The NRA Is Wrong: Having A Gun In The House Does Not Make Women Safer

[onehandle]

A raft of new studies have shown that not only does owning a gun increase your chances of being a victim of gun violence, but that risk itself is increased again if you own a gun and are a woman.

Last year the executive vice-president of the NRA Wayne LaPierre told the Conservative Political Action Committee that arming the women of the United States was the best way to protect them from violence: “The one thing a violent rapist deserves to face is a good woman with a gun.” Unfortunately, as with so many of the NRA’s pseudo-scientific claims, the facts do not back him up.

A study in the Annals Of Internal Medicine examining gun violence worldwide proved that women in the United States are disproportionately likely to be victims of gun violence when compared to women in other developed countries:

As reported by The Atlantic “Women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world, even though they make up only a third of the developed world’s female population. And within American borders, women die at higher rates from suicide, homicide, and accidental firearm deaths in states where guns are more widely available This is true even after controlling for factors such as urbanization, alcohol use, education, poverty, and divorce rates.”

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/nra-wrong-having-gun-house-does-not-make

[chompers]

1. Soooooo....

Should we not let women arm them selves? What is the solution here?

[DanTex]

24. LOL. Enjoy your stay...

[Gormy Cuss]

40. Soooooo....

We shouldn't believe the tripe stated as fact by the NRA and we should sponsor more rigorous research on the effects of gun ownership and injure and mortality rates.

That's the first part of the solution.

[chrisa]

49. I don't think that's the point.

The point is simply that guns don't make women safer. People have the right to own guns, but they should know the truth about them, as opposed to an NRA-sponsored fairytale.

[GoneOffShore]

77. Stop using logic.

It hurts their heads and world view.

[CreekDog]

97. nobody proposed stopping women from arming themselves

is that why you joined, to post that straw man?

[seveneyes]

2. Better safe than sorry

If one or more criminal, rapist, mugger etc decides to break into your home and do harm, a solid means of stopping them is better than waiting for the police to show up, if they come at all. It can, and does happen. There is no shame or guilt for stopping someone from harming you or your loved ones.

[MillennialDem]

8. There are only about ~250 justifiable homicides per year by civilians

The probability of you being one of those 250 is basically struck by lightning type odds.

[seveneyes]

19. The repellent factor

I have not seen the numbers for those who chased away, or held for authorities their attackers. It doesn't rain much in the desert, but they still put roofs and shingles on the homes there.

[DanTex]

26. The way the numbers come out, the net effect is an increase in risk.

Whatever defensive benefit there is to carrying or owning a gun, it doesn't show up statistically. On the other hand, the increased risk does.

[seveneyes]

29. As long as we retain choice

I trust neither the NRA or crooksandliars, and the Annals study seems concerned only with suicide and homicide. Rape and other pillage will remain a concern for many.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426
Limitations: Firearm accessibility was determined by survey interviews in most studies; misclassification of accessibility may have occurred. Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death.

Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

[DanTex]

36. The thing is, guns aren't just a placebo for teabaggers. They also harm non-gun owners.

Rates of gun ownership and easy access to guns also affect the rest of society, not just gun owners. In addition to the fact that the gun puts the owner at risk, there is no shortage of evidence that the general homicide rates are increased.

In economic terms, this is a "negative externality", like pollution. If the only effect of a gun was to put the owner at greater risk, that would be one thing. Similarly, if dumping toxic sludge in rivers only affect the people doing the dumping, there would be much less need to regulate it. But that's not the way it is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. If "negative externality" were as important as some pretend

they would be going after alcohol far more rigorously as it has far greater negative externality. Domestic violence, assaults, drunk driving, under-aged drinking, fetal alcohol syndrome, household and workplace injuries, sexual assaults, suicide, pathologies, etc. etc. etc. by orders of magnitude.

I'll even hazard a guess that many of the ills you would attribute to guns would reveal that the abuse of alcohol preceded any acts of violence.

[DanTex]

46. A lot of things have negative externalities.

Yes. drinking has a lot of externalities also. Driving cars has negative externalities.

It's all about weighing costs and benefits. In the case of guns, there's little doubt that the costs greatly outweigh the benefits, at least in America. Looking around the world, practically every other first-wold nation has a much better balance.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "In the case of guns, there's little doubt that the costs greatly outweigh the benefits"

What is the cost-benefit of alcohol? Guns can be used for defense, feeding a family and competition. What is the use for alcohol?

