WHEN THE POLICE CAN'T PROTECT YOU, WHAT DO YOU DO? If you're a politically-correct, 'progressive', you probably die, because guns are nasty. Everybody should know guns are nasty — but so are some people.
When you live in a would-be, could-be, should-be world spun for you by those you follow, it can be hard to realize that ultimately, you are responsible for your own survival.
THE DAILY BEAST, a progressive blog, has an interesting article by Abigail Pesta, "Do American Women Need Guns? Self-Defense Pro Paxton Quigley Says Yes", contending that as the debate over gun control rages in the wake of the Colorado shootings, that handguns play an important role in society: they stop rape.
“Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the U.S. There are 207,754 victims of sexual assault each year. Eighty percent are under the age of 30,” she says, citing statistics from the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, or RAINN. “That’s a lot of women walking around who are targets. They’re talking on their cellphones or texting, totally unaware of what’s going on. It’s part of the reason why people get themselves into trouble.”
Then again, when you have people who sincerely believe that the Long Gun Registry actually made Canada safer, it's a difficult topic to discuss. Years ago, I had a student who had been stabbed over 70 times, and survived. Her perspective is entirely different from the fatuous, who emit brain-farts like "ban bullets", and other brain-dead ideas.
17 comments:
What those statistics don't account for is the number of rapes committed by known persons. I doubt that having a handgun would help in those circumstances.
I prefer the Japanese solution. Its like terrorism, why destroy society for something as rare as winning the lottery.
I do not think Canada has moved past the point of no return, the US yes, if I lived there I would be packing.
Yes, all of the assaulted children in Canada would be much safer if we taught them to shoot at the same time we taught them to crawl.
And of course, there would be no repercussions whatsoever when women start shooting men instead of accusing them of rape. Because everyone always believes actual rape victims, everyone will naturally believe the word potential rape victims (that the killed a man in self defense).
Oh no, that would never backfire.
If you're a politically-correct, 'progressive', you probably die, because guns are nasty.
Bullshit.
Lots of progressives have firearms. How is registering my firearm going to make it harder to protect one's family?
For preventing rape, a conventional self defense course will go further. It's "They’re talking on their cellphones or texting, totally unaware of what’s going on." that is the problem, not the lack of a pistol. In fact, the pistol often ends up in the hands of the attacker anyway.
Registering firearms helps with determining when a legal firearm became illegal. That old "personal responsibility" thing.
Putting up the false equivalence of "the LGR makes Canada safer" is disingenuous. The fact is, it makes police safer. If you enter a residence that the registry says has no guns, you don't have to hesitate if you see one, you don't have to ask "are you the legal gun owner" before you shoot. Registering cars doesn't make Canada safer either, but it allows people to be held responsible for their actions, by providing traceability.
The funniest pro gun argument is the one about protection against tyranny. Exactly which firearm will protect you from a government with tanks, F-35s and in the US case atomic weapons?
Banning handguns or even bullets makes them harder to get. Lots of guns get stolen. In fact every illegal gun was once legal until it was stolen or otherwise diverted.
Why can we import machine guns as movie props?
Why do we have people with this arsenal in an apartmemt which then gets stolen?
Oops, the arsenal stolen from the apartment is here.
God I dislike gun control conversations because they get so simplistic, they might as well be about cricket on the moon. Having a gun is one thing. Long-gun, hand-gun, flintlock or L5 pack howitzer on a truckbed, it doesn't matter. One must have the presence of mind and situational awareness to effectively use the weapon without fumbling it or killing bystanders. You can bet in the recent mass shootings in the US there was at least one armed NRA-nut civilian (because it is the US, eh!) who failed to use his or her loudly advocated concealed carry hand-cannon as hyped. The people who do train to use weapons on other human beings are police and soldiers and they train, and train, and train until use becomes instinct. And even then many have a hell of difficulty when the have to do it for real. Why do we expect the average civilian to do any better?
Liberal Supporter (is that Bob Rae's jock strap?).
"The fact is, it makes police safer"
That is definitely NOT A FACT, any cop who depended on the LGR to let him know if any guns were in a home he intended to bust into is obviously too dumb to be a cop or even collect empty beer cans for recycling. The LGR only told the cop where the guns belonging to law abiding folk were, and law abiding folk rarely shoot cops, unlike those other non-law abiding types, like those involved with the Surrey Six murders or associates of the Bacon Bros.
Any law that harasses the law abiding while not dealing with real danger is a waste of time, expense and the data space for its useless information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/an-arms-race-we-cant-win.html?
