kill good guys. Yes, laws – themselves, just like guns – kill. This is the misguided mindset that pro-gun folk face.
Their minds are made up! You can’t reason with people like that (MDA) who’s minds are totally focused on dis-arming the public in general. All we can do is try and educate the rest of the population.
The truth is that they have a single thought firmly lodged in their simple mind and are completely unable to dislodge it to move on to the next one.
The single magical thought is that guns are possessed by evil and that anyone (except police) who comes in contact with them will likewise become possessed.
this is a very clever and effective media campaign. gun rights groups are NOT doing anywhere enough to fight it.
Moms (or the purported members of MDA) only know how to handle violent outbursts one way: remove all dangerous objects so their toddler can have a tantrum without hurting themselves or someone else. Unfortunately for their movement we’re not all toddlers having tantrums, some people are bent on doing harm any way they can and you can’t stop them without leveling the playing field (usually with a firearm). If they could only understand that they might get close to the same page and on the way to actual solutions.
How many of those women would still be alive if their abusive partner knew they could shoot back at any moment? I’d wager there would be around a 500% reduction in incidents. Empowering women is the only solution, trying to make everyone helpless does not do anything but further an anti-gun (in the hands of the people) agenda.
How many women are hit by cars in an average month? How many women are struck by bare hands and/or blunt objects in an average month? By a former or current mate? I’m guessing 48 per month is a pretty small figure, relatively speaking. If I’m not mistaken, somewhere around 10 people are fatally struck by lightning in an average month, something like 100 struck without necessarily being killed.
The more important question is, how many women were hit by fists or other blunt objects or otherwise harassed in the days/weeks/months before they wound up shot and more importantly why wasnt the cretin who did that strung up by their testicles and left for the buzzards. In all these cases, very rarely does the attacker skip immediately to weapons when abusing or harassing the woman in question. So why do we have a justice system wherein it is possible for violent, aggressive men, to harass and assault women and then be left out in the general population until they finally go all the way, buy a gun/car/bat/knife/rope, and kill someone…. answer me that? If you think someone is too violent to be trusted owning a gun, why the fvck are they out in public and not rotting in some windowless cell, or better yet, hanging from a sturdy branch minutes after the gavel fell like they did in the colonies?
There are the kind of questions they should be asking. If someone cant be trusted with dangerous weapons are the really rehabilitated enough to be out in public? What kind of backwards logic allows someone to arrive at that conclusion?
The answers might offend someone.
Also, if these women are in such danger (and it’s pretty easy to spot the abused women), why aren’t we teaching these women to have the self respect to leave? And for those who do leave, why aren’t we training and arming them?
Like that great pro-gun video from MDA showed us, a domestic situation can escalate from banging on a door to lethal threats in seconds, so women should be armed.
Also, if these women are in such danger (and it’s pretty easy to spot the abused women), why aren’t we teaching these women to have the self respect to leave? And for those who do leave, why aren’t we training and arming them?
Like that great pro-gun video from MDA showed us, a domestic situation can escalate from banging on a door to lethal threats in seconds, so women should be armed.
“Also, if these women are in such danger (and it’s pretty easy to spot the abused women),”
On so, so many levels, WRONG.
Whut? It’s easy to spot obvious signs of abuse. No way is it easy to spot abuse when it isn’t obvious.
Even when the abuse is obvious, in some states law enforcement cannot make an arrest if the abused person (more commonly a woman, but it could be someone of either gender) denies the abuse. Even when the denial is completely lame (“I walked into the door and gave myself two black eyes and a dislocated shoulder”).
Sadly, nobody can arm these women except themselves. They must take personal responsibility for their lives and safety, and that of their children. Nobody can really do it for them. The mindset of the average battered woman is that she is not truly worthy of anything but what life and others dish out to her. They have accepted, even if unconsciously, that they have no moral or logical authority over their own lives, so whatever is done to them must be due to some fault of their own. They don’t generally think about it that way, but it lurks in their rationalizations all the time.
People in general, and women especially, have been conditioned for a very long time to look to someone else for a great many things, including safety. It is a difficult thing for so many to even contemplate seriously defending themselves, even if the “laws” support that option. Those who really want to take charge of their lives find a way.
I’ve talked to a great many of these ladies as a health care professional, and most people have no idea what is actually in their hearts and minds. The mere presence of a gun does not cause a crime, of course. But neither is it going to automatically make a woman able and willing to defend herself. The mindset has to change first. How to help them do that is the 64 thousand dollar question.
you need to use arguments which resonate with the public.
arguing that cars and other things are more dangerous than guns just flies over their heads, and won’t work. sorry, just won’t.
The mere presence of *domestic violence* by itself probably raises the risk of homicide by the first 499%.
