Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guns offer false security
USA Today ^ | 6/10/2003 | Kimberly Shearer Palmer

Posted on 06/11/2003 4:55:47 AM PDT by RogueIsland

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-128 next last
To: Lazamataz
You should have as many layers of protection around you as is reasonable, and your most formidable Personal Protection devices are your eyes. Observe your surroundings.

I'm in agreement. I've had advanced handgun training (and learned that I could use a lot more), and I am actually of the firm belief that far too many handgun owners overestimate their abilities with it in the same way that the woman in the article overestimates her ability to physically deter an attacker. As an instructor, you know that the Art of the Handgun is a martial art in its own right, and requires just as much mental discipline as any traditional martial art to employ to maximum effect.

If the article had taken that nuanced approach instead of the ideological tack it did, I wouldn't have any issue with it.

41 posted on 06/11/2003 5:57:13 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
women who own handguns are more than twice as likely to be murdered with a firearm by their partners than those who do not.

The author is using a fallacious arguement, implying that gun ownership causes murder by gun. While there may be a relationship between A (gun ownership by women) and B (being a woman killed by a husband/lover with a gun), it doesn't prove A causes B, any more than arbitrarily giving a student an "A" on a test suddenly makes him smarter.

I would argue that women at higher risk of domestic violence obtain guns more often than women who live in a stable home environment. Which makes this statistic meaningless to the author, as she is clearly writing about the use of guns in defending against a stranger.

42 posted on 06/11/2003 6:00:37 AM PDT by Fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
according to a new study by the University of California at Davis

Big clue to the credibility deficit in this article.

43 posted on 06/11/2003 6:03:34 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
' "We shot at the target silhouettes' heart and lungs before aiming for its head. In real life, our instructor explained, our attackers might wear bulletproof vests." Yeah,right. Your average street thug will be wearing a bulletproff vest! I can't believe an instructor would teach this to a class.'

Perhaps the instructor was referring to attackers wearing bulletproof vests, UNIFORMS AND BADGES!
44 posted on 06/11/2003 6:03:50 AM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
as kimberly's neighbor, my sign reads...

"This house protected by an NRA marksmen, my neighbor doesn't like guns."

teeman
45 posted on 06/11/2003 6:07:14 AM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Why even work up a sweat by engaging in hand-to-hand combat, or risk being overpowered by a stronger opponent, when you can easily dispatch your attacker with a well-placed shot? Me, I'll take the shot every time.
46 posted on 06/11/2003 6:08:01 AM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Check out this B.S.
47 posted on 06/11/2003 6:08:34 AM PDT by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Umm.... Why not take self-defense classes AND learn how to shoot a gun? Why limit your options? My mom is 5'3" and 110 pounds- she's not going to fight off a 200 pound attacker. She will, however, nicely ventilate him with the .38 she carries in her purse.
48 posted on 06/11/2003 6:09:59 AM PDT by Modernman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas
Guns seemed uncontrollable objects that could inflict death at any moment; I preferred to avoid them.

Yes, guns sit around all day, plotting to kill people. Hey, genius, guns are inanimate objects. Without a person involved, they're nothing more than a paperweight. This woman is nuts.

49 posted on 06/11/2003 6:13:03 AM PDT by Modernman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
We know, we need to be malleable flexible unarmed marshmallows so the world can trample on us (sarcasm)
50 posted on 06/11/2003 6:22:41 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
"This house protected by an NRA marksmen, my neighbor doesn't like guns."

LOL

51 posted on 06/11/2003 6:24:07 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: quack; goldstategop; RogueIsland
Like Jennifer Lopez's character in the 2002 movie Enough, in which she learns to fight to protect herself and her daughter against her abusive husband, we had reclaimed our right to feel safe while depending only on our own bodies.

'Later that Wednesday night, I watched the real President give it to the evil Republicans again. I glowed in the knowledge that Josiah Bartlett had outfoxed the "selected president", saving the country AND the children in the nick of time.'

52 posted on 06/11/2003 6:26:07 AM PDT by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Thanks RI, an amusing post.

I make it a rule when discussing anything of importance: The first person to use a movie to prove a point loses. The other rule is that if you have to use Hitler or Nazi Germany to prove your point, you lose.
53 posted on 06/11/2003 6:26:38 AM PDT by ko_kyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ko_kyi
The other rule is that if you have to use Hitler or Nazi Germany to prove your point, you lose

What are you, some kind of Nazi? ;-)

54 posted on 06/11/2003 6:31:26 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ko_kyi
It's called reducto ad Naziim.
55 posted on 06/11/2003 6:38:00 AM PDT by gridlock ("Living History" is like the "Living Constitution". It is to be changed to reflect current needs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
I suspect that the writer may have a point, but it's not the one she thinks she is making. Simply owning a gun that you're not familiar with, and shooting it once or twice a year at a bullseye target is not going to be much use to you. Practicing often, competing in practical shooting events, and getting instruction will help a lot.
56 posted on 06/11/2003 6:40:25 AM PDT by white trash redneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
"...women who own handguns are more than twice as likely to be murdered with a firearm by their partners than those who do not..."

My husband already owns MANY guns. Why would MY owning a gun make him shoot me? Well anyway, sweetie, you feel safe your way, I'll do it my way.

My way: Full grown male German Shepherd "Mauser" to slow attacker down (while he is being pet), giving me time to retrieve my firearm. As my favorite dog trainer told me, "if an assailant is willing to take on a German Shepherd, you need a gun!"
57 posted on 06/11/2003 6:41:55 AM PDT by fawn796
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
"according to a new study by the University of California at Davis, women who own handguns are more than twice as likely to be murdered with a firearm by their partners than those who do not."

Statistics like these are meaningless. Women who own handguns likely feel threatened...if those same women DIDN'T buy handguns, they might have been even MORE likely to have been murdered.
58 posted on 06/11/2003 6:42:34 AM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
That's what I was thinking as I read - just having a gun is not enough to protect onesself, and if a woman thinks it is, then it would be a false sense of security.

The article's author is speaking more from politics and emotion, but there is a grain of truth to it.

An assailant usually strikes first (you can't pre-emptively shoot a suspected mugger) and the element of surprise is on his side. He isn't going to wait while his prey fumbles through her huge, disorganized purse for her 38. However a good swift kick in the clangers might give her a chance to run.
59 posted on 06/11/2003 6:47:34 AM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (you can never be too thin, too rich, or too paranoid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
At close range, the attacker wearing a bullet proof vest would be hurting from the busted ribs and bruises if shot by a .38 cal or higher handgun. Not unless he is wearing a Level III with Kevlar/Steel Plate body armor.
60 posted on 06/11/2003 6:49:08 AM PDT by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-128 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson