Does anyone here hate it when idiots mix gun-ownership with sexism?

[Taverner]

I get this a lot, because I'm a Lefty Gun-Rights Type. I don't own one (they're expensive, heavy and hard to clean) but want the option to should I desire.

But I get this all the time "Domestic Violence means more guns means more women shot! If you support gun rights you support sexism!"

Excuse me but Whiskey. Tango. Fox. Trot.

Has it ever occured to this person that if the abused wife got ahold of the gun first, it would be a triumph against domestic violence? Not to mention most guns never get used except for target practice.

[tburnsten]

1. They aren't all hard to clean

Some are definitely more difficult than others, just a little attention to detail is all it takes.



And yes I am frustrated with it, the next penis reference I see will make my head explode.

[jeepnstein]

2. True...

My penis has gotten me into far more trouble than any gun I've ever owned. It's like it has a mind of it's own.

Wow, I just did it again. I'm sorry I made your head explode.

[Taverner]

3. Thing is I don't like to clean anything

And I've seen Gun Enthusiasts cleaning their guns - and it was almost like watching them roll cigars.

Besides, guns are too expensive for me too :)

[tburnsten]

25. Well, you have to get all the nooks and crannies cleaned out

It can be fun, relaxing anyway, once you get familiar with your gun and have something resembling a regimen when you clean it. Some guns need cleaning much more than others. My Glock practically repels fouling, while my AR seems to seep carbon even after a cleaning. Just the designs.

[Testament]

33. You can pick up a used Remington 1100 12 gauge...

Cleaning is easy, just unscrew the mag cap, slide off handguard and barrel, wipe down the outside of the mag tube and lube it lightly, run a bore mop through the barrel to clean at least the chamber. Put the barrel back on, then the handguard, then the mag cap. Done.

Used ones can be found as cheap as 250 if they are beat up a bit. 400 for a nicer one. Birdshot is cheap, buck and slugs are .75-1.00 per shell though.

A used mossberg pump just needs the barrel mopped out occasionally, and you could probably pick one up for 150.

[benEzra]

39. Not many other portable consumer devices...

are expected to handle 1000-degree gases at 55,000 lb/in^2 pressures, high operating temps in a "dirty" environment (gas, carbon residue, dirt, heat), while simultaneously maintaining 0.9999 reliability over 15,000 to 200,000 cycles, over an operating life measured in decades or centuries. Modern firearms will continue to work safely without maintenance, but they will not work reliably, and that reliability requires attention to detail.

Other than guns, I suppose the average person doesn't have much contact with servicing complex mechanical devices anymore, but it is both art and science.

BTW, if you think guns are maintenance-intensive, you should try keeping a sailboat in good shape without hired help, or taking proper care of a horse. Both of those will put gun-cleaning into perspective quite quickly...

[Hangingon]

4. It is tiresome to constantly hear that guns or cars are to make up

penis size.

Whiskey. Tango. Fox. Trot. What does this mean? Do you separate Foxtrot into two words for emphasis?

[Billy Ruffian]

5. International Phonetic Alphabet

You mean "Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot."

Glad to help

:toast:

[Fattys Mom]

6. I bought a gun

Because of domestic violence. My ex was physically abusive and stalked/threatened to kill me when I left. He broke in one night and I pulled it on him. He left me alone after that.

[Citizen Number 9]

8. Sorta curious about a few things....

If you got any training after you bought the gun?

Had you heard at all that having a gun could escalate a situation?

Had you considered that a gun might be used against you?

Before anyone with a short fuse gets fired up, these are not value statements, I am quite interested in how she was thinking during this process.

[pipoman]

12. Not everyone should own a gun

The training question is valid. Most people who buy their first gun, especially if they are buying it for self defense, do get some training and some range time. This may not be the case in cities and states which have gun prohibition which results in otherwise honest, law abiding people being driven into black market purchases.

The whole 'gun used against you' scenario is a vastly overrated phenomenon. It is statistically very rare, especially when compared to the incidence of successful defensive firearms use.

Of coarse I can't answer for her but most people who buy a defensive gun under similar circumstances do so because they understand the threat, realize that the police can't or won't protect them from the threat, come to the conclusion that they must be responsible for their own safety/defense, then chose to do that with the most effective tools at their disposal which happens to be a gun.

More power to 'ya Fattys Mom.

[tburnsten]

26. "having" does not escalate anything

Irresponsibly using it in an inappropriate event is definitely an escalation.

And that old chestnut of a gun being used against you is a theory, nothing more, that has not been borne out in real life situations. He could also just beat her to death or stab her, without a weapon which eliminates his physical advantages she would be pretty out of luck.


And I agree that training is the most responsible thing to get with your gun, along with good defense/carry/duty ammunition. Whatever the police in your area carry is usually a safe bet for a round that performs well. Golden Saber, Gold Dot, Ranger, XTP, and HST are all bullet designs to grab, they are made for people who have a higher than normal chance of needing to protect themself with lethal force, so they are all designed to make the most of the bad situation of needing to shoot another human being.