The fact that a gun is used on top of that is inconsequential. A man can kill a woman with any number of objects (and vice versa).
What about domestic violence cases where the woman defends herself with a gun? Conveniently left out that statistic I see…
In none of these domestic partner incidents is it a sudden surprise when things come to a murderous head.
How about orgs work on teaching people of both genders in relationships like these how to recognize their situation, escape their situation, heal from their situation and secure their own safety?
The way they so narrowly focus on the miniscule detail of a firearm being used to murder someone in a relationship like this makes it seem like they’re totally cool with the years of verbal, physical and emotional abuse that lead into the final result of murder.
Try actually empowering victims for a change rather than locking them into victim status in perpetuity to further some nonsensical political goal.
But that’s hard work and it take time! Nannying Mommies want to feel good now with the minimal amount of effort.
More important, that would reduce the problem of domestic violence, while doing nothing to reduce the rights of gun owners.
Priorities man. Priorities.
The deep issue here is — as I learned in both counseling courses and doing some counseling — that too many men and women these days can’t picture themselves as men or women, or at least valuable men and women, without having that person of the opposite sex that is “theirs”. I have had to give up on several young men I’ve tried to help because they can’t seem to live without having a female to “show they’re a man”, whether the female in question is enticing them into drugs or other illegal activity, in what I called “co-destructive” relationships. Such people would rather stay and risk the possibility — one they know is very real — of serious bodily harm or even death than reduce themselves in their own eyes to nothing.
Whether there’s a firearm in the relationship is a minor detail in those situations. Steak knives, rolling pins, baseball bats, even televisions and coffee tables, are things I’ve found get used as weapons.
Ban men! Because all men are baaaaad!
That’s what these misandrists really mean.
Because we’re bad, we’re bad, you know it, uh huh. 8>)
We must do more to stop domestic gun violence.
Cuz if a guy beats or stabs his wife to death, that’s cool with Shannon.
Have they received 1 penny from overseas to overthrow our Constitution?
“The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women in this country …” — Moms Demand Action
Wrong. The presence of an aggressor in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women in this country.
Look, if a man is determined to assassinate a defenseless girlfriend or wife, he is probably going to succeed. … especially when the woman lives with the man. It is exceedingly easy to kill a woman with a knife or hammer while she is sleeping in the same home. It is exceedingly easy to poison an estranged girlfriend or wife. (The perpetrator can simply break-in while the victim is away and put poison in the victim’s milk or whatever.) And it is exceedingly easy to stalk an unprepared victim, come up behind them, and deliver a fatal attack with either an edge weapon, bludgeon, or garrote wire.
In summary, ELIMINATING FIREARMS DOES NOT CURE THE EVIL HEART OF A DOMESTIC ABUSER NOR THE ALTERNATE METHODS THAT SUCH A DOMESTIC ABUSER CAN EMPLOY TO KILL THEIR GIRLFRIEND OR WIFE.
So leave our firearms alone … my family members may need them one day to defend themselves from a stalker or domestic abuser.
Did you notice that they got it wrong again?
“Gun Laws Kill!”
Especially the ones that they promote and back. So abolish mandated gun free zones.
Most of victims of domestic violence are “intimate partners” and not current or former husbands. Most women who are murdered by intimate partners live in at risk locations. There is a strong corellation between other kinds of anti-social behavior and intimate partner murder. It’s not the gun but the environment. If a woman wants to reduce her risk of intimate partner violence in general get married instead of having a baby daddy hanging around.
I doubt it’s the level of the relationship as much as the dirtbag in the relationship that matters.
Take a look a numbers. Married couples have the lowest rates of domestic violence.
An inconvenient truth for MDA: domestic violence is 2-4 times more prevalent among police than among the general population. So, Shanny the Nanny, should cops be disarmed? For the wimmin?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/
Well, it’s a good thing women can only be killed by men if the men use firearms. Good news, ladies! You have nothing to worry about from knives, hammers, bats, cars, fists, feet, bricks, sharp sticks, moderately-sized rocks…
Or, you can ignore MDA’s idiocy and obtain whatever tools you see fit to keep yourself safe. A firearm in your hand and the knowledge and will to use it can easily shift the advantage in your favor against a larger, stronger assailant.
The best deterrent to domestic violence murders apart from potential victims being armed is a effective death penalty. Execute a large number of domestic violence murderers on the same day nationwide and the message conveyed will not be lost. I`m sure that most of the Moms Demand members are probably opposed to the death penalty and they would object over executions
Well, I think they’d support the death penalty for Republicans.
Reading many of MDA supporters’ comments on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc., not only would they support it, but the call for it outright – carried out by lynch mob, criminal, or the State; they don’t really care which.
