Guns

[Deacon]

Thank you for not reading my post. You must've missed the points where I noted...

1) I would not go out alone at night.
2) I generally would not be taking the metro late at night. Alone.
3) I would take a cab from my destination to the house before I took the metro from somewhere downtown to my home.

So, that throws a bit of a wrench in your 'theory' that I'm walking down a dark alley, late at night, all lacksy-daisy with my head in the clouds? Again, there are safety precautions one can set up - along with not getting drunk - rather than carrying a firearm.

Furthermore, as for the condom vs. the gun, Dr. Alex Comfort - who had more knowledge on human sexuality than I presume you do - in The Joy of Sex mentions that if a woman urinates, often times, it can 'kill' the mood for the attacker. Deity willing, I'm never and none of the women here are in that situation, but you still cannot convince me a gun is the only way to stay safe as a woman.

But thank you for the edumacation.

I would ask you to live in a big city because quite frankly...you think a woman urinating is going to stop a rapist? Because some sex psychologist says so? Really?

It doesn't matter if you're walking with someone, if they're as liberal and anti gun as you are, you're still screwed. I ask that you read that last one again. I read your post and I still shook my head. I find it funny that you think that because you take a cab, or stand near another female that actually protects you. I just don't understand the liberal mind....

 

[Tehchad]

Can we not discuss things in a loving manner?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

This whole "is a right" vs. "should be denied" business is a false dichotomy.

Firearms should be regulated.

However, people are too busy either fighting that bogeyman government that is going to take everybody's guns away or trying to eradicate guns from the landscape to work on reasonable gun policies that would serve everybody's interests.

 

[TheTrash]

I would ask you to live in a big city because quite frankly...you think a woman urinating is going to stop a rapist? Because some sex psychologist says so? Really?

It doesn't matter if you're walking with someone, if they're as liberal and anti gun as you are, you're still screwed. I ask that you read that last one again. I read your post and I still shook my head. I find it funny that you think that because you take a cab, or stand near another female that actually protects you. I just don't understand the liberal mind....

I still don't feel as if a gun would offer me any more protection. I'm 5'2", and 110 lbs. Most men could easily overpower me; even if a gun was pointed in their face.

And I don't think the urinating stat is any less hooey than your condom suggestion. If you'd like citation of the Alex Comfort comment as well as a direct quote from the book, I will gladly post it by this evening.

Furthermore, the situation you are offering up as reason for me to have a gun - you might get raped in an alley by a total stranger - is a bit of a misnomer. Most women know their attacker; there is more likelihood statistically, I will get assaulted after a casual aquaintance slips something in my drink or by someone I know in casual settings. What use is having a gun if I'm doped up?

I feel safe with other people, being sober enough to call a cab, carrying my drink into the restroom. If you'd like to explain to me as a man - why I shouldn't feel that way as a woman, which I'm presuming, you've been never actually been one - be my guest. I won't take it seriously, but try me.

For reference: I live in Toronto; in the actual city and not the GTA or suburbia. Relatively low crime rate, generally votes Liberal, and none of my friends - to my knowledge - either own a gun or carry one.

 

[MacFall]

1) I would not go out alone at night.
2) I generally would not be taking the metro late at night. Alone.
3) I would take a cab from my destination to the house before I took the metro from somewhere downtown to my home.

So you let your fear of what might happen control your life, instead of taking precautions that allow you to act in spite of that fear.

Firearms are the great equalizer of power. They allow a 90-pound parapalegic woman to have greater power than a 200-pound, athletic criminal. You can either embrace it, or not. That's your choice.

The problem with anti-gunners is that they are not content to make their own choice and let others make theirs. Rather, they mock gun owners and make false accusations of bloodlust and paranoia, and try to pass victim disarmament laws that infringe on the rights of others.

 

[mjmcmillan]

Both sides are serving up garbage.

On one side, we have people who don't own guns, have never shot a gun and who desire that nobody should own guns. For the record: You have the right to believe this. You have the right to not ever watch war pictures or old westerns or cop shows which all feature, at some time or another, the use of guns. You have the right to never, ever, ever own or fire any kind of gun. For any reason you choose. No pro-gun advocate has the right to tell you otherwise. You do NOT have the right to tell responsible adults that they may not own guns.