[Citizen Number 9]

36. Of course not

It's how the bearer acts when he knows he "has" it and how your opponent acts when he knows you "have" it.

[Fattys Mom]

29. I have no problem answering

I was in the military for 8 years and qualified with the 9mm, Shotgun and M16. My mother taught me how to shoot as well. She is a retired police officer. So my weapons proficiency was well in place before I purchased my 9mm. I have also been trained in the tactical use of these weapons as well.
In my case it did not escalate the situation at all. The presence of the gun had the opposite effect. But I am sure that people like Iverglas will stick their fingers in their ears and ignore use like this.

I grew up in the DC area so violence with illegal firearms is not foreign to me. But with that said with laws in place to let a citizen that is proficient with a firearm that has one legally is a deterrent to gun crime. If your assailant knows that you have no way to defend yourself it is the fox in the chicken coop scenario.
And as far as someone taking my gun from me all I can say is good luck. But I have the benefit of training.

[Citizen Number 9]

35. (chuckling)

And that pretty much answers that! :thumbsup:

[Testament]

34. If it's legal to pull out a gun, it isn't escalating at all!

You can't use a gun before the encounter has reached the level where a reasonable person fears life and limb. A gun is at this level, so how could it escalate a situation further when it is already at that level? That idea is based in nothing short of pure ignorance.

[spin]

10. Good for you (n/t)

[iverglas]

7. well, I know I sure hate a lot of things idiots do

Pretending that the presence of a firearm in the home is not a factor in the abuse of women, and that men do not use firearms to kill women, particularly their intimate partners, in numbers way out of proportion to the reverse situation ... well, I suppose an idiot might do that.


Has it ever occured to this person that if the abused wife got ahold of the gun first, it would be a triumph against domestic violence?

No, that doesn't "occur" to intelligent people. Intelligent people put some thought into the dynamics of violence against women, and realize it's a crock.


Not to mention most guns never get used except for target practice.

So, as usual, who gives a fuck about the women who are controlled, injured and killed with the other ones ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Are you saying that women don't use firearms to defend themselves against men?

[iverglas]

27. No, Dave

I'm saying the cow jumped over the moon.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. That's more logical than your other argument.

[DrCory]

41. If That Is The Case...

"well, I know I sure hate a lot of things idiots do
Posted by iverglas

Pretending that the presence of a firearm in the home is not a factor in the abuse of women, and that men do not use firearms to kill women, particularly their intimate partners, in numbers way out of proportion to the reverse situation ... well, I suppose an idiot might do that.

You must also hate idiots who pretend exceeding the speed limit is not a factor in traffic accidents.

[iverglas]

45. are you actually catching on

You must also hate idiots who pretend exceeding the speed limit is not a factor in traffic accidents.

Now, just make that "SOME traffic accidents", and you'll have yourself an idiot if you find someone denying it.

As a matter of fact, that would be somewhat similar to what I said: speeding (which dies not always mean exceeding the speed limit) is a factor in some traffic accidents.

[DrCory]

46. Very Clever...

"As a matter of fact, that would be somewhat similar to what I said: speeding (which dies not always mean exceeding the speed limit) is a factor in some traffic accidents."

I suppose any movement whatsoever could then be considered speeding? For the purpose of our discussion, speeding does indeed mean exceeding the limit.

Being a factor in some accidents, why did you do it?

[iverglas]

47. actually

"Speeding" also commonly means exceeding the speed that is safe for the road conditions at the time. (Yes, actually, I do happen to be quite familiar with traffic planning and control issues, having served on municipal advisory committees and the like, and just being an all-round curious and informed member of society.)

For example, I never drive over 20 km/h (12.5 mph) in my neighbourhood, even though the limit is 40 (25). The streets are narrow, there is no boulevard between sidewalk and roadway, there are parked cars, and there are lots of kids and cats and many stop signs. Driving at 25 mph would be speeding.

I "speed", in the sense of drive over the speed limit, on divided 4+ lane, controlled-access highways. At the speed at which 80-90% of the traffic is moving. When it isn't raining or snowing, or foggy, when the roads are clear, when traffic is not heavy / travelling at or under the limit. My "speeding", as you know, has never been a factor in any accident in over 30 years now. Other people's tailgating has, though, twice, both at times when I was travelling well under the speed limit. Huh, eh?

[DrCory]

49. You Go To Great Lengths...

"I "speed", in the sense of drive over the speed limit, on divided 4+ lane, controlled-access highways. At the speed at which 80-90% of the traffic is moving. When it isn't raining or snowing, or foggy, when the roads are clear, when traffic is not heavy / travelling at or under the limit. My "speeding", as you know, has never been a factor in any accident in over 30 years now. Other people's tailgating has, though, twice, both at times when I was travelling well under the speed limit. Huh, eh?

To justify something which is simply not justifiable. You exceeded the speed limit knowing that, in your own view, exceeding the speed limit is a factor in causing some accidents. And yet, you lecture folks like me as to how we shouldn't be keeping handguns. Rather deflates the moral superiority with which you approach the issue.


"My "speeding", as you know, has never been a factor in any accident in over 30 years now."

Uh huh, but it could have been at any time in those 30 years. I've been continuously possessing a handgun in my various homes for as long without them causing any harm, yet you would have me give it up because it might? You do see the hypocrisy, correct?

[iverglas]

50. you turn yourself inside out

to argue the inarguable. Or maybe just to make yourself look ridiculous. If that's the case, you succeeded long ago.


I've been continuously possessing a handgun in my various homes for as long without them causing any harm, yet you would have me give it up because it might?

Nope. You don't get to state my reasons/arguments for my positions.

Handguns don't cause harm. Have you not got the memo yet?

[DrCory]

57. A Refresher Course...

In Your Own Words:

"Speeding is regarded risky behaviour. Possessing a firearm is risky behaviour. Both are plainly the precursors to DEATHS and INJURIES and ECONOMIC LOSSES and TRAUMA and GRIEF. A speeding driver may hit a child who, completely illegally, leaps out in front of his/her car. A person in possession of a firearm may transfer that firearm to a criminal who, completely illegally, breaks in a window and steals it. There is not just ONE sine qua non in either case.

Yet you speed.

Next:

"I oppose possession of handguns."

Remembering This:

"I speed every time I'm on a highway and my speed has never killed anyone, including myself...My speeding is still illegal though. "Law-abiding citizens" don't get to speed. No matter how safely they can do it. They're subject to the same laws as everybody else."

To This:

"You choose to place your pleasure at playing with objects you own above the public interest in the safety and lives of members of the community you live in, I guess. Most Canadians don't take that selfish a view of things.

And your speeding is not selfish?

[iverglas]

51. just to help you clear the cobwebs

I've been continuously possessing a handgun in my various homes for as long without them causing any harm, yet you would have me give it up because it might? You do see the hypocrisy, correct?

Have you actually heard me argue against speed limits? Since you haven't, I'd be curious what hypocrisy you might be seeing.

Have you actually heard me say that I should not be ticketed if I am caught speeding? Since you haven't ...

The mere fact that the only place I have ever received a speeding ticket was in a speed trap in Ypsilanti, Michigan (and the only reason I had gone above the speed limit was to escape an asshole driving approximately 3 feet from my rear bumper in 45 mph traffic), in years of considerable highway driving (the only time I speed), might suggest to you that the speed at which I drive is not actually regarded as problematic on the roads where I drive.

I do argue in favour of measures that make it difficult to speed in circumstances where speed is likely to increase the risk of crashes or injuries. Like speed humps in my neighbourhood, and other road design features that actually deter speeding.

Just like I argue in favour of measures that make it difficult for firearms to be acquired illegally.

Posting speed limits without taking such measures amounts to crossing one's fingers. Enforcement action can only be post facto. Ditto with firearms.

People who actually give a shit advocate effective deterrents. Laws, and the vague threat of unlikely punishment, are not effective deterrents. In the case of speeding, speed humps/bumps, stop signs/lights, landscaping and other measures are, in addition to enforcement and education. In the case of illegal firearms possession, licensing, registration and safe/secure storage requirements, with enforcement and education, are.

What parallel you think you have drawn, I don't know.

I speed, in violation of the law. You own a handgun, presumably not in violation of the law. You feel free to own a handgun illegally if it ever becomes illegal for you to do so, y'hear?

[DrCory]

52. You Have Yet To Articulate...

Why you think you have the right to ignore the law. You acknowledge that speed limits exist for a reason, yet you violate them. What about you is so extraordinary?

[iverglas]

53. you have yet to quote me ...

You Have Yet To Articulate...
Why you think you have the right to ignore the law.

... saying I have a right to ignore the law.

You assert that I think I have the right to ignore the law, in response to a post in which I said that I have never said I should not be ticketed if I drive above the speed limit.

Run along and try to annoy someone else now, will you?

[DrCory]

56. Why, Oh Why...

Do you exceed the speed limit then? Is your speeding the result of your mind and body hijacked by the ghost of Dale Earnhardt,Sr.? No, I should think not. You make a conscious decision to do so. If you are so concerned of the safety of your fellow human beings, why would you voluntarily take such risk?

[apocalypsehow]

9. Here, "Lefty Gun-Rights Type," try this on for size:

"• Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by
a current or former intimate partner. In 2000, 1,247 women, more than three a day, were killed
by their intimate partners"

"• In 2002, 54 percent of female homicide victims were shot and killed with a gun"

"• A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners found a five-fold
increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a gun"

And, specifically to your nonsense here: "Has it ever occurred to this person that if the abused wife got ahold of the gun first, it would be a triumph against domestic violence?"

