 |
| What women wouldn't wish to be portrayed like this? |
We're all lying when we talk about the increasing number of women in the gun owning community. I'm lying when I describe how over the past few years, half of the women at my church went out and got carry permits. I'm lying about the black, female law students that asked me to teach them to shoot, and then became gun owners. I'm lying about the increasing number of women I see as customers at gun shows instead of as uninterested companions.Nice touch, note how gun ownership is increasing among black, educated, church-going women. Of course, Tennessean is just making stuff up which is a hallmark of gunloon scholarship.
Once more, let's go to the hard science.
The country’s changing demographics may also play a role. While the rate of gun ownership among women has remained relatively constant over the years at about 10 percent, which is less than one-third of the rate among men today, more women are heading households without men, another possible contributor to the decline in household gun ownership. Women living in households where there were guns that were not their own declined to a fifth in 2012 down from a third in 1980.
As much as gunloons wish to portray gun ownership asexploding among women--it's simply untrue.
Well it is up in Texas, and Black women leads the rise in ownership in guns.
ReplyDeleteLink to the evidence for the last 12 years, several ways to look it up. Have fun!
You know hard facts straight from the Texas Dept of Public Safety
Jadetroll,
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't care if you say you believe me or decide to slander me as a liar. I have truthfully reported what I've seen, in contrast to most of your posts here which slander person after person, insult group after group, and provide nothing helpful to your side of the debate except a morale boost for those too foolish to see through your bullshit.
T., you and Texas are both reporting what you've seen. But your limited vantage points don't count for much.
DeleteI was interested in your claim that "half the women in your church" are now gun owners. That sounds like a convenient exaggeration.
I guess my link to the Dept of Public Safety was removed. It contains the actual numbers of demographics. Not what I have seen. But actual CHL numbers, what race, what sex and what ages.
DeleteThat's CHLs alone, not the population of the gun owners or who they are. But it does make a representation of gun owners over all.
But half of all gun owners are unfit is a reasonable claim?
DeleteMike,
DeleteIt's a best, off the cuff estimate. To come up with the exact proportion I'd need to go through the directory, write down the names of all of the women and tick off the ones I know own guns. There's the possibility that some of the others are gun owners, but I'm just talking about the ones I know for sure. All but one of the women in my age group (I'm broadly including 20's & 30's) are gun owners with their own guns apart from what the married ones' husbands have. Most or all of these have carry permits too, and at least a couple own the evil assault weapons because they preferred the lower recoil for home defense rather than using a 12 Gauge. I don't know about all of the older ladies at the church, but I know a good number that have guns and a slightly smaller number with carry permits.
I haven't calculated the exact proportion because it's not THAT big of a church, and why bother wasting that time when it'll just be dismissed as statistically insignificant, or distrusted by you and called a lie by your less couth co-blogger.
Are you admitting that your ridiculous claim about "half" the women in your church was a bit of hyperbole?
DeleteMikeb, are you admitting that your claim that half of all gun owners are unfit is ridiculous?
DeleteDid you just read what I said?
DeleteNo, I'm not. I'm saying it's a best estimate without taking roll, and that it may be more than half in reality, especially given only one woman under 40 is not a gun owner.
Jade gold,
ReplyDeleteAs I've said here before, it really doesn't matter if the percentage of people owning guns is six percent, or sixty. It is currently counted as an individual right, just like all the others.
We discussed this report already. But hey, Jadegold, if you want to encourage your kind of people to be unarmed, I have no problem with that.
ReplyDeleteNo woman of mine needs to own a gun. I am her protector at all times. I will not allow my woman to be placed in a dangerous situation in which she would need to possess a weapon. Not on your life. If she's not at work or visiting her Dad, she's with me. No exceptions.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure she doesn't even notice the chains around her neck any longer, either.
DeleteJunior,
DeleteYou've proved a reasonable man in the past. What about women who are on their own--single, widowed, divorced, etc.? What about women who's men are small and poor protectors if left to nothing but their hands? What about men who are not blessed with your or my stature and imposing, even ugly (at least in my judgment of my case) looks so that the man's mere presence doesn't scare off would be attackers?