Yours is also a subjective statement and it presumes you know what is best for everyone else. The guns in my house aren't a threat to you and never will be. Yet, your policies would absolutely reach into my home and life.

Gun ownership is up while violent crime is down. Perhaps ownership does deter crime. Maybe it doesn't but at a minimum we can at least see that increased ownership does not increase crime.

[DanTex]

48. You're welcome to advocate for tighter restrictions on alcohol if you want.

Regarding guns, this isn't as subjective as you make it out to be. The costs to society are enormous -- this we know. The self-defense benefits are minimal, this we also know. That leaves recreation and feeding a family.

Both recreation and hunting (and self-defense) could easily be allowed for with far more restrictive laws than we currently have. For starters, simply requiring a license and registration to own a gun would have essentially zero impact on any of these activities.

In fact, even an outright ban on handguns wouldn't make much difference. The benefit would be thousands, likely tens of thousands, of lives saved every year, not to mention all of the non-fatal shootings. The costs? The effect on hunting would be minimal. In terms of recreation, yes, some people prefer shooting handguns to long guns for sport. So those people would have to slightly modify their hobby. But it pales in comparison to the thousands of saved lives.

So there is plenty of room to maintain the vast majority of the benefits while greatly reducing the costs. Like I said, every other first-world nation has struck such a balance. The problem here is that gun policy is controlled by the gun lobby extremists, who view any slight regulation as some kind of fatal attack on "freedom".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. On what historical basis do you make these claims?

Yes, there are nations with tighter controls that have lower homicide rates, but there are also nations with tighter controls that have higher homicide and violent crime rates. Meanwhile, some nations with higher gun ownership rates have lower crime rates. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.

Registration is nothing but an avenue for abuse.

At the end of the day my rights and the Constitution are on my side.

[DanTex]

51. On the basis of numerous peer reviewed studies.

There are zero developed nations, remotely comparable to the US, that have a homicide rate even close to ours. The main difference is the lethality of guns. Violent crime rates in the US are similar to those of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. But our homicide rate -- and gun homicide specifically, are far higher. To find counterexamples to this, you have to start looking at countries like Russia or Mexico or South Africa, countries which are not remotely similar to the US.

Beyond that, studies have looked at patterns of gun ownership across states and counties in the US, and found that, even after controlling for things like poverty and other factors, gun ownership rates are significantly correlated with homicide rates. And the association is purely due to gun homicides -- there isn't a link between guns and non-gun homicide, giving further evidence that it's not a just spurious link or a poorly controlled study.

Damned lies, you say, that is what people always say when the evidence points conclusively against them. Is there any argument you have that couldn't also be used to claim that global warming is a lie?

Registration is nothing but an avenue for abuse.

At the end of the day my rights and the Constitution are on my side.

This is what I meant by "gun lobby extremism". These are just meaningless platitudes. The fact of the matter is that registration would save lives, keep guns out of the wrong hands, and have basically zero impact on all the lawful and beneficial uses of guns. The very fact that the pro-gun ideology is so fervently opposed to it on the grounds of some spooky "abuse" conspiracy is itself evidence that there isn't too much intellectually defensible going on there.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Dissent is not extremism and if it is I'm happy to be an extremist.

This is what I meant by "gun lobby extremism". These are just meaningless platitudes.

This is why I don't trust you with my right to self-defense, because you can't even be trusted to safeguard my right to speech. As soon as I step out of line I'm labeled an extremist and a tool of some nefarious other to be dismissed.

The fact that you have proven, with such crystalline clarity, is that no one but me can ensure my best interests and that others will criminalize me by law or hyperbole for political gain.

You aren't to be trusted. EOD

[DanTex]

57. I don't see how echoing Scalia's views qualifies as "dissent", but regardless...

Notice where this conversation has gone. We used to be discussing costs and benefits. And now you have devolved into nonsense about how I "can't be trusted".

This is because you (or at least the people writing your talking points) know full well that there is no rational argument against things like gun registration. From the point of view of costs and benefits, it's not even close. And anyone remotely familiar with gun policy and violence and other nations can see very easily that they are doing things right and we are doing them wrong.

So instead of reason, you fall back into nonsensical hyperbole.