Allow me to piss you off with facts:

"• A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners found a five-fold
increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a gun"

Link here (PDF)

More expansive resource to educate yourself before hitting "post" Here

BTW: "cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt." - sig it, and be clever. :thumbsup:

But when it comes to the lives of very real women in very real and often very ugly situations, you really ought to be a bit less cavalier in defense of the Almighty Gun. Really.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Sad statistics, but correlation is not causation.

An example for you:

Nowadays (AFAIK) most child pornography involves the use of a computer for storage and/or dissemation
of images. In other words, if someone has child porn they probably have a computer and used it for
illegal purposes. Should we follow the proposal in Australia and censor every Internet connection
because someone might download child porn?


As for your points:

* Aren't a plurality of *all* murder victims killed by a partner, relative, or friend?
What does this have to do with guns? Or is this an attempt at gender guilt?

* Is this 54% higher or lower than the % of male murder victims?

* Aah, umm, what happens when (as in the case of Fattys Mom) it is the woman
who owns the gun?

"LG-RT" is a bit cavalier, but gun ownership by women is an excellent counterbalance to the
presence of an abusive, enraged ex-partner. The women shooters I have known have tended to be better
shots and safer gun handlers than the guys.

[pipoman]

13. Statistical games we play

"• Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by
a current or former intimate partner. In 2000, 1,247 women, more than three a day, were killed
by their intimate partners"

And this has what to do with anything in this thread? Surely you aren't claiming that this statistic has anything at all to do with guns are you?

"• In 2002, 54 percent of female homicide victims were shot and killed with a gun"

Wow, imagine that, a lower percentage of women are killed with guns than in the US as a whole.

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"• A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners found a five-fold
increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a gun"

Isn't this a variation of the red car position that if red cars (the number one color for cars involved in fatality accidents) were outlawed there would be a reduction in red car related fatalities....of coarse keeping in mind 50 to 80 million gun owners.

Also of the incidents of women murdered by their intimate partner how many have a man in the home? Bet that number is even higher than the incidents of gun ownership. We all know what that means...

I would also be interested in how many of these intimate partners are legally in possession of the firearm they commit the murder with. If they have ever been convicted of domestic violence (or any felony) they are not in legal possession of that firearm.

[apocalypsehow]

14. As usual when facts are posted, all our "RKBA Democrats" can manage is to squawk and sputter.

Not a fact in this post has been even close to refuted in the two feeble attempts so far; we'll place-mark here to give some other savant(s) a crack going forward.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. One of your points is irrelevant, and the other one is misleading

Not a fact in this post has been even close to refuted in the two feeble attempts so far

And again, what does your first point have to do with guns?

True, pipoman didn't refute the "54%" point. He did prove that women are less likely than men
to murdered with a gun.

Not that I'm defending domestic abuse, mind you, but endabuse.org is quite misandric with its
"perpetrators of domestic abuse are male" meme. If you wish to fight misogyny, resorting to the
polar opposite won't help.

Also, the paper you linked to cites the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center as sources.
They are as ideologically biased as the NRA, and just as happy to misinform people to promote their
agenda.

[apocalypsehow]

16. "endabuse.org is quite misandric"...Good Lord. Am I on candid camera?

:eyes:

[pipoman]

17. As usual when faced with facts, including facts based on

government statistics (not groups trying to further their cause, just as it may be) there is no comment only ad hominem...how typical..


edit: Nobody is denying that the stats are true only that they don't support any conclusion even vaguely related to the OP....IOW 'statistical bullshit'.

[apocalypsehow]

18. Still finding them facts hard to wish away, huh? No surprise there. Try harder!

:rofl:

[raimius]

19. A collection of facts...

...is no more a theory than a collection of bricks a building.

No one is debating the statistics, we are debating the claims you are inferring from them.

Again, the percentage of homicides with firearms was lower for women than men. From that, we cannot make any conclusion but the fact already stated.

The number of women murdered by an intimate partner has no bearing on a firearms discussion, as there is no link presented.

Considering that the majority of murders involve the use of a firearm as the tool to inflict death, and that so many women are murdered/abused by intimate partners, it is unsurprising to find a correlation between the male partner (and murderer) using a firearm they owned. (One would normally use one's own possessions for any action within the home, and firearms are a very effective machines for which to kill someone). However, correlation does not equal causation. It would not be unreasonable to assume a correlation between someone involved in a stabbing murder and ownership of a blade. To go to the extreme, diabetes and insulin ownership are VERY strongly correlated, but owning insulin certainly does not cause diabetes!

