Who kills women with guns?

[BainsBane]

Yes, this particular graphic focuses on gun crimes against women. More men are shot than women, so by all means, go find the stats for gun violence against men and post them.

The fact is, women are murdered by men they know, 65% of them by their partners. Only 10% of women killed with guns are killed by strangers, so the idea that a gun protects you from an anonymous stranger is a myth. It is far more likely to be used against you.

[flvegan]

1. According to your graphic, it's men.

Obviously, they should be killed, those men. Not those trying to break into her house, but the one already in her bed. And "killed with strangers" means what? Was the stranger also killed male or female?

Wait...is this about killing women with guns (women who are owner/operators of guns) or killing women via guns to do just that?

Hold on, the second graphic...these women murdered were done so by "others they knew" or "strangers" or "spouses, intimate partners or other family members" and that doesn't jibe with the OP.

Sorry, I jest at stupid OPs, as I don't suffer fools gladly on important issues.

[BainsBane]

2. Stupid OPs? Violence against women is stupid?

Hmmm. Is there some reason you feel a need to broadcast how little you care about the lives of women?

[flvegan]

4. Is that what you took from that response?

[BainsBane]

6. Yes, I did

that and the fact you feel a need to be rude because someone makes a typo.

[flvegan]

7. So you took it personally, then?

[BainsBane]

9. When someone calls me a fool, I tend to do that

[flvegan]

18. So rather than giving clarity to your OP

this is now about you?

[BainsBane]

24. I corrected the typo

ages ago. You might have said, hey you have a typo here instead of hurling an insult. That's what civil people do.

[BainsBane]

3. My definition of a fool is not someone who makes a typo

but someone who thinks a subject like this is funny or worthy of scorn.

[amuse bouche]

132. I hate Guns and The Men that use them on women

and children

[JI7]

5. i think there has been too much attention given to the "scary strange man in the streets"

thing when there is a discussion on women and safety.

i'm sure there are some who don't really consider it a crime if it's her husband, boyfriend, or father who beats her. and that is another problem also. after all they will say, he is only doing it to show how much he cares.

but the gun nuts don't give a shit about keeping women safe.

[BainsBane]

8. Absolutely, in fact having a gun in the home makes a woman

far more likely to be shot. That is true for the general public, since a gun is 7x more likely to be used against the owner or a member of his/her family, but it is even more true for women since so many of us are killed by our partners.

[The Straight Story]

13. Am confused. Is it men or guns causing this?

Because if it is guns that cause the issue than I am sure the stats of women who own guns are the exact same as for men (as far as all crimes where guns are used).

What percent had alcohol/drugs involved? And do those things play a bigger part in domestic violence than guns (guess they do - what is the cure for that)?

[BainsBane]

14. Amazingly, a gun is more lethal than a fist

which is why people own them.

[The Straight Story]

15. And amazling 99% of people who own them don't harm others with them

But some want us to believe otherwise in order to control the choices others make that they don't like.

Alcohol/drugs contribute greatly to crime and violence and we have laws to punish those who do so - are there more laws you would like to see to curb such things from happening?

[BainsBane]

16. So all those murders don't count?

Because 100% of people aren't committing them? 100% of bankers don't commit fraud either. Do you submit we should not pay attention to those crimes?

Go lobby congress to reimpose prohibition. If you want to see what percentage are involved in crime, look at the CDC website. I'm not your teacher. You can do your own research.

[The Straight Story]

17. Nice try - yes, they 'count' tell me how you would prevent them

Without affecting the 99% who don't do such things?

[BainsBane]

19. universal background checks

for starters, gun registration, untying the hands of the ATF, cracking down on illegal guns dealers. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY's gun reforms would be a good start. You know, the stuff the pro-gun "Democrats" on this site work against every single day.


And getting the word out to women to avoid becoming involved with gun nuts at all costs. A gun in the house is a gun that is more likely to be used against the woman than anyone else.

[beevul]

32. Prevent how?

"Universal background checks for starters, gun registration, untying the hands of the ATF, cracking down on illegal guns dealers."

Which of the mass shootings in the news over the last decade would have been prevented by any of those?

Me, I think you'd have a hard time finding many at all of ANY sort, mass shooting or not, which any of those things would prevent.

But you assert that those things would prevent murders. Heres your chance to explain how.

[BainsBane]

43. Now you only care about mass shootings

What is your interest in ensuring felons retain access to guns?
Yet again we learn another gunner was not being truthful when they claimed to support all of the President's gun control proposals except for the AWB. How does it feel to align yourself with the Tea Party on gun issues?

Here's how they prevent murders: they make it harder for felons to get guns. No human being with a conscience opposes that. The gun lobby opposes it because they value profits more than human life. What's your excuse?

[beevul]

45. Ahh, a pseudo mind reader.

"What is your interest in ensuring felons retain access to guns? Yet again we learn another gunner was not being truthful when they claimed to support all of the President's gun control proposals except for the AWB. How does it feel to align yourself with the Tea Party on gun issues?"

First off, I never claimed to support ALL of the Presidents gun control proposals, so what we do in fact learn here, is that its YOU not being truthful. I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Second, what is your interest in seeing that all guns are banned? Oh, you never proposed that?

Well shucks:

I never proposed anything that would ensure felons retain access to guns either.

Yet another example of you being untruthful in this debate. You could try...I dunno...arguing in good faith? Would that be too much to ask?


"Universal background checks for starters, gun registration, untying the hands of the ATF, cracking down on illegal guns dealers."

As I've stated before, I'm for universal background checks, provided there is no registration in any way shape size or form.

Now, you can answer the rest of the question:

How would gun registration prevent murders?

How will untying the hands of the atf prevent murders?

You made the assertion that those things would prevent murders. You may not be aware of it, but outside the castle, when one asserts something, the onus is on them to substantiate their assertion.

That's how civil debate works...Well, that and not attributing to others positions that they do not in fact hold, and statements which they have not in fact made..

