Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/21/2006 8:28:49 PM EDT


Women Getting Trigger Happy

More Women Are Buying and Using Guns -

March 19, 2006 — - More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

"I am a short, chubby housewife," said Jaque Blundell of Arlington, Va. "I'm not as scared of the bad guys, because the guns are my great equalizer."

The gun industry is catering to women with everything from more girly guns and apparel to all-female hunting trips and free ladies nights at the range. It's clear the feminine touch is adding up to big business.

"A quarter to a third of all our customers here are women shooters," said Keith Weaver, who works at the Blue Ridge Arsenal.

Five years ago, the National Rifle Association offered just 13 firearms training classes for women. Today, there are more than 200 nationwide.

"If you look at statistics, there are more crimes of passion committed by men than there are women," said Sandra Froman, president of the NRA. "But I say that everyone has their emotions, and one of the things you learn when you take firearms classes is you learn to control your emotions."

Self Defense Becomes A Passion -

Froman is the second female NRA president in 130 years. She said that owning guns usually begins as a self-defense tactic for many women and turns into a love for the sport.

Participation in the NRA's Women on Target program for shooters and hunters has increased more than 1,000 percent since 2000. Now it has 6,000 participants.

"We have a lot of women now going on women-only hunts for elk, for deer, for feral pigs, different kinds of game animals," Froman said. "And women who have never hunted before are learning about the enjoyment of hunting, of being in the outdoors."

But not everyone is convinced encouraging women to carry a gun is a good idea. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.

"If you bring a gun into the home, it increases the risk of homicide by three," said Becca Knox of the Brady Campaign. "If you decide that's the method of self-defense you're going to choose, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences."

John Blaschke says all parents need to lock up their guns like Fort Knox. His daughter Darby Nelson is already a pro at shooting at just 11 years old.

"Every time you pull that trigger you feel that rush," she said.

She's just what the gun industry is hoping will represent the next generation of pistol-packing women.


Good news!

Except for the junkscience, madeup stats and outright LIES of the Brady Bunch.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 8:44:15 PM EDT
I don't care for the girl's comment about a "rush" when shooting.

It makes the sport sound like its for junkies.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:00:28 PM EDT
"Trigger Happy" - The title alone tells you everything you need to know about the "impartiality" of this story.

F*ck ABC.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 2:40:13 AM EDT
Saw the story. Some of it was good the rest was crap. But you can't dispute one fact the story stated there are 18 millon women gun owners in the US. The Brady stuff is just BS.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 3:07:29 AM EDT
More Brady "facts"

At my office there is a libtard who regularly tells me that "more people die from guns in America every single day than died in the entire Vietnam War" I used to try and engage her in rational debate but after my first argument regarding the basic human right of self-preservation she just calls me racial slur (even though we are the same race) and walks away.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 3:17:34 AM EDT

it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.


isn't that the same thing? shooting an intruder in your house?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 3:41:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
I don't care for the girl's comment about a "rush" when shooting.

It makes the sport sound like its for junkies.



Like you've never fired anything that made you giggle? M82A1--yup--made me giggle. Thompson Sub-machine gun--definite giggle. Selectfire Glock---big giggle factor..MP5K---definitely a smile inducer....

You should have more fun!
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:38:16 AM EDT

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.


I have always been interested in how the Brady campaign arrived at this conclusion. I know it certainly came out of their asses but does anyone know specifically how this data was twisted or if their methodology is flawed.

Everytime I try to convince a liberal of the importance of guns all he does is copy and paste "facts" from the Brady campaign. Liberals dont even try to think about the truth as they just copy and paste this trash and tow the party line.

Even though I dont even bother arguing for more guns based on their positive effect on crime I would love to be able to refute the nonsense on that website.

Anyone got any links that specifically address these "facts"?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:57:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Makarov:
More Brady "facts"

At my office there is a libtard who regularly tells me that "more people die from guns in America every single day than died in the entire Vietnam War" I used to try and engage her in rational debate but after my first argument regarding the basic human right of self-preservation she just calls me racial slur (even though we are the same race) and walks away.



You should have tried a more basic arguement, like MATH.

Over 20,000 were killed in Vietnam. That would mean, for the sake of arguement, 20,000 dead per day in the US.

In one week there would be 140,000 people. In two weeks, 380,000 people.

In one month 600,000 people. In 12 months, 7.2 million people, or about 20% of the population of the United States.

In 5 years that would be 180 million people. In 10 years, 720 million people, or roughly DOUBLE the population of the United States.

In other words, she is out of her *BLEEEP*ing mind.

It is impossible.

That would be 2 Gettysburgs PER DAY.

I think not.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:01:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 5:03:44 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By HKCapCane:
I have always been interested in how the Brady campaign arrived at this conclusion. I know it certainly came out of their asses but does anyone know specifically how this data was twisted or if their methodology is flawed.



Get John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime.