[pipoman]

20. Welcome to DU

you will find that there are 3 kinds of posters here in the gungeon. Those who make arguments for their position based on stats from groups partisan on the subject whose assertions derived from the stats are often twisted or the stats are incomplete in attempt to hoodwink the lazy and the gullible. Those who seek their own stats from studies conducted by academia or government then draw conclusions or base their beliefs on their research whether those beliefs and conclusions are right or wrong these people are usually willing to at least look at other stats compiled by perceived unbiased sources and they usually won't argue counter points based on believable data. Those who are unwilling or incapable of self examination or examination of other positions, they seek out information supporting their beliefs to the exclusion of contrary information, then when credible contrary views arise only have snarky replies and ad hominem responses...these people aren't interested in or (usually) don't have the mental capacity for intelligent discussion, so I usually don't waste my time with them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Don't wait for a logical response one won't be coming.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Gun grabbers don't acknowledge the fact that women do defend themselves with firearms.

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.

The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.

The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.




She tried to call 911, but couldn't because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Preyer collapsed, the woman escaped and went to a neighbor's home, where she called police. Officers, who arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house. He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/lawor...

Here is one that comes to mind.

David

[DrCory]

42. That Really Isn't the Issue...

"But when it comes to the lives of very real women in very real and often very ugly situations, you really ought to be a bit less cavalier in defense of the Almighty Gun. Really."

But, nice try anyway. The real issue is why we, very real men who will not use firearms to cause harm to our female partners, should sacrifice our rights for those who do.

[Scout]

43. um, because you aren't really a selfish, inconsiderate asshole

who doesn't give a shit about anyone other than you or your family?

It's called "ruining it for the rest of us" and/or "I'm all right Jack."

[-Wolverine-]

24. A clear double standard

Its ok to call gun owners paranoid, racist, sexist, and using guns to compensate for something.

Based on what? Nothing.

Sorta like racism, but without the stigma.

[iverglas]

31. "Based on what?"

Its ok to call gun owners paranoid, racist, sexist, and using guns to compensate for something.

Based on what? Nothing.


Nah.

Based on their paranoia (or at least the paranoid things they say, which they may say for reasons other than paranoia, of course), their racism, and their sexism. I can't speak for the compensation bit, since it's not something I say.

Of course, I also don't say the other things about "gun owners". I say them about gun militants. I guess somebody must say those things about gun owners. And somebody else must say it's okay. I guess. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying that ...

[raimius]

32. But what is paranoia?

Being wary of registration might seem like paranoia, but it has been used in many areas outside of the US to begin confiscation programs. So, if someone bases their concern off of historical occurrences in situations with varying levels of correlation, are they paranoid?

A new AWB might not seem like a big deal, as no one is confiscating weapons. What about the person who is looking to buy one in the future? The practical effect is nearly identical to them.

Waiting periods may sound like a great idea, but what about the person who is being stalked and wants a better means of protection? Will that waiting period be too long for them? No one knows. So is opposing such legislation unreasonable?

Perception and life experiences have a great influence on what one considers paranoid. (Which may be a large factor in how strongly Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership argues for gun-rights, for example.)

[iverglas]

37. ah yes

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.

Say no more.

[raimius]

38. What's your point?

Do you agree or disagree with my assertions?

[DrCory]

59. Is Someone Who Keeps A Gun...

For self-defense an owner or a "militant"?

[Tejas]

64. For antis, it depends

depends on if it's a family heirloom or an AK-style rifle, owning an AK will get you labeled as a knuckle-dragging-gun-militant.

[jody]

30. What I hate is idiots combining ignorance to protest RKBA for defense of self and state. n/t

[Deep13]

40. Short answer: yes. nt

[akgirl]

44. Female, queer and find it offensive...

I own them. Quite a few, in fact, and it boggles my mind that this is even an issue in lefty circles...

Self-defense is a feminist issue. Self-defense is a gay rights issue. Self-defense is a violence against women issue. Self-defense is the issue of *every* group that historically has violence perpetrated on it (see: Battle of Hayes Pond, Deacons for Defense, and a myriad of other examples...)

Removing my ability to defend myself (something I've unfortunately had to do before) or my home, helps ensure that the next time 4 guys decide to queer bash me and a friend, I won't get off so lucky with just a busted up nose.

[iverglas]

48. blah blah

Woman, straight, victim of violence.

Self-defense is a feminist issue. ... Self-defense is a violence against women issue.

Nope. Violence against women is a feminist issue.

Self-defense is the issue of *every* group that historically has violence perpetrated on it (see: Battle of Hayes Pond, Deacons for Defense, and a myriad of other examples...)

See: conflation, logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation

Individuals are one thing, groups are another. The collective rights of groups, and the collective actions of groups to exercise those rights, are quite distinct from the actions of individuals.

Indeed, individuals suffer rights violations stemming from their status as members of groups. That does not mean that every action taken by individuals to address offences against them is an exercise of a collective right. Individuals just don't get to decide how collective rights will be exercised.

For anybody who shoves a pistol down his/her pants to draw a parallel between him/herself and Deacons for Defence, or the Black Panthers, or the peasants revolting against some cruel overlord, is just ugly.

You do not speak for your group any more than any other self-appointed individual speaks for any other group. You may represent a body of thought within your group, but your faction is opposed by others, with varying shades all round. Each has as legitimate a claim to represent the best interests of the group as have you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. akgirl has just as much right as any other individual to arm (or not arm) herself

Not because she is a member of a group. Sorry, there should be no political vetting for arms use.

Indeed, individuals suffer rights violations stemming from their status as members of groups. That does not mean that every action taken by individuals to address offences against them is an exercise of a collective right. Individuals just don't get to decide how collective rights will be exercised.

For anybody who shoves a pistol down his/her pants to draw a parallel between him/herself and Deacons for Defence, or the Black Panthers, or the peasants revolting against some cruel overlord, is just ugly.

And akgirl has made the individual decision (as a self-identified member of an oppressed
group) to arm herself in response to being assaulted for being a member of said group.

Each and every member of the Deacons for Defense, the veterans of Athens, Tennesee, and the Black
Panthers had to decide for themselves whether to take up arms or not. They weren't the Borg, y'know.

So I would call her analogy not only not ugly, but historically apt. And if she has to, in extremis, use deadly force to defend herself against some violent homophobe-
well, I hope she isn't
either overly traumatized or persecuted by the authorities for her actions.

[iverglas]

66. blahblah blahblah blahblah

I was addressing what the one-hit wonder said.

Dog knows what you were doing.

Yammering, I think.

[akgirl]

68. Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware...

...that you were waiting for a response. Just kind of assumed you didn't really need or desire one. Everything I've read from you indicates that responding just feeds your argumentative ugliness, so, I gathered that instead of encouraging you, I'll just ignore you, period.

And for the record, my carry sidearm is not "shoved down my pants", although I know you'd like to believe that.

*rolls eyes, presses magic ignore button*

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Apparently, you didn't wait to be vetted on whether you could own weapons or not,

or what political statements are "appropriate" for a member of your "group" to make.

Do try not to cross our self-appointed zampolit again, hmmm?

[akgirl]

70. I'll be sure to...

...submit myself before a party apparatchik for re-indocrination to leftist thought *smirk* (which is funny because on just about everything I think the Democrats are too far right for my liking...)

Come to think about it, I went to the gun show today and bought a new skery black rifle (Flat-top AR-15, with a bull barrel. My first non-eastern block rifle.) I had purchased it a month ago before the insanity, just went to pick it up today.... better make sure my reservation for the reeducation camp is a little longer.

[Fattys Mom]

72. Cool!

Another girl with a gun! So what are you compensating for? They tell me it is because I secretly want a penis not because I want to protect myself from a real threat. I don't need my AR but it is just so damned much fun the shoot.:evilgrin:

[akgirl]

73. compensating....

Only thing I'm compensating for is muzzle flash :)

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

75. gosh

I guess I wasn't invisible after all.

I'm still cut to the core.

[Tejas]

63. Welcome to the Gungeon

Fellow owner of AK's here.

enjoy!

[jody]

65. Welcome to DU’s Guns-Fortress where Democrats defend RKBA protected by the Second Amendment against

those who want to disarm “We the People” forcing us to submit to violent criminals.

If you are a loyal Democrat and pro-RKBA, join us in protecting the 2nd with facts and history that predates our Constitution.

SCOTUS says our defense is impregnable.

[jody]

79. You learn very fast. Even a forum for "Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives"

can have posts dripping with ad hominem attacks sans facts and logic.

is an effective pest repellent.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

81. yes indeed, yes indeed; for some it is

Indeed.

Ah, lurking. Yes. That's such a common cover ... story ...

If you're looking for guidance on using these boards, you might not want to be seeking it from someone who, in the very post you replied to, once again violated the rules of civility that are imposed on this place.

Once you have ignored someone, you see, you simply don't get to continue making disparaging posts about them or the posts of theirs that you claim not to be seeing.

There you go. If only you were seeing this, you might avoid making the same mistake next time.

I'll wait til tomorrow to have your post disposed of. Maybe someone will convey the gist of this message to you in the meantime.

[iverglas]

82. may I just say, however, how honoured I am

that, what, four? of your six posts to date have been devoted to moi.

That fan club must be doing some big-time advertising.

[JonQ]

54. Men tend to be significantly stronger than women

That's why it's typically men abusing their wives rather than vice-versa. Universal disarmament will favor male abusers at the expense of women. Being armed would at least level the field. Yeah, women could still be shot, but they could also defend themselves. Whereas in a situation where no one is allowed weapons I don't see how they would for the most part (not every woman is a weight lifter, or martial arts expert).

[iverglas]

67. puke

That is all.