[BainsBane]

61. Then why argue against background checks here?

Gun registration would make it easier to catch murderers and therefore get them off the street. Background checks would make it more difficult for felons to obtain guns and therefore discourage some from doing so. If you gunners are correct that most murderers are committed by repeat felons, a combination of background checks and registration could combat crime. There is no conceivable burden to lawful gun owners. You register your car, your house, and virtually ever thing else you own. Yet you insist you shouldn't register the one piece of property that has the potential to inflict the most casualties?

[beevul]

72. There you go again, attributing something to someone falsely.

"Then why argue against background checks here?"

Please, point out for the entire world where I argued against background checks.

I'll wait right here.

"You register your car, your house, and virtually ever thing else you own."

What an ignorant thing to say.

I'm not required by law to register a vehicle simply to OWN it. In fact, I have a vehicle that does not have registration sitting not 50 feet from me.

And here I sit, posting from an unregistered PC.

What world do you live in, where "virtually everything you own" is registered?

As far as potential to inflict casualties, I assure you, it doesn't require a firearm.

I'm nfl linebacker sized, and in good shape. Someone my size could quite easily rape, rob, and murder without a firearm quite efficiently, I assure you. There are numerous people in prison for doing just that, in fact.

And then theres gasoline and matches.

Point being - if you think that a firearm is the thing that people own that has the most potential to inflict the most casualties, you'd be wrong.

[NutmegYankee]

34. The Democratic Party platform does not support registration.

Only authoritarians like people who love the NSA surveillance and wish it was expanded support registration.

[BainsBane]

42. LOL

gun registration is like NSA surveillance? Really?
What are you afraid of the government finding out? How does your Second Amendment rights depend on protecting murderers?

[NutmegYankee]

49. You only laugh because you yourself wouldn't be subject to the invasion of privacy

Registration is an invasion of privacy quite simply. Guns are household property not subject to taxation or listing to any authority. Registration seeks to force you to divulge you property and to work at all would require a license listing each gun. You now could be potentially taxed on those items, which is automatically a public record visible to all persons. And public knowledge of your expensive property may bring burglary attempts on your home. Some obnoxious people have claimed the guns should keep you safe, but if no one is home, no one could stop a burglary. No safe, whether holding jewelry, or firearms, is unbreakable. Most safes can be cracked in 15 minutes, and that's the high end expensive models used for storing really high priced stuff. Now, if no one knows what you own, the normal thief is going to go for easy stuff that can be turned around quickly and isn't going to bother with drilling a safe.

Registration is based on some people's interpretation of reasonable regulation. That's not unlike the argument by NSA supporters that the 4th only protects you from "unreasonable" search and seizure. Obviously many people do not see registration as reasonable and many don't see Meta Data collection as reasonable. I certainly do not for either. I hold my privacy very dear.

People argue that we register cars, but that is solely to use them on public roads. A fair comparison would be registration of handguns that are carried with a concealed carry permit. I'd say that was fair as long as the records were kept non-public, like DMV records are non-public.

[mercuryblues]

77. As I mentioned down thread

When a TRO is issued against a person and that little box is checked about gun ownership, when the TRO is served their guns should also be removed. This would be a step in the right direction.

[Scootaloo]

52. 75.6% of statustics are made up on the spot

The other 24.4% are recycled from old online CNN polls.

[The Straight Story]

56. Well, I invite you to research them for yourself

find how many people own guns in the US (between 40-55 million) and how many crimes were done with guns and do some basic division (or you could use the #of guns the US since that is somewhat more reflective since I could say my bro-in-law owns a gun but it a more a family gun which is used by 5 people).

It's simple and the FBI publishes crime data you can access on that thing called the web

[Scootaloo]

58. Yup. I suggest you utilize these sources!

In life, the only thing that ends up "99%" are middle eastern elections.

[The Straight Story]

60. Well, sample math for you

Gun owners:

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

2004: 57 million adult gun owners.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610545/

Now, do the math...

[Squinch]

76. Most people who own cars never kill anyone with them either. But we still register them and

legislate the use of them.

[davidn3600]

20. This seems more of an attack on men than guns

[BainsBane]

21. Documenting violence is an attack on men?

Why would that be? Do you assume all men kill women? The chart or the OP certainly doesn't make that claim.

Or to protect men we should keep secret how much violence some commit against women? That seems to be a common theme around here of late.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. If this saves even one life,...it's worth it.

[galileoreloaded]

103. Self service nonsense can't save anyone. Nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. Stats can.

[SunSeeker]

23. A gun in the home is a danger to everyone.

[BainsBane]

25. awesome graphic

I'm copying it here, if you don't mind, so I can access it form my journal.

[SunSeeker]

27. Please do. Thanks. nt

[danial3262]

33. what a nice info-graphic.

And very true!

[LittleBlue]

26. This is a waste of time

Americans have decided guns are here to stay. If anything could convince them, it was Newtown. But it didn't.

At this point, pursuit of a gun ban/restriction is not worth wasting political capital on. America is pro gun slaughter.

[SunSeeker]

28. No, America is not. Just our Republican legislators. nt

[LittleBlue]

29. Go look at the polls after Newtown

They were appallingly pro gun. IIRC bipartisan support too. I throw up my hands, this is an issue we can't win.

[SunSeeker]

30. The polls show the American people want reasonable gun control.

I agree with Biden. The fight is far from owner. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/biden-gun-control-fight-is-far-from-over/

The gun nuts and gun manufacturers would love for us to throw up our hands and declare this an unwinnable issue. Fuck that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. I expect some reasonable legislation to be forthcoming over the next few years.

Possibly as early as the next legislative cycle...

It's actually more likely, IMO, that reasonable measures like expanded background checks and stiffer penalties/enforcement against traffickers and straw purchasers will be passed after the furor over an event like Newtown has passed, rather than during it. When something like that is front page news, emotions run just as high on the side of those in opposition to these additional measures as they do in those supporting them.

