Who kills women with guns?

[Ptarmigan]

The PhDD is at it again with guns.  

BainsBane (11,756 posts)

Who kills women with guns? [View all]

Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 01:44 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
 Yes, this particular graphic focuses on gun crimes against women. More men are shot than women, so by all means, go find the stats for gun violence against men and post them.

The fact is, women are murdered by men they know, 65% of them by their partners. Only 10% of women killed with guns are killed by strangers, so the idea that a gun protects you from an anonymous stranger is a myth. It is far more likely to be used against you.

flvegan (62,260 posts)
1. According to your graphic, it's men.

Obviously, they should be killed, those men. Not those trying to break into her house, but the one already in her bed. And "killed with strangers" means what? Was the stranger also killed male or female?

Wait...is this about killing women with guns (women who are owner/operators of guns) or killing women via guns to do just that?

Hold on, the second graphic...these women murdered were done so by "others they knew" or "strangers" or "spouses, intimate partners or other family members" and that doesn't jibe with the OP.

Sorry, I jest at stupid OPs, as I don't suffer fools gladly on important issues.

BainsBane (11,756 posts)
2. Stupid OPs? Violence against women is stupid?

Hmmm. Is there some reason you feel a need to broadcast how little you care about the lives of women?

flvegan (62,260 posts)
4. Is that what you took from that response?

BainsBane (11,756 posts)
6. Yes, I did

that and the fact you feel a need to be rude because someone makes a typo.

The Straight Story (42,010 posts)
13. Am confused. Is it men or guns causing this?

Because if it is guns that cause the issue than I am sure the stats of women who own guns are the exact same as for men (as far as all crimes where guns are used).

What percent had alcohol/drugs involved? And do those things play a bigger part in domestic violence than guns (guess they do - what is the cure for that)?

BainsBane (11,756 posts)
14. Amazingly, a gun is more lethal than a fist

which is why people own them.

Huh???????????  

The Straight Story (42,010 posts)
15. And amazling 99% of people who own them don't harm others with them

But some want us to believe otherwise in order to control the choices others make that they don't like.

Alcohol/drugs contribute greatly to crime and violence and we have laws to punish those who do so - are there more laws you would like to see to curb such things from happening?

BainsBane (11,756 posts)
16. So all those murders don't count?

Because 100% of people aren't committing them? 100% of bankers don't commit fraud either. Do you submit we should not pay attention to those crimes?

Go lobby congress to reimpose prohibition. If you want to see what percentage are involved in crime, look at the CDC website. I'm not your teacher. You can do your own research.

One_Life_To_Give (4,816 posts)
38. Chicken vs Egg

Is it a violent intimate partner with access to a gun? Or is it access to a gun that makes a intimate partner violent?

Violent people combined with an ability to commit violence is a bad combination.

BainsBane (11,756 posts)
44. The partner is violent. The gun makes him all the more lethal.

No chicken or egg.

BainsBane really hates guns. I wonder if she works for any anti-gun lobbying group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3080177

[Big Dog]

PhDD sez...

Ladies, the greatest threat to your safety is the man sleeping next to you in bed, so you should kill him in his sleep before he kills you.

[Freeper]

BainsBane (11,756 posts)
16. So all those murders don't count?

Because 100% of people aren't committing them? 100% of bankers don't commit fraud either. Do you submit we should not pay attention to those crimes?

Go lobby congress to reimpose prohibition. If you want to see what percentage are involved in crime, look at the CDC website. I'm not your teacher. You can do your own research.

Well gee you are right, I say we ban all banks now. Since in your hypothetical 1% of bankers are fraudsters if we ban all banks, problem solved.

[Ptarmigan]

PhDD sez...

Ladies, the greatest threat to your safety is the man sleeping next to you in bed, so you should kill him in his sleep before he kills you.

So PhDD's thinking, it is okay to murder men. She is advocating crime.

[Ptarmigan]

Well gee you are right, I say we ban all banks now. Since in your hypothetical 1% of bankers are fraudsters if we ban all banks, problem solved.

She needs straw men, like most libtards need. If we ban banks the economy would crash.   

[Big Dog]

PhDD

Only 10% of women killed with guns are killed by strangers, so the idea that a gun protects you from an anonymous stranger is a myth.

What about that 10%? PhDD is comfortable consigning them to being murdered, by calling their capacity for self-defense a myth.

PhDD: "10% = zero". I guess that is what comes from getting a PhD in Teddy Roosevelt/Pancho Villa Slash Fiction from Monsters University.

[FiddyBeowulf]

Shout out!!!  