[quaker bill]

97. Sane people

tend to end relationships where possession of a firearm is the basis of trust. It is a good thing, I would consistently recommend it.

[guntard]

55. The reason for this deliberate blurring of social realities is simple

If more and more women became interested in guns and shooting for personal defense and recreation, that would make the gun-grabbers' constant hackneyed and unfunny references to gun-owners' penis size even less relevant.

And what a shame that would be.

[derby378]

60. I think it's the whole "penis substitute" argument some people use

It allows some gun-control advocates to be catty and smug without really addressing the deeper issues at hand. Not everyone who supports gun control does this, but those that do often do so to the point of absurdity.

[Hangingon]

61. Deleted dupe

[Hangingon]

62. Seeing that this thread is "hangingon" I thought about it again.

The latest issues American Rifleman, Guns and Ammo, Shotgun News and Shooting Times came this week. If we seek guns to compensate for small penises, these publications should be prime sources for male enhancement products. I mean a gun might make us think 3" is 9", but it just would not be there when we "make contact". Guess what? Not a one of these had a male enhancement ad. Same with Road and Track and Car and Driver. I'm heading up to the grocery store to see how this works with truck/SUV publications

[Somawas]

74. At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show this weekend

you could buy pink Breast Cancer Awareness grips for your pistol. Nothing sexist about that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Only sexist if they don't come in larger sizes

If I owned a firearm, I'd buy a set to show support and enjoy the shits and giggles
when I showed up at the range with them. Just knowing the consternation these would cause in
some people would be reason enough to pack a handgun with pink handgrips.

As a side note, I'm a rather large, 40+ year old, straight white guy who is and always was
quite bloody-minded...

[iverglas]

78. large, straight, white

and amused by breast cancer ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. Yeah, it was comedy gold holding my partner's hand during her needle biopsy

and waiting with her for the results. Oops, there I go taking an incorrect line again, and
the political officer is unhappy with me.

Where DO you come up with this stuff, anyway? Bitter much?

[iverglas]

88. snort

There may be a lesson in here for you. Obviously you haven't taken it yet, but perhaps you will.

Sauce, goose, gander.

Here, let me spell it out a little more.

Don't like having inferences drawn from what you said that can only be drawn by twisting and relying on unfounded assumptions?

...

Frankly, your comment was inappropriately flippant on its face. But context, including context unknown to the listener, can be everything, eh?

Some might just want to remember that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. I have learned two lessons, actually

1. My belief that that the pompous and self-important should be needled as often as possible is, in fact, true.

2. The Democratic and/or progressive 'line', if such a thing exists, consists of the actions
of Democrats and/or progressives, and not the opinions of outside observers.

and, further:

If the proceeds from the sale of these pink pistol grips actually goes towards the fight against
breast cancer (i.e., not some kind of 'pinkwashing' scam), I will pop for a set for the first
DUer who contacts me with details.

Howz about them manzanas?

[iverglas]

91. if

If you can keep your head when all around you ...
Then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

If the proceeds from the sale of these pink pistol grips actually goes towards the fight against
breast cancer (i.e., not some kind of 'pinkwashing' scam), I will pop for a set for the first
DUer who contacts me with details.

I will read that as being "does not actually go" - ?

Well, I think the onus would kinda be on s/he who presents the thesis that the proceeds did go there.

But here ya go. There are a couple of other secondary sources.

http://juliegolob.com/news/?p=41

Like I wuz saying. You just can't buy advertising like that.

Maybe Smith and Wesson will give away fuzzy kittens with its merchandise next.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of women in the US have been murdered by men wielding handguns, undoubtedly many of them made by Smith and Wesson. And no, I don't give a flying fuck, in this regard, that women die when they are hit by Ford Tauruses, or drown in American Standard bathtubs, or choke on Hostess Twinkies.

No charity dedicated to women's welfare and well-being should touch firearms manufacturer's money with a ten-foot pole.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. Ok, maybe this *is* pinkwashing on S&W's part...

...but Julie Golob's blog sorta makes the OP's point for them. And I would prefer to see women explaining
why they gave some violent asshole three rounds to the center of mass to reading their obituaries in the
paper.

Not to mention the salutary effect of chlorinating the gene pool...

[iverglas]

95. I guess saying that is easier ...

And I would prefer to see women explaining
why they gave some violent asshole three rounds to the center of mass to reading their obituaries in the paper.

... than actually giving a damn.

Because we all know that anybody who actually gave a damn would not spew shit like this in public.

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. Your concern for the welfare of domestic abusers is admirable in an abstract way

but if forced to choose the lesser of two evils, I would hope the abuser is the one carried out
feet first. Whether by means of an evil gun, a baseball bat, or the side of the hand to the
larnyx matters not. I can see no honor being derived from becoming a dead victim, unless one is so
dedicated a pacifist that defending your own life is ethically impossible for you.