The numbers, I presume, are based on the JAMA study that was conducted in Baltimore. They examined something like 470 cases of homicide and determined that a gun in your home is 46 times more likely to kill you than the intruder.

The snag is that they used a very small sample size, and that to get their numbers to work out the way they wanted to, they would do absurd things. For instance, if an intruder busted into a house carrying a gun with him, THEY COUNTED THAT AS A GUN IN YOUR HOME. They counted the bad guy's gun as YOURS because it was under your roof.

The Brady idiots are also fond of saying "13 children a day die from gun violence". They get that 13 "children" per day by including people who are in their 20s in the statistics.

Meaning that a 19 year old gang banger who shoots it out with the police and ends up dead gets counted in their 13 "children" per day number.



Everytime I try to convince a liberal of the importance of guns all he does is copy and paste "facts" from the Brady campaign.



Get More Guns Less Crime and look at how those studies were done. Lott and Dave Kopel have gone to great lengths to demonstrate the severe flaws in the methodolgy and assumptions of those "studies". Learn what they have to say and then attack the methodology of the studies.

Libbies won't have any more ammo then.


Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:08:36 AM EDT
"If you bring a gun into the home, it increases the risk of homicide by three," said Becca Knox of the Brady Campaign. "If you decide that's the method of self-defense you're going to choose, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences


I would say 30 times more with an AR.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:10:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:

Originally Posted By Silesius:
I don't care for the girl's comment about a "rush" when shooting.

It makes the sport sound like its for junkies.



Like you've never fired anything that made you giggle? M82A1--yup--made me giggle. Thompson Sub-machine gun--definite giggle. Selectfire Glock---big giggle factor..MP5K---definitely a smile inducer....

You should have more fun!



1000 rounds through an M11/9 in and hour? HUGE smile factor. Finally shooting an M16? Giggles...

Looking forward to going to the machingun rental place again....???? Oh yeah... WARM AND FUZZIES.

Last week I went to the Eastman's Gun Show with a couple of guys, one of whom is 28 or so and had never been to a gun show (side story: he stopped at every table and asked questions, thanks to years of shooting and you guys here on AR, I was well-equipped to answer the questions).

The newbie remarked on the number of women, (pretty much all of whom were VERY attractive) and I had to admit, that in ten years the number of women attending gunshows has SKYROCKETED...

I know... worthless without pics, but they don't allow cameras into the show. Suffice it to say, one girl was definitely a stripper, but super hot and another girl was half asian and could have melted the lips on a Thermold from 200ft.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:12:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Makarov:
More Brady "facts"

At my office there is a libtard who regularly tells me that "more people die from guns in America every single day than died in the entire Vietnam War" I used to try and engage her in rational debate but after my first argument regarding the basic human right of self-preservation she just calls me racial slur (even though we are the same race) and walks away.



You should have tried a more basic arguement, like MATH.

Over 20,000 were killed in Vietnam. That would mean, for the sake of arguement, 20,000 dead per day in the US.

In one week there would be 140,000 people. In two weeks, 380,000 people.

In one month 600,000 people. In 12 months, 7.2 million people, or about 20% of the population of the United States.

In 5 years that would be 180 million people. In 10 years, 720 million people, or roughly DOUBLE the population of the United States.

In other words, she is out of her *BLEEEP*ing mind.

It is impossible.

That would be 2 Gettysburgs PER DAY.

I think not.



Redo your math. We suffered 58,249 deaths in Vietnam.

thewall-usa.com/stats/
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:15:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:
Redo your math. We suffered 58,249 deaths in Vietnam.

thewall-usa.com/stats/



I said we suffered over 20,000 deaths in Vietnam. 58,249 > 20,000.

I used 20,000 specifically because it is a rough approximation of YEARLY deaths by firearms in the US.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 5:58:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Makarov:
More Brady "facts"

At my office there is a libtard who regularly tells me that "more people die from guns in America every single day than died in the entire Vietnam War" I used to try and engage her in rational debate but after my first argument regarding the basic human right of self-preservation she just calls me racial slur (even though we are the same race) and walks away.



You should have tried a more basic arguement, like MATH.

Over 20,000 were killed in Vietnam. That would mean, for the sake of arguement, 20,000 dead per day in the US.

In one week there would be 140,000 people. In two weeks, 380,000 280,000 people.

In one month 600,000 based on a 4 week month, 560,000 people. In 12 months, 7.2 million people, or about 20 2.5% of the population of the United States. 600,000 is correct based on a 4.25 week month which is a good average.

In 5 years that would be 180 36 million people. In 10 years, 720 72 million people, or roughly DOUBLE 25% of the population of the United States.

In other words, she is out of her *BLEEEP*ing mind.

It is impossible.

That would be 2 Gettysburgs PER DAY.

I think not.