On the other side we have people who won't be happy until every person who is able to pick up a gun is armed to the teeth with every firearm imaginable and maybe some sci-fi weapons as well. Telling anybody they may not have a gun is unthinkable to these types. I would like to introduce you to my brother, listen to him for a bit and see if you wouldn't change your mind. He's given to fits of uncontrolled rage and has mentioned a desire to kill people and break things indiscriminately any number of times. Take my word for it, it's a real blessing that the only gun he is ever likely to have these days is a pen drawing of one. Yes, gun advocates, there ARE adults who must not be allowed to have guns under any circumstances. My brother is one of these adults. BUT---- If you are a responsible adult, I really think the Second Amendment has you in mind when it mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. You have the right--- some would say the obligation--to defend home and hearth against those who would do you harm. That might require a firearm. It might not. The situation makes the difference, you won't make much headway trying to claim self-defense when you shoot a burglar who's taking your Weber grill from your backyard in the afternoon but the situation is different when somebody breaks into your house at night and heads for your room with what looks like it might be a knife or a gun.

 

[Im_A]

So you let your fear of what might happen control your life, instead of taking precautions that allow you to act in spite of that fear.

Firearms are the great equalizer of power. They allow a 90-pound parapalegic woman to have greater power than a 200-pound, athletic criminal. You can either embrace it, or not. That's your choice.

The problem with anti-gunners is that they are not content to make their own choice and let others make theirs. Rather, they mock gun owners and make false accusations of bloodlust and paranoia, and try to pass victim disarmament laws that infringe on the rights of others.

Whoa...look at the one who's talking about someone having fear when you are on the side of gun toting fanatics afraid of a tyranical government and afraid that chance may happen that some stranger may come after you.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I LOVE THESE DISCUSSIONS. Keep it up peeps!

 

[Im_A]

Hey so should I carry a gun to stop a woman from raping me?

[devilish grin]

 

[MacFall]

Acknowledging the possibility of something and preparing against it doesn't mean a person is afraid of it.

Believing people should own guns against the possibility of violent crime (committed either by private criminals or governments) doesn't make one afraid of those things any more than taking vitamin C in the winter makes one a hypochondriac.

 

[Blackguard_]

Again, there are safety precautions one can set up - along with not getting drunk - rather than carrying a firearm.

Why does this have to be an either/or thing?

There are other precautions you can and should take, but they are not foolproof. You can;t always avoid attackers, and a gun is for those times at is the best means of stopping an attack. Having a gun does not mean you will be safe walking alone and oblivious through a bad area at 2am.

Situational awareness and guns work best together. Think of it as layers of security. You do your best to avoid bad situations, and guns and other weapons are for when you can't.

Furthermore, as for the condom vs. the gun, Dr. Alex Comfort - who had more knowledge on human sexuality than I presume you do - in The Joy of Sex mentions that if a woman urinates, often times, it can 'kill' the mood for the attacker. Deity willing, I'm never and none of the women here are in that situation,

Did Dr. comfort say how often was "often"? I don't doubt it and the similar notion of vomiting can and have worked, but how reliably?

That is why I am so big on guns. Not because nothing else works, but because nothing else works as effectively and reliably and it doesn't rely on the attacker's decision to stop attacking you. Why rely on an attacker's actions to keep you safe?

but you still cannot convince me a gun is the only way to stay safe as a woman.

it's not.
Avoiding bad situations is best, but for when that doesn't work, a gun is the best means of stopping a criminal. Other things can too, but much less reliably and effectively.

 

[MacFall]

Both sides are serving up garbage.

There are more than two sides. There are the two you describe, and then there are the millions of other people who have their own unique opinions. There are people who don't own guns because they choose not to, and there are people who are against anyone owning guns at all. There are also those who choose to own guns and respect those who choose not to (even if we disagree with them), and I suppose there are those who would force everyone to carry a weapon if they could, though I've never met one.

Only politicians have any reason to think of an issue in terms of forcing everyone to do something one way or the other, and their reason still doesn't excuse them.

 

[TheTrash]

So you let your fear of what might happen control your life, instead of taking precautions that allow you to act in spite of that fear.

Firearms are the great equalizer of power. They allow a 90-pound parapalegic woman to have greater power than a 200-pound, athletic criminal. You can either embrace it, or not. That's your choice.

The problem with anti-gunners is that they are not content to make their own choice and let others make theirs. Rather, they mock gun owners and make false accusations of bloodlust and paranoia, and try to pass victim disarmament laws that infringe on the rights of others.

Ahem.

I still don't feel as if a gun would offer me any more protection. I'm 5'2", and 110 lbs. Most men could easily overpower me; even if a gun was pointed in their face.

So, let's presume I'm on the metro from the downtown core, with a gun in my... handbag (no, I'm not that happy to see you.) Creepy man or woman sits next to me; they are average-size or slightly-above.