That is a choice for the individual to make, not me, you, or anyone else.

Y'know, it *is* possible to both attempt to repair society for the long term and try to keep yourself
alive in the short term.

[iverglas]

99. your persistent misrepresentation is mildly amusing

Your concern for the welfare of domestic abusers

And here I thought you'd learned that little lesson.

Your laughing about breast cancer ...


Just in case you're not getting it:

Don't like having inferences drawn from what you said that can only be drawn by twisting and relying on unfounded assumptions?
...

There is no way in this universe that you could have interpreted my post as expressing "concern for the welfare of domestic abusers" without twisting yourself into such a knot I'm sure you are still waiting for someone to come along and untie you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Have I wandered into a bad 'young adult' novel?

"Giving lessons" on an Internet forum? I've had too many friends and relations become ill and/or die from various and sundry causes
not to be amused by causes of death. I refuse to take the delicate sensibilities of someone who persists in moralizing and stereotyping others very seriously at all.

Think of me what you will. Call me what you will. But your opinion is just that, your opinion.
It has no more moral weight than mine or that of any other DUer.

[iverglas]

103. and now for something completely different

This is what I said:

There is no way in this universe that you could have interpreted my post as expressing "concern for the welfare of domestic abusers" without twisting yourself into such a knot I'm sure you are still waiting for someone to come along and untie you.

Try saying something that relates to it.

Even tangentially.

Just for practice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. I can understand where you'd get that idea

After all, it's just not possible for a "racist, misogynist, right-wing" white guy to
give money to a cause that touched him personally.

And take the piss out of gender-role stereoypes while doing so.

So, I must be 'amused by breast cancer'! What a narrow worldview...

[iverglas]

77. Wow

Ya just can't buy better publicity than that, can ya?

Look at us. We caaaare.

I have to say I'm surprised and pretty disgusted that the organization in charge of Breast Cancer Awareness Week authorized these little items. I mean, I assume they did.

[X_Digger]

85. *gasp* now guns cause breast cancer? Who knew..

I have to say I'm surprised and pretty disgusted that the organization in charge of Breast Cancer Awareness Week authorized these little items. I mean, I assume they did.

Cause, gosh, everyone knows guns cause breast cancer, right? Never-you-mind that some women actually *gasp* own guns, or that some men who own guns have partners who suffer from it. "Oh the humanity!"

[Tejas]

101. disgusted that $ goes to breast cancer awareness?

"I have to say I'm surprised and pretty disgusted that the organization in charge of Breast Cancer Awareness Week authorized these little items. I mean, I assume they did."


Some of us care that a cure is found, no matter the source of the $ needed.

[iverglas]

104. you betcha!

I am that. I am disgusted to the core that money is going to breast cancer awarness. Disgusted just beyond belief.

Why, I think I'll go rip up my breast cancer screening clinic referral thingy before I lose my mind and actually go get that mammogram thing. That would make me aware of breast cancer ... that my aunt died of, and my grandmother survived. And we couldn't have that. Next thing you know, somebody would be wanting to put money into it. And that would be just awful.

Some of us don't like our health and lives becoming a vehicle for the promotion of firearms sales.

[Tejas]

106. as usual, your aim is horrible

"Some of us don't like our health and lives becoming a vehicle for the promotion of firearms sales."


Firearms don't need pink grips to boost sales, they don't need anything, but you knew that.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

86. Who owns the bulk of the guns matters a lot

If the majority of gun owners are right wing cultural bigots and they are aware of it, they can exploit the circumstance to oppress women and gays. If, however, more people other than sexist, homophobic men own the guns, the balance of social and cultural power would be different.

For liberals to shy away from guns gives more of a firepower monopoly to conservatives. But when conservatives realize that women and gays actually know how to defend themselves, they might think twice before pulling anything stupid.

[akgirl]

87. I'm doing my part to even up the odds :) n/t

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

89. Keeping in mind that we hope they are never used...

...Just by having more even distribution of firepower, no one side will be tempted to bully the others around.

[iverglas]

92. laughable

The both of you. If you actually believe what you're saying. Or think you're impressing anybody else, even if you don't.

[DrCory]

94. Are You Disbuting Their Honesty? N/T

[iverglas]

96. !!1!11! I have never disbuted anthing in my life !11!1!!

[Tejas]

100. Oh, do tell us everything you also know about nuclear deterrence too. nt

[iverglas]

105. okey dokey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw

Of course, there's also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

and we'll finish with a rousing chorus of this, which is kinda particularly relevant and you won't want to miss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs

That should about cover it.

You can exit stage left singing this one if you like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo


Oh I do so miss the good old days when MrB and I would trade Tom Lehrer lyrics around the board of a Friday evening ...

In Memoriam:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=10520


Okay, now I'm guffawing uncontrollably again and must go home and eat Miss Vicki's potato chips.