Certainly I can. Murder is murder, and the facts here show that the problem isn't the tool used. It's (most often) the man who uses violence against his partner.
In this situation, his past behavior is generally predictive of what will happen in the future. Abusers have histories of lesser violence. If we treated that more seriously, fewer of these murders would occur. But the blunt instrument of gun control won't stop domestic violence.
Delaware is hardly gun friendly, and as TS and I keep reminding you, there are fifty states in the Union, and there's no correlation between gun laws and rates of violence.
As we also like to point out, most states are gun friendly (8 out of 10). So to look at a list of ten states where nine of them are gun friendly is hardly telling of anything.
One exception? Is that the best you can come up with. And, TS, it certainly does say something when these are the states in which women are most likely to be murdered by their partners.
Mikeb, forty out of fifty states have effectively the same gun laws. There is such wide variation among those states in rates of all types of violence that you have no support for the claim that good gun laws cause harm.
So the percentage of guns used to murder is less when it's a physically stronger male attacking a female than a male. Not surprising. I guess when you say "guns are bad news for women", they are even worse news for men?
There you go, twist it around to pretend there's no problem here. The other post recently put it differently, 50 women a month are murdered with guns by their partners. No big deal, right TS?
Mikeb, as I said in that post about 50 women a month, if they don't wanna get themselves killed, they need to get to hell out at the first sign of violence against them. Your final response to me was that they didn't know they were being abused. Ye,t here you are again spouting off about this. Again, there is no need for these numbers to occur if women would use their frickin brains. Why stay with a violent, abusive, sumbitch who may end up killing you. If you are that stupid, you get what you deserve.
"Your final response to me was that they didn't know they were being abused. "
You're taking a tip from the Greg Camp playbook. I said SOME of them might not have known their partner was an abuser. I also gave several other possible explanations why a woman might not have been able to simply leave. But for you, it's black and white. Women who get killed are stupid, all of them. And of course, you don't want to even look at the abusive fucks who do the killing.
That isn't a very accurate name for that organization. It is not interested in violence any more than this blog is. It is merely a front for gun control and an anti-liberty agenda. If this blog or that organization gave a crap about violence against anyone, certainly they would have said a word or two about last weekend's mass stabbing and murder of a mother and her 4 children in New York.
And the fact that about half of those murders were done with something other than a gun doesn't suggest to you that the problem isn't guns?
ReplyDeleteGreg, you can't compare guns to everything-other-than-guns, unless of course you've got an agenda going to protect your precious guns.
DeleteCertainly I can. Murder is murder, and the facts here show that the problem isn't the tool used. It's (most often) the man who uses violence against his partner.
DeleteIn this situation, his past behavior is generally predictive of what will happen in the future. Abusers have histories of lesser violence. If we treated that more seriously, fewer of these murders would occur. But the blunt instrument of gun control won't stop domestic violence.
Look at that list of gun-friendly states.
DeleteDelaware is hardly gun friendly, and as TS and I keep reminding you, there are fifty states in the Union, and there's no correlation between gun laws and rates of violence.
DeleteAs we also like to point out, most states are gun friendly (8 out of 10). So to look at a list of ten states where nine of them are gun friendly is hardly telling of anything.
DeleteOne exception? Is that the best you can come up with. And, TS, it certainly does say something when these are the states in which women are most likely to be murdered by their partners.
DeleteMikeb, forty out of fifty states have effectively the same gun laws. There is such wide variation among those states in rates of all types of violence that you have no support for the claim that good gun laws cause harm.
DeleteSo the percentage of guns used to murder is less when it's a physically stronger male attacking a female than a male. Not surprising. I guess when you say "guns are bad news for women", they are even worse news for men?
ReplyDeleteThere you go, twist it around to pretend there's no problem here. The other post recently put it differently, 50 women a month are murdered with guns by their partners. No big deal, right TS?
DeleteOh boy, talk about "twist it around".
DeleteMikeb, as I said in that post about 50 women a month, if they don't wanna get themselves killed, they need to get to hell out at the first sign of violence against them. Your final response to me was that they didn't know they were being abused. Ye,t here you are again spouting off about this.
DeleteAgain, there is no need for these numbers to occur if women would use their frickin brains.
Why stay with a violent, abusive, sumbitch who may end up killing you. If you are that stupid, you get what you deserve.
orlin sellers
"Your final response to me was that they didn't know they were being abused. "
DeleteYou're taking a tip from the Greg Camp playbook. I said SOME of them might not have known their partner was an abuser. I also gave several other possible explanations why a woman might not have been able to simply leave. But for you, it's black and white. Women who get killed are stupid, all of them. And of course, you don't want to even look at the abusive fucks who do the killing.
The 'abusive fucks' get prosecuted, which is exactly what should happen.
Deleteorlin sellers
My "playbook" is using facts and logic. I can see why that would bother you.
DeleteThat isn't a very accurate name for that organization. It is not interested in violence any more than this blog is. It is merely a front for gun control and an anti-liberty agenda.
ReplyDeleteIf this blog or that organization gave a crap about violence against anyone, certainly they would have said a word or two about last weekend's mass stabbing and murder of a mother and her 4 children in New York.
orlin sellers