Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[Stardreamer]

A lot of folks debating the gun control issues like to 'what if' scenarios of self defense to suggest that gun owners would tend to come out on the losing end of encounters with criminals. I heard this story today and thought about that.


Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder

In searching for the text of the story itself I turned up many pages of similar stories in the last year.

Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot
UPDATE: Woman forced to shoot intruder to protect herself and children
Alabama Woman Shoots Home Intruder to Protect Herself and Her Ax- and Knife-Wielding Daughters

I noticed several common factors in these stories:

• In most cases the assailants knew the women were in the home.
• The police were called but had not arrived in time to protect the women.
• In many cases the assailant was warned the victims were armed but proceeded anyway confident they could overcome them.

You rarely see these stories in the national media or discussions on the gun control. My search turned up over 1100 pages of results, many of the results were the first story as it has gotten national attention at the local news station level but there seemed to be a fresh story on each page I went through. These are people who would be dead or worse if gun ownership were banned, so it seems that no matter how much you want to what if the stories the self defense argument that is supported by the Supreme Court is a valid and legitimate argument.

This natural right of self defense reflected in the 2nd Amendment is considered so predominate that a recent appeals court ruling overturning a state law forbidding the carrying of handguns for self defense outside the home said that even if you could conclusively prove that banning guns would reduce gun crime and deaths overall the state still did not have the right to deny a law abiding citizen the right to carry for self defense.

the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts. If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

An Important Victory for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[TX-Beau]

RED Herring.

[JayQueer]

Good for the women

I think everyone should know how to shoot a gun. I took a class at my local shooting range by an NRA instructor.

[TX-Beau]

Was he hot or something?

Frankly I have a hard time seeing you as a woman with a gun.

[Stardreamer]

RED Herring.

How so? The court ruling alone changes the dynamic of the conversation. The self defense argument is the most relevant discussion of the 2nd Amendment in the modern world, to me the tendency of these discussions to be directed off into the role of the militia in the modern world is more of a red herring.

[TX-Beau]

NO ONE said people don't have a right to defend themselves. NO ONE. ever NO ONE.

ever.

anywhere.

period.

[TX-Beau]

You also can't argue the gov has no right to regulate. THEY ALREADY DO!!!!!!!

The only thing under discussion is the AMOUNT of regulation.

Untwist your panties - there will be no further regulations forthcoming.

[JayQueer]

Was he hot or something?

lol........my heart skipped a beat when he wrapped his muscular, beefy arms around me to show me how to hold the gun just right. I couldn't concentrate because I was thinking about the "gun" inside his pants.....

[TX-Beau]

Now THAT I have no problem seeing.

[Stardreamer]

NO ONE said people don't have a right to defend themselves. NO ONE. ever NO ONE.

ever.

anywhere.

period.

No they generally as I point out in my post try to say instead that self defense with guns is not effective and you would be better off depending on the police.

[Stardreamer]

You also can't argue the gov has no right to regulate. THEY ALREADY DO!!!!!!!

The only thing under discussion is the AMOUNT of regulation.

Untwist your panties - there will be no further regulations forthcoming.

I have never said the government does not have the right to regulate. The ruling though does negate some of the justifications used for regulating.

I do expect regulations limiting high capacity magazines and if they asked me, rapid change magazines.

[TX-Beau]

Who is "they?"

Please. YOU are trying to imply that the police can't help you (therefore guns) and that the ONLY way for women to defend themselves is with guns.

I notice none of the women in your sample had assault rifles. Curious that.

[TX-Beau]

Oh and then you referenced the CATO institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

They also think faggots in the army are a bad idea.

[JayHawk]

RED Herring.

Translation, I have no counter argument and dont like your point

- - - Updated - - -

Who is "they?"

Please. YOU are trying to imply that the police can't help you (therefore guns) and that the ONLY way for women to defend themselves is with guns.

I notice none of the women in your sample had assault rifles. Curious that.

Thats because assault rifles aren't available in the open marketplace.

[TX-Beau]

Translation, I have no counter argument and dont like your point

Translation, I have no counter argument and dont like your point.

