Should every woman have a gun?

[Papait]

when you use it for self defence or hunting your sole purpose is to kill.
either to kill somebody who may or may not pose a threat to you or when hunting to kill an animal. Guns were made to kill. You cannot possibly claim anything else, all guns are meant to kill, but some people may use them for other things but its core remains the same

In self defense, the purpose is not to kill but to end and attack. If the attacker is killed in the process, that is merely collateral damage.

Not all guns are meant to kill. Target pistols and rifles for instance.

In any event, not all killing is wrong. Killing for food is not wrong. Killing in self defense is not wrong.

Edit: and I specifically said Homicide, not killing. There is a difference.

But the problem is that we don't just fear homocide, many times guns cause innocents to die is not homocide.
It's accidents while handling the gun, mistaking somebody for an attacker (like with Pistorius) or somebody to feel threathened while stressed. Guns can pose a big threat to the user and may never be used by civilians for anything else than target practice.

or in rare cases rebellion(saying this for future reference if I ever state my support for rebellion), but then it is used for killing as well, but in a millitary role

[T Roosevelt]

In self defense, the purpose is not to kill but to end and attack. If the attacker is killed in the process, that is merely collateral damage.

Not all guns are meant to kill. Target pistols and rifles for instance.

In any event, not all killing is wrong. Killing for food is not wrong. Killing in self defense is not wrong.

Edit: and I specifically said Homicide, not killing. There is a difference.

But the problem is that we don't just fear homocide, many times guns cause innocents to die is not homocide.
It's accidents while handling the gun, mistaking somebody for an attacker (like with Pistorius) or somebody to feel threathened while stressed. Guns can pose a big threat to the user and may never be used by civilians for anything else than target practice.

or in rare cases rebellion(saying this for future reference if I ever state my support for rebellion), but then it is used for killing as well, but in a millitary role

Rare accidents shouldn't even be notable when they aren't consistent issues.

[Terraguerra]

I've stirred up a wee bit of a storm haven't I? Anyways, firearms are a tool. A tool designed, specifically, for the job of homicide. Point is, firearms don't save lives. When man A shoots man B, because man B is a burglar, man A just risked killing a man. For future reference, those nations drawing objection to my anti-gun standpoint on the grounds of "self defence", one should remember that not too long ago, an unarmed brown child with no malicious intent was shot killed in "self defence", was George Zimmerman acting in "self defence" when he did that. The answer is: he wasn't. He commited murder.

[WestRedMaple]

I've stirred up a wee bit of a storm haven't I? Anyways, firearms are a tool. A tool designed, specifically, for the job of homicide. Point is, firearms don't save lives. When man A shoots man B, because man B is a burglar, man A just risked killing a man. For future reference, those nations drawing objection to my anti-gun standpoint on the grounds of "self defence", one should remember that not too long ago, an unarmed brown child with no malicious intent was shot killed in "self defence", was George Zimmerman acting in "self defence" when he did that. The answer is: he wasn't. He commited murder.

Obviously there are many situations where firearms do allow lives to be saved. Even in a situation like what you seem to be thinking about, a life (or more) is saved. That another life ended doesn't change that.

I didn't know that you witnessed the Martin/Zimmerman shooting. Why didn't you testify?

[WestRedMaple]

Absolutely. If they choose to for self defense.

Every human being has an inherent right to self defense, and firearms ensure that a 120 lb woman can protect herself from a 200 lb rapist.

Every human has a right to shelter, food, education and sanitary. And in a certain sense to self defence but not to carry a gun, we made the social contract where we give up our right to act with violence to the ggovernment for our own safety. This includes firearms.

You may have given that up, but that is irrelevant for those of us who did not

[Big Jim P]

I've stirred up a wee bit of a storm haven't I? Anyways, firearms are a tool. A tool designed, specifically, for the job of homicide. Point is, firearms don't save lives. When man A shoots man B, because man B is a burglar, man A just risked killing a man. For future reference, those nations drawing objection to my anti-gun standpoint on the grounds of "self defence", one should remember that not too long ago, an unarmed brown child with no malicious intent was shot killed in "self defence", was George Zimmerman acting in "self defence" when he did that. The answer is: he wasn't. He commited murder.

And not too long before that, a woman in Georgia save her and her daughters life with a gun.

[Big Jim P]

Every human has a right to shelter, food, education and sanitary. And in a certain sense to self defence but not to carry a gun, we made the social contract where we give up our right to act with violence to the ggovernment for our own safety. This includes firearms.

You may have given that up, but that is irrelevant for those of us who did not

Indeed. Just because someone chooses to give up a right is no reason for them to take away anyone elses right to make that decision by forcing them to conform to their choice.

[Mavorpen]

I've stirred up a wee bit of a storm haven't I? Anyways, firearms are a tool. A tool designed, specifically, for the job of homicide. Point is, firearms don't save lives. When man A shoots man B, because man B is a burglar, man A just risked killing a man. For future reference, those nations drawing objection to my anti-gun standpoint on the grounds of "self defence", one should remember that not too long ago, an unarmed brown child with no malicious intent was shot killed in "self defence", was George Zimmerman acting in "self defence" when he did that. The answer is: he wasn't. He commited murder.

This is not a reason to deny people who want to have a gun for self defense to have said gun. I can understand making the argument that it's in their best interest to not do so, especially women, as you're more likely to die from owning a firearm. But that is utterly no reason to take away their right to own a firearm as peaceful citizens.

[Big Jim P]

In self defense, the purpose is not to kill but to end and attack. If the attacker is killed in the process, that is merely collateral damage.