[Walk away]

80. Everything you mention is either highly regulated or illegal.

So I agree with you.....let's do the same for guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. So, you're saying I should be able to walk into a gun store.

Select my brand from the open displays, to what I want, walk to the counter, show my ID to prove I am of age, pay and leave.

Deal.

[Walk away]

106. Why...only a fool would compare guns with whiskey etc....

I was being sarcastic because I was replying to a post using the same old NRA arguments. You know, like..."more people have died in traffic accidents than in nuclear explosions so why can't we all have a license to own an atomic bomb".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. But alcohol does underlie substantial amounts of crime and disease.

Your nuclear bomb analogy -- like its every other absurd application -- assumes someone would want to destroy an entire city in every application of self-defense. Only the un-serious would suggest such a thing. But the damage of alcohol is real and prolific.

[MillennialDem]

54. Repellent factor, reschemmellent factor

There are more people killed by unjustified homicide, suicide, and accidents with guns FAR more than justifiable homicide. There are far more people injured by gunfire because of assault, failed suicide, and accidents than there are "bad guys" injured by gunfire. There are far more people threatened or scared off by a "bad guy with a gun" than there are "bad guys scared off because of a good guy with a gun".

[onehandle]

10. That's why I always carry my backpack nuke with kill switch.

And clearly you ignored the article.

[DanTex]

12. Umm, the point being that you aren't actually safer...

[safeinOhio]

21. If she wants to be safe and not sorry,

get a dog and an alarm system, secured doors and windows and lots of lights. Way safer and more effective than any gun.

[pipi_k]

37. You must have missed

the video I linked to.

The woman in the video had lots of lights on. Her door was locked. She had a video camera going. Only thing she didn't have was a dog, but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway since the assholes had guns and could have shot the dog.

So the scumbags kicked in her door and were met by a pissed off mom protecting herself and her kids with a bigger gun than what they had.

It's probably the only thing that saved that family from likely certain death.

[safeinOhio]

61. I have no problem with a firearm

as a last line of defense. 9 out of 10 criminals rob the easiest house to rob.

[former9thward]

39. So she must spend thousands to be safe...

Way to put control on women. What if she can't afford all of that? What would YOU have HER do then? What control measure would you put HER under?

[safeinOhio]

62. The same as I'd do for a man.

Just google "cheap home security".

[former9thward]

67. What about the mass of people who live in apartments?

They can't outfit apartments. How do you want to control them?

[DanTex]

68. Yes, what about those people who don't want stray bullets flying around their apartment?

[former9thward]

70. So is your answer is "just take it"?

And if they are still alive then they can report it to the police. Ok... Know where you are coming from.

[DanTex]

71. So your answer is "just take it"?

Just let myself be shot in order to satisfy some teabagger's fantasy of being a gun hero?

Or maybe we should, you know, look at some statistics to determine whether guns do more harm than good. But I understand why you don't want to go down that road...

[safeinOhio]

74. Lots of ways to secure apts.

use the google.
So, you think all those that have no idea about gun safety or suffer from depression need to run out and buy a firearm. How are they going to afford a weapon or the classes needed to handle them safely, let alone long term counseling for their depression? I helped a friend's grand daughter secure her dorm room after she was attacked. The same person tried again a few weeks later. He made so much noise trying to kick in the door that I secured with with 9 three inch screws that others called the campus police and he was caught. If she had defended herself with a gun, not allowed on campus, an all A student would have been kicked out of school and been in jail.

[former9thward]

85. So someone who doesn't want to be raped must be suffering from depression?

Your nine three inch screws are not going to help much outside the room. You want to create victims. I want people to avoid being one.

[DanTex]

98. Someone who thinks a gun will make a real difference is suffering from delusion.

You want to create tens of thousands of needless deaths just so some deluded individuals can give themselves a false sense of security. It's so odd that the NRAers are simply blind or totally indifferent to all the actual innocent victims of gun violence, and so obsessed with the infinitesmally rare cases where a gun actually makes a situation better.

[former9thward]

99. "Tens of thousands of needless deaths"

I guess I missed reading about those. NRA must be buying off the media so they won't be reported.

[DanTex]

101. Oh, I don't think you "missed" it. "Avoided" I'd say.

10,000 gun homicides per year. More gun deaths since 1968 than all US casualties in all wars going back to the revolution. Try google.

