Perhaps not when the matter is left to being concepts alone. However when concepts are turned into physical actions, it is a different matter. Education about the nature and seriousness of sexual assault, is neither a superior, nor viable alternative to armed self defense. There is no evidence that being legally armed makes a bad matter worse than it would have been otherwise.
Apparently there is. "They advertise and rely on the rape myth that women should be scared of strangers, and that only with a gun can a woman protect herself. We now know that these assumptions are simply not supported by fact. It is far more likely for an intimate acquaintance or family member to endanger a woman’s life than a stranger. In fact, just having access to a gun increases a woman’s risk of intimate partner violence by five times. Furthermore, research shows that “more than three times as many women are shot by their husbands or intimate partners than are killed by strangers’ guns, knives or other weapons combined.” So when women buy guns to protect themselves from strangers, they are often giving gun access to people who are more likely to hurt them. Furthermore, in the face of an attack, a victim of sexual violence is unlikely to have a firearm immediately available or be willing to use it against a partner, friend, or family member, even if that person assaults them." http://ocrcc.org/guns-rape-prevention-a-dangerous-myth/
There is not. The citation does nothing to prove that a woman who is legally armed, is in greater danger from sexual assault or other violence than an unarmed woman. Beyond such, the study presented cites the violence policy center among its sources, an organization that is devoid of credibility in the matter.
Which claim is being referred to by yourself? That the cited study does nothing to demonstrate the notion that being armed makes a bad situation worse? That the violence policy center was cited as one of its sources of information? Or that the violence policy center is devoid of credibility in the matter?
Frankly I don't find you particularly credible. What I do find credible is my 73 years of experience. And while I don't go around handing out advice to women on whether they should carry or not, if asked, I would give her the full story. Be careful. Think about who else has access to your weapon. Think about how, when, where, and by whom, you might be sexually assaulted. After thinking all this, and other things, through, then make up your mind about whether you think owning, having access to, carrying, a firearm is the right thing to do. I'm not at all convinced it is.
to begin with, Josh Sugarmann was kicked off the brady campaign for admitting that the ultimate goal of those who support firearm-related restrictions is total firearms confiscation. Secondly, there are the words of Josh Sugarmann himself, on the violence policy website itself. http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons. He is advocating the deliberate, intentional exploitation of the confusion and lack of knowledge of the public, in order to build support for political policies. He is openly calling for the use of outright lying to trick the public into supporting faulty legislation that is not based on fact, but rather emotion.
thats because your posts are ignorant of the facts, People who actually are well versed in this area know that Josh Sugarscum was kicked out of the Brady Bunch for admitting gun confiscation was their ultimate goal suggestion, spend as much time LEARNING as you do posting silly nonsense, and your posts won't look so ignorant
I just love ( sarcasm ) reading posts about people from a Military background, that have or used to have firearms, and suddenly are Anti Gun for some unknown reason, no explanation, they just spout stuff like; A gun can't save you, or throw crocks, be assertive, Just ineffable twaddle, and worse when spouted by people you would think should know better. I instructed LEOs in remedial firearms training, even Federal agents, they sought me out by my reputation as an Instructor, and I took that task very seriously, working with many other more seasoned LE instructors and attourneys and the odd ADA etc.... With input / guidance from FBI instructors. Concealed carry classes were based on Law Enforcement methods modified to the parameters of the citizen not tasked with police work, but trained on how to act, if asked to assist a LEO. You can tell false information from real information as to how it is biased and differs from reality. Because their view of gun owners covers those few people that buy a handgun, but never get any training, toss a loaded gun on a shelf, or into a drawer, and never give it a second thought. That is an accident waiting to happen, a recipe for disaster. Now with inexpensive fingerprint accessible safes, and even larger gun safes at the price of 1 quality handgun, there is no reason not to secure ones firearms. Safes are available at Lowes and Home Depot and sporting goods stores everywhere. Training is available too, and some of us helped train people with lesser monetary resources.
I'm a firearms instructor, here is the training I do, this will really help you in real life: Yeah man, that's awesome. Right on dooooooooooooooooooood. Funny stuff.
Some deficiencies in that manner or method of training. There is NOTHING funny or humor in firearms training, it is very serious, while having fun is nice, it has little place when so much is at stake.
Civilan and law enforcement firearms training is funny. There is nothing funny about some of, I repeat, some of, the training done by some, I repeat, some, US military units. There are U.S. units, and U.S. military "schools", that require training that can cost you your life, and the life of others not connected in any way to the US military. And it happens.
It is a misconception that law enforcement is well trained in the safe handling of the tools they are issued. Firearm manufacturers, in filling law enforcement contracts, have had to bob the hammers on revolvers, and design striker-fired semi-automatic pistols, because the officers they were issued to would not stop leaving their sidearms cocked at all times. Manufacturers have also been required to increase the weight of the trigger pull on their product for law enforcement contracts to try and overcome the lack of proper firearms training that applicants are provided, all in the name of stopping negligent discharges. Certain exceptions notwithstanding, law enforcement officers barely have any more training than private individuals. If anything, the above example demonstrates why the military and law enforcement are not qualified to have sole legal access to firearms.
No, it is decidedly not funny, it suits your agenda, to ridicule and scorn those efforts. And the Military Institute of Forensic Pathology has a complete historical accounting of Military training accidents. Not funny at all. Accidents happen to all. Besides the truth that most training has Military origins, non of it humorous.
>>There are U.S. units, and U.S. military "schools", that require training that can cost you your life, and the life of others not connected in any way to the US military.<< I'm not talking about accidents in that statement. I'm talking about missions that can turn deadly, not by accident, and that are required before you can graduate from the "school" involved. Missions with students, instructors, and enemies of the US all in one location.
I do not think my Grandmother was all that trained, and she ran off a potential Rapist with a gun. I don't like blanket statements as fact, much. However, Training is great.
Called Training exercises, and in those, live fire, the objective is not to kill those Soldiers, and if they die, it is called "A training accident" not a combat related incident. You already knew that of course.
My great-grandfather taught my great-grandmother to shoot, because he was a town marshal in Alamagordo, NM and there were people who didn't like him much. One of the people he sent to prison got out and came looking for some payback. My grandmother left him dead in the entryway after he kicked the door open.