It is such women, and even men, who need guns the most. Through history, bruisers like you and me (at least in looks--and I'm guessing about you because of your comment), who were most powerful because they could intimidate others. The old cliche about guns being equalizers exists for a reason--they enable the weak and small to defend themselves against the strong.
In my own experience, I had three weeks when I could barely get out a whisper due to laryngitis while studying in Scotland. I realized how helpless I was one evening when walking back from downtown--I had to walk through a bad neighborhood, and I realized that if I was mugged, I could comply and hope they didn't hurt me, fight with my hands and my possibly illegal Swiss Army knife, or run (but I suck at that); screaming for help was completely out.
Thankfully, I was blessed with being 6 feet tall and broad-shouldered, and whether it was luck or intimidation, I was never accosted save by a drunken Irishman 4 inches taller than me who, thank God, only wanted to berate me for Ireland's loss at football. I'm a peaceful fellow and likely would not have done well in a first fight unless by a fortunate break and dirty fighting.
Imagine the small and the weak. They cannot defend themselves against people our size, or larger, who have evil intent, but if they have an efficient means of defense, they can go about their business with no worries.
Yes, the criminals can be armed too, but at least the field is more level than otherwise, and if a situation cannot be leveled, the victim has a better chance of turning the tables and surviving.
Insecure, frightened men are what make up most gun owners. T. describes the thought process perfectly. Secure men who don't suffer from inadequacy and inordinate fear know that one experience years ago in Scotland where something MIGHT have happened is not sufficient reason to own and carry guns.
DeleteMike,
DeletePlease, tell me, are you insulting me by saying that I suffer from some psychological inadequacy, or is it a physical reference, either to the length of my penis (which I wonder how you think you know) or to the fact that I'm physically incapable of fighting off some people who might attack me, especially if they're armed?
If you are accusing me of the first, I'd find it entertaining to hear you try to explain how my evaluation of my strengths and weaknesses is a psychological malady rather than a clear eyed self evaluation.
If your accusation is physical, then yes, I'll admit that I'm unable to defend myself effectively, with my bare hands, against any and all potential attackers. Moreover, I'd say that if you Don't admit that, then you have severe overconfidence that borders on pathological.
I've thought a great deal about what else to say in response to your mocking comment, but there is not much else to say that will not be a waste of time. I hope that Junior and others will look at my post and think about the defensive needs of smaller and weaker people than they are. I hope that my story of a time when I felt vulnerable is something those who think they're invincible can look at and realize that if they really evaluate things, they have their own vulnerabilities. Maybe they'll take to carrying a gun, maybe they'll just pick a safer route or be more observant of their surroundings as I was.
As for you, Mike, I could type until my fingers were bloody nubbs arguing with you over whether certain fears are inordinate or not, but it would all be a waste of time. You are determined never to agree, and you are firmly decided that nothing can justify arming anyone except those who are already strong, powerful, and able to pass your standards of physical fitness and hand to hand defensive ability. In fact, you're on record saying that the disabled, people with real physical inadequacies that would prevent them from running from an attacker, or fighting back against him, should lose all of their gun rights because of that very same disability that makes them so vulnerable to attack and exploitation.
Frankly, this is the most vile and disgraceful of all of your gun control demands. Unfortunately, you cling to it with such a staunch irrationality that it is pointless to discuss the matter with you.
T., I guess I really hit a nerve. Let me try to clarify a couple things. "Inadequacy," as I use it in the gun argument has nothing to do with your dick. Even when people say gun guys have small dicks, in my opinion, they are not talking literally but metaphorically. The inadequacy is a psychological one.
DeleteMost people who recall occasional incidents in which they might have been in danger and decide the rational thing to do about that is get a gun and a concealed carry permit, in my opinion, are suffering from this psychological inadequacy. Their fear, imagined fear in most cases, has driven them insane, in a sense, and they've decided to do something really stupid.
It's stupid because guns do more harm than good. Your chances of misusing the gun are far greater then the chance that you'll use it one day to save your life. That's a stupid decision based on fear and insecurity and inadequacy.