Good link, Steve.
It is times like this that I miss Skipper Dave's intelligent input around here.
Edstock seems intent on importing the NRA's "life is cheap and more guns are better than less guns" philosophy from the Excited States. If guns stop rape, then I guess - statistics to the contrary - there is no rape in heavily armed societies such as the United States, Mexico and South Africa.
We are roughly one tenth the size of the United States and culturally we are closer to them than any other country except that we haven't yet drunk all of the pistol-packin' kool-aid of their national character just yet.
We are probably more alike than any other two nations on the planet (Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, Australia and New Zealand being other very close contenders) and yet....
the number of gun deaths in the U.S. per 100,000 people "dropped" down to about 3 in 2009. In Canada, it was 0.5
the number of accidental gun death in 2001 and 2005 in the U.S. per 100,000 was 0.27. This exceeds the total number of gun deaths of any kind per 100,000 in most of the G7 countries.
(data here)
In their defence, the US does have fewer gun death per 100,000 than Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and Thailand, but they are losing ground fast and conservatives in Canada seem intent on dragging us in the same direction.
That is definitely NOT A FACT, any cop who depended on the LGR to let him know if any guns were in a home he intended to bust into is obviously too dumb to be a cop or even collect empty beer cans for recycling.
I thought I was typing pretty slowly, but apparently not. The cop does not depend on the LGR to determine if there are ANY guns, the LGR only says there are no LEGAL guns. Contrary to your silly meme that therefore the cop would walk in unarmed because he supposedly thinks there are no guns at all, he walks in armed. He need not hesitate to shoot any armed person on sight if he feels even slightly threatened. That's because there are no legal guns present. When there are legal guns present, he runs the risk of shooting the legal gun owner and must be more hesitant.
The LGR only told the cop where the guns belonging to law abiding folk were, and law abiding folk rarely shoot cops, unlike those other non-law abiding types, like those involved with the Surrey Six murders or associates of the Bacon Bros.
Exactly. Anyone with a gun can be assumed to be a Bacon brother and treated as such if the LGR said there are no legal guns present.
Any law that harasses the law abiding while not dealing with real danger is a waste of time, expense and the data space for its useless information.
Baloney.
If filling out some forms is "harassment", tough shit. Move someplace else.
The real danger continues to be guns that are stolen or simply handed out with no traceability. As it stands with no LGR, I can buy 100 Denver type rifles, and nobody will know. If I am a bad guy and decide to hand them to my gangbanger friends, nobody will know, and when the weapons are recovered after crimes, they'll never be traced to me.
What part of "personal responsibility" are you having a problem with?
You can bet in the recent mass shootings in the US there was at least one armed NRA-nut civilian (because it is the US, eh!) who failed to use his or her loudly advocated concealed carry hand-cannon as hyped.
Colorado is a shall issue concealed weapon state, but supposedly the theatre was a "gun free zone", so they'll compare it to Virginia Tech.
However, given the Denver shooter was wearing Kevlar body armour, I'm not sure whether a weapon that could penetrate the armour would be very concealable. I doubt the derringer in your garter would be enough.
I suspect this may be another Flight 93, and nobody will just sit still. The next theatre shooter could find the entire audience rushing him as one. Without a full auto with *lots* of ammo, somebody will get to him and probably strangle him on the spot.
The last time tyranny was visited upon the US, it was the Union Army that put it down, not private gun owners. And the time before that, the French Army was the decisive factor. I think any tyranny likely to come to the United States will have the full support of her Libertarian Right.
As for self-defence, can someone point me to a news story about a gun-owning citizen taking out one of these mass shooters? I can't seem to find any, not even in the wingnut press.
Nevertheless, the reason I am totally OK with registering my car but not my rifles is that the people who want me to register my car don`t have a long-term agenda to ban all cars.
The Canadian anti-gun lobby tends to show its true colours every time there is a gangland shooting in Toronto or a massacre in the US (both irrelevant to lawful gun owners here in Canada).
TGB's resident geriatric crank is fighting invisible enemies & yelling at clouds again.
"The next theatre shooter could find the entire audience rushing him as one."
I can hear the ghost of my father, who was on a machine gun crew in World War I, laughing his ass off at this one.
Rush the shooter? In the dark, with tear gas in your eyes, not knowing who the shooter and who the "good" guy with guns is? Fat f'ing chance. The would-be Rambos would end up shooting each other and all the original perp would have to do is go back through the door and laugh his ass off as the 2nd Amendment nuts finished each other off.
Post a Comment