Yet another antigun teacher projecting her insecurities

Meh! You vant evidence you vill get evidence!!

Self- defence without guns - results of a survey comparing female college students who took self defence classes as opposed to those who did not


Note - no guns

Rape Situation Statistics

25% of rapes take place in a parking garage or public area.
63% of rapes occur between 6 pm and 6 am
Victims received injuries in over 47% of all rapes
More than 50% of rapists were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when committing their crime.
Over 80% of assaults were committed without the use of a weapon

http://www.womensafenetwork.com/index.htm?pageid=statistics

Now - who commits those rapes

Approximately 4/5 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.1
82% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.1
47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.1
25% are an intimate.1
5% are a relative.1

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

Hmmm - so if I am at risk of rape and it is overwhelmingly someone I know - when do I shoot them? First drink? First kiss? First fumble in the dark? When you are in the bed? When he does not take NO for an answer?

 

Is MJ wrong? Unless you can prove that there statistics and sourcing is incorrect then they remain a valid source

And gun free zones have nothing to do with mass shootings - if you do not want to believe MJ on this then find a source (other than NRA) that backs that assertion with statistics

 

You are with the wrong person if they do not accept NO ! When I tell my dog no, he gets it... lol

 

Hmmm - and considering the number of rapes not reported this represents a serious social problem.

We recently had an advertising blitz here "No means NO" reinforcing that if someone pushes beyond the no response they are not only committing a crime but will face those consequences

 

And you can continue to be a subject. We're citizens here. Our government is not able to confiscate our firearms, while yours were taken from you on a leftist politician's whim.

Fortunately, if one stays out of the leftist controlled urban areas in America, there is little to worry about when it comes to violence. But if the violence comes in our direction, we can protect ourselves.

In Australia I assume one hides in their home, shaking in fear, if someone breaks in? Hoping the 'authorities' arrive in time? Liberals/progressives/socialist live like that here, too. Most of us grownups? Not so much...

 

They have been proven incorrect or at least misleading. To give you a chance please show a stat they quote. Oh and btw if that's the case then you can't criticize the creationist sites I link to unless you specifically proven a certain claim wrong.

Yes they do. Name one mass shooting that happened at a place where guns are present.

 

In Australia we do not think we are completely defenceless if we do not have a gun............

BTW - you are more at risk of dying if you do have a gun in the house
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

 

It has?? Where? The NRA website?
And as for the creationist websites = Ah! (*)(*)(*)(*) but they are entertainingly wrong - and have been proven so time and again. But some of the claims are unprovable simply because they are so outrageous that no thinking scientifically literate person would have entertained the thought in the first place

Continents sliding around the planet like skateboarders - lol!!!

Onus is on you to prove your claim - I am not doing your homework for you

But think on this Australia and the UK can be considered BIG gun free zones - what is the mass shooting rates for those two countries?

 

what about a recommendation, with conscientious objection?

 

Why don't you feel you're completely defenseless? Perhaps, knowing that no means no, you'll sternly warn the intruder that he is not welcome?

Re the risk of a gun in the house:

This is the true demarkation line between collectivists and individualists; you expect the 'authorities' to protect people from themselves, where those of us who do not follow statist dogma realize we are responsible for our own decisions. Firearms in my house? Perfectly safe, for a variety of reasons. The idiot living in urban Atlanta? He very well might injure himself. Not my problem, though. And thankfully, leftists here in the U.S. cannot force their projections and insecurities on us, as they have in your country...

 

So if a teacher who was religious who doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle overheard the young woman say she was a lesbian, she could make a recommendation, with conscientious objection? I personally don't think that would be acceptable in either case. But I'm curious what liberals/progressives/socialists think about this.

 

Yes, Academia must understand the subjective value of morals.

 

Must or should ???

