Smarter Than You: Gun Ownership, edition

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

ZRT2209 (651 posts)

Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists

Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:49 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

opposed to dispensing birth control?

I mean, if teabaggers expect us to accept the argument that a pharmacist (or any health care provider) should not be forced to violate their consciences in providing medicine or services (because they believe in the sacredness of human life), then certainly they must accept the argument that some people, based on the sacredness of human life, should not be forced to rely on owning their own gun for self-protection?

Many teabaggers have argued that the woman who was raped in Josephine County, Oregon because there are no police to respond to 911 (due to anti-tax fanatics) should have owned a gun for self-protection.

Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?

Jenoch (1,656 posts)
3. "Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?"

Absolutely she should not be raped. However, if she were armed it is possible she would not have been harmed.

ZRT2209 (651 posts)
4. sounds like you're saying it was her fault she was raped

backwoodsbob (4,752 posts)
7. no one said any such thing

HOWEVER

If I was in her position...had been beaten by him before...ongoing threats...no police presence...Hell yeah I would have advised her to buy a gun.I would have advised her to buy a .44 Magnum.At the first sign of trouble that gun being fired will scare most people off

I don't see anyone saying it was her fault...that's a BS argument and is the reason I post so little here now.You make a bullshit conclusion based on an argument no one made.A strawman.....something that makes up probably half of the posts on this site now

marions ghost (13,946 posts)
13. Riddiculous

Turn people into murderers? Even if she could handle a gun with any speed and accuracy, it's still no guarantee. What if he's got a gun? She could get herself killed, not only raped. Or end up facing murder charges and living with having killed someone.

Escalation of such a volatile situation is stupid.

LAGC (4,543 posts)
15. Shooting someone in self-defense while they are trying to rape you is not murder. (n/t)

marions ghost (13,946 posts)
16. OK excuse me--let's get legal and call it homicide

whatever you want to call it, it's still the taking of a human life. Not easily justified under any circumstances.

We need better ways to deal with domestic violence than arming everybody to the teeth. Or giving everybody a pit bull.

Maybe the wife having a gun to threaten with would be "speaking the abuser's language"--eye for an eye & all that. But it is still a barbaric solution. And fairly often the armed abused wife just gets killed with her own gun.

Backward solutions to the problem. A gun is merely a symbol of security. It is not real security.

You know what stops rapists?

FOOD STAMPS FOR LIFE!

mwrguy (877 posts)
5. Gun Owners: "Join our cult or get raped"

I think that sums up their position.

alcibiades_mystery (28,421 posts)
14. More evidence for the basic proposition: gunners are assholes

Oooofah. They are the skeeve, for real.

magellan (12,536 posts)
8. The teabagger argument is just more blame the victim twaddle

Only because it happens to support their position that people should be responsible for their own safety, i.e. own a gun.

Following their logic, you'd think they'd be against say, people living in areas prone to tornado activity. But they aren't saying that because you can't stop a tornado with a bullet.

It's amazing to me that anyone would essentially argue on behalf of a criminal by saying the victim didn't take the opportunity to defend themselves properly. But teabaggers aren't known for their empathy, or for being able to view others and their situations outside their own narrow frame of reference. Everything is simple black and white to them. (No wonder they loved Bush** so much.) If only life were really so predictable.

I'm not sure why anyone wants to live in a place where their security is down to how fast they can reach their gun and use it, but apparently some do. My guess is most of them have never actually had to defend themselves in that position.

Nine (926 posts)
11. It takes a Republican gun nut to see things that way.

(their way, not the OP's way)

Let's see. A woman's ex-boyfriend shows up outside her door trying to get in. She calls 911 and begs for help, yet no officers are sent to help her. Eventually the guy breaks in and attacks her and rapes her. What's the moral of the story?

a. We need to stop dismantling the public infrastructure to the point where even basic services like police responding to 911 calls are compromised. (Hint: dismantling the public infrastructure = constantly fighting the taxes that pay for it.)

b. We need to take domestic violence more seriously than we do and make it a higher priority when police resources are strained.

c. Everyone should have a gun so they can act as their own law enforcement.