Math is a good thing. Your math is not.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:04:41 AM EDT
The math is bad! They don't have one single 87 in any of their CALCULATIONS!
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:08:55 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:27:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
I don't care for the girl's comment about a "rush" when shooting.

It makes the sport sound like its for junkies.



Well, it can be, without the impairment. Go out and shoot a full course high power rifle match. All that being in the sun all day, shooting 200 and 300 yards and pulling pits is all worth it when going back to shoot 600. Do well at 600 yards and I guarantee you'll will be on a high all day.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:34:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hardcase:
Math is a good thing. Your math is not.



Well pardon moi! I was trying to do all that math in my head, and obviously I missed some decimal points.

That's the price of trying to write something like that when you are working on other stuff....
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:11:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 10:12:53 AM EDT by Atvar]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some more math. If I have no guns, then I have 0 chance to shoot someone other than an intruder. If I get some guns I'm 20 times more likely to shoot someone.
0 x 20 = 0
So therefore, having guns in the house does NOT put my family at risk
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:19:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Atvar:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some more math. If I have no guns, then I have 0 chance to shoot someone other than an intruder. If I get some guns I'm 20 times more likely to shoot someone.
0 x 20 = 0
So therefore, having guns in the house does NOT put my family at risk



It is a stupid number.

If you have a gun, you are 20 times more likely to shoot somebody than someone who doesn't have a gun!!

Well no sh*t sherlock! It would be mighty hard to shoot someone without a gun now, wouldn't it?

The real question is who am I 20 times more likely to shoot: My 10 year old daughter or the scum sucking son of a bastard that is trying to kidnap, rape, and murder her???
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:23:54 AM EDT

But not everyone is convinced encouraging women to carry a gun is a good idea. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.

"If you bring a gun into the home, it increases the risk of homicide by three," said Becca Knox of the Brady Campaign. "If you decide that's the method of self-defense you're going to choose, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences."



it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home - not exactly true, there is ZERO PERCENT that I will shoot a family or friend or newspaper delivery person, there is a 100 PERCENT that I will shoot an intruder at oh-dark-thirty.

If you bring a gun into the home, it increases the risk of homicide by three - not exactly true, should the need arise to use a weapon for defense, the risk of a JUSTIFIED HOMOCIDE (as in SELF DEFENSE) increases by 100 PERCENT.

If you decide that's the method of self-defense you're going to choose, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences - what is the alternative? to be raped and murdered? if so - then you better be prepared to deal with THOSE CONSEQUENCES... BITCH!
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:27:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:

it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.


isn't that the same thing? shooting an intruder in your house?



I was going to say something similar -> Isn't that the point?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:30:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hardcase:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Makarov:
More Brady "facts"

At my office there is a libtard who regularly tells me that "more people die from guns in America every single day than died in the entire Vietnam War" I used to try and engage her in rational debate but after my first argument regarding the basic human right of self-preservation she just calls me racial slur (even though we are the same race) and walks away.



You should have tried a more basic arguement, like MATH.

Over 20,000 were killed in Vietnam. That would mean, for the sake of arguement, 20,000 dead per day in the US.

In one week there would be 140,000 people. In two weeks, 380,000 280,000 people.

In one month 600,000 based on a 4 week month, 560,000 people. In 12 months, 7.2 million people, or about 20 2.5% of the population of the United States. 600,000 is correct based on a 4.25 week month which is a good average.

In 5 years that would be 180 36 million people. In 10 years, 720 72 million people, or roughly DOUBLE 25% of the population of the United States.

In other words, she is out of her *BLEEEP*ing mind.

It is impossible.

That would be 2 Gettysburgs PER DAY.

I think not.



Math is a good thing. Your math is not.



56,000 US died in Vietnam, 2,000,000 VC. Use which ever number better suits you.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:42:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:

But not everyone is convinced encouraging women to carry a gun is a good idea. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder.

"If you bring a gun into the home, it increases the risk of homicide by three," said Becca Knox of the Brady Campaign. "If you decide that's the method of self-defense you're going to choose, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences."



it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home - not exactly true, there is ZERO PERCENT that I will shoot a family or friend or newspaper delivery person, there is a 100 PERCENT that I will shoot an intruder at oh-dark-thirty.

If you bring a gun into the home, it increases the risk of homicide by three - not exactly true, should the need arise to use a weapon for defense, the risk of a JUSTIFIED HOMOCIDE (as in SELF DEFENSE) increases by 100 PERCENT.

If you decide that's the method of self-defense you're going to choose, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences - what is the alternative? to be raped and murdered? if so - then you better be prepared to deal with THOSE CONSEQUENCES... BITCH!



Another thing is that the word homicide does not = murder. People seem to blur the lines though and interchange the two. It just means somebody was killed by other than natural means. It does not mean somebody was murdered. Somebody is much more likely to be killed by falling in your home or drowning in your pool than a gun though. You best be prepared to accept the consequences of having a pool or stairs or chair in your home.
Top Top