Star Member Buzz Clik (30,270 posts)
126. Excellent post.

To the lurking/trolling/moling asshats: one ****ing example that goes contrary to the data does NOT win the day. 10% is 10% regardless.

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #126)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:57 PM

Star Member BainsBane (11,756 posts)
128. Amazing how the concept of basic statistics escapes many

Response to BainsBane (Reply #128)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:58 PM

Star Member Buzz Clik (30,270 posts)
129. That's because yer stooopid. Like all DUmmies.

And, by the way, they are here. But, you knew that.

Nice to see you too.  

[franksolich]

I'm beginning to wonder if   is on the payroll of the Hate Guns lobby or something, as this subject's the only thing she posts about.

<<<preferred the old   , the one who commented about a variety of issues.

[Big Dog]

Wow.  It must be casual day at the DUmp.

Buzzy gave us a shout-out, gave PhDD an Indian rope burn AND a wedgie with "10% is 10%", and used the word "DUmmies".

[Big Dog]

I'm beginning to wonder if   is on the payroll of the Hate Guns lobby or something, as this subject's the only thing she posts about.

<<<preferred the old  , the one who commented about a variety of issues.

She's trying to get my attention. She's still pissed that I didn't PM her while she was posting here and ask her out, so she went full anti-gun retard out of spite.

Sorry, Alex. I'd walk a mile to smoke a Camel, but I won't go all the way to Mpls to ride a moonbat.

[Ptarmigan]

I'm beginning to wonder if   is on the payroll of the Hate Guns lobby or something, as this subject's the only thing she posts about.

<<<preferred the old  , the one who commented about a variety of issues.

She seems really obsessed about how guns are evil. She is loco.

[Freeper]

Star Member Buzz Clik (30,270 posts)
129. That's because yer stooopid. Like all DUmmies.

And, by the way, they are here. But, you knew that.

I'm glad that Buzzy finally admits that the DUmmies are all stupid.

[Big Dog]

She seems really obsessed about how guns are evil. She is loco.

Penis envy. Positively Freudian.

No, wait.

Is it "penis envy" when she wants my penis?

[Freeper]

I think I know why Bane thinks men with guns are dangerous. She hangs out with lefties and no one in their right mind would trust a leftist with anything sharper than the dull end of a crayon, much less a gun. Since all the men she knows are dangerous fruitloops she thinks that conservative men are the same. She doesn't realize that conservative men love their wife and their kids and would never do anything to harm them and that includes the children in the womb. People tend to judge everyone based on the people they know, so if you know nothing but violent leftists then you think everyone is violent. So therefore you don't trust anyone with a gun. Contrast that with those of us who hang around decent civilized people we know that a lot of people can be trusted with a gun. So I propose new gun legislation that states that no leftists at any time can come within 100 yards of a gun. Problem solved.

[Ptarmigan]

BainsBane (11,756 posts)

Who kills women with guns? [View all]

Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 01:44 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
 Yes, this particular graphic focuses on gun crimes against women. More men are shot than women, so by all means, go find the stats for gun violence against men and post them.

The fact is, women are murdered by men they know, 65% of them by their partners. Only 10% of women killed with guns are killed by strangers, so the idea that a gun protects you from an anonymous stranger is a myth. It is far more likely to be used against you.

Criminals are not responsible people. God, she is so stupid!

[Big Dog]

I think I know why Bane thinks men with guns are dangerous. She hangs out with lefties and no one in their right mind would trust a leftist with anything sharper than the dull end of a crayon, much less a gun. Since all the men she knows are dangerous fruitloops she thinks that conservative men are the same. She doesn't realize that conservative men love their wife and their kids and would never do anything to harm them and that includes the children in the womb. People tend to judge everyone based on the people they know, so if you know nothing but violent leftists then you think everyone is violent. So therefore you don't trust anyone with a gun. Contrast that with those of us who hang around decent civilized people we know that a lot of people can be trusted with a gun. So I propose new gun legislation that states that no leftists at any time can come within 100 yards of a gun. Problem solved.

Your reasoning is sound, and your conclusion is well-supported. I concur.

DUmmies: We're not infringing on your rights, we're supporting everyone else's rights to be safe from you. That is the kernel of your argument for gun control, right?

[Freeper]

Your reasoning is sound, and your conclusion is well-supported. I concur.

DUmmies: We're not infringing on your rights, we're supporting everyone else's rights to be safe from you. That is the kernel of your argument for gun control, right?

That's why they hate guns. It's harder to steal from an armed man.