Do you have evidence of that?
Everything I’ve ever seen on the death penalty has shown no correlation with a drop in crime, indicating it has no deterrence value.
It will certainly deter the recently executed. So I think you are wrong.
Well, not really. They’re in prison for life without parole anyway, so the death penalty is just punishment on top of punishment.
Not that I’m against the death penalty — sometimes justice requires it. I just think we should be clear about what it does and why we’re using it.
John Lott’s research concluded that states which actively execute prisoners do often see an apparent deterrent effect. (Of course, correlation does not equal causation…)
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/05/what-does-the-research-on-the-death-penalty-actually-show/
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/05/cprc-at-national-review-the-shaky-case-against-the-death-penalty/
Especially if the murderer is a woman.
No, she is absolutely right. Gun control laws kill women because they can’t protect themselves.
these must be some of the stupidest women in the country. i also read an article in my wifes photography magazine about a woman who was abused for 60 yrs by her husband who also beat their children. Then at the age of 70 he shot her. So now she advocates against guns. So she is so stupid she is STILL defending her abuser to this day, blaming the gun for the violence. So she and this group are O.K. if they are beaten with fists, that doesn’t warrant any kind of intervention, but once a gun comes out, WOOOOOAAAAH stop everything, we need to get guns out of our country. Because if it hadn’t been for the gun, they would still be getting beat, which i guess they are fine with. What if they get beat with a gun instead of shot with it? is that ok?
So what ever happened to the law of cause and effect? Anybody ever think about that? When a man gets himself shot by a woman, everyone assumes he had it coming. When a woman gets herself shot by a man, OMG don’t anyone think now!! Perish the thought that SHE might possibly have done ANYTHING to deserve that. Our system is SOOOOOOO one-leggedly lame.
Los Angeles International Airport gun laws kill women?
Hmm. I did not know this.
Dang! You beat me to it.
We could damn near eliminate domestic violence if we just banned the NFL.
In an average month, anti-civil rights hate groups pedal propaganda intended to generate hysteria. They infer causal relationships with all of the sophistication of a four year old. Their agenda is the brutal repression of second amendment rights.
Lax guns laws do kill women. That is why we need laws passed in every state, county, and city, guaranteeing womens right to self defense, ownership, and bearing of arms. Apparently the 2nd amendment listed on the government’s most important document just doesn’t explain it clearly enough.
I was in a situation where lax gun laws endangered more than the woman: a gal’s ex had been heard saying he was going to go get a gun and come kill her right on the university campus, so a number of us took turns keeping watch 24/7. The administration told us there was nothing to worry about, because there was a restraining order telling him not to come within a hundred yards of her, and one barring him from being on the campus, so of course she was safe! and if that wasn’t enough, he wasn’t allowed to buy a firearm. Trust the laws!
We didn’t. But we weren’t allowed to have firearms on campus, so we had to make do. Eventually he showed, waving a big revolver. If he hadn’t taken a half minute to scream obscenities at two of us who told him he was refused entry, he might have noticed the car start up heading his way, and might have gotten some shots off before the passenger door whipped open and taken him out… completely accidentally, of course.
People shouldn’t have to improvise to protect friends. And people who think laws stop violent people . . . well, I’ll pass on putting my full opinion in print, and just say they need to be kept away from sensible people so their delusions don’t spread.
“A current or former husband or boyfriend” or a neighbor or a delivery person or a Martian or a unicorn.
It’s like the elastic definition of “children”: when you make the range large enough, you can really lie, I mean massage, I mean work the numbers.
Translation: “we don’t care if more people die, as long as their deaths don’t make sensational headlines, or coincide with any other issue that’s trendy with progressives!”
That never fits on the signs though.
Just saw an episode of drugs inc. An Oakland black market gun dealer they talked to sold 30 guns a month that are not only not legal to possess in the state but even if they were, could not be sold without a background check. All guns shown had standard cap mags so I’m sure his buyers are not limited by that law either. On top of that he claimed $500 profit each. Not only are the laws completely ineffective, they are making those willing to break them a good deal of money.
The presence of snow boots in outdoor situations increase the risk of snow by 500 percent.
I’m not for restrictive gun laws, and most perpetrators of domestic violence have prior interactions with police before they murder their spouses or girlfriends. I also don’t agree with laws that allow police to confiscate firearms based on a filing of a restraining order. I’m not a supporter of pre-crime enforcement of any kind.
The problem in my opinion is that police and prosecutors fail to charge felony assault in cases between husband and wife when if the same beating had been doled out on a stranger the charges would almost certainly result in a felony being charged. There is no excuse for hitting your girlfriend or wife. Just walk away.
Comments are closed.