Specious means it sounds plausible but is actually false. Because there are countries where civilians don't own many guns and are not allowed to, we have many test cases to test your hypothesis that a lack of access to guns for women leads to them being victimized by physically more powerful men. As far as I know, this is not the case. Plenty of plausible hypotheses turn out to be false. It must be something else that usually prevents physically powerful men from victimizing women. As for the lynchings. I just don't think that's a serious enough argument to even discuss. It's not a major current societal problem, unless you think that's what cops are doing to black criminals, and you probably don't think that.
I don't think that undermines my point though. The point was that: The contention that it has tried and failed in the US is not true. Strict gun control has not been tried in the US, and it has in other places. So I disagreed with who I was responding to. My position is actually that this is a cultural and public health issue that can be better addressed by educating people that guns are harmful to their health. Educating people on politically charged issues is difficult, though. Most people don't come at this with an open mind.
In fact, all crime, including gun crime predictably goes up as guns become more valuable and effective for criminal use after the general public is disarmed by gun control laws. For instance: "Handgun crime soars despite Dunblane ban,By Thomas Harding11 January 2001 • 12:00am" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1314245/Handgun-crime-soars-despite-Dunblane-ban.html" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...espite-ban-brought-in-following-Dunblane.html All UK news sources have reported the failure of the 96 gun ban and soaring violent crime -- especially gun crimes.
Which is why they support ineffective, unnecessary and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Guns are no more harmful to your health than it is harmful to your health not to mind your own business and try to dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their rights.
HI CA NY NJ MD all disagree with you. They have all the common sense gun laws. But cannot be proven to have worked, at least not without resting upon a post-hoc fallacy.
Not really though. U.K. Murder/Homicide Rate 1990-2023 | MacroTrends 1997 ban, fairly flat for a few years, a spike in 2002, and a general decline since. The spike I think was largely due to a prolific serial killer Shipman getting caught that year. The overall trend in violent crime was downwards, but not dramatic or immediate. One certainly couldn't point to the violent crime rates and say it made it worse, unless one is being partisan like the telegraph would.
Statistics disagree, and not everybody who thinks they're the exception to the rule is correct... I mean, my hopes aren't too high. It was hard enough to convince smokers that smoking is unhealthy. This is far more nuanced than that.
Lol are you literally saying other countries don't have rape? Give me your dealer's number man. Share. Lynchings occur in the present day friend. Its sad you want them to increase. Further: I notice you ignore the disproportionate impact study. Curious no?
And, as Reality pointed out earlier in this topic, your statistics comparing the risk of not having a gun in the house vs having a gun in the house show an immaterial difference.
Obviously I am saying that countries with fewer civilian guns do not have higher rape rates compared to the USA. Rape Statistics by Country 2023 - Wisevoter Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia I see what you're trying to do there, but I'm not actually somebody overly concerned with racism. No, lynching is not a major phenomenon in the USA today.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930971/ Go argue with biology dude. An unarmed woman on average has no chance against an unarmed man. Firearms allow for a more or less even playing field, or at least the opportunity at one. Some people think that's a better choice. If you want to go unarmed, do so. You have no right to force others to follow suit. Attempting so is tyranny, and will be resisted as such. What I'm trying to do where? Its a fact. https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/history-lynching-america MODERN-DAY LYNCHINGS You might think of lynchings as a disgraceful and barbaric practice from the past, but they continue to this day. In 1998, James Byrd was chained to a car by three white supremacists and dragged to his death in the streets of Jasper, Texas. In 2020, Ahmaud Arbery was fatally shot while jogging near Brunswick, Georgia. The three white men charged with killing Arbery claimed he was trespassing. The videotaped death of George Floyd was a modern-day lynching. Floyd was killed in broad daylight by police officer Derek Chauvin, who held Floyd down with a knee on his neck for more than nine minutes. Lynchings like these should not be part of American society today just as they should not have been 100 years ago. NAACP will continue to fight back against white supremacy and violence, and demand that people responsible, including law enforcement officers, be held accountable. Argue with the NAACP about whether or not they occur. FFS we SAW one and argued about it, the Arbery murder. The James Byrd murder is likewise still a sore wound here in my state. The stats and history show if you institute gun control you're going to MAKE it MORE of a problem. WHY do YOU WANT that result?
Well if you look at the stats on civilian gun ownership in countries vs rates of rape, they are not correlated. It's a specious argument. Of course an actual study would be better than looking at the raw data to control for confounders, but a birdseye view does not support your argument. (links in my last reply to you, you responded before I edited it). I never said anything about force. I want people to be educated on the ills of gun ownership. Rare anecdotes. Not persuasive.
Again: The average woman is not able to physically resist the average man. This is a fact of biology, and is why father's are often hesitant about the men their daughter's date. Because a man can essentially overpower a woman at will. It is not a specious argument, go find an average woman and ask to wrestle. Find out for yourself. My mother, my wife, and every other woman I personally know prefer to be armed. I prefer to honor that right. You and yours may do as you please, be naked for all I care. As for me and mine: We're going to be armed. They're rare because black gun ownership has positively ballooned in the modern era. Its AMAZING what happens when you stop holding them down at the institutional level, which IS what happens with gun control in America per the ACTUAL data and stats already provided to you. And, again as per the actual unrefuted study, what you want to do will have a disproportionate impact on black gun ownership which WILL increase lynchings and similar slayings.
If someone is a danger to themselves or others, all the more reason for you to be armed to defend yourself. If that bothers you, call the police and twiddle your thumbs I suppose. That doesn't give you a right to pre-crime them ffs. This isn't Minority Report.
Didn't say anything about pre-crime. The implication was that everybody is susceptible to make irrational decisions, therefore having an easily accessible gun around always involves risk. Data suggests that for most people, these risks outweigh the benefits. But almost everyone thinks they'd never commit murder, or suicide, or that a loved one would, or that an accident could happen. An unknown minority of them turn out to be wrong, and that minority is bigger than those who save lives with their guns.
The reason men don't rape women is generally either because they aren't monsters, or even if they are, they would rather not spend decades in prison being raped by bubba. It's not about guns at all. No, lynchings would not become much more common without armed citizens.
Reading all this left-wing anti-gun bloviating renews my gratitude that I live in a red state where we don't strive to limit Constitutional rights, we simply revel in them. TEXAS!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!
I probably missed that post, there were too many replies. The risk was doubled for homicide, far more than doubled for the specific risk of being murdered by an intimate partner, but since homicide is rare in the group studied, it didn't matter much for their actual risk of death. However, if people were purchasing the gun for protecting the home, this reveals this is not a rational choice. This irrational choice has downstream effects by putting more guns in circulation. Guns are disproportionately used for murders in general in the US. Further, a very specific part of the population was studied to rule out confounders. Risks are harder to isolate, but likely greater in magnitude, in higher risk groups.
The Inconvenient Truth: All crime, including gun crime soars repeatedly after the general public is disarmed by irrational gun control laws. The UK has proved the obvious if inconvenient truth: Strict gun and knife control laws encourage more gun and knife attacks. THE GUARDIAN, Rise in recorded crime is accelerating in England and Wales, Police figures show offences up 14% in a year, with ***knife and gun crime rising even more steeply***, Alan Travis Home affairs editor, Thu 25 Jan 2018. (*** mine) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/25/knife-and-gun-rises-sharply-in-england-and-wales Decades after the Dunblane gun ban and gun crime soars. Think it through. Gun control laws encourage every kind of violent crime. Why would anyone expect any other result?