The adversarial situation inhibits progress. Control proponents ask for the world while opponents refuse to budge an inch. When a situation like that arises, it's usually the status quo that wins out (since it generally requires compromise and cooperation to enact legislation).

[BainsBane]

31. If you can't be bothered to do anything

and allow congress to cater to the gun lobby, then yes, we will continue to have the highest homicide rate in the First World. If on the other hand you decide human life is worth a bit of effort, like calling your senators and congressperson, it could change.
But I'm not going to stop providing information because some have decided doing anything is too much trouble.

[NaturalHigh]

41. If I call my congress people...

it's going to be to ask them to stand up for the rights of gun owners. By the way, my wife and I both feel safer knowing she has a weapon for self defense when I'm working nights. Statistics or not, I'm not going to shoot my wife or vice-versa.

[BainsBane]

47. stand up for the rights of gun owners

This graphic shows women are far more likely to be killed with a gun in the home. Are you asserting the right of batterers to have guns trumps the right of women to live? Or do you just not care what happens to women?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[NaturalHigh]

50. Did you even take the time to read my post?

I want my wife to have a weapon for protection. I also claim the right to protect my family. No, I am not going to shoot my wife, as the vast majority of men do not.

To say that I don't care about women is insulting, but it is frankly what I have come to expect from you and your insane rants. You don't get the results you want from a poll, so you trash it. You claim that gun owners want to go into minority neighborhoods and shoot people of color. I honestly don't know how you can even imagine some of the things that you hold as gospel.

[ileus]

35. My wife loves here CC 642

and she wouldn't volunteer to be my or anyone else's victim. Disarming females do they only get beat isn't the answer...

[BainsBane]

36. She is at far greater risk of being killed because of having a gun in the house

the statistics are clear.

[NutmegYankee]

51. Your statistics don't show that.

A comparison of unarmed vs armed would do that. But we already know what THAT graphic would look like. And it's not what you think.

[oneshooter]

71. Then my Loving Wife should be dead, after living in the same house that

contains BOTH guns and males( 3 sons and myself) for the last 26 years.


You must be devastated that she still lives.

You must be equally devastated that none of our sons was killed, and they killed no one else.

Our heart aches for you, Bless your little heart.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. Chicken vs Egg

Is it a violent intimate partner with access to a gun? Or is it access to a gun that makes a intimate partner violent?

Violent people combined with an ability to commit violence is a bad combination.

[BainsBane]

44. The partner is violent. The gun makes him all the more lethal.

No chicken or egg.

[Iggo]

39. Gun-fuckers.

[mercuryblues]

40. If they were serious about it

they could start by removing weapons from possession when people have restraining orders placed against them.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A System That’s Working

One state with strict laws in this arena is California, where anyone served with a temporary protective order has 24 hours to turn over any weapons to local law enforcement or sell them to a licensed gun dealer.

Enforcement, however, has been inconsistent. So in 2006, the state set up pilot programs to increase enforcement in San Mateo County, just outside San Francisco, and Butte County, a largely rural area north of Sacramento. The programs’ money dried up in 2010 with the state’s fiscal woes, but San Mateo sought other financing because it believed that its program was saving lives.

“We have not had a firearm-related domestic violence homicide in the last three years,” said Sgt. Linda Gibbons, who oversees the program as the head of the major crimes unit in the county sheriff’s office.

Last year alone, the program took in 324 firearms through seizure or surrender from 81 people, out of more than 800 protective orders it reviewed.

[BainsBane]

46. If they valued women's lives more than guns

but we know the answer to that.

[KG]

48. rec

[Scootaloo]

53. Sadly, no surprises in the responses

It's not a confusing graphic, folks. it's not an "attack on men," you poor, oppressed things.

it's a refutation of the gun mythology that having a gun in the home is like having a magic talisman against harm, that "stranger danger" is the #1 threat, and that having a gun around makes women in particular more secure.

[BainsBane]

54. "you poor oppressed things"

[Scootaloo]

55. See? See? Oppression at work!

I'm vaguely threatened by the soft pink folds and inner recesses of that Rosa sp.'s genitalia.

[BainsBane]

59. LOL

The evil vaginal-centric world.

[leftyladyfrommo]

57. The most dangerous place for women is their own home.

It's sad but true.

Gloria Steinem (sp?) was talking about that in one of her speeches that I saw not long ago.

It's not just here but true all over the world.

[Nevernose]

62. Purely out of curiosity, I looked by murder statistics by race and gender

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

I was shocked. As it turns out, the home is the most dangerous place for people of either sex. Men, too, are far more likely to be killed by a friend, family member, or acquaintance (and 90% of the time, a male associate).

And what I was even more shocked at was crime victims by race. A majority of murder victims in this country are black, even though they make up 10 or 15 percent of the population.

I'm not trying to take away from the OP -- men commit 90% of the murders in this country -- I was just trying to add something to this conversation. Coincidentally, I was just mentioning the statistics about the violence against women today with my summer school class. It's sad that in 2013 America, I have to teach high school kids (12th graders) mini-units on intimate partner domestic violence.

[BainsBane]

63. Absolutely

I'm surprised that surprises you. DOJ reports than men are 4x as likely as women to be victims and 7x as likely to be perpetrators of homicide. The racial dimension is clear. I have been consistent in arguing that the effect of gun violence is profoundly racist, since it is primarily young men of color who are killed, and African Americans in particular. This particularly graphic happened across my Facebook feed. I posted another at the same time about homicides overall. The difference is that 65% of women are killed by their partners, whereas men are overwhelmingly killed outside the home. So for a woman having a gun in the home is especially dangerous.

[chervilant]

79. Another interesting statistic

concerning LEOs:

1 in 4 police officers killed in the line of duty are killed answering domestic violence calls.