[ExGeeEye]

The best statistics to work with from a pro-2A standpoint are not "who is shot" but "who does the shooting".  Nothing at hand right now, but criminals (with records; their guns are already legally banned, for all the good that does) and police (the only ones, we're told, who can be trusted with guns) top the list.

The rest of us hardly do any shooting at all.  Heck, in my circle of recently* well-armed friends, range time is rare.

*There have been a lot of boat accidents over the past five years.

[Big Dog]

That's why they hate guns. It's harder to steal from an armed man.

You're right. Whether we are talking about taking his rights, his money, or his life, it's harder to steal from an armed man.

High five.

[jukin]

Women have babies.
Babies can be killed, it's a choice.
Ergo, killing women is just a very early abortion.

I do real statistical analysis for mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) and quality control inspections. So I understand quite well and the only way to truly understand this graphic is to see the raw data. My guess is it has been greatly massaged. I would like to see just how many women are killed by guns. Since a majority of gun deaths are suicides or criminals shot dead, I don't expect the number to be large. I would also hazard a guess that the number quoted is something along the lines of has a gun in the house but bludgeoned the women with a hammer is counted in that figure.

OAN, there are never the figures given in protecting or thwarting potential assaults and rapes that are done by legal gun owners, women gun owners.

And finally, my initial guess would have been black gang bangers in drive by shootings in Chicago alone.

[USA4ME]

Without statistics showing how many women were not murdered as a result of having a gun to defend themselves, this chart of hers has no real meaning.  All we've got now is "these are the women who were killed." Let me compare that to those who weren't killed because they did have a gun and we'll talk.

BainsBane

So all those murders don't count?

See PhDD, I could just as easily say "So all those who were able to defend themselves don't count?", and you're stuck.

Well gee you are right, I say we ban all banks now. Since in your hypothetical 1% of bankers are fraudsters if we ban all banks, problem solved.

Given her solution of the 2nd Amendment which I posted here in the past (her solution to the 2nd is to have it struck from the Bill of Rights), you're comparison is completely accurate.

.

[Big Dog]

Calling bullshit on the statistics.

"An abused woman who has a gun in the home is six times more likely to be killed than an abused woman who lives in a home with no firearms"

Undefined term: "abused woman".  This term has no significance. It could include women who were verbally, physically, or sexually abused, or any combination; the abuse could have happened at any point in the past or present; and the abuse may have occurred in the home or out of it (work, social settings, etc).

Undefined term: "gun in the home". This may refer to a single woman who keeps a gun for her own protection, or it may refer to a woman whose spouse/partner keeps firearms, but she has no access to them. These two scenarios are drastically different from each other, and can't be combined into a single demographic.

False data: "six times more likely". Neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency keep statistics of the presence or absence of firearms within the residences of crime victims. Most police reports for crimes which do not involve the use of a firearm do not even mention firearms, and of course a police report for a murder which occurs out of the home will not include an inventory of guns in the home.

False data: "more likely to be killed". If a firearm was not used in the commission of the crime, the presence of a firearm in the home is irrelevant.

C'mon, Alex. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

[FiddyBeowulf]

Calling bullshit on the statistics.

"An abused woman who has a gun in the home is six times more likely to be killed than an abused woman who lives in a home with no firearms"

Undefined term: "abused woman".  This term has no significance. It could include women who were verbally, physically, or sexually abused, or any combination; the abuse could have happened at any point in the past or present; and the abuse may have occurred in the home or out of it (work, social settings, etc).

Undefined term: "gun in the home". This may refer to a single woman who keeps a gun for her own protection, or it may refer to a woman whose spouse/partner keeps firearms, but she has no access to them. These two scenarios are drastically different from each other, and can't be combined into a single demographic.

False data: "six times more likely". Neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency keep statistics of the presence or absence of firearms within the residences of crime victims. Most police reports for crimes which do not involve the use of a firearm do not even mention firearms, and of course a police report for a murder which occurs out of the home will not include an inventory of guns in the home.

False data: "more likely to be killed". If a firearm was not used in the commission of the crime, the presence of a firearm in the home is irrelevant.

C'mon, Alex. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

"gun in the home" could also mean a gun until the time of the incident of violence was never inside the home.

[Big Dog]

"gun in the home" could also mean a gun until the time of the incident of violence was never inside the home.

Good point.

[AprilRazz]

One does wonder where she got those numbers. No mention in her post nor where she took the image from. Wonder if she just made them up.
So come on dear, you are supposed to be the smart one here remember? You claim to have an advanced degree in something. Did you forget one of the basic rules of writing a research paper is to cite your sources?