“Everyone deserves to feel safe in her community, which is why it’s so important to urge our lawmakers to pass proven solutions, like preventing domestic abusers from buying guns, and to push back on the gun lobby’s false narrative that firearms make women safer.” – Ruth N. Glenn, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Sex Assault Survivors and Guns [via nytimes.com]
i think she’s safe.
Now imagine her with clown makeup on.
Prison must be very safe.
Proven as in firearm laws like Chicago and Baltimore have on the books? Those have proven to be highly effective.
Proven is one of those words used to end debate. The implication is her position or suggestion is as factual as water is wet.
Libs are pretty good wordsmiths.
The correct term is liars, not wordsmiths.
Like “science”. As if, just because you’re the first one to use that word in a debate, that you lay claim to the science. Most people don’t even know what the word means.
If someone uses the word, ask them to describe the scientific method. Chances are, they’ve never heard of it.
“Proven” is the latest replacement for “commonsense”, which most people have learned has nothing to do with “common” knowledge or “sense” when used by an anti-gunner. Using the word “proven” is an attempt to end or prevent debate of a statement which can be easily shown to be incorrect.
I wonder if her research included the report that showed women defending themselves with a firearm had fewer injuries than literally any other type of defense. Or the CDC report that showed a person is over 10X more likely to have a successful DGU than to die by gun. My guess is that she did see that and chose to exclude it and had the paper shut down comments so that no one else could point it out.
Last time I bought a firearm, I could have sworn I had to indicate I wasn’t a domestic abuser. Does she mean that law? No? We need to stop people from lying? Okay, how about the law that says it’s a felony to lie on that form?
This is of course completely aside from due process considerations … come to think, isn’t a lack of that what gets people upset at police shooting? At a fundamental level, I mean, most of the protestors don’t use words like that, but doesn’t it come out to the same theme of “innocent until proven guilty?”
Simply, if you want the best way to protect battered women / spouses / SOs / etc., a protective order isn’t it. The way to do it is to relocate them out of town for a period of time – until charges can be brought properly, the accused tried, convicted and jailed. And of course that would become really expensive and inconvenient for all concerned. But if it saves just one life…!
You only had to state that you were not a convicted domestic abuser. “Gun safety” demands that accused abusers should be prohibited from having guns, even without any due process.
In disarmed Britain, nearly 1,000 women have the crap beat out of them every day.
In disarmed Australia, 33% of the nation’s adult women have been abused and a woman is murdered every week by a “partner”.
Taking away guns does not make the problem go away.
Jailing the parents of domestic abusers would probably have a long term effect on reducing domestic abuse. Punish poor parenting.
“But it’s so much betterer to be murdered by a baseball bat or a knife… it’s scarier to be murdered by gun!” ~ Average NYT reader
“Would yez feel better if they was thrown out a winder there?”
Why should her ‘feelings’ of being safe matter more than the woman who ‘feels’ safer carrying a firearm?
This is the way to turn this issue around.
Let’s find surveys of women, the elderly, the physically-impaired and ask them if they fear that they are vulnerable. Where do they experience vulnerability? Inside the home? I their neighborhoods? At work; or going into/leaving work? What are the bases of these fears? Ex-domestic partners? Current domestic partners? Co-workers? Random attackers? Robbers? Rapists?
If there are any such citizens who fear for their safety, are their fears to be discounted or dismissed?
Are women psychologically/physiologically fit to use guns for self-defense? Are guns suitable for co-ed use from a proper view of gender roles? These are important social questions. Do our governments act in the public interest when granting equal admission to women in the police and armed-forces? Ought we to be “gender-neutral” in social policy concerning the right to keep and bear arms?
Finally, we must be respectful of our historical traditions. Can we dredge-up any gun/ammo manufacturers’ advertisements from the late-19’th / early-20’th centuries to see whether images of women ever appear? If any, what was the tenor of such images? Pin-ups appealing to men?
Finally, if hoplophobes are really disturbed by seeing arms carried in public, this issue must be investigated seriously. In America, all cops, all armored-car drivers and some security guards routinely open-carry. We must inquire and fully understand what impact seeing arms-carrying men openly carrying in urban venues has on these hoplophobes. Are the hoplophobes uniformly convinced that all such uniformed openly-armed men are competent and well-composed to carry arms in public? Would they feel much better if cops and guards were required to carry concealed? Shouldn’t such a measure be the place to begin to improve their “feelings” of safety in public?