[BainsBane]

82. Yes, I have heard that domestic calls are often the most dangerous

Also more young children under 6 are killed by guns each year than police are killed on duty.

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Now look a little deeper at those statistics.

Yes, it has been know for a long time that a person is more likely to be murdered by someone they know, than by a stranger. Since people tend to understand data in terms of the world they know, and most people are law-abiding, they think in terms of the people they know as being more dangerous than stranger.

What most people don't think about, because it isn't part of their world, is that Mafia members know each other, gangbangers know each other, drug dealers know both their suppliers and their customers, loan sharks and bookies know their customers, pimps know their prostitutes and johns, thieves know their fences, and so on. Get the idea? The criminal underground all know each other and they settle disputes violently.

If you are not part of the criminal world, then you are very safe from those you know. Your greatest danger then becomes strangers.

[Nevernose]

68. I think those are still the minority

Granted, that happens to men a lot more than women, just as women are killed by intimate partners much more often than men are. I think the statistics back up my assertion that gangland hits are far less common than, say, two drunk cousins in an argument, or two guys fighting over a girl.

But that's just my opinion, based off my interpretation of the data.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Most murder victims have criminal record. Check out this:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

SNIP

In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.

SNIP

Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.

SNIP

In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.

SNIP

In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.

The same type of pattern holds across the entire U.S. Most murder victims are themselves criminals.

You may wish to take a look at the Burea of Justice Statistics report: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf It is rather lengthy but here are some highlights:

Seventy-four percent of murder defendants
had a prior criminal record of arrest
or conviction for a crime. A substantial
percentage of murder victims, 44%, also
had a prior criminal record. However, 19%
of family murder victims had a prior record,
compared to 51% of nonfamily murder
victims. Also, 56% of family murder defendants,
compared to 77% of other murder
defendants, had a prior record.

A little over half of the defendants in family
murders, but over three-quarters of defendants
in nonfamily murders, had been
arrested in the past (table 7). Defendants
were more likely than their victims to have
a criminal history. Nevertheless, 44% of
murder victims (51% nonfamily and 19%
family) had a prior history of arrest or
conviction.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. While technically true, the statisic is grossly misleading.

It does not separate out violent partners from the non-violent. It is extremely rare for a peaceful partner to suddenly fly off the handle and kill his female partner. Note that "rare" does not mean "never", it means rare.

Numerous books and studies confirm that there are predictors that indicate when things are approaching a fatal level.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence


Individual Risk Factors
•Low self-esteem
•Low income
•Low academic achievement
•Young age
•Aggressive or delinquent behavior as a youth
•Heavy alcohol and drug use
•Depression
•Anger and hostility
•Antisocial personality traits
•Borderline personality traits
•Prior history of being physically abusive
•Having few friends and being isolated from other people
•Unemployment
•Emotional dependence and insecurity
•Belief in strict gender roles (e.g., male dominance and aggression in relationships)
•Desire for power and control in relationships
•Perpetrating psychological aggression
•Being a victim of physical or psychological abuse (consistently one of the strongest predictors of perpetration)
•History of experiencing poor parenting as a child
•History of experiencing physical discipline as a child


Relationship Factors
•Marital conflict-fights, tension, and other struggles
•Marital instability-divorces or separations
•Dominance and control of the relationship by one partner over the other
•Economic stress
•Unhealthy family relationships and interactions


Community Factors
•Poverty and associated factors (e.g., overcrowding)
•Low social capital-lack of institutions, relationships, and norms that shape a community's social interactions
•Weak community sanctions against IPV (e.g., unwillingness of neighbors to intervene in situations where they witness violence)


Societal Factors
•Traditional gender norms (e.g., women should stay at home, not enter workforce, and be submissive; men support the family and make the decisions)

Other studies of interest:
http://www.stanford.edu/~jhj1/papers/jones_ferguson2009.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209731.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100370/

Intimate Partner Violence doesn't just happen out of the blue, and it isn't caused by guns. A peaceful partner who happens to have a gun is not a danger to his partner.

[BainsBane]

66. yeah, well if a woman is killed by her partner

He's violent. This is the general population. 1/3 of all women in America are beaten or raped by their partners. If there is a gun in the home, her chances of being killed grow exponentially.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. There are predictors.

A woman ignores them at her peril. You refuse to realize that most men who are gun owners are also peaceful and law-abiding. I trust my wife with her own guns and her own CHL and vise versa.

[BainsBane]

74. the fact that I have been just lectured about how irrational I am

for not understanding the likelihood that I will kill someone prompts me to believe they are not so peaceful.

[GreenStormCloud]

75. You have already decided to believe that, no matter what studies are posted.

The families that have murders are not Ozzie & Harriet or June & Eldridge families. Families with murders more resemble drunken robbers dividing the loot. Check out that gov't report that I posted. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

The study covers 3,119 murder defendents.

Here are some choice paragraphs:

Seventy-four percent of murder defendants
had a prior criminal record of arrest
or conviction for a crime. A substantial
percentage of murder victims, 44%, also
had a prior criminal record.

Having a violent criminal for a partner is very dangerous.

[chervilant]

80. Relationship violence is so prevalent,

it's almost normative.

Bear in mind that some homicidal partners' past criminal records are prior incidences of abuse.

Note also that half of all women killed by an abusive partner are killed after they leave.

I wonder if you have any ideas about how to mitigate gun violence. I note that you have lots of rebuttals, so what do you propose to deter gun violence that indiscriminately kills small children and other innocents?

[GreenStormCloud]

81. Relationship violence is a global problem.

It isn't just American men who abuse women. Until recently, beating your wife was a man's prerogative. It was wrong, but that's the way thing were, and still are in lots of places.

Yes, leaving an abusive man is a very dangerous time for the woman. I know that you won't like it, but that is a time when the woman should be able to carry a gun, concealed. (I am not a fan of open carry.)