 

Why do you think you would be defenceless without a gun? I have faced intruders in my home - no biggie - pushed him out the door - slammed it shut and called the cops. Most intruders will not fight

BTW - the guy had asked for sex prior to my reaction

Bull

You really have no response to the fact that you are MORE at risk - and some of that is simply because judging by responses here - guns give a false sense of security

 

some discipline must cover it.

 

Matters of thought are not the same thing as matters of fact. Someone believing that they are not in danger, does not mean that they are not in danger.

 

Um,

You sound pretty tough.

But seriously, I hope you never experience the trauma and violence that I witnessed in my 20+ year career as a police officer, where unarmed homeowners were victimized in every way imaginable in cases a little more dangerous than pushing a drunk guy wanting sex out of your house.

And I also witnessed numerous cases where an armed homeowner, simply by announcing she was armed, drove off thugs. Sometimes they had to even point their gun at the thug and very occasionally, had to shoot. These cases far outnumbered accidental deaths, BTW.

Actually, it's you who is quite uninformed and ignorant about firearms in the U.S. I've noticed leftists tend to project quite a bit of their personality into the issue; a liberal/progressive/socialist quick to anger projects her feelings to image what she might do with a firearm, and it scares her. What she doesn't realize – as most leftists don't realize – is that normal people are not so quick to anger and have more self control. You see this in street marches, leftists fighting with the police and looting and breaking things; I tend to agree people like that shouldn't own firearms. Fortunately, they agree and are rabidly anti-gun.

Far more gun violence, including accidental shootings, occurs in America's inner cities. Sadly, many of the people who live there take as much personal responsibility with their firearms as they do with the rest of their lives, but they have no absolutely nothing to do with me. Fortunately, we're not collectivists like people in your country and we still value individual rights, so I'm not punished by the irresponsibility of others.

But leftists tend to paint with a broad brush and have little diversity in their lives, so you are so out of your element when it comes to firearms you don't even realize how wrong you are. But as I said, people like you, even here in the U.S., are prohibited by our constitution in suppressing our rights, so this whole discussion is academic.

At least here in the U.S...

 

some anti-gunners are like some anti-choicers

 

Ah. You cannot handle the truth, and you cannot meaningfully respond to it.
Understood. Thank you .

 

And we're glad you do -- your irrational fears would clearly cause you to melt down if you lived here.
Meanwhile for every gun used to commit a murder in the US yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.

 

We all know you know you cannot prove this to be true.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove this to be true.

 

Leftist this and leftist that....you should think twice about being a cop when all you do is identify the criminal element as that political. They are generally a-political
Leftist have little diversity in their lives ? Get real. By the shear definition of a liberal we are less likely to be so afraid to walk down and get the newspaper and feel like we have to be armed. We actually spend more time traveling to more diverse places that have gun laws that interfer with carrying guns......so we are less bothered by seeing the need. It does not mean that there are times we would not want one.

This notion that liberals or leftist in the US are un armed when need just isn't true. We just want the gun industry to be better regulated. I really fail to see why the goal of allowing everyone to be armed is better then only allowing the the qualified to be armed.

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to have common sense regulation that legitimacy works to that end. What gets in the way, is this ridiculous idea that everyone needs to be armed to protect themselves from the police we normally dial 911 to for help.

Many of "you guys" have political agendas not gun agendas.

 

How many burglaries involve attacking the victim? Most are done during the day when the victims were not home

But then I am thinking Aussie

We are unlikely to face an armed assailant BECAUSE WE RESTRICTED ACCESS TO FIREARMS

 

Mate - work as a nurse in Crit Care

Want to tell me again that I have never seen people who have been victimised???

Want to tell me again that I need a gun to defend myself because most of us Aussies just do not see the need and it puzzles us as to why Americans DO feel they need to be armed - especially when telling us what a polite and safe society they have

Anecdotal evidence and subject to selective memory. Accidental deaths are not the reason it is more dangerous to have an unsecured firearm in the home. How many domestic violence cases did you attend where there was a shooting?

Illogical claptrap based on political bias

More illogical politically biased rubbish

bull