Dangerous Gun Myths (Gayle Trotter gun kookery)

[jpak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html?_r=0

The debate over what to do to reduce gun violence in America hit an absurd low point on Wednesday when a Senate witness tried to portray a proposed new ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines as some sort of sexist plot that would disproportionately hurt vulnerable women and their children.

The witness was Gayle Trotter, a fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the limits on firepower proposed by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, would harm women because an assault weapon “in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon.” She spoke of the “peace of mind” and “courage” a woman derives from “knowing she has a scary-looking gun” when she’s fighting violent criminals.

It is not at all clear where Ms. Trotter gained her insight into confrontations between women and heavily armed intruders, since it is not at all clear that sort of thing happens often. It is tempting to dismiss her notion that an AR-15 is a woman’s best friend as the kooky reflex response of someone ideologically opposed to gun control laws and who, in her case, has also been a vociferous opponent of the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law that assists women facing domestic violence.

But it is important to note that Ms. Trotter was chosen to testify by the committee’s Republican members, who will have a big say on what, if anything, Congress does on guns; and that her appearance before the committee was to give voice to the premise, however insupportable and dangerous it may be, that guns make women and children safer — and the more powerful the guns the better.

<more>

[gejohnston]

1. an NYT op ed published by

one of the few people who have an NYC CCW. An opinion piece using Hemway and MAIG as evidence. Not very impressive. Is there any reason why we should take op eds seriously?

[Thinkingabout]

2. Gayle Trotter was exposed on O'Donnell, the lady defended herself with a shotgun

O'DONNELL ask her of any incidents where a woman protected herself and children with assault weapon and she did not have one. The woman protected herself with a sensible shotgun and this is what sensible people do to protect themselves.

[gejohnston]

3. what is a "sensible shotgun"

sensible people use what is available. Since no one keeps such statistics, just because she couldn't think of one doesn't mean it doesn't happen. LO would know that. A quick search can show people using SKSs AK variants, etc.
BTW, would a defending her home and kids with a semi auto carbine with a wooden stock be "sensible"?

[jimmy the one]

4. AR Bushmaster aka Anal Retentive BloodMaster

johnston: .. what is a "sensible shotgun" sensible people use what is available.

There are dozens of 'sensible' models to choose from, that don't qualify as assault rifles. Cheaper too, more wieldly inside a home too, less likely to injure others in adjacent rooms too, less likely to get stolen (perhaps) too, more easy to load too. By your own logic there's no need for an assault rifle to defend screaming babies in the LR background.

johnston: an NYT op ed published by one of the few people who have an NYC CCW. An opinion piece using Hemway and MAIG as evidence. Not very impressive. Is there any reason why we should take op eds seriously?

Unless it's a pro gun op ed written by john lott or a gun guru, eh? your bias is showing.
David Hemenway is far more qualified to speak on it than Alan Dershowitz, and David has never created a fake screen name like john lott did to praise his own books.

link: The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.
In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.

[jpak]

5. Anal Retentive BloodMaster - Now with a 30 round Douchebag!

yup

[guardian]

22. a better name for the gun would be

the antigunner pants wetter

yup

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. Does the 1A only apply to "sensible" opinions? n/t

[gejohnston]

7. what is your obsession with Lott?

There are dozens of 'sensible' models to choose from, that don't qualify as assault rifles. Cheaper too, more wieldly inside a home too, less likely to injure others in adjacent rooms too, less likely to get stolen (perhaps) too, more easy to load too. By your own logic there's no need for an assault rifle to defend screaming babies in the LR background.

assault rifles are full auto so your point completely fails. I fail to see your point, since ARs are very easy to load. Much easier than a pump shotgun. You have said nothing accurate.

johnston: an NYT op ed published by one of the few people who have an NYC CCW. An opinion piece using Hemway and MAIG as evidence. Not very impressive. Is there any reason why we should take op eds seriously?

Unless it's a pro gun op ed written by john lott or a gun guru, eh? your bias is showing.
David Hemenway is far more qualified to speak on it than Alan Dershowitz, and David has never created a fake screen name like john lott did to praise his own books.

link: The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.
In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.

I don't know about that, but Hemenway is funded by gun control groups. I have never seen Lott write an op ed. BTW Hemenway doesn't have to because no one actually reads his studies since they are published by his in house organ. The press releases do get a lot of mileage in op eds.

Bit of a strawman since I have never quoted Lott.

[Thinkingabout]

8. If Gayle Trotter had an example of a woman protecting her family

With an assault weapon you could bet the NRA would have furnished her with the details before she testified at the Congressional hearing and not one in which a shotgun was used. Don't bring your troll attitude, it does not fit well after 20 innocent American children was attacked, it may not mean anything to you but it does to many others. We need to be sensible, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!

[gejohnston]

9. look up the definition of the word troll

disagreeing on one issue is not disruption.
sensible is nice glittering generality.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

[spin]

10. Often the type of firearm used for self defense is not mentioned in a news article. ...

However a quick search on Google will reveal reports in which a male used an assault style rifle to stop a home invasion.

For example:
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/17595261/police-shooting-of-home-intruder-was-self-defense

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/mar/15/police-armed-burglar-shot-resident/

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=17278

http://www.independent.com/news/2012/apr/11/homeowner-shoots-pedregosa-street-prowler/?on

While I could not find any stories of a woman using this style weapon for self defense I can see no reason why one would not be effective for the task. For example an AR-15 has very little recoil, far less than a 12 gauge shotgun.