Whats proven to work?
Please provide examples or its a false narrative.
Carol Browne didn’t ‘feel’ safe without a firearm – and wasn’t. She was denied a carry permit. Why should one woman’s ‘feelings’ matter more than anothers?
http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2015/06/nj_gun_association_calls_berlin_womans_death_an_ab.html
Some people’s feelings matter more than other people’s lives.
When “Proven” and “Common Sense” are used in almost any political statement, you be be assured that the opposite is true. It immediately discredits the argument for me whenever those items appear. I know at that point I am listening to lies and that the purveyor of the argument is attempting to shut down any argument without looking at real facts. Libs do that. Since they cannot effectively look at facts and come up with a reasoned conclusion from facts because the fact conflicts with their fixed ideas and false data, they lie and do not like logical argument and must shut it down.
+1
Liberal women have bought in to the lie that if you give a “perp” what they want, they won’t hurt you. The other side of that coin is the belief that a woman who is raped and killed is of superior morals to a woman who uses as gun to stop the assault! They spout all of this despite the reality that it is a lie that “perps” won’t kill you.
Her subject is not about women’s safety. Why respond? Don’t rake the bait.
Once upon a time, in another life, I was in a career field where I interacted with folks from this and other organizations. They truly do believe this stuff, and are victims of confirmation bias. They do not see or acknowledge any data that does not hold up the narrative they believe is true. You can’t reason with them, and they’ll cut down any disagreement toward their line of thinking with a false moral high ground that “if you disagree with us, you must be okay with domestic violence.”
Don’t waste your time. You’re talking to a wall.
That’s an unfair comparison. At least walls serve a useful purpose.
You should respond to the use of a logical fallacy by stating what their fallacy was, and telling them that you will not allow them to use that ploy on you.
“You are attempting to win this argument by distorting my position on the issue. I have not said that I support domestic violence and you know that I do not support that. Can we discuss the issue as reasonable men without trying to avoid the truth by distorting our opponent’s position?”
Hey, at least she said “deserves to feel safe” instead of the usual “has a right to feel safe” that is so commonly (and incorrectly) used as an argument.
I know a few progressives / useful fools and agree, logic and facts do not apply. They have been indoctrinated into the progressive ideology and they “believe”!
When I tried to present documented facts they got rude and abusive; “how dare you question my faith”? attitude.
Not worth my time and effort to deal with them like that. Now days if I say anything at all it is probably something that will set them off and I walk away.
I don’t argue with zealous anti-gunners in private. However, I will argue the point with any anti-gunner in public, because I want the others (the people who are undecided on the subject in the “audience”) to hear the other side of the issue and to see that the anti-gun position can not stand up to the facts and rational arguments.
Proven for slavery.
If I remember correctly, this woman’s sad story was published by The Trace. Her ex-husband committed suicide when the cops caught up to him. Her friends ran out of patience with her for putting flowers on his grave. If The Trace accepted comments, I would have told her that her recovery wouldn’t be complete until she understood the wisdom of the statement, “Too bad he didn’t kill himself first.”
Another mindless Democrat that hasn’t got the sense of a Jackass!
Proven doesn’t even mean proven with scientific discovery.
Things that have been “proven”, have later been disproven.
Proven? Like the ‘fact’ that the Earth was flat? Proven like how the sun and stars revolve around the Earth? Proven like how well bleeding a patient helps balance their biles? Or that diseases are caused by sin (STDs not withstanding)? Perhaps we need to take a page out of the Inquisition and test her for witchcraft. Would that change her mind?
Channeling Goebbels… a lie, repeated often enough becomes accepted as truth.
In this, she is among the experts.
Ms Ruth wants women raped. Having women raped helps control the slave population for the progressive government.
The only thing that she’s “proven”, is that she’s not right in the noggin.
“Everyone deserves to feel safe in her community, which is why it’s so important to urge our lawmakers to pass proven solutions, like preventing domestic abusers from buying guns, and to push back on the gun lobby’s false narrative that firearms make women safer.” – Ruth N. Glenn, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Sex Assault Survivors and Guns [via nytimes.com
– Feeling safe is a psychological condition. Some people will never feel safe. Others will feel unsafe for silly reasons. Gun control Executive Directors come to mind.