[former9thward]

102. 10,000 gun homicides because people were defending themselves?

Because that is what this thread is about. It is your statement, you show how its true. Or did you just make it up?

[DanTex]

103. LOL. Goalposts moving.

10,000 gun homicides because of the lack of adequate gun laws.

[former9thward]

104. Your very first post in this sub-thread:

Yes, what about those people who don't want stray bullets flying around their apartment? You stated innocent people were going to die from people defending themselves. You then said I wanted tens of thousands of people to die. You are doing your best to pretend tens of thousands of people are dying because of self-defense. Making it all up as you go along. Standard.

[DanTex]

105. Pretty sure I know what I was talking about. Nice try though.

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. Two questions...

What kind of dog? What's the average response time for an alarm service?

About the dog, I hate to be graphic but if I really want to get in, I wrap a towel around my forearm, give it to the dog, and when it takes hold I'll use it's collar to either choke it to death or beat it against the wall til it's dead. So I suggest a really really BIG NASTY breed. Hope you don't have kids or family with kids. Dogs aren't quite the safety net everyone thinks they are.

[Lasher]

109. If you have a dog you are taking away my freedom from irrational fear of being bitten.

I'm afraid your dog might bite me, so you shouldn't be allowed to have a dog. In places where no dogs are present, the number of dog bites is dramatically lower. This proves that you are not safer if you have a dog.

[gcomeau]

41. But not better "false sense of safety" than "shot"

Or do you not understand the results of all these studies? Having all these guns in these homes *is not making the people with them safer*. It is creating a false sense of security while increasing their odds of being victims of gun violence, either through unnecessary escalation of a less serious situation, or accidental shooting, or having someone who knows they have the gun grabbing it and using it against them, or having a deadly firearm close at hand when some bout of depression comes on...


And anecdotal references to "but, but, there was this one lady who totally used her gun to protect herself!" doesn't change the facts on the ground.

[Thor_MN]

3. The NRA doesn't consider suicide or accidental shooting to be violence.

Only planned murder counts in their books, because it's the smallest number. All other forms of harm by firearm don't fit their goal to sell more weapons, so they have to be tossed into the binary thinking hole. Conservatives have no problems with totally illogical concepts. All you have to do is change a definition in our mind and then continue to spout inane "facts".

[LWolf]

4. Anecdotal:

Both of my former husbands were gun owners. The second husband kept them unloaded, locked up in the garage, with ammo locked separately. He didn't consider shooting a sport; we lived rurally, and it was there in case there was ever a need to send a strong message to coyotes or the rare mountain lion. There never was; our fences held against coyotes, and the lions stayed a bit further out.

The first husband, though, liked guns and target shooting and hunting. We never had the money, thankfully, for him to have his own gun. It's a good thing. I also liked substance abuse, and became abusive under the influence. Once his friend drove in from out of town, with his gun, which he stored in our closet. I voiced opposition; I had 2 young kids in the house. They condescended to put it "up high" on the closet shelf. Then they went out. They ended up at a neighbors, getting blasted, and the friend stayed there. The husband came home ready to fight, as he always did after drinking. I wasn't going to fight; I knew better. I decided to leave. He got the gun, pointed it at me, and told me I was going to "stay right there, or else our boys will be motherless."

I stayed right there. When he passed out, I called the neighbor and demanded that the friend come get his gun. He did. He also said, "If you just wouldn't argue with him he wouldn't act like this."

No. Having a gun in the house did not make me safer. Neither did being married to the abuser; I made it out when he was sober.

Now I'm in my 50s, still live rurally, live alone, and I still don't have a gun. Yet I don't live in fear. I'm safe.

[LWolf]

13. Did you read it?

The first husband was the abuser...and the father of those kids. And I left. When he was sober. It was the safe way to leave.

The 2nd husband WAS a responsible gun owner, so yes, I obviously realize that not every gun owner is irresponsible. Enough are, though, that way too many people are unnecessarily injured and killed every year. Since I still live rurally, surrounded by gun owners, I am quite familiar with rural gun culture. Most of my middle-school students have guns in their homes and know how to shoot them. Thankfully, the student who shot himself in the leg cleaning one of those guns this summer survived.

