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?
A Florida mayor does not want a firearms range to be built, despite having all the legal requirements and variance taken care of.
For people to be going to and from that location so near a park and so near a neighborhood filled with children and young people is concerning,” Muoio said. “This applicant has done everything he can do to make this a more palatable development and, of course, we want to see development in our city, but the fact that it’s a gun range is concerning to me.
Nothing cited as the reason for concern. Just “it concerns me”. Well obviously then we can’t do it, can we? Worthy of note:
As other indoor gun ranges across the country can attest, the probability of a round leaving the range is so remote as to have never happened. In fact, there’s a gun range in the middle of Philadelphia, PA that I went to not long ago where the range was on the second floor of a building, with touching apartment buildings on either side, and the gun shop directly underneath the range. And they’ve never had any issues.
Hoplophobia is running wild.
There is such a plethora of dumb quotes by politicians and celebrities regarding firearms, it is hard to narrow down the list to just 9.
All 9 quotes at the link below. Here’s a few tidbits:
just fire the shotgun through the door
And yet it’s legal to hunt humans
The Second Amendment only protects the people who want all the guns they can have.