Now, note I said most people. There are some who are so situated that carrying a gun is necessary and right. I often refer to my friend in NJ who owns and services ATM machines. Last I heard he doesn't carry, which I found surprising. In his position I would.
I'm sorry that it's insulting when I say these things. But that's life.
Clearly you are suffering from the psychological malady you accuse me of since you would want to carry in a situation where your friend doesn't, and he's managed to stay alive this long. You're letting your imagined fear overcome your sanity!
DeleteThat, or you see a real possibility of danger, just like I saw real possibility of danger when I had to walk through that neighborhood, and just like I and others see a real possibility of various other dangers. Moreover, just like I'm sure your friend sees the real possibility of danger in his job.
You want you and your friend to have the choice, given the dangers you perceive, of carrying a gun, but you want to deny that choice to the rest of us because you have determined that our perceived dangers don't rise to the level of being dangerous enough, and therefore you have declared us insane.
(As a side note, I'm wondering how long it would be, after you got your way on your gun control program, before you started declaring that most people wanting to carry a gun were insane, and therefore prohibited from even owning one.)
What's interesting is that with the collectivist idea of gun control, we get down to the same problem seen in collectivist economics: fighting over who's NEED is the greatest rather than allowing individuals to determine what their need is and work to satisfy it themselves.
Mikeb, unless your friend in Jersey is politically connected, he can't get a carry license. You deny that reality, but that doesn't change things. But then, you believe that you are qualified to make psychological assessments of people you've never met. You see yourself as qualified to make sociological assessments of regions you've spent little time in. And so forth.
DeleteYour insults are childish and baseless. They show the weakness of your argument. But I doubt you're capable of letting them go.
Why would you advocate your ATM friend carrying a gun when he could just give the robbers money and nobody gets hurt. It's not his money, and I'm sure he and the bank are insured, so there's no personal hardship. Or are you coming around and realizing that when someone uses violence to steal they are threatening a life, and that life is worth defending.
DeleteTS, I'm not coming around to anything, I'm already around.
DeleteMy friend is just one example of someone who in my opinion has a good reason to own and use a gun.
"but you want to deny that choice to the rest of us because you have determined that our perceived dangers don't rise to the level of being dangerous enough"
DeleteI never said I want to deny your choice. If you qualify and are truly responsible, then go at it. You just can't convince me you're a rational and fearless and secure man.
It does more harm than good, Mike! How many times have you told us that?
DeleteNot nearly as many times as your side has claimed the opposite, the millions of DGUs and other assorted nonsense.
DeleteAnd in the same way that you refuse to be convinced of that, Mike, you'll never really be convinced that I meet the qualifications and am truly responsible, and so you'll keep cranking down on those requirements until you've disqualified as many people as possible.
Delete(Also, it's humorous that, in the past, you've said that I was responsible and had reasonable reasons for owning a gun. Of course, that was when I started coming here and hadn't disagreed with you as many times.)
T., my guess as to what motivates you to own a gun and carry it everywhere you can, really has nothing to do with your qualifications. I figure you and the others who comment here and on other gun blogs are for the most part in the good 50%. But you're still a bunch of insecure and frightened men with psychological issues. Otherwise you wouldn't make the extremely foolish decision to own and carry guns. It's a foolish decision because unless you're in a very particular situation, the chances of ever using the gun to save yourself are much lower than the possibility of an incident of gun misuse, some of which can be extremely grave.
DeleteSomehow, your attempts to diagnose us with psychological issues fall very flat considering your comments show a pathological fear of guns as some evil device that have no benefit and a huge chance of killing their users in spite of evidence to the contrary.
DeleteWhere do you get THAT? I would leave about half of you guys with your guns, if I had my way. And, even more importantly, given the right circumstances, I'd own guns again myself.
DeleteWhere's the pathological fear of guns in that?
The pathological fear is that you think that the chances of an accident are so astronomically high, and that they are so unable to be mediated, that they outweigh any potential benefits unless you have some abnormally dangerous job like hauling large amounts of money in a crime ridden area.
Delete