Gun violence has been dropping markedly in the last 20 years, but obviously has a long way to go. We need to legalize drugs. That will do wonders as the gangs won't be shooting each other over drugs sales territory. That will also reduce accidents. I haven't seen any studies, but I think that most gun accidents are with guns that are owned illegally. Guns aren't cheap. If the gangs don't need guns to settle their business disputes, then they won't have as many to have accidents with. That leaves gun suicide, which is really a mental health issue more than a guns issue.

I do favor BC checks, but am solidly against registration. It accomplishes nothing.

Thank you for your courtesy.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Take a look at this U.S. Gov't Study.

Study done by:

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics


Bureau of Justice Statistics Study: Murder in Families

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

Take a look. You may find it interesting.

[hedgehog]

73. kick!

[Eleanors38]

78. Fastest growing segment of gun-owning community? Women

You might want to talk to them.

[BainsBane]

84. Does the concept of statistics mean anything to you?

[galileoreloaded]

95. As in 5% of the women I encounter under 35

Wont try and bed me because im the right guy? Statistics like that? It's really gross but it happens all the time. They do it right in front of her ....My girl gets pissed!

Hehehe

[BainsBane]

99. I agree

I can think of nothing more gross.

[galileoreloaded]

101. Lighten up Francis ;) nt

[Eleanors38]

118. Pushing 20% of gun owners.

[Honeycombe8]

83. Of course, the trick is not to hook up with violent men. My gun has saved me...

before, in an attempted break-in. By a stranger.

Without a gun, a woman is a sitting duck. A gun evens the score a bit. Yes, it could be used against you. But men don't NEED a gun to kill a woman. They can reach out & strangle her without her even being able to reach his body (his arms are longer). Or he could hit her over the head with something. I watch those true crime stories. There are a myriad of ways that men kill women (which is often). Whether the men are strangers or boyfriends, it doesn't matter, does it? She's dead, either way.

BTW...the fact that a woman is killed with a gun by a man she knows doesn't mean it was her gun. In fact, it was probably his, since few women own guns.

[BainsBane]

85. It's very clear that a gun in the home makes a woman far more vulnerable to murder

the evidence is clear. "The trick is not to hook up with a violent man." Good luck with that, since 1/3 of women are abused or raped by their partners, which means that close to 1/3 of men are batters or rapists, as made clear by a recent PBS report on violence against women. The WHO report released this year also provides similar statistics.
Then there is the fact that guns are often taken from women and used against them. Of course the gun lobby insists that men with restraining orders be allowed guns, which increases the homicide rate of women in those areas by 7%.

We can all imagine ways that people might kill, but the fact is the vast majority--around 70%-- use guns because they perform so efficiently.

These are crime statistics. Whatever you invent in your mind to pretend they don't exist is entirely your problem.

[Honeycombe8]

86. I don't think the evidence is clear at all. Whether a gun is used or not, it is clear

that a violent man caused her death. I don't see that it matters that he used a hammer, acid, a gun, a baseball bat, or any number of other tools to do the deed.

Most women don't have violent men in their lives, including me. The only threat from men for me is from a stranger. A gun is one of the few ways to equalize the advantage a man would have over me...he's stronger, with longer arms, a criminal and street-tough, he has experience fighting, he has the element of surprise. I'm a sitting duck....except for my gun, which gives me the opportunity to shoot him at a distance before he gets within arms reach of me. It's just common sense and a practical thing. I also get flu shots sometimes, to help protect against the possibility I'll get the flu. It's just a precaution. (Altho I could get sick from the flu shot.)

[BainsBane]

96. 1/3 of women are battered or raped by their partners

of women who are murdered, 65% are killed by their partner or a family member. Those are facts.

You can pretend a gun helps you. The fact is it puts your life in greater danger. Anyone with a gun in the home is 7x more likely to use it against a family member or themselves. That risk for women is even greater. There are lots of studies that prove this to be the case.

[EvilAL]

87. Yup, I'm the greatest threat to my wife's safety.

lol.

[BainsBane]

88. Did you think your name was on that chart?

[EvilAL]

89. Is any other man's name on it?

[BainsBane]

90. No, but you appear to have taken it personally

Why is that?

[EvilAL]

92. Maybe it was the

greatest threat to her life is the man sleeping in her bed part.

[BainsBane]

93. What does that have to do with you?

Those are statistical facts. Domestic violence against women is VERY common. That doesn't mean you personally are a batterer or murderer.

[EvilAL]

94. What does it have to do with YOU?

I think is the real question. You post a pic saying women aren't safe with their husbands and think that it's ok? I don't like that assumption, you can take it however you want, or try to change it into whatever you want.

[BainsBane]

97. I care about gun violence and violence against women

Having been a victim of both. Are you suggesting this information should be suppressed to make you feel better?

[EvilAL]

108. The wording of the 'information'

is what bothers me. The 'greatest' threat part. Nobody should be a victim of violence, but I'm hardly the greatest threat to my wife's safety. It's hyperbole, bad hyperbole against men, just because more women are abused or killed by their husbands than strangers doesn't mean their husbands are the greatest threat to their safety. Parents abuse children more than strangers do, does that mean parents are the greatest threat to their safety? Should I make an info graphic insulting all parents while I'm at it?

[BainsBane]

109. No one said you were

Get over it. Everything isn't about you.

If you read something that says 70% of Americans can't find Libya on a map, do you take it personally?

How about doing something about violence against women rather than feeling sorry for yourself because someone dares to speak about it in public. You aren't the victim. Those dead and abused women are. Get over yourself.

BTW, I didn't make this graphic, but there are hundreds available that document abuse against women. The fact is it's widespread. 1/3 of women are abused by their partners, which makes 1/3 of men abusers. A decent person is outraged that women are subject to that kind of abuse. He doesn't feel sorry for himself because someone dares to talk about it.