[TX-Beau]

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

[JayHawk]

Wow you can use the internet to be deceived.... None of those weapons meet the guidelines for assault weapons... so guess what WONT be banned????

[T-Rexx]

If you want to get murdered (or you want someone in your family to die unnaturally), the single best way to accomplish that is to carry a gun.

Period.

[TX-Beau]

Wow you can use the internet to be deceived.... None of those weapons meet the guidelines for assault weapons... so guess what WONT be banned????

Prove it..

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...ions_and_usage

[JayHawk]

Translation, I have no counter argument and dont like your point.

You are taking it as the gun control debate. Whereas it is simply a demonstration that weapons are used regularly to defend ones self. You cant argue that or even touch it so you punt.

Realistically we are going to see a few type of weapons that 'look' scary added to banned lists and magazines will be reduced in capacity. As I demonstrated in the NRA is a terrorist group thread. A man with a lever action rifle form the days of exploring the west can easily get of hundreds of rounds in a short period of time.



But I get it you don't like the idea and would prefer a ban... check the NRA thread that occurred on your hiatus... all your poitns and counter points can be found there... cheers.

[JayHawk]

Prove it..

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...ions_and_usage

Well I obviously cant prove what they will pass but you are well aware that regulation may be offered but restrictive bans of the type that would keep you from buying the weapons you displayed is not going to happen. They cant pass a budget and with obstruction you think they will pass a hinderance to the second amendment. Please send me whatever you are taking...

[TX-Beau]

When you try to put words in my mouth try listening first.

Then address the point YOU SAY nothing that meets the definition of "assault rile" is for sale, I provided you the definition, prove it.

[TX-Beau]

Update. You don't actually know what I would prefer. I haven't said ANYTHING about that. The OP was being completely drama queen, trying to obfuscate, and I called him on it - you jumped in with your assumptions that are frankly yours.

[TX-Beau]

and if you can't prove there are no "assault weapons" for sale, why did you sate unambiguously there were not?

[JayHawk]

Okay so you stand for nothing and you post your opinions for nothing. Worth noting.

[TX-Beau]

Wow you can use the internet to be deceived.... None of those weapons meet the guidelines for assault weapons... so guess what WONT be banned????

.....?.....

[TX-Beau]

Okay so you stand for nothing and you post your opinions for nothing. Worth noting.

Oh spare me, that's just dudgeon. You try to put words in my mouth then claim I have no opinion because you got spanked for it.

[JayHawk]

.....?.....

......??...........

[JayHawk]

Oh spare me, that's just dudgeon. You try to put words in my mouth then claim I have no opinion because you got spanked for it.

What the fuck are you talking about? I have no need to argue vapors and haints.... so if you have an opinion then type it... if you dont then dont answer posters just cause they are acting a certain way... kinda hard to have a discussion if you are answering questions but not for real....

[TX-Beau]

Don't get pissed at me because you got caught with your pants down.

[JayHawk]

I am not pissed. Amused, Befuddled, bewildered, betrayed.... but not so much pissed.

You "I say this..."

Me " Your point is invalid"

You "I wasn't saying that I just was answering the other guy cause he is dramatic"

Me "well if you don't have a point why post"

You " Don't get mad cause your pants are down"

Now did you actually have a point? Or are you just pointless seltzer water for extinguishing flaming hysterics?

[Rolyo85]

"Weapons are used regularly to defend oneself"? Wait, wut? People have guns in their homes and don't use the nail clipper to defend themselves?

*gasp*

Someone bring me a glass of water please...




The topic is as red herring as one could possibly get.

[JayHawk]

What is it red herring-ing

[TX-Beau]

Amused, Befuddled, bewildered, betrayed, the POINT was obviously not as OBVIOUS (you do know the meaning of red herring? i guess not)

as I thought.

THIS IS MY POINT! Which is actually quite clear to anyone who isn't wasting thier time being amused, Befuddled, bewildered, betrayed

The discussion of gun regulation IS NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE trying to say it is, is trying to dodge.

Is that clear enough for you? or shall I make it bigger?