If you chose C, please show me the gun control legislation that prevented this woman from having a gun to protect her.

Is anyone being raped because the roads are too difficult to navigate?
 
Then it must be because the GOP opposed the stimulus to pay off Obama's donors with green-tech subsidies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894072

[NHSparky]

DUmmies--private citizens with guns PREVENT many, many times more crimes than they commit.

"More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott.  Read it.  Live it.  KNOW IT.

[Freeper]

Hey DUmmies it's because I do have empathy for people, I support them having the right to carry a gun. If some thug was trying to harm me I would want a weapon to defend myself.

[jukin]

They are mentally ill. They can't make a logical argument yet think they have and continue to think they have a sound argument.

An excellent example of hive thinking and 1+1=POTATO.

[Karin]

I am trying to wrap my head around the OP.  Why not have a conscience clause for people, akin to pharmacists?  What does that look like?

Rapist, thinking to himself:  Hold on there, she's invoked her conscience clause in order to not own a gun.  Guess I'll just go home, then. 

Is that how it works?

Hand-wringing, pearl-clutching marion's ghost:

...and living with having killed someone.

I'd sleep like a baby. 

[Delmar]

marions ghost (13,946 posts)
16. OK excuse me--let's get legal and call it homicide

whatever you want to call it, it's still the taking of a human life. Not easily justified under any circumstances.

We need better ways to deal with domestic violence than arming everybody to the teeth. Or giving everybody a pit bull.

Maybe the wife having a gun to threaten with would be "speaking the abuser's language"--eye for an eye & all that. But it is still a barbaric solution. And fairly often the armed abused wife just gets killed with her own gun.

Backward solutions to the problem. A gun is merely a symbol of security. It is not real security.

Marions ghost is going to crap his/her pants when George Zimmerman walks.

[Chris_]

Because placing blame on the rapist is too much trouble.

[docstew]

ZRT2209 (651 posts)

Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists

Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:49 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

opposed to dispensing birth control?

I mean, if teabaggers expect us to accept the argument that a pharmacist (or any health care provider) should not be forced to violate their consciences in providing medicine or services (because they believe in the sacredness of human life), then certainly they must accept the argument that some people, based on the sacredness of human life, should not be forced to rely on owning their own gun for self-protection?

Many teabaggers have argued that the woman who was raped in Josephine County, Oregon because there are no police to respond to 911 (due to anti-tax fanatics) should have owned a gun for self-protection.

Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?

Guess everyone else missed this bolded part, huh? If human life is so sacred (and how dare you use that word, filthy non-believers, that's our word), why do you destroy it at it's most vulnerable state for the sake of convenience?

[Texacon]

I have a really hard time comprehending how these people think the cops are just ... THERE!

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that if you hear someone outside and feel threatened that you can call 911 and have a cop there before they kick in your door or crawl through a window.  Even in a city.  Unless you just happen to have a cop right around the corner, which is going to be highly unusual, you are going to be able to respond to your emergency faster than anyone!

If someone figures out you have a firearm when they get into the house, or even before, you have a MUCH better chance of them going to look for a softer target than if you're simply huddled up in the corner yelling "don't hurt me, I'll give you whatever you want!"

Please DUmmies, would one of you, just one of you come over and defend that position for me.  I know I'm a mouth breather but I have common sense.  Come help me understand how you think a cop can be there for me faster than I can be there for me or my family.

KC

[docstew]

I have a really hard time comprehending how these people think the cops are just ... THERE!

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that if you hear someone outside and feel threatened that you can call 911 and have a cop there before they kick in your door or crawl through a window.  Even in a city.  Unless you just happen to have a cop right around the corner, which is going to be highly unusual, you are going to be able to respond to your emergency faster than anyone!

If someone figures out you have a firearm when they get into the house, or even before, you have a MUCH better chance of them going to look for a softer target than if you're simply huddled up in the corner yelling "don't hurt me, I'll give you whatever you want!"

Please DUmmies, would one of you, just one of you come over and defend that position for me.  I know I'm a mouth breather but I have common sense.  Come help me understand how you think a cop can be there for me faster than I can be there for me or my family.

