Women's Fear of Random Attacks

Off Topic
161

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Westclock wrote:
My future wife and daughter are both going to be the proud recipients of a .38 snub nose with the hammer sawed off.

You know, Smith & Wesson makes hammerless 38 snubbies?

My wife carries a Ruger SP101 loaded with +P hollow point .38 ammo. No hammer to get snagged, double-action (just pull the trigger), short barrel for ease of use at short distances, easy to conceal in purse, highly effective stopping power at close quarters.

I’ve told her many times if she is ever attacked to simply empty all five rounds in the upper torso of her attacker.

At 5’3", 110 lbs., this gives her a clearly superior position in a violent confrontation that she is clearly likely to lose otherwise, no matter how much MMA/physical defense experience she may have.

She has drawn her weapon(s) in situations at home where she suspected an intruder (all false alarms so far) and I can tell you even though I am twice her weight and astronomically stronger than her, I would never want to face her or another woman similarly armed.

Of all the people in this world, women deserve the right to keep and bear arms. It is a silly, misguided notion to maintain a mindset that firearms are for men and women should look at other avenues of self defense first.

The gun is the instant “equalizer” for a woman.

The disabled woman in this 911 call could have used an “equalizer”.

Also, a good example of how when seconds count police are only minutes away.

[/quote]

Similar 911 call, but with a different outcome. This woman had a gun:

163

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Westclock wrote:
My future wife and daughter are both going to be the proud recipients of a .38 snub nose with the hammer sawed off.

You know, Smith & Wesson makes hammerless 38 snubbies?

My wife carries a Ruger SP101 loaded with +P hollow point .38 ammo. No hammer to get snagged, double-action (just pull the trigger), short barrel for ease of use at short distances, easy to conceal in purse, highly effective stopping power at close quarters.

I’ve told her many times if she is ever attacked to simply empty all five rounds in the upper torso of her attacker.

At 5’3", 110 lbs., this gives her a clearly superior position in a violent confrontation that she is clearly likely to lose otherwise, no matter how much MMA/physical defense experience she may have.

She has drawn her weapon(s) in situations at home where she suspected an intruder (all false alarms so far) and I can tell you even though I am twice her weight and astronomically stronger than her, I would never want to face her or another woman similarly armed.

Of all the people in this world, women deserve the right to keep and bear arms. It is a silly, misguided notion to maintain a mindset that firearms are for men and women should look at other avenues of self defense first.

The gun is the instant “equalizer” for a woman.

The disabled woman in this 911 call could have used an “equalizer”.

Also, a good example of how when seconds count police are only minutes away.

Similar 911 call, but with a different outcome. This woman had a gun:

Stop it! You’re fuckin’ up a whole lotta serious theorizin’.[/quote]

So pulling a couple of examples of youtube is how you are going to try to make a logical argument?

Also, you are going to base your life on the headlines you read like a sheep following the crowd instead of actually making your own decisions based on reality?

When someone thinks that having facts and statistics to back up an argument is a bad thing, it’s probably not worth continuing the discussion.

Seriously there is no point trying to debate with people who are so far detached from reality. And who resort to deliberately misquoting and throwing up non-existent arguments.

It’s ironic that you have taken the time to find a source that cuts through the crap for your health and training but can’t seem to do that for the rest of your life.

164

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:

Maybe the British guy in Mexico should do a proper cost benefit analysis, keeping in mind that precautions taken to avoid slight risk of harm can be reasonable when the magnitude of harm is great.

May I quote you? Precisely?

[Edit] By the way, I’m sure it’s statistically impossible for a disabled woman to suffer a home invasion by a large man intent on sexual assault in the U.K…or Mexico for that matter, so you can hardly blame the guy for trumpeting so loudly.[/quote]

No. Much smarter people (than me) have said it better. It’s called the Learner Hand formula. (Learned Hand was a judge, not a hand.)

P = Probability
L = Cost of Injury
B = Precautions (Burden)

Actions are reasonable when the cost of B < P times L.

“The Learned Hand formula can be seen as a shorthand for determining the optimal amount of precaution. In the standard economic analysis of tort law, efficient levels of precaution are those levels that minimize the total costs of accidents. These total costs are the sum of the costs of precautions necessary to reduce the probability that an accident will happen (or to reduce the height of the damage if an accident happens) and the expected damage. The expected damage is the product of the probability of the accident happening and the amount of damage if an accident occurs.”

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4695897/The-learned-hand-formula-the.html

165

[quote]streamline wrote:
theOUTLAW wrote:

Well…that’s because I believe most people are stupid.

EDIT: This was the reason why I threw the whole “badass” thing out there. A lot of people have that attitude. So I infer from that that those people are stupid, which is what led to that assumption.

I have that attitude because I earned it. Until my daughter is finished her training. Which is after a couple of years of full contact MA. She phones me at any hour anyday whether she’s with me or her mother. Take my word for it, she will be badass and ready to take on the world.