The OP was about whether or not having a gun in the house makes women safer or not. I'm a woman. I've lived with guns, and I've lived without them. I've been safer without them.

[Tumbulu]

108. I am a rural woman as well

I lost 51 sheep to a coyote 2 years ago and almost bought a shotgun, but got a paintball gun instead and guardian dogs.

I do not feel safe with a real firearm in the house.

[LWolf]

110. That's a lot of sheep.

Around here, I see guardian dogs out with flocks (herds?) of alpacas, and sometimes llamas out to guard sheep. The paintball gun is a good idea. My youngest son lobbied for a few years to set up a paintball "range" in my front pasture for he and my grandson; I said no because I worried that their aim wouldn't keep the paint inside the pasture, and I didn't want everything in living color.

[Gormy Cuss]

42. "made the choice to marry an abuser..."?

Are you for real?

[pipi_k]

5. Well, here's one

instance in which it did make her (and her kids) safer...


(video of armed home invasion)


http://www.wxyz.com/news/mom-opens-fire-on-home-invaders-in-detroit-to-defend-children

[Eleanors38]

28. Rumor has it there are a lot more videos like this. We should see more for educational purposes...

One should note the HyperPunk who had to go back for a little more. I don't think anyone wants that kind of skidmark breaking in to a house: He has a LOT more on his mind than your dumb iPhone.

NOTE: Doors locked, video cameras installed, and still the stink wants in do do his bidness.

[pipi_k]

30. I was glad to see

that there was a video available in case the woman ended up injuring or killing one of those shitstains.

And imagine the absolute insanity of that last kid picking up the gun he dropped and attempting to go back inside!

He was lucky he didn't get shot. She was either a bad aim, or she purposely didn't kill him.

and yes...I agree...they weren't after an iPhone.

She and her kids could have ended up dead.

[gcomeau]

43. Anecdotes are not a valid counter...

...to rigorous statistical analysis.

[G_j]

44. and global warming is a lie

because it's cold and snowing outside..

[KG]

6. The NRA Is Wrong.

nuff said.

[SheilaT]

7. The simple fact is that the presence of guns

in the house vastly increases the likelihood that someone, or several someones in that house will die by those guns. Safer? Really?

With all due respect to the genuinely sensible and responsible gun owners out there and here on DU, every single day far too many people die from guns just because some toddler or young kid got ahold of a gun in the house and pulled the trigger. It's a pleasant fantasy that guns make you safer. No, make that an unpleasant fantasy.

[Eleanors38]

23. Respectfully, the rate of childhood death-by-gun has been going down for years...

and accounts for fewer deaths than drowning and electrocution. In fact, that particular rate is falling faster than other causes of childhood accident rates.

The best way to keep children safe from gun accidents in the home are:

1) Safely securing arms when children are at home (done by millions everyday);
2) Instruct children in the safe handling/use of firearms.

[geek tragedy]

27. you forgot (3): don't keep guns in the household nt

[Eleanors38]

64. I'm not a prohibitionist, and I support the Constitution. How 'bout yourself? nt

[geek tragedy]

65. I believe one can support the constitution without owning firearms. nt

[Eleanors38]

75. You are free to make that Individual choice. For yourself. nt

[SheilaT]

52. It is very nice that the rate is going down,

but it's still shockingly high.

A few months ago someone here was posting a weekly --or was it a daily? -- summary of children under the age of 18 shot with guns. Every single day. And I'm am sincerely glad that millions of gun owners are responsible, but thousands, maybe millions more, are not.

[Eleanors38]

63. The childhood deaths by gun accidents are indeed going down fast...

Your take on some other data includes homicides & suicides as well, and has a very liberal definition of "children." The National Safety Council has a pretty liberal one as well, even if it is under 15.

There is a concerted campaign to secure guns safely at home. And it appears to be working.

[SheilaT]

72. I'm so glad they are going down.

Except that those deaths are still vastly greater than they should be.

No other first world country has the kind of gun ownership and gun deaths that this country does. I do not understand those who think all those deaths (not to mention injuries and maimings) are somehow acceptable. I don't.

[Eleanors38]

73. Accidental or intentional deaths by any means are unacceptable...

I don't know anyone who thinks that, do you?