I do know one anecdotal story about a young woman using an assault style rifle to stop a home invader. The incident occurred in the 1970s and I was told about it by the girl's father who was a gun store owner. His daughter who was in her late teens was alone one night when an intruder tried to break down the front door to the house. She yelled at intruder to stop as she was armed but he continued to try to smash the door down. She had an M1 carbine in her hands and emptied 30 rounds thorough the door. She didn't kill the attacker but there was some blood on the outside steps so she did manage to injure him.

The father was upset because she didn't wait until the intruder was inside the home before she opened fire. She could have faced charges.

The biggest drawback I can see to using any rifle for self defense is that it could endanger your neighbors in an urban environment. It might be a better choice for home defense in a rural setting.

[Thinkingabout]

11. As I have stated "sensible", and control, to shoot wildly and kill or

Injure innocent should be in anyone's plan anytime a weapon is fired. Weapons of war are designed to do lots of damage and all the more reason they should be in the possession of military and law enforcement.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. Well, glad the AR-15's not a weapon of war, then.

[Thinkingabout]

14. Dream on, even Rip Van Winkle awoke after

40 years, maybe the rest will soon wake up also. Enjoy your birdshot.

[spin]

16. While I can see how an assault style rifle might be a good choice for self defense ....

in a rural environment, I don't own one. Living inside a small town I rely on a 5 shot S&W revolver and a 12 gauge coach gun. If a whole bunch of guys break into my home I may be at a significant disadvantage but I doubt that I will ever have a home invasion by one person let alone several. Just about every adult in my town has at least one firearm. Around here if you leave something valuable outside there is a good chance it will disappear but home break-ins are rare and incidents of home invasions in an occupied home are extremely rare.

I have never owned a weapon with a magazine capacity that exceeded ten rounds. I'm not a person who believes that if I am attacked I should, "fill the air with lead and pray."

Hi-cap magazines on handguns became popular when the 9mm pistols such as the Glock started to outsell the older .45 ACP pistols like the 1911 Colt models. For years the Colt .45 ACP pistol had a reputation as an "man stopper" but the 9mm was considered to be an underpowered round that took two hits to be as effective as one .45 CAP round. The biggest drawback to the Colt .45 ACP was its heavier recoil.

Standard magazines for the .45 CAP hold 7 or 8 rounds while a Glock 17 magazine holds 17 rounds. Many shooters felt having twice the number of rounds in the magazine offset the lower power of the 9 mm round. Glock pistols were also more reliable than the older Colt pistols.

[sylvi]

18. You don't think a shotgun can do lots of damage?

Have you ever seen a crime scene where a shotgun was used to kill multiple victims?

[ileus]

13. My wife loves her AR-15

What I'd really like is a SBR'd and suppressed AR in 300blk for HD and short range hunting, and general plinking with the family.

[ArmySoldier]

15. BIG 5

A women goes to a Big 5 store to buy a gun to have in her house for protection. The sales clerk behind the counter has been to classes and seminars to help him/her make a gun sale. They and many other gun stores sell large shotguns with big muzzles because the feeling behind it is that the bigger the gun the more intimidating it would be when pointed at an intruder. With the media today making the "Assault Rifle" seem scary and more deadly than a shotgun so why is it so absurd to think that "Assault Rifles" in the hands of anyone would be scary to an intruder?



Fear comes from a place of no understanding-

[spin]

17. All this publicity about the AR-15 style rifles is probably also why shooters with severe mental ...

issues chose them to massacre large numbers of people.

When you add the fact that any large scale massacre gets 24/7 attention on the cable news channels for a week or more than you can see why a mentally disturbed person might decide to gain fame by going to school or a theater to murder.

Perhaps we could reduce these terrible tragedies by stopping the glorification of such killers by portraying them as antiheroes and giving them so much coverage. It might be more responsible for the news media to cover the story for a few days and then to give hourly updates on new information and devote a couple of hours every day on the talk shows to discussing the story rather than repeat the same old information over and over and over.

Anderson Cooper had a policy of not mentioning the name of the shooter in the Colorado theater massacre after the first few days. I think that was wise as it may be less inspiring to a copy cat shooter if he feels that few people will remember his name if he decides to run amok.

Of course I realize that focusing attention on the recent tragedies has led to the current proposed gun control legislation. Media coverage has mobilized a grass roots effort that will help to make a difference in the future of gun control.

Currently the new Assault Weapons Ban faces a long and hard road in Congress and likely will not pass the Senate let alone the House. Several more massacres might enable this legislation to pass but I'm sure that no rational individual would ever hope for this. Our efforts should be to reduce such incidents and never to encourage them.

I feel you can make an entertaining action film that doesn't involve the killing of dozens and dozens of people. It is also possible to cover a news story and find some good people who were heroic and give them as much attention as the shooter. Why is it that we never remember the names of a cop who stopped a shooter or the civilian that rushed and disarmed him when the shooter's gun jammed or he was reloading?

All too often I feel that the Hollywood media uses unrealistic violence to promote profit and the news media excessively covers a story as it increases ratings. I value the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights even more than the Second but both require great personal responsibility when used.

edited to add:
Welcome to DU.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. They quote the Kellerman study which has been debunked. N/T