I find it astounding that you are so self absorbed your response to the information I disclosed about myself and the statistics in the OP is to feel sorry for yourself. I can't begin to understand the kind of person that thinks only about their perceived persecution rather than real life-threatening and mortal abuse being perpetrated on women around this country. It does, however, help explain what enables that abuse to go on with so little repercussion. These women's lives apparently mean less to you than your bruised ego.

[EvilAL]

110. No, it's not about me, it's about the man

in her bed being the greatest threat to her safety, oh wait, that is me. You can spin it however you want, but that graphic clearly says that I , as a man, am the greatest threat to my wife's safety. I'm not arguing the stats, the wording of the graphic is dumb. 'Women are more likely to be killed by their husbands than strangers' would have been fine, but to say that we are the greatest threat to their safety is a lie. If they added up all the deaths and injuries to women and all the causes of them and it turned out that their husbands were the main cause of all of them, then yes, I'd agree with the graphic, but that's not the case.
Stop trying to make me seem like I don't care about the issue, or about violence towards women, it's a stupid graphic, an insulting graphic as well. Has nothing to do with my ego, so you can cut that shit out.

[EvilAL]

111. According to the FBI Crime Victimization Survey

the average unmarried female over the age of 12 had a 0.37% chance of being raped or sexually assaulted in 2006.

In contrast, the average married female over the age of 12 had only a 0.04% chance of being raped or sexually assaulted that year.

hmmmmm

[BainsBane]

112. Did you see the WHO report this week?

Very few rapes and batteries are reported. Is this somehow news to you?

[EvilAL]

113. Well we can only go on the ones that do get reported,

so that's where we are. Single women are more likely to be assaulted than married women. So the greatest threat to their safety isn't their husband.
If we go back to gun violence inside the home women are more likely to be shot by their spouse than a stranger and the same goes for men being shot by their spouses than by strangers, so wives are the greatest threat to a man's safety as well.

[BainsBane]

114. Bullshit

Pretending battery doesn't occur if the FBI doesn't have a report of it is particularly callous and completely absurd. There are lots and lots of studies documenting the frequency of battery and rape.

As for marriage, lots of people live together. Legal marriage has no bearing on the matter.

It is not true that men face the greatest risk at home. Men are at a greater risk for homicide, but women commit a small proportion of homicides. Men commit around 87% of homicides. They also commit 99% of rapes. The demographic with the highest murder rate is young, African-American men.

The WHO report was released last week. You can easily find references to that on DU or through any news search. Here is something I posted a while ago from a PBS special. I'm also providing the link to the program.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kind-hearted-woman/

You need to educate yourself on this. I am completely shocked that anyone in this century is so ignorant on the subject of domestic violence. I can't help thinking there is something deliberate in your denial of the problem. Regardless, I'm not interested in discussing it with you. You need to educate yourself on the matter.

[EvilAL]

115. Oh well,

I'm not pretending it doesn't happen, I can only go by the reported stats. Your graphic implies that the greatest threat to a woman's safety is her spouse, if that's the case, the greatest threat to a man's safety is his spouse. You don't agree with that? Not my problem.

Once again, I have a problem with the wording of the graphic you posted, not the statistics. If you can't agree that it could be worded the opposite way then you just don't want to. Men are more likely to be shot/beaten by their spouse in the home than by a stranger, women are more likely to be shot/beaten in the home by their spouse than by a stranger. I have no problem admitting that the majority of it is man on woman violence, that's the way it is, it sucks, but that's the truth. Still doesn't change the shitty wording of the graphic.

[chervilant]

119. Statistically,

women are most likely to be hurt, abused, or murdered by their intimate partners! This fact might curdle your wame, but that doesn't justify your deliberately obtuse responses about relationship violence.

Furthermore, research does NOT support your absurd assertion that women are the greatest threat to their husbands. Perhaps, if you are sincerely concerned about these statistics, you might read "Ending the Violence" (Thorne-Finch), or any of a plethora of books about misogyny and violence against women.

[EvilAL]

123. All I said was

the graphic is worded wrong. It makes it sound like the greatest threat to women are their husbands. Many more things kill or hurt women than their husbands do. It said nothing about guns or fuck all. By that logic you can say the opposite, since men are more likely to be killed in the home by their wives than by strangers. The next step would be to make a graphic saying that and seeing what would happen if I posted it here.
People turning what I said into something else is fine with me, I stated many times I'm not arguing the stats, the graphic is fuckin stupid with no context.

[Buzz Clik]

131. Bullshit.

The graphic and the context provided in the OP remove all ambiguity. You are simply flinging dung through the bars.

[EvilAL]

136. Again, I was referring to the graphic

when I said that I wasn't the greatest threat to my wife's safety. I agreed with the stats regarding gun violence in the home, can anybody hear me? I AGREED!! several times. I'm done with this conversation, have a nice day.

[Buzz Clik]

130. +1!

[Threedifferentones]

121. You apply the lessons personally, but they should not take them that way?

Just a couple posts up you say "ANYONE with a gun in the home is 7x more likely to..." That means that any given gun owner falls in line with your claims, right? If that's not what you meant, it is still a reasonable interpretation.

So, after you claim that literally every gun owner is likely to misuse their gun, you are then surprised when some people respond saying "well that's not true for me."

Your stats are compelling, but you seem to believe they prove that a gun makes every woman's situation worse. They do not, they just prove that a woman whose man has a gun is much more likely to be shot than a woman whose man does not. Wow, shocking.

Reasonable people don't need stats to see that if a smaller person is going to stand up to a violent, bigger person, the smaller person needs help. And if there are no other people around, then a gun is about the only thing that can help a smaller person.

It's pretty clear from your prolific responses that you are also taking this thread personally, however much you try and hide behind numbers.

Why is that? You've been a victim? Me too. That's why I own guns.

[BainsBane]

122. Obviously I take it seriously

but what it does not say is that all men are batterers. But some members of this site love nothing more to try to censure any discussion of violence against women. You may believe what you like about guns, but the fact is it is far more likely to cause you harm than help you. Your "common sense" is not born out by reality. That smaller person is more likely to have that gun taken away and used against her. And in the vast majority of cases, the assailant is someone in her own home.