KC

They WANT the police state in order to enforce their petty little demands, like no big gulps. Part of the Police State is the Police have to be EVERYWHERE.

[Celtic Rose]

The likelihood that a cop could reach most people before somebody at the door attacked them is extraordinarily low, unless a police officer happens to be on patrol in the neighborhood.  Sure, I would rather that the police be around to deal with a potential rapist, but since that likely isn't the case, I'll keep a gun around instead.  

Nobody is saying that any woman deserves to be raped, we are saying that we deserve to be able to protect ourselves.  I have a black belt in Karate, and I still wouldn't bet on being able to defend myself from a guy who had any sort of weapon.  Getting into a situation where a physical struggle puts me at a disadvantage period based on strength.  I might have a chance if he stayed far enough away for me to kick me, but that would be it if I didn't have a gun available.  

[wasp69]

magellan (12,536 posts)
8. The teabagger argument is just more blame the victim twaddle

Only because it happens to support their position that people should be responsible for their own safety, i.e. own a gun.

Strip away all of the bullshit, and you will find the difference and what scares them most:  Personal responsibility.

This infantile cretin has stated their position on everything without even knowing what it stumbled across.  Had this woman been more proactive, especially after dealing with this asshole before, she would not have been choked and raped.  The possibility exists that she might have had it taken away and used on her.  The possibility exists that might have died from her own firearm.

However

The reality is she was injured and violated, had nothing with which to protect herself from an intruder, the police were nowhere to be found and when they did get there the deed was done.

If this woman had a firearm to protect herself, we would not be having this moronic conversation, again. 

In either case, I know words spoken in active, clear language are sometimes more than you low information slaves can bear, I'll give you pictures so you'll understand better:

I wonder why DUmmie Alexandra PhDDs isn't in on this conversation?  Here is a situation where a woman needed to protect herself from rape and had no way to do it.  I dare say all of her bloviating is just hot air and she really has no intention of seriously dealing with this "culture of rape".

[Mike220]

Castle Rock v. Gonzales DUmbasses. Read it.

[Texacon]

The old saying is still true;

I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy.

KC

[delilahmused]

ZRT2209 (651 posts)

Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists

Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:49 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

opposed to dispensing birth control?

I mean, if teabaggers expect us to accept the argument that a pharmacist (or any health care provider) should not be forced to violate their consciences in providing medicine or services (because they believe in the sacredness of human life), then certainly they must accept the argument that some people, based on the sacredness of human life, should not be forced to rely on owning their own gun for self-protection?

Many teabaggers have argued that the woman who was raped in Josephine County, Oregon because there are no police to respond to 911 (due to anti-tax fanatics) should have owned a gun for self-protection.

Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?

You really are that stupid, aren't you?! Firstly, city, county, state police are hired BY the citizens of said area, thus we decide how many police we need. We pay for them through our property taxes and it's very rare that we don't vote them a raise or hire more when they need it. It's never happened the whole time I've lived here.

Where I live, there are miles and miles and miles and miles of farms outside of a couple of small towns. We're served by the county sheriff. That means there are about 100 officers who cover a little over 5,000 square miles. Do you realize how many police it would take to have the same density here that there is in your average city? Even if we had 500 more (remember these are LOCAL officers where RESIDENTS decide how many officers they need) we'd still have to take responsibility for ourselves.

Here in the country, we're pretty self sufficient. Even the cops expect us to take care of ourselves because they can't be everywhere at once. As with most areas, there are larger concentrations in denser areas where there tends to be more crime. What am I supposed to do, let my chickens be mauled by a raccoon, skunk or coyote while I call the police? Do I call them and ask them to come shoot my meat birds?

There's a freight train that runs RIGHT by my house. I mean so close I can reach out and touch it. Transients often get off here because the train stops to change cars and it's out of the way enough, they stand a better chance of not getting caught. I'm sure most of them are just fine. Then again Richard Ramirez traveled by rail. Even IF the police were only two miles away, they could only get here in time to draw a chalk outline. Personally, I'd prefer that outline not be mine. Sometimes your simplistic, hearts & flowers bullshit doesn't translate well in real life.