Your problem is you think badass means stupid. To me it means don’t fuck with me or mine![/quote]

I didn’t make this clear. What I was referring to as stupid was thinking you’re a badass when you are not. In my first posts I mentioned only that about 5% of women fall into the actual badass category and can handle themselves. There’s a difference between having MA training and weapons skills than simply posting on a message board and doing some light squats.

Your daughter will hopefully fall into this 5%.

167

[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
streamline wrote:
theOUTLAW wrote:

Well…that’s because I believe most people are stupid.

EDIT: This was the reason why I threw the whole “badass” thing out there. A lot of people have that attitude. So I infer from that that those people are stupid, which is what led to that assumption.

I have that attitude because I earned it. Until my daughter is finished her training. Which is after a couple of years of full contact MA. She phones me at any hour anyday whether she’s with me or her mother. Take my word for it, she will be badass and ready to take on the world.

Your problem is you think badass means stupid. To me it means don’t fuck with me or mine!

I didn’t make this clear. What I was referring to as stupid was thinking you’re a badass when you are not. In my first posts I mentioned only that about 5% of women fall into the actual badass category and can handle themselves. There’s a difference between having MA training and weapons skills than simply posting on a message board and doing some light squats.

Your daughter will hopefully fall into this 5%.[/quote]

It’s clear now. Thanks, I hope she will to.

168

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

OK, someone prepared to actually debate an issue instead of making dumb assumptions about other people.

In the UK, the criminals don’t need to carry a gun because they can be pretty sure that the person they are attacking doesn’t have one, therefore gun crime is far lower. See it works both ways (though it is probably way too late to put the genie back in the bottle in the US)

Couple of questions for you. Have you taken an advanced driving course? Have you practiced driving on a skid pan? When was the last time you checked the pressures in the tyres in your car?

All 3 of these steps are far more likely to save your life than carrying a gun. I just find it odd that so many Americans are soooo hung up about their NEED to carry a gun.[/quote]

I have taken defensive driving school twice, I know how to drive on slick roads, and I check the tire pressure before any trip that is longer than 10 miles otherwise whenever I check my oil.

The problem with what you are saying though, is that those things are irreverent to the need for gun ownership. Having air in your tires is not going to keep you from getting killed during a robbery. That’s like saying you should eat healthy foods instead of wearing chain mail while diving around sharks. Sure you are more likely to die from plaque in your arteries but that doesn’t change the fact that a shark could bite you, regardless of how rare shark attacks are.

There are so many guns on the streets, criminals can get them very easy and I still stand by my point that if guns are made illegal to carry today, the criminals will still be carrying them.

169

Miss Parker, unfortunately they were never caught. I have no clue what they looked like, just a vague idea and the boarders were gone.

But the thing is, I was in a well lit place. A public parking lot, the one by the Roller Coaster in Mission Bay. It’s a small lot and usually lots of people.

My friends were only 40yards away.

Just a freak happenstance.

171

I think people are also missing a big point about guns:

Guns are just plain fun to shoot. What if I want to buy a new pistol and go shoot tin cans on my grandfather’s land? Why should I have to give up my right to pleasure just because the few commit crimes?

Let’s make baseball bats illegal because they have been used time after time to kill people! Forget about the people who like to play baseball with them, they’re dangerous weapons!

See my point?

What if I want to go deer hunting by myself in the woods but want to carry a side arm in case of bears/wolves/boars/dogs? Should I not be able to protect myself from wild animals with my gun?

It is MY gun. That is my decision. If you choose not to own one that is your decision. You may choose to protect yourself by carring a bat when you walk alone. Lots of people do it, however I may choose to carry a gun. Doesn’t mean that I will commit a crime with it. You may murder somebody with your bat a and go to jail for murder just like I would If I decided to murder with my gun.

Basic cleshay point:
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

172

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

Miss Parker, unfortunately they were never caught. I have no clue what they looked like, just a vague idea and the boarders were gone.

But the thing is, I was in a well lit place. A public parking lot, the one by the Roller Coaster in Mission Bay. It’s a small lot and usually lots of people.

My friends were only 40yards away.

Just a freak happenstance.

Some think a defensive driving course is the answer to problems like the one you described. Others are sane.

[/quote]

And he is off again totally misrepresenting what I have writen. Well done, you really are persistently dumb. I have never stated that I don’t think Americans should have the right to bear arms, all I have said is that I feel that a proportion of Americans get the risk factor way out of wack when they think about violent crimes (is similar in the UK due to the changing tone of the popular media) and hence don’t make informed decisions.

Your reaction to my questions is so overly defensive as to suggest that it is conditioned. You really are starting to come of as paranoid along with your insecurity. Is there some specific event in your life that has led to this or is it just a reaction to the media?

173

[quote]elano wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

OK, someone prepared to actually debate an issue instead of making dumb assumptions about other people.