Again, what use is a gun when they can easily physically outpower and outweigh me?

As for both sides: I'm not opposed to those who raise livestock, or those who hunt (though I am against hunting game as a 'hobby'; if you're going to eat the deer it's one thing. If you're just killing animals to prove how big of a man you are, just get a motorbike or that penis extension already!), or police owning guns. I do not believe the average civilian has any real use for one.

 

[Lover_Of_Shoes]

Hey so should I carry a gun to stop a woman from raping me?

[devilish grin]

 

[MacFall]

Again, what use is a gun when they can easily physically outpower and outweigh me?

You can hit things at range with a gun, first of all. From many times the reach of the human arm.

You can also deliver hundreds of pounds of force - more than the strongest person in the world can deliver with muscle alone - by squeezing your finger.

It is obvious that you don't know the first thing about how to use a gun or how guns work. Okay. Ignorance can be excused. Expressing opinions based upon ignorance can be tolerated. Passing laws based upon ignorance, which force that opinion onto other people... not so much.

 

[Tehchad]

Hey so should I carry a gun to stop a woman from raping me?

[devilish grin]

I LOL'd

 

[Blackguard_]

Most men could easily overpower me; even if a gun was pointed in their face.

This is why I said people who aren't willing to shoot shouldn't have guns.

You can't easily overpower someone when you have massive blood loss, nervous system damage, shattered bones, etc. or are dead. Macfall covered it well.

 

[mjmcmillan]

I don't know, Trash. The argument about extreme close range kinda falls flat with me. If I feel that it's that chancy I'd rather not be that close in the first place. At the distance you're talking about the only thing that might work is lots and lots of prayer.

For the record, I don't own a gun. Right now, my living circumstances really don't seem to require it or permit for it much, suburban apartment complexes being what they are. Personal preference, if I do get into a situation where gun ownership becomes desirable, would be the long guns such as rifles and shotguns. See above paragraph, I like a little bit of range. Long guns are a bit more accurate at longer ranges, and of course shotguns can be fired in the general direction of the trouble without having to be quite so concerned about on-bead aim. The shotgun has the "shock and awe" advantage as well. If I've got the drop on the bad guy while I'm holding a double-barrel shotgun at a respectful range (meaning he can't just reach out and grab the thing) that might bring the whole business to a satisfactory conclusion right there. Few people who aren't totally crazy will try anything when facing the wrong end of a shotgun. Especially since the bad guy can't tell whether or not I might be totally crazy.

 

[TheTrash]

You can hit things at range with a gun, first of all. From many times the reach of the human arm.

You can also deliver hundreds of pounds of force - more than the strongest person in the world can deliver with muscle alone - by squeezing your finger.

That assumes I'm going to have enough time to gather myself to use that gun. I can barely follow a conversation on the greatness of the Spice Girls after two glasses of wine, and to assume travelling alone on the metro after a nightclub or concert I'd be able to register my surroundings quickly enough to pull out a gun? I know I wouldn't, which is why again, one keeps cab fare in their purse instead of a revolver.

It is obvious that you don't know the first thing about how to use a gun or how guns work. Okay. Ignorance can be excused. Expressing opinions based upon ignorance can be tolerated. Passing laws based upon ignorance, which force that opinion onto other people... not so much.

And you know little about being a woman in a city, so I suggest you shut your pie hole on that ignorance and paranoia argument.

 

[TheTrash]

I don't know, Trash. The argument about extreme close range kinda falls flat with me. If I feel that it's that chancy I'd rather not be that close in the first place. At the distance you're talking about the only thing that might work is lots and lots of prayer.

Again, that's why I'd be

a) not travelling alone on the metro in the wee hours
b) taking a cab
c) in the instance that I had no cab fare, be sure to keep my wits about me (preferably sober) or stay amongst a group of women.
d) call Mommy and Daddy first and let them know I had no cab fare, and to please run down to the bank, or meet me at the house to borrow the CC, thank you very much, hugs and kisses.

This may seem paranoid, but I fail to see how it's less paranoid than carrying around a concealed weapon.

 

[TheTrash]

This is why I said people who aren't willing to shoot shouldn't have guns.

You can't easily overpower someone when you have massive blood loss, nervous system damage, shattered bones, etc. or are dead. Macfall covered it well.

Before you complain about me using Marksmen in place of Marxman, I suggest you figure out capitals and how to properly quote on a forum. If you can't do that task easily enough or have enough hand-eye co-ordination to carry that through, I'm not so sure you should be carrying a gun.