[TX-Beau]

What is it red herring-ing

You trying unsuccessfully to be cute.

[JayHawk]

Amused, Befuddled, bewildered, betrayed, the POINT was obviously not as OBVIOUS (you do know the meaning of red herring? i guess not)

as I thought.

THIS IS MY POINT! Which is actually quite clear to anyone who isn't wasting thier time being amused, Befuddled, bewildered, betrayed

The discussion of gun regulation IS NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE trying to say it is, is trying to dodge.

Is that clear enough for you? or shall I make it bigger?

So are you contending that this legislation will not be tempered by Second Amendment Fundies?

BTW you ask me if I was upset yet you appear to be the one losing your sanity...

The NRA is a terrorist Org thread is the place where we are arguing the restrictions or non restrictions. So in that thread this message may be a red herring. However on its own it is not. But you wanna make it one because otherwise you have no argument.

[JayHawk]

You trying unsuccessfully to be cute.

Ahhhhh poor thang ... so sorry you didn't get it but at least you already answered the question in the previous post. You're getting close to explaining yourself out of a position... keep going.

[TX-Beau]

Since you seem to be "contending" for me, something else you just made up, you'll excuse me if I commence ignoring you.

[JayHawk]

Oh and please point out to me where the regulation of firearms is in the OP, since that is your position on the post.... I will wait.

[JayHawk]

Since you seem to be "contending" for me, something else you just made up, you'll excuse me if I commence ignoring you.

Have fun but dont worry ... you will continue to be called on making shit up as you go along. If you dont then your just ignoring every contrary post and might as well be posting in your head.

[Stardreamer]

Who is "they?"

Please. YOU are trying to imply that the police can't help you (therefore guns) and that the ONLY way for women to defend themselves is with guns.

I notice none of the women in your sample had assault rifles. Curious that.

No I imply that the police will not always be able to help you in time, short of stationing a police officer on every street corner, that simply a fact of life. That is a point Kuli has brought up repeatedly in these debates.

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is done with hand guns, they are far more practical for both defense and criminal intent. An assault weapon (see below) is in most cases a long rifle though in at least one of these cases one would have worked just as well. The fact is that banning assault weapons will have very little impact on gun violence in the US but the confusion between them and assault rifles make them ideal poster boys for the anti-gun lobby. The one thing that makes them effective in the spree killing situations is that most of them have the ability to support high capacity rapid-changable magazines. If the magazines were regulated then the assault weapon is no more or less dangerous than any other long rifle.

Just for clarity, an assault 'rifle' is a fully automatic machine gun, those are already banned in the US except for holders of a limited number of highly expensive and hard to get federal licenses. To my knowledge only one licensed assault rifle has ever been used in a crime in recent history and none in a spree killing. Assault weapons are a rather loosely define category of firearms based mostly on having features that give them the appearance of military style weapons (many are demilitarized versions of military weapons) but they are all semi-automatic which means they only fire one round at a time like all other civilian guns. As pointed out above the main thing that is different from other firearms is the potential number of rounds they could fire and that could be managed by regulating the magazines.

[Stardreamer]

If you want to get murdered (or you want someone in your family to die unnaturally), the single best way to accomplish that is to carry a gun.

Period.

I suggest you tell that to the women in these stories, I suspect they would disagree with you.

[Stardreamer]

Prove it..

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...ions_and_usage

From your source:

Assault weapon refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge that possess the cosmetic features of a military assault rifle that is fully-automatic.

The web site you are using is using the term assault rifles incorrectly, amazing that someone would distort something in advertising? Who would have thought it possible? There were some guns there that might be assault rifles, I saw a AK-47 which I think is a full auto weapon but you couldn't buy it in the US unless you had one of the limited supply of federal licenses which are VERY hard to obtain and consequently make them very unlikely to be used in a crime.

[Stardreamer]

"Weapons are used regularly to defend oneself"? Wait, wut? People have guns in their homes and don't use the nail clipper to defend themselves?

*gasp*

Someone bring me a glass of water please...




The topic is as red herring as one could possibly get.