[Buzz Clik]

127. Statistically, you are.

[BainsBane]

98. That's your response to violence against women?

Is it really so difficult to show any concern about human beings?

[rrneck]

100. It's my response to your OP.

The fact that you feel the need to wrap yourself in an tragedy to fling accusations at others is your business. But it looks like fun. Let me give it a try.

Millions of men are murdered every year and you ignore them by posting this pathetic cookie cutter falmebait? That's how you show concern for the deaths of members of half the population? Why do you think you are justified in ignoring such a tragedy? Have you no shame?

Say, that's kinda fun. Of course you're running the MRA mantra in your head right now, but I expected that. That's how the culture wars work. We can fight over gender as if a corpse ever asked how it got so cold; as if the murder of a woman is any more tragic and wrong than the murder of a man. And when we get tired of that, we can fight about the murder weapon and elevate it to evil totem status. Then the accusations can really fly because there are whole industries that make millions of dollars deciding who is on what side of that issue. We can tear each other apart with corporate sound bytes and graphics produced by sweatshop refugees from liberal arts colleges and never actually have to think about the issue beyond how it feeds our fevered emotions and insatiable consumer greed.

On second thought, I think I'll just watch you marinade in your own sanctimony. You seem to enjoy it. Think on this: killing is wrong, every time, no matter why or who. Your OP is self serving bullshit.

[galileoreloaded]

102. Sick burn!!! Nt

[BainsBane]

106. remdi95

But rest easy, it will never be me.

[galileoreloaded]

116. i think you are taking this stuff way to seriously. nt

[BainsBane]

117. I most certainly do

I take violence against women very seriously, and I abhor stigmatization of the mentally ill. That you find both fodder for your own amusement disgusts me. Your absurd braggadocio is more pathetic than anything else. It shows just how desperate you are to prove your importance. No one with confidence behaves that way.

[chervilant]

120. And, I wonder if your posts

are thinly veiled efforts to minimize the prevalence of relationship violence. I generally see this kind of response from batterers or from individuals who witnessed this kind of abuse in their childhood.

hmm...

[galileoreloaded]

124. I minimize nothing.

DV is bad enough it doesn't need gender assignments. It's violence against people by people. The cultural illness comes from fixating on labeling the violence instead of stopping it.

[BainsBane]

125. Ignoring the different nature of violence against women

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Is a good way to ensure it continues. Clearly they are not the same, as the graphic above makes clear. Women are killed by their partners. Men are killed by other men out in public. The statistics make it clear. It does not mean that the lives of one means more than the other, but that the ways to combat them is different. Suppressing and rejecting knowledge enables violence.

Pretending domestic violence isn't a gendered phenomenon is absurd. 1/3 of women are subject to battery or rape by their partners, an endemic level.

[galileoreloaded]

138. just complete your bigotry circle already and get to the racial spreads of violence in America...

its as arbitrary as gender or hair color.

but you wont. because that's racist and bigoted, but by your logic its ok because its statistically true. i cant wait to hear the crickets.

[BainsBane]

143. As usual

Your post is nonsensical and entirely uninformed.
remdi95

[BainsBane]

145. Bigotry like saying the behavior of 95% of women is "disgusting"?

You mean that kind of bigotry? Funny how you love to pretend that gender doesn't exist when it comes to violence against women, but when you ascribe evil attributes to women, it's the most salient point of all. When your ideological views require ignoring reality, you've got serious problems.

[BainsBane]

149. or as arbitrary as the sex partners you've "had"

who are so "disgusting"?

[chervilant]

133. While I choose not to use gender specific terminology,

when I lecture regarding relationship violence, I do stress to my audience that the vast majority of relationship violence is perpetrated by MEN against WOMEN. This is an irrefutable fact. Furthermore, a primary reason for this gender specificity is the socio-cultural construct we call 'patriarchy,' which has negative consequences for both genders, and ALL sexual orientations.

I find it interesting that the discussion always seems to center on "victims" of relationship violence. We would benefit greatly as a species if we would eliminate patriarchy and focus on helping batterers understand why they batter. Instead of asking survivors "why don't you just leave," we should ask batterers, "why do you batter?"

We need to help our children learn effective communication strategies, and conflict resolution skills. Moreover, we need to hold bullies and batterers accountable for their actions AND for seeking help to extinguish their need to use violence and aggression when they're angry or feel threatened.

[BainsBane]

144. This one doesn't believe patriarchy exists

He thinks the real victims in society are men who are forced to listen to women speak in public. His pretense of gender neutral is part of an ongoing effort to deny sexism. He has even gone so far as to claim he doesn't see "gender," while also noting that the behavior of 95% of women is "disgusting."

[chervilant]

158. oic...

I am saddened by the number of misogynists who self-identify as 'liberals' or 'Democrats.' I wonder why they feel threatened by women. I also wonder how they can have healthy relationships with their mothers, if they hate women so much.

I appreciate the heads-up. I'm still going to share whatever information I can about relationship violence, because far too many people are ignorant about how pervasive and damaging is this terrible crime.

(Speaking of the criminal aspect of relationship violence: batterers rarely get more than a proverbial 'slap on the wrist,' and our society STILL does not recognize how much children who witness relationship violence are seriously damaged. It's like we're slogging through wet cement to achieve any measurable progress in addressing this issue...)

[BainsBane]

104. I have every right to speak about violence against women

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2013, 07:14 AM - Edit history (1)

This thread provides nothing but basic statistics. Amazingly, it's not about you. I realize you think you are the center of the universe but that isn't the case. As you well know I post about gun deaths all the time. This one is about women. You feel the need to suppress the information, which says a great deal about you.