In the UK, the criminals don’t need to carry a gun because they can be pretty sure that the person they are attacking doesn’t have one, therefore gun crime is far lower. See it works both ways (though it is probably way too late to put the genie back in the bottle in the US)

Couple of questions for you. Have you taken an advanced driving course? Have you practiced driving on a skid pan? When was the last time you checked the pressures in the tyres in your car?

All 3 of these steps are far more likely to save your life than carrying a gun. I just find it odd that so many Americans are soooo hung up about their NEED to carry a gun.

I have taken defensive driving school twice, I know how to drive on slick roads, and I check the tire pressure before any trip that is longer than 10 miles otherwise whenever I check my oil.

The problem with what you are saying though, is that those things are irreverent to the need for gun ownership. Having air in your tires is not going to keep you from getting killed during a robbery. That’s like saying you should eat healthy foods instead of wearing chain mail while diving around sharks. Sure you are more likely to die from plaque in your arteries but that doesn’t change the fact that a shark could bite you, regardless of how rare shark attacks are.

There are so many guns on the streets, criminals can get them very easy and I still stand by my point that if guns are made illegal to carry today, the criminals will still be carrying them.[/quote]

Some of you guys have real problems with following a train of thought or logical argument. If you are likely to get in a gun fight then having a gun and knowing how to use it is probably a good idea. If the risk of home invasion is high enough then the same is true.

My point is, and always has been, that a lot of people overestimate that risk partly due to the sensational media portrayals and ready availability of things like Youtube.

Studies have been done in the US and the UK where they asked people on the street to estimate crime statistics. The responders gave numbers that were ridiculously higher than the real numbers.

Due to this overestimation of the risk, people change the way that they live their lives in order to combat the percieved risk. In many cases, they actually increase their overall risk as a result.

I can’t say it any plainer than that. If you still want to misrepresent what I am saying then I am totally wasting my time (which is probably the case from the start in most internet arguments.)

By the way, you might want to look up the meaning of irreverent. I agree that I am irreverent, you however seem to be irrelevant.

174

[quote]elano wrote:
I think people are also missing a big point about guns:

Guns are just plain fun to shoot. What if I want to buy a new pistol and go shoot tin cans on my grandfather’s land? Why should I have to give up my right to pleasure just because the few commit crimes?

Let’s make baseball bats illegal because they have been used time after time to kill people! Forget about the people who like to play baseball with them, they’re dangerous weapons!

See my point?

What if I want to go deer hunting by myself in the woods but want to carry a side arm in case of bears/wolves/boars/dogs? Should I not be able to protect myself from wild animals with my gun?

It is MY gun. That is my decision. If you choose not to own one that is your decision. You may choose to protect yourself by carring a bat when you walk alone. Lots of people do it, however I may choose to carry a gun. Doesn’t mean that I will commit a crime with it. You may murder somebody with your bat a and go to jail for murder just like I would If I decided to murder with my gun.

Basic cleshay point:
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.[/quote]

Now this I have absolutely no arguement with whatsoever!

175

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
When someone thinks that having facts and statistics to back up an argument is a bad thing, it’s probably not worth continuing the discussion.
[/quote]

Murder rates by country:

Mexico (#6) - 0.130213 per 1,000 people
United States (#24) - 0.042802 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#source

In the words of Dr Szell, “Is it safe?”

176

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Whenever I walk behind a woman at night (leaving the gym usually), I can’t help but think, that they’re thinking “oh crap, someone is following me”.

I like to walk faster than most people, so that only makes it worse. I usually just slow down enough so that they’re going faster. Silly I know.[/quote]

I walk faster than most as well but if she’s got a big trunk I naturally slow down.

177

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
When someone thinks that having facts and statistics to back up an argument is a bad thing, it’s probably not worth continuing the discussion.

Murder rates by country:

Mexico (#6) - 0.130213 per 1,000 people
United States (#24) - 0.042802 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#source

In the words of Dr Szell, “Is it safe?”

[/quote]

And your point is caller? That data is 8 yrs out of date, 4 per 100 thousand is a tiny percentage of a population and that is murder in general. Not murder during home invasion or murder that could have been avoided had the victim been carrying a gun. In fact, a fair few of those murdered people will have been carrying guns.

178

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
When someone thinks that having facts and statistics to back up an argument is a bad thing, it’s probably not worth continuing the discussion.

Murder rates by country:

Mexico (#6) - 0.130213 per 1,000 people
United States (#24) - 0.042802 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#source

In the words of Dr Szell, “Is it safe?”

And your point is caller? That data is 8 yrs out of date, 4 per 100 thousand is a tiny percentage of a population and that is murder in general. Not murder during home invasion or murder that could have been avoided had the victim been carrying a gun. In fact, a fair few of those murdered people will have been carrying guns.

[/quote]

Is it safe?

180

I can assure you that I certainly do not dance like Fred Astaire. Living in a latino country has only served to highlight quite how much I suck at dancing.

I stand by my point that most women do not need to worry and need not carry a gun if they do worry.

Again you miss the point so seriously I can’t be bothered with this any more.