But cries for meaningless bans, prohibitions, laws, and measures which don't even come close to defining (let alone solving) a problem will get us no where. Currently, there are efforts to convince the gun-owning public to implement and improve gun security at home. You read them frequently in major outdoors (and other) magazines. Frankly, I would like to see an expansion of these ads to network T.V.

I wonder how many here would support such an expansion of this campaign.

[geckosfeet]

11. And water is wet.

Given the choice to be armed of not I will choose to arm myself. I am not a woman but think that everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they should be armed or not.

Thanks for the statistics.

[Recursion]

14. True. The single biggest risk factor with guns is suicide

It outweighs everything else.

If we aren't addressing that, we aren't addressing the problem.

[DanTex]

15. Living in a home with a gun also increases risk of being a homicide victim.

As does living in a state or county with a lot of gun owners.

[Recursion]

16. Both true, both completely overshadowed by the suicide risk (nt)

[DanTex]

17. I don't know if 2X is "completely overshadowed"

The one thing that is truly "completely overshadowed" is the minute possibility of using a gun in self-defense to protect oneself from what otherwise would have been a homicide or serious violent crime.

[Recursion]

18. I'm an engineer; to me that's "completely overshadowed"

To a social scientist it may not be. It's certainly the biggest risk by a large factor.

[pipi_k]

35. OK, I hear that a lot but

always wonder just how having a gun in the home increases the risk of being a homicide victim.

Is it just family on family violence?

Or does it include homicide by stranger...as in, stranger breaks in and grabs the gun from the homeowner's hands. Because here's the deal...if someone is breaking into my home, I'm not getting close enough for that person to grab my gun. I'm on the other side of the room yelling at him to stay where he is or I'll fire. First, at his feet/lower legs...

[DanTex]

38. It is primarily family on family violence -- "intimate homicide" I believe is the term.

I don't recall the exact definition of "intimate", but basically it refers to family members or people who live in the same home. The risk of being killed by an intruder doesn't change much in either direction IIRC.

[LAGC]

58. Don't you think its kind of ingenuous lumping domestic violence in with self-defense

against intruders?

I mean, I'm sure we could come up with studies that show that co-habitating or married women living with men under the same roof are at higher risk of violence or death (regardless of weapon), just because some of their "significant others" happen to be abusers.

It would be interesting if one of these studies surveyed SINGLE women, living alone, and whether or not they are more at risk from a firearm being in the house or not.

I'm thinking there would be drastically different results.

[DanTex]

60. Most homicides that occur in a home are disputes between family or intimate acquaintances.

Although people tend to think of the biggest risk being intruders, most homicides in a home are committed by people who have access to the home. So excluding intimate homicides would mean excluding the largest group of homicides that occur in a home.

Also living alone doesn't mean that you aren't at risk of intimate homicide. In fact, IIRC, people living alone are actually at greater risk of homicide in their homes than people who live with others.

The "lumping together" is because studies like this aim to determine the net change in risk. So they look at outcomes: does a gun make the outcome of being a homicide victim more or less likely. That takes into account both potential benefits (i.e. self-defense would make it less likely) as well as costs.

I'm sure if you narrow it down enough, you might find some small group of people who benefit statistically from owning a gun. Although I doubt that single women who live alone would be that group. And I'm pretty confident that the results wouldn't be drastically different.

There is basically no statistical evidence anywhere of a safety benefit from owning or carrying a gun. The closest thing is phone surveys that ask people on the phone whether they've defended themselves. But attempts to actually verify whether owning a gun improves safety have all, to my knowledge, either found no result or found that owning a gun increases risk. So, it's doubtful that there's some huge safety benefit out there that has somehow slipped through the cracks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. My body, my choice n/t

[chompers]

22. Oh no you didn't!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I did and I will -- again and again and again until

the message is received, understood and accepted.

[Eleanors38]

25. No! Some benevolent men & women will decide for you...

But this old goat doesn't give a hoot how you handle your self-defense decisions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. The apparent message od some is I have no choice until AFTER an assault

So it seems women are expected to "put-out" first.

[Eleanors38]

66. Just throw that hard-bound book on crappy stats at "your" assailant! Works just fine.

[FarCenter]

31. "God did not make men equal; Samuel Colt did."

[bkanderson76]

34. "The one thing a violent rapist desrves to face"....is

A good husband...in a locked room....for about thirty minutes. In some cases, maybe fifteen will do.