Since the loss of life of human life, and worse yet mere women, is such a minor concern to you, you are free to post about something you might care about, like how to generate maximum profits for the corporate gun lobby. It's clear that you resent the fact that women speak in public. Next time just use trash thread instead of working so hard to censor information. The pretense of caring about the lives of male gun victims is rich. Gun zealots demonstrate every day how insignificant they consider the lives of those killed by guns. Yet suggesting the lives of women are worth discussing obviously put you over the edge. You dismiss the loss of those lives as nothing but a "culture war"--a culture war that results in blood and corpses in homes across America, spilled blood that gun nuts fight to ensure each and every day. As long as the gun cabal keep fighting for gun proliferation, people are going to die. If you consider it such an outrage to see statistical information about those deaths, use trash thread. But having a temper tantrum because someone dares to post about the lives of women is repulsive. This is the 21st century, not the stone age. As repulsive as you find it, women have a right to speak about our concerns in public. So deal with it or use trash thread. That a basic concept like human equality is too much for you to deal with makes clear there is no point in our having future discussions. I could not have more contempt for everything you stand for.

[BainsBane]

105. What kind of person gets outraged over basic informaton

How dare women speak in public about the violence committed against them. We must keep it secret so that batterers can continue to act without any public light shed on them. Oh, and then gun nuts can continue to make sure men with restraining orders have ready access to guns to kill those women once and for all.

I'm sorry you are so determined to keep violence against women a secret. That really says everything there is to know on you. Call it a culture war. These are wars with real casualties, and you are on the side that seeks to censor information you find uncomfortable.

Your whining really is pathetic.

[hfojvt]

140. except it is NOT basic information

to say "ladies, the greatest threat to your safety is the man sleeping in your bed".

My mom, coming up on her 56th anniversary does not feel like she is sleeping with "the greatest threat to her safety" every night. My little sister, approaching her 28th anniversary and the 35th anniversary of when they started dating, does not feel like she sleeps with, and produced two children with, "the greatest threat to her safety".

To include a line like that with some statistics is not basic information.

It's a bullsh*t and offensive way to frame things. It's a war of the sexes way to frame things. Not everybody wants to have that war.

[BainsBane]

142. Offensive?

I consider it offensive that 1/3 of women in this country are beaten or raped by their partners. That's the kind of war that concerns me, not that someone like you who wants to silence discussion of violence against information doesn't like how something is worded. Too fucking bad. Deal with it.

[hfojvt]

147. and that's another bogys statistic

one you want to use to drive a war between the sexes.

The 1/3 figure was for "the whole world" not for "this country". And I never really saw how "violence" was defined in that study.

Ironically, when I did a search for studies about violence against men, I found some surveys that showed violence against women was at the rate of about 200 per 100,000, or maybe it was 700 per 100,000.

[BainsBane]

150. It most certainly is not bogus

The WHO survey was for the entire world, while other studies have estimate that level for the US.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kind-hearted-woman/

[hfojvt]

153. should I infer something

from the fact that you found it more convenient to post that graphic rather than, say, a link to an actual study?

"cats have no feelings, says Descartes, and throws a cat out a window. Proving, if not his assertion, at least his faith in it."

Not sure where I read that, or if it actually ever happened, but the quote stuck with me. And in a similar way, posting that graphic does not prove your assertion, only your faith in it.

[Buzz Clik]

126. Excellent post.

To the lurking/trolling/moling asshats: one fucking example that goes contrary to the data does NOT win the day. 10% is 10% regardless.

[BainsBane]

128. Amazing how the concept of basic statistics escapes many

[Buzz Clik]

129. That's because yer stooopid. Like all DUmmies.

And, by the way, they are here. But, you knew that.

[bike man]

134. One might think "...women with guns" would be difficult to harm.

There could be some confusion with the subject line, as in "Who kills women with (who have) guns?"

[BainsBane]

135. Owning a gun increases one's chance of being killed

That is true for all gun owners. Anyone who has a gun in the home is 7x more likely to have that gun used against themselves or a family member. The likelihood is greater for women, as the statistics above show. Most women are killed by their partners or a family member in the home.

[oneshooter]

137. See my post #71.

[hfojvt]

139. the truth there isn't even a half truth

because it ignores a very much, much larger group of women who are not in danger from "the man already in your bed" even if that man happens to own a gun or two

[BainsBane]

141. This is homicides

A majority of women are not killed. But of those who are, they are overwhelmingly killed by their partners.

[hfojvt]

146. and that means, for a vast majority of women

that the greatest danger is NOT the man they are sleeping with.

[BainsBane]

148. of the women not in danger of physical violence or death

they are not in danger. Of those who are, they are far more likely to be killed or beaten by a partner or family member. 1/3 of women are abused or raped by your partners. Is your assertion that we must wait until 51% of women are being murdered before I have a right to talk about it?

[hfojvt]

151. it probably needs to be far greater than 51%

before somebody can write something like 'Truth - ladies, the greatest danger to your safety is the man sleeping next to you."

without it being both ridiculous and an insult to all the couples who are mostly happily married.

[BainsBane]

152. I see

So there aren't enough of us being beaten, raped, and killed yet to suit you?

[Jenoch]

154. I wonder how many of the

64% were shot by their gangbanger boyfriends?

[BainsBane]

155. Why don't you find out and tell us

If you think domestic violence is class or race related, you really don't know anything about the subject. This racist gangbanger trope you gunners like to hurl around says far more about you than anything else.

[Jenoch]

156. I don't know if data is kept to find out.

I only mentioned it because the gun murders committed by gangbangers is at a much higher rate than others in American society and using that data to berate gun owners who are not criminals is disingenuous. The girlfriends of gang members and other criminals are usually not innocent bystanders. They are making the straw purchases to arm their men.

Of course I am against any domestic violence whether guns are used or not.

[BainsBane]

157. You think that

and the point might be relevant to homicides of men, but women are overwhelmingly killed by their partners. Race and class have no relation to that phenomenon, unlike street violence which is very much influenced by socioeconomic factors.