Cindie

[Wineslob]

DUmmies:

[Big Dog]

ZRT2209 (651 posts)

Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists

Your "conscience clause" already exists, you moron.

With the exception or two or three cities, gun ownership is not mandatory in the United States (and those exceptions allow for conscientious objection).

Just say "no".

[USA4ME]

I wonder why DUmmie Alexandra PhDDs isn't in on this conversation?  Here is a situation where a woman needed to protect herself from rape and had no way to do it.  I dare say all of her bloviating is just hot air and she really has no intention of seriously dealing with this "culture of rape".

She is, but in a different thread on the topic of the 2nd Ammendment.

zebonaut

It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894319

BainsBane

6. This:

IOW, PhDD views potential rape victims as being on their own......... and good luck.

.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Because placing blame on the rapist is too much trouble.

They don't care about rapists.

They're OK with rape, The Kennedy KKKlan, Julian Assange, Roman Polanksi.

You are the political enemy impeding their dreams of Ewe-topia.

They want you disarmed.

If that means more rape then so be it; they're OK with that.

[Duke Nukum]

backwoodsbob (4,752 posts)
7. no one said any such thing

HOWEVER

If I was in her position...had been beaten by him before...ongoing threats...no police presence...Hell yeah I would have advised her to buy a gun.I would have advised her to buy a .44 Magnum.At the first sign of trouble that gun being fired will scare most people off

I don't see anyone saying it was her fault...that's a BS argument and is the reason I post so little here now.You make a bullshit conclusion based on an argument no one made.A strawman.....something that makes up probably half of the posts on this site now

[youtube=425,350]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdy_dArmMQs[/youtube]

[Duke Nukum]

They don't care about rapists.

They're OK with rape, The Kennedy KKKlan, Julian Assange, Roman Polanksi.

You are the political enemy impeding their dreams of Ewe-topia.

They want you disarmed.

If that means more rape then so be it; they're OK with that.

"The antipode of individualism is collectivism, which subordinates the individual to the group -- be it the 'community,' the tribe, the race, the proletariat, etc. A person's moral worth is judged by how much he sacrifices himself to the group. [Under collectivism] the more emergencies (and victims) the better, because they provide more opportunity for 'virtue'." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

COLLECTIVISM
vs.
INDIVIDUALISM

[DumbAss Tanker]

DUmmies:

Indeed, Mr. Wineslob.  A logical mind would have examined how the situation would have ended differently if private ownership of weapons had not been allowed as an option to the victim, and would have necessarily concluded that it would not have turned out any better for her.

 

[BattleHymn]

I have no problem letting this primitive exercise their conscience when it comes to guns. 

If they are ever in a position where their life is in danger, they need to clearly communicate to anyone around that THEY will wait on the police to show up to assist them. 

Ammo is too expensive to waste on helping a primitive.

[freedumb2003b]

I have a really hard time comprehending how these people think the cops are just ... THERE!

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that if you hear someone outside and feel threatened that you can call 911 and have a cop there before they kick in your door or crawl through a window.  Even in a city.  Unless you just happen to have a cop right around the corner, which is going to be highly unusual, you are going to be able to respond to your emergency faster than anyone!

If someone figures out you have a firearm when they get into the house, or even before, you have a MUCH better chance of them going to look for a softer target than if you're simply huddled up in the corner yelling "don't hurt me, I'll give you whatever you want!"

Please DUmmies, would one of you, just one of you come over and defend that position for me.  I know I'm a mouth breather but I have common sense.  Come help me understand how you think a cop can be there for me faster than I can be there for me or my family.

KC

When seconds matter the police are only minutes away.

This person seems to think that either
a) You are required to own a firearm; or
b) If you do NOT own a firearm, the police will not respond to your distress calls

We should make a sign for the house: 

"ATTENTION BAD GUYS! This house is UNARMED!  Please do not proceed to do criminality since that is UNCONSCIONABLE!"

[wasp69]

She is, but in a different thread on the topic of the 2nd Ammendment.

IOW, PhDD views potential rape victims as being on their own......... and good luck.

.

Pretty much what I figured, just a bunch of mouth.  I truly hope she never finds herself in the same situation since the Minneapolis PD is so shoddy...