[Ticktock]

53. Completely disagree

We arent living in the 40s anymore. Some women dont have husbands or have wives and its telling that you think a husband's revenge after his wife was raped is an acceptable outcome. Know whats a better outcome? The rapist six feet below the ground and the woman never having been raped. At minimum that woman should have the possibility of defending herself and the choice to assume the risk and burden of carrying a firearm.

Police are there to prevent a rape or to investigate a rape. Everything that happens between preventing and investigating occurs during the event.

I fully support a woman's right to make her own choice to defend herself and to use lethal force to defend herself from forcible rape. Personally I think its ridiculous to suggest taking away that right under the guise of preventing suicides or firearms accidents.

[Sancho]

56. People Control (not gun control)

This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think should the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonably way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a renewable license.
2.) To get a license, they should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home.
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability policy insurance policy specifically for gun ownership and the activities you expect to do - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go or give your gun back (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) outside of home or when transporting it to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) All guns should be registered. If you buy, sell, give away, inherit, or the gun changes hands by any other transaction, the registration should be recorded. Ammunition should be tagged. Guns should be traceable to people in any shooting or crime.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, forget the gun is in your pocket at the airport, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process (if ever).

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense or emotional control pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[SecularMotion]

59. I agree with your entire list

especially gun liability insurance and a higher threshold to qualify for public carry than basic home defense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. We'll call it the "Rapist and Stalker Protection Act of 2014"

[Sancho]

82. For normal people...a serious license makes sense...has nothing to do with protection.

If you think that protection from rapists is more of a problem than all the crazy shooters and shooting, you've been under a rock. There are many ways to avoid being raped and stalked besides carrying a gun in your purse. I would think a gun fight would be a rare occasion and the last way to defend yourself, and that is proven in the studies that started this thread.

Any person wanting to safely keep a gun should be able to do so. Those who want to have a wild west shootout and allow any body have unlimited access to guns simply doesn't have a grip on reality.

I didn't put any restriction on the 2nd amendment unless you should not reasonably or safely have a gun. Licensing should restrict people who shouldn't have guns from having them.

You can be sarcastic all you want, but blind adherence to unrestricted proliferation of weapons is not working.

Here in Florida, we need a protection act for texting in a theater, skate boarding in a park, going to the 711 for skittles, ordering pizza, changing lanes on the highway, playing loud music, etc., etc.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. We don't license essential human rights and we don't treat people

exercising their rights as de facto suspects in pre-crime investigations.

You can be sarcastic all you want, but blind adherence to unrestricted proliferation of weapons is not working.

It's not harming either. Gun ownership is up, violent crime is down and no "wild west" shoot-outs either.

we need a protection act for texting in a theater

The killer was an ex-cop. What exactly would your law have done?

[Sancho]

93. There are plenty of protections in society that balance "human rights"

but I'm not treating anyone as a suspect. Your right to privacy is restricted when you are searched in order to get on a plane! The examples are numerous. A license is not treating anyone as a suspect.

You should not be driving if you are a child, can't see where you are going, etc. You shouldn't endanger others.
We also have speed limits, required insurance, etc. There are a million protections in law.

That killer cop may have been senile or having personality issues. Just like everyone else, he should have been emotionally safe to carry a gun, and he obviously wasn't. Maybe someone would have taken his gun before he lost his temper over a movie preview. Maybe if his gun was locked in his car, he wouldn't have shot a regular working parent of a little girl.

With more guns in Florida, more shootings by unsafe people is continuing, and I think it's way past time to make sure that people with guns have a tiny little bit of training and checking them out before they can head out with a weapon. A license is the easiest way to do that.

A license would not stop all shootings and it would not prevent a law-abiding person from having a gun. It would just keep the most dangerous from possessing guns and save some lives.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. "It would just keep the most dangerous from possessing guns and save some lives."

Like who? The "most dangerous" are career criminals and cops. In fact, you're 3 times more likely to be murdered by a cop than a CC permit holder.

[badtoworse]

79. No way; these are far too restrictive.

[Sancho]

83. no more restrictive than driving a car....

[beevul]

86. Far far different that driving a car.

Because you're proposing a license to OWN, not a license to "use in public".

There is no license to own a car.


Apples and oranges.

[frylock]

92. why buy a gun if you have no intention of using it?