I have been told more than once in other threads that guns were not useful for self defense using what if scenarios about gun users having their guns taken away from them and other arguments implying the superiority of the criminal or clumsiness of defenders in these situations. Since the point is often secondary and divergent in the threads it is brought up in, I decide to bring it up in this thread, specifically so it would not be a 'red herring' to those discussions. The issue of whether guns are practical for self defense is a valid one, the topic in this thread at least and relevant to the overall subject so I don't see the red herring implication.

From Wiki: Red herring is an English-language idiom that commonly refers to a type of logical fallacy in which a clue is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.

Since guns used for defense is the issue of this thread, it is not a red herring here. I encounter the topic in other threads mostly by people trying to deny that guns can be practically be used in self defense which is a red herring in those topics but not by me. This thread was brought up in response to this posts so in a sense it is counter to a red herring used elsewhere.

[T-Rexx]

I suggest you tell that to the women in these stories, I suspect they would disagree with you.

Anecdote proves nothing.

Matt Good of Arizona won $587,500,000 in December from the Powerball lottery.

That doesn't mean you're going to get half a billion dollars if you buy a Powerball ticket. The most likely outcome of buying a lottery ticket is that you will lose money.


And the most likely outcome of carrying a handgun is NOT that it will ever protect you from harm. The most likely outcome is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Losing a dollar here or there is a tolerable thing, for most people. Losing a life is not.

[Rolyo85]

The actual issue of the topic might be self-defense (and the what if scenarios are perfectly legit, and not exceptions), but the general issue of the gun discussion on JUB has been 2nd Amendment analysis, and arguing what it allows. By going through the "but hey, it does happen" argument, you're basically adding fuel to the "they are trying to get our guns away when they actually work!" paranoia. Or to put it in more clear terms - the topic is not red herring, but its place in the discussion is.

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

[Stardreamer]

Anecdote proves nothing.

Matt Good of Arizona won $587,500,000 in December from the Powerball lottery.

That doesn't mean you're going to get half a billion dollars if you buy a Powerball ticket. The most likely outcome of buying a lottery ticket is that you will lose money.


And the most likely outcome of carrying a handgun is NOT that it will ever protect you from harm. The most likely outcome is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Losing a dollar here or there is a tolerable thing, for most people. Losing a life is not.

But then you have the ruling by the court that says that the right to have that hand gun for self defense OUTWEIGHS any argument about how dangerous the gun is.

[Stardreamer]

The actual issue of the topic might be self-defense (and the what if scenarios are perfectly legit, and not exceptions), but the general issue of the gun discussion on JUB has been 2nd Amendment analysis, and arguing what it allows. By going through the "but hey, it does happen" argument, you're basically adding fuel to the "they are trying to get our guns away when they actually work!" paranoia. Or to put it in more clear terms - the topic is not red herring, but its place in the discussion is.

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

The Heller and 7th circuit decisions make this part of the 2nd Amendment analysis, the later basically saying you cannot base a restriction on guns that denies a lawful citizen the right to use a gun for self defense even if it would reduce the threat overall.

the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts. If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

That is a quote from the 7th Circuit ruling itself.

[JayHawk]

The actual issue of the topic might be self-defense (and the what if scenarios are perfectly legit, and not exceptions), but the general issue of the gun discussion on JUB has been 2nd Amendment analysis, and arguing what it allows. By going through the "but hey, it does happen" argument, you're basically adding fuel to the "they are trying to get our guns away when they actually work!" paranoia. Or to put it in more clear terms - the topic is not red herring, but its place in the discussion is.

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

Such as? What object can i use to defend myself that can not be used to harm me or end my life once removed forcibly from my possession?

[Ambrocious]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet. Take away the guns, wait a few years, see what happens. We have been pissing off many different countries since 2001 when we engaged in a retalitory strike because of the false flag event that is infamously known as 9/11.

I agree that all people of appropriate ages (12 and older) should be able to take gun safety courses as well as target practice. It's not impossible to own a gun and be safe, just like it's not impossible to own a 2 thousand pound car and still manage to NOT run over a whole crowd of people.