Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/8/2002 7:06:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/8/2002 8:03:43 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
I got into an arguement with a female liberal about gun control. She says that a woman is more likely to die at the hands of someone she knows (ie. husband, boyfriend, etc) by using a gun than by a stranger. This is unfortunately true according to the FBI statistics. What I want to know, and would help my point is that out of those cases, how many of these women were murdered by those said individuals living OUTSIDE the home. (like those supposedly "protected" by restraint orders)? What I would like to see if there is a "situational" correlation. If the violence is going to perpetrated by someone who first needs to gain access to her, then her likelyhood of survival by gun ownership increases. Get what I want to know?? (edited to clarify)
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 7:28:43 AM EDT
And, you might want to further break down the statistics to HOW the women died. All too often, the liberals fake the statistics without doing so literally. They talk guns, guns, guns, then introduce a statistic saying how many DIED. HOW? Can't use knives, table legs or strangling in a gun control argument.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 7:51:07 AM EDT
i agree with rjroberts. it's far more important to figure out HOW they died than who killed them. try [url]www.guntruths.com[/url] for some good stats. they probably won't have exactly what you're looking for, but it does ram home the fact that gun control endangers a woman's life far more than anything else aside from her personal lifestyle choice. try running this by her: she's more likely to be raped than she is to develop cancer over her lifetime (1 in 4 chances vs. 1 in 9). (warning: those stats may be dated. information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.)
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 7:57:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARLady: i agree with rjroberts. it's far more important to figure out HOW they died than who killed them. try [url]www.guntruths.com[/url] for some good stats. they probably won't have exactly what you're looking for, but it does ram home the fact that gun control endangers a woman's life far more than anything else aside from her personal lifestyle choice. try running this by her: she's more likely to be raped than she is to develop cancer over her lifetime (1 in 4 chances vs. 1 in 9). (warning: those stats may be dated. information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.)
View Quote
Interesting that you bring up rape, ARLADY because according to FBI stats, guns are RARELY used in rapes. More often than not it is "Personal Weapons" (ie, hands, feet etc) [url]http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/famvio21.pdf[/url]. This stat relates to "Family violence" anyway
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 8:01:39 AM EDT
Try here: [url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/]Dept. of Justice Crime Statistics[/url]
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 10:42:03 AM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:01:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/8/2002 11:01:47 AM EDT by cgwahl]
I remember reading somewhere that a women (or possibly a person) was less likely to die if using a gun as opposed to not. Also, is someone she knows another word for aquaintence? If I recall correctly, the FBI numbers aren't totally accurate in that area because someone you know (aquaintence) to them could be anyone you pretty much made eye contact. Kind of like that neighbor I didn't like, we "knew" each other but more or less were strangers...or a gangbanger "knowing" another gangbanger.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:09:45 AM EDT
you could also try telling her that women who submit to attackers are more likely (something like 2 1/2 times) to be seriously injured than women who fight back and refuse to submit. i think this is probably because attackers want easy targets/victims, not ones they actually have to expend energy to get. also, rape is usually a control issue, so rapists like to be able to control, they get the thrill of control when a victim submits. those gals that won't submit don't let the attacker have control. attacker is likely to try and move on to a new and easier target.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:20:45 AM EDT
Try “Guns, Crime, and Safety: Introduction” by Jon Lott in the Journal of Law and Economics, published by the Univ. of Chicago. There are several other good articles on the issue of guns and crime there also. Click [url=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/journal/contents/v44nS2.html]here.[/url] Mike
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:27:58 AM EDT
Try GunFacts version 3.0 at this website. Look under Top Clicks & click on GunFacts v. 3.0 [url]http://keepandbeararms.com/[/url] Also try: [url]http://guncite.com/[/url] I don't know if they have what you are looking for, but you'll have to do a little digging in either website to find it...IF it is there. Good luck.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:33:57 AM EDT
Try this one: [url]http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html[/url] "Crimes of Passion" Homicides Keep in mind that the law enforcement statistics cited here are only a fraction of all violent crimes committed. Much violence goes undetected by law enforcement officers. Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck states this is particularly true with domestic violence (Strauss, M., et al. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, . Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.) However, even referring only to police records, one can see that domestic homicide is often preceded by a history of violence. Again quoting from Kates et al.: In 90% of domestic homicide cases [in a Kansas City study], the police had been called to the same address at least once within the preceding two years; the median number of prior police calls to the same address was five during that period. (Murray A. Straus, Domestic Violence and Homicide Antecedents, 62 Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 446, 457 (1986). A leading analyst of domestic homicide has noted that "[t]he day-to-day reality is that most family murders are preceded by a long history of assaults." (Id. at 454.)
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:46:04 AM EDT
From the way you worded the "statistic" I can interpret it two ways: 1. Women are more likely to be killed by an acquaintance using a gun than by a stranger using a gun or 2. Women are more likely to be killed by an acquaintance using a gun than by a stranger using any means Either one is meaningless out of context (a favorite ploy of anti's, quoting stats out of contect), and both also happen to be false even in context. Looking at the FBI data in the link you posted ([url]www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/famvio21.pdf[/url]) we can see that: 1) Family violence accounts for only 23-27% of all violent offenses. 2) Murder makes up 0.21% of all violent offenses, but only 0.17% of family violence. 3) Firearms were used in 56.33% of the overall murders, but only 53.92% of the family murders. 4) Women do make up a higher percentage of the murder victims in family violence as opposed to overall violence (51.96% as opposed to 31.88%). Now let me try to do the math... carry the 2... divide by pi... percentage of women victims of violent crime killed by non-family members using guns: .028284 percentage of women victims of violent crime killed by family members using guns: .011907 Nope. I'd suggest to your female liberal friend that she check her statistics, and while she's at it, read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott.
Top Top