In response to this post on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=444285392356053&set=a.300767940041133.70846.300719666712627&type=1&theater
As a matter of fact, Gun Owners of America, at gunowners.org, cites statistics indicating guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense, or around 80 times a day (other statistics estimate this number could range as low as 1.5 million, but either number is a lot!). This includes 200,000 women a year using guns to defend themselves against sexual abuse. As a matter of fact, as of 2008, armed citizens killed more violent bad guys than the police (1,527 vs. 606).
As tragic as those deaths are, I hope we can both agree that causing more women to die by trying to save those 9 is counter-productive. What is the *actual* plan of action to save those 9 women without causing exponentially more to be killed?
You can save those 9 women by taking away everyone’s guns … if you want to let the other estimated 550 women who use a gun for self defense every day die (200k @ 365 days). You do want to take away all guns, right? It’s already illegal to purchase a firearm if you have any restraining order or domestic violence judgements. Domestic violence is already illegal. Shooting someone is already illegal. Murder is already illegal. The laws are not working, we have to forcefully take guns from people now.
Realistically, as has been proven in heavily gun controlled countries, the violent crime rate is HIGHER in countries with LOWER gun ownership, and in such case the women will be stabbed, bludgeoned, choked to death, or set on fire. As long as they aren’t shot, right?
In 2010, there were 76,000 people who FAILED the background check and were denied firearms. Only 4,700 were referred to the ATF and of those only 44 were actually prosecuted. That’s a 0.0005% prosecution rate. That sounds broken to me.
I propose we actually pursue those who violate existing laws instead of making more laws that won’t get enforced either. And maybe we teach those women how to defend themselves, and not rely on others who aren’t around to defend them anyway?
Many firearms instructors will teach women how to use a firearm for free if they have a restraining order or are victims of domestic violence. Is this a bad thing? Or is a piece of paper stating that some magical force protects them from all harm simply because the person(s) who seek to harm them don’t have a firearm a morally superior option?