Gayle Trotter has made herself a target of those who would rather see her raped and strangled than armed. [Read]
See?
When both The New York Times and The Washington Post are out there blaring the same talking points, you just know her message scares the hell out of the powers that be.
And the thing is, their arguments are the same old stale, discredited ones, dusted off for this latest character assassination/disinformation campaign. Note they make no attempt to separate women living in criminal environments from the general population. Note also they limit DGUs to when a gun is "fired" for their comparison, as opposed to the mere presentation that can break off an attack with no further action needed. What that does is penalizes good armed citizens for not being the bloodthirsty trouble-seekers they paint us to be.
UPDATE: Naturally, Salon piles on. Hey Katie McDonough--let's say hypothetically a male (I don't honor such types by calling them "men") is getting ready to do whatever the hell he wants to you, and there's no one around to save you. What would you do?
And Slate...
And Campus Progress ("young people working together for progressive change")
Say, this meme is getting quite the workout from those "women's' rights" champions. It's almost like the so-called "feminist" movement actually hates women...
Sunday, February 03, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I like how women protecting themselves is termed "pseudofeminism." LOL!
Have you read the study yet? I haven't, but I read the samples:
"To produce more reliable estimates, Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."
I think this study has been Wintemuted. It appears this is another which will show that people who were killed with a gun show a strong correlation with being killed with a gun.
Not to mention the fact that most of these women killed or injured with guns (and other things) are disarmed and helpless by statute or choice and even having a gun in the house says nothing at all about being trained and willing to use it rationally.
In addition, nobody is talking about all of the OTHER things that must go along with any kind of self defense... such as making good choices about partners and substance abuse. Just those two would make a world of difference if taken into consideration. Too many women think they can indulge themselves in all sorts of very risky and unwise behavior, and then have zero responsibility for the consequences - including the need for effective self defense.
This doesn't excuse the aggressors and abusers, of course, but it is an irrefutable part of the problem.
MML: Going on Kate Krueger's Talking Guns in a few minutes, and just wanted to let you know I'm going to steal your last comment as a talking point.
They appear to be hinting that the sample includes a disproportionate amount of people involved with inner city gang violence. That's my assumption anyway, since the homicide stats the CDC collects involve to a large extent inner-city gang violence that happens with enforcement in black markets, because that is why most people are murdered in this country.
Attempting to apply the resultant statistic universally is like choosing your sample in Hawaii and telling people in Boston that they run a high risk of being singed by a lava flow. Who does that?
If I were Dr. Wiebe--or whomever produced his doctoral program--I would be very careful about how my study was used at this point, because there are two possible conclusions: Either someone conducted a study with such glaring errors that it calls into question the producer and the institution that produced his doctoral program, or the study was worked in reverse from the desired conclusion.
The very same CDC data could be used to "link" with a "95% confidence level" a high number of gun control laws with increased death among women.
Post a Comment