Not all guns are meant to kill. Target pistols and rifles for instance.

In any event, not all killing is wrong. Killing for food is not wrong. Killing in self defense is not wrong.

Edit: and I specifically said Homicide, not killing. There is a difference.

But the problem is that we don't just fear homocide, many times guns cause innocents to die is not homocide.
It's accidents while handling the gun, mistaking somebody for an attacker (like with Pistorius) or somebody to feel threathened while stressed. Guns can pose a big threat to the user and may never be used by civilians for anything else than target practice.

or in rare cases rebellion(saying this for future reference if I ever state my support for rebellion), but then it is used for killing as well, but in a millitary role

Those extremely rare occurrences are far outweighed by the benefits of gun ownership.

[Nadkor]

I'm really pleased and surprised to see that this has become Just Another Gun Control Thread.

Really.

[Big Jim P]

I've stirred up a wee bit of a storm haven't I? Anyways, firearms are a tool. A tool designed, specifically, for the job of homicide. Point is, firearms don't save lives. When man A shoots man B, because man B is a burglar, man A just risked killing a man. For future reference, those nations drawing objection to my anti-gun standpoint on the grounds of "self defence", one should remember that not too long ago, an unarmed brown child with no malicious intent was shot killed in "self defence", was George Zimmerman acting in "self defence" when he did that. The answer is: he wasn't. He commited murder.

This is not a reason to deny people who want to have a gun for self defense to have said gun. I can understand making the argument that it's in their best interest to not do so, especially women, as you're more likely to die from owning a firearm. But that is utterly no reason to take away their right to own a firearm as peaceful citizens.

Considering the number of guns in circulation compared to the number of deaths caused by guns, you are NOT more likely to die from owning a firearm.

[Jiggistan]

If every man should be able to have a gun, then every woman should too

[Galloism]

I'm really pleased and surprised to see that this has become Just Another Gun Control Thread.

Really.

Well, given the extremely sexist premise of the OP, it's better a gun control thread than a sexism thread.

[Big Jim P]

I'm really pleased and surprised to see that this has become Just Another Gun Control Thread.

Really.

It started out as one. Just a gender-specific one.

[Olerand]

Sometimes, I think of what it would be like to go to America and enjoy the socio-political debate there, just for shits and giggles.

But then I see things like this and I realize how fortunate we are, living in saner societies.

[Mavorpen]

This is not a reason to deny people who want to have a gun for self defense to have said gun. I can understand making the argument that it's in their best interest to not do so, especially women, as you're more likely to die from owning a firearm. But that is utterly no reason to take away their right to own a firearm as peaceful citizens.

Considering the number of guns in circulation compared to the number of deaths caused by guns, you are NOT more likely to die from owning a firearm.

...I don't see what that has to do with what I posted. Owning a gun, does, in fact, increase the chances of dying via violent death.

Edit: Actually, I could have probably worded my initial post better. My bad.

[Big Jim P]

If every man should be able to have a gun, then every woman should too

Most people should be able to. No one should be forced to.

[Big Jim P]

Considering the number of guns in circulation compared to the number of deaths caused by guns, you are NOT more likely to die from owning a firearm.

...I don't see what that has to do with what I posted. Owning a gun, does, in fact, increase the chances of dying via violent death.

Yes, and car owners are more likely to die in a car accident that non car owners. You point is irrelevant at best.

[Mavorpen]

...I don't see what that has to do with what I posted. Owning a gun, does, in fact, increase the chances of dying via violent death.

Yes, and car owners are more likely to die in a car accident that non car owners. You point is irrelevant at best.

Only if you completely ignore the context in which it was stated.

[Longweather]

I say every woman should carry an aluminum baseball bat. Doesn't need ammo or much training to use properly.

[Big Jim P]

Yes, and car owners are more likely to die in a car accident that non car owners. You point is irrelevant at best.

Only if you completely ignore the context in which it was stated.

Which requires you to ignore the fact that the numbers don't add up.

[Mavorpen]

Only if you completely ignore the context in which it was stated.

Which requires you to ignore the fact that the numbers don't add up.

Do you have peer reviewed papers to refute the one I posted? Or are you going to seriously expect me to take a mere "the numbers don't add up!" at a face value?

[Nadkor]

I'm really pleased and surprised to see that this has become Just Another Gun Control Thread.

Really.

It started out as one. Just a gender-specific one.

It really didn't, though.

If it was a gender-specific gun control thread it would have been "should any woman have a gun?" not "should every woman have a gun". It's a semantic distinction, but it's an important distinction.

This thread started out as "these things are happening - is arming women the best response?" with "or what else could we do?" very heavily implied.

Now it's a gun control thread.

Which is a shame.

[Nadkor]

Do you have peer reviewed papers to refute the one I posted?

I literally don't know what positions either of you are taking and I really don't care, but god this reminds me why I hate this forum.

To paraphrase Four Lions, it's not Top fucking Trumps.

Edit:

[Big Jim P]

It started out as one. Just a gender-specific one.

It really didn't, though.

If it was a gender-specific gun control thread it would have been "should any woman have a gun?" not "should every woman have a gun". It's a semantic distinction, but it's an important distinction.

This thread started out as "these things are happening - is arming women the best response?" with "or what else could we do?" very heavily implied.

Now it's a gun control thread.

Which is a shame.

good point. As to the original subject then, Not every woman should have a gun. It is sad that we live in a society where women feel sufficiently threatened that the subject comes up at all. However, until we manage to remove the predatory instinct form the species that requires us (women AND men) to consider the need for self defense, then most of us should have the right to choose whether or not to own a gun.