– “”Deserve’s” got nothing to do with it.” I’m not sure anyone “deserves” to feel safe. Make the case. Why does everyone deserve that? Or why do some people “deserve” that? Indeed, I can think of some people who “deserve” to feel unsafe. Predators, thugs, whack-jobs and terrorists come to mind. Indeed, there’s a case that these folks feel too safe.
– “Her community.” So, whatever people who identify as demanding that others use female pronouns might deserve, those of us who don’t apparently don’t deserve the same. Discriminate much?
– “Community”, meaning what? Neighborhood? I thought gated communities, you know, where people control access so they can feel safe, were A Bad Thing(tm). “Community” as in like-minded, excluding all others from their safe space? That’s pretty common these days. If a community, having expelled all others, still feels unsafe, I don’t know what to do about that. Removing the WrongThink from their midst, or artillery range being insufficient, perhaps hunting down all the corrupt, corrupted, and corruptable, to the ends of the earth, onto the 7th generation will be sufficient. Also, ban mutations, as WrongBeing might come back.
There’s more. I have to believe that this level of targeted word-salad is crafted. Don’t see how you can get that much programming, non-sequitur and inference by accident. (Even Bloomie doesn’t have enough $ to fund an *infinite* number of Executive Directors, poking randomly at keyboards.) Worse, with so many targets, you get overwhelmed trying to pick.
The countering tactic isn’t what it seems. Since this is mass politics (“important”, “urge lawmkers”, “push back” — mobilize; “the gun lobby’s” — boogie man; “false narrative” — discredit opposition w/o meeting their arguments) the game is to Discredit their Position, for which Discrediting the Speaker works just as well as, often better than, meeting their argument. You can make them look like idiots, since they are being so idiotic. Rather than take the bait & defend yourself — the calumnies are lies to distract you; being defensive is never convincing — go after the idiocy that will discredit them the most, to the other people listening. This stuff is never (never, never, never) an honest debate; and they’re never (never, never, never) talking to you. They’re always playing to the cheap seats.
The good news it, the monkey mob doesn’t care who it is going after, as long as they get to throw poo at someone. The better news is, any given monkey mob likes flinging some kinds of poo more than others. The best news is, if they’re gonna throw the whole plumbing store at you, The Exact Right Kind of Thing for This Audience is in there somewhere.
So, figure *which* piece of fisking would play best to the audience at hand, and do that. Parse words for the nerd-pedants. Use a “man up” pitch for the self-responsible. For the self-consciously inclusive, point out the exclusion. For the anti-authoritarians roll out the claimed authority. For the authoritarians, point out the pesky autonomy they’re leaving people. For the easily excited, grab the bigger excitement “Really, all that violence, especially the 90+ % that doesn’t involve guns.” For the folks who think “There but for the grace of bog”, put them in the story … being menaced by an amped-up, larger, stronger, faster, eeee-vil testosterone-poisoned wife-beater … without an equalizer in “her” purse because those have been banned.
The options are infinite, but really, only your first reply matters. So choose, the one thing to fisk that’ll work with the audience.
Even my ramble right now, is really saying just one thing — only that.
“which is why it’s so important to urge our lawmakers to pass proven solutions, like preventing domestic abusers from buying guns” – This is an excellent opportunity for compromise. We’ll agree to pass a law that makes it illegal for people convicted of domestic abuse to buy guns, but the law will also make it legal for non-prohibited persons to buy newly manufactured machine guns. Or maybe if she is uncomfortable with that, we will go with a law that has actually been proven (nearly 20 years ago) to reduce violence against women and pass H.R. 38.
Is that Maxine Waters’ first cousin?
Let’s put that cunt in a house void of any ability to call 911 to simulate the actual inability of 911 to respond in an instant notice. Then deprive her of any means to defend herself from any violent assault. Notify her that sometime she will be violently assaulted to INCLUDE RAPE! Then assign an individual to assault the residence, attack and rape her with total immunity of any and all criminal actions! ONLY WHEN CUNTS LIKE HER FACE THE REALITY OF THEIR ACTIONS WILL THEY CHANGE!