[beevul]

94. Using it on ones own property or on designated hunting/shooting lands, is NOT the same...

Using it on ones own property or on designated hunting/shooting lands, is NOT the same as public carry.

Public usage and simple fundamental ownership are two different things.

Which one were you referring to?

[badtoworse]

100. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right; driving is a privilege - BIG difference

Your approach is to make exercising your rights so onerous that few people would want to do it and for that reaon, the courts would almost certainly strike it down.

BTW, your proposal would make an excellent NRA fundraiser.

[Ticktock]

81. Horrible

"4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home."

So you advocate sending out 18-21 year olds to foreign lands to risk their lives for America, then bringing them back home and subjecting them to all this insanity only once they've "matured" enough to handle a gun? Ridiculous. Absentminded. Insulting.

"8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) outside of home or when transporting it to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). "

Circumstances: I am a citizen. I have never committed a violent crime or felony. I have the lawful right to keep and bear arms. All lawful purposes are my circumstances. To imply ones requires a "special need" is insulting. Please tell me the all the special circumstances in which you intend to exercise your right of free speech so I can issue you a permit.

"9.) All guns should be registered. If you buy, sell, give away, inherit, or the gun changes hands by any other transaction, the registration should be recorded. Ammunition should be tagged. Guns should be traceable to people in any shooting or crime. "

Tell me again how this will reduce crime? is this about reducing crime or is this about prosecution? Lets make committing a crime illegal...that will solve everything! How about we enforce the laws we have before creating new ones that make no sense.

"Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities."

Most of us also know none of those are explicitly stated as the second most basic right in our constitution.

[Sancho]

84. Absolutely, and I was one who protested that 18 year olds can vote!!!

If you serve in the military and don't have an emotional problem, qualifying for a license would be easy!!!

I don't care if you have committed a crime - you still might not be a stable person who should have a gun (or drive or fly a plane or many other things.) You can have your gun IF you are stable and qualified. Yes, speech is restricted. I'm sure you know that you can't yell "fire" in a crowed theater (unless there is a fire).

Registering transactions would immediately reduce crime. Check out some other countries. Why would you care? Your tag is recorded now at every toll booth, your credit card is tracked at every purchase. We are NOT enforcing laws now because no one is tracking the sale of guns!! You just made my point.

This is not a restriction on the 2nd amendment. It's simply a restriction on criminals, emotionally and mentally unstable folks, children, untrained and unsafe people, and on safe handling of a dangerous object. You can have a 50 cal machine gun for all I care - as long as you can prove that you know what you are doing, you are stable, and your weapon is safely secure.

[Ticktock]

87. Theme

Show me how registering a transaction or knowing who last owned a gun has any bearing on reducing future crimes. Citing the general loss of privacy as a reason to not worry about more loss of privacy is laughable. I care because I care.

[beevul]

88. Uh huh.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a renewable license.

Licensing a right...the constitution says no.

2.) To get a license, they should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home.

See above.

"5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability policy insurance policy specifically for gun ownership and the activities you expect to do - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance."

Sounds like red tape and a gift to big insurance, to me.

"6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period."

See response to your bullet point number 1.

7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go or give your gun back (just like a DUI).

Yes. Possessing an inanimate object, is exactly like menacing the public by driving under the influence.

9.) All guns should be registered. If you buy, sell, give away, inherit, or the gun changes hands by any other transaction, the registration should be recorded. Ammunition should be tagged. Guns should be traceable to people in any shooting or crime.

Why? What "problem" will gun registration solve and how will it solve that problem? How will you deal with the fact that convicted criminals are constitutionally protected from having to register their?

Most of you know that a license is no big deal.

Placing a license on a constitutionally protected right is a VERY big deal.

Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities.

Does one need a license to OWN fishing equipment, a boat, scuba gear?

What I decide to own, is not subject to your logic.

You sure you haven't been reading an anti-gun wish list somewhere? Because that's what your whole post reads like.

[liberal N proud]

76. But that does not sell more guns

[badtoworse]

78. Is there any reason why women shouldn't be able to decide for themselves?

Everyone's situation is different and women are smart enough to weigh the pros and cons and make up their own mind.

[LittleBlue]

89. Suicide again?

See, I want to like the gun control debate. It just seems disingenuous to include suicides in gun violence statistics.