Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

[Anonymous]

Did you see mc police say they aren’t going to cooperate with ice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you see mc police say they aren’t going to cooperate with ice?

Police have nothing to do with ICE. It's the corrections department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

This ancient canard, in addition to being utterly disproven by the enormous number of defensive firearm uses each year (not to mention other defensive weapon uses), is wholly inapposite when discussing armed people who are trained and competent with their weapons, as compared with the entire population who might own some kind of a weapon.

The irrational fear of weapons and the inability to comprehend or acknowledge the advantage they provide a prepared user defending against unlawful attack, bespeaks a mental disorder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

This ancient canard, in addition to being utterly disproven by the enormous number of defensive firearm uses each year (not to mention other defensive weapon uses), is wholly inapposite when discussing armed people who are trained and competent with their weapons, as compared with the entire population who might own some kind of a weapon.

The irrational fear of weapons and the inability to comprehend or acknowledge the advantage they provide a prepared user defending against unlawful attack, bespeaks a mental disorder.

Being irrational is thinking that living under the constant tension and threat of imminent interpersonal violence is the only or best way to live amongst others in a civilized society.

I don’t want shootouts by untrained paranoiacs taking place all around me. Untrained and likely unskilled (don’t you see how people drive around here? you want those same people to have guns?) citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders. I don’t want someone shooting in a panic at some man on the NW Branch trail because I could be driving my car or riding my bike nearby when stray bullets start flying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

Good job not addressing PP’s point. If weapons made everyone less safe across the board, why would the police, military, and the people guarding US Senators have them? Obviously they have some utility. But people like you just want women to be sitting ducks and to just cross their fingers and hope no one like the rapist in this thread ever crosses their path. That kind of naive, magical thinking is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

This ancient canard, in addition to being utterly disproven by the enormous number of defensive firearm uses each year (not to mention other defensive weapon uses), is wholly inapposite when discussing armed people who are trained and competent with their weapons, as compared with the entire population who might own some kind of a weapon.

The irrational fear of weapons and the inability to comprehend or acknowledge the advantage they provide a prepared user defending against unlawful attack, bespeaks a mental disorder.

Being irrational is thinking that living under the constant tension and threat of imminent interpersonal violence is the only or best way to live amongst others in a civilized society.

I don’t want shootouts by untrained paranoiacs taking place all around me. Untrained and likely unskilled (don’t you see how people drive around here? you want those same people to have guns?) citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders. I don’t want someone shooting in a panic at some man on the NW Branch trail because I could be driving my car or riding my bike nearby when stray bullets start flying.

But you want women to just be helpless victims when they encounter someone like this or just wish people like this didn’t exist?

Do you know anyone who was the victim of sexual violence like this? I do, and I wouldn’t want to take away any woman’s choice to protect herself with a gun so she could potentially not suffer the same way for the rest of her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

She is actually going to the range and practicing on her own. She would rather have protection than be raped or kidnapped while running and have no defense. You only live once and don’t want to see a news report of her being killed or raped.

I would rather she kill her attacker and still be alive.

I mean, ok, it's more likely that the gun will be stolen or used in a suicide attempt or domestic violence or be involved in an accidental shooting (of herself or someone else), but you gotta do what you feel is necessary to feel safe in public from other people with guns, I guess. Though certainly if I encounter your daughter carrying a gun while running on a trail, while I am running on the trail, I will feel a whole lot less safe. If more guns made us safer, we'd be the safest country on earth by far.

Yeah, cuz my 5’2 Blonde daughter is so scary. I Call BS. When yo I get mugged by a 6’ dude, you will wish she was there to help you.

Idiot.

What would happen if she had brown hair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

This ancient canard, in addition to being utterly disproven by the enormous number of defensive firearm uses each year (not to mention other defensive weapon uses), is wholly inapposite when discussing armed people who are trained and competent with their weapons, as compared with the entire population who might own some kind of a weapon.

The irrational fear of weapons and the inability to comprehend or acknowledge the advantage they provide a prepared user defending against unlawful attack, bespeaks a mental disorder.

Being irrational is thinking that living under the constant tension and threat of imminent interpersonal violence is the only or best way to live amongst others in a civilized society.

I don’t want shootouts by untrained paranoiacs taking place all around me. Untrained and likely unskilled (don’t you see how people drive around here? you want those same people to have guns?) citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders. I don’t want someone shooting in a panic at some man on the NW Branch trail because I could be driving my car or riding my bike nearby when stray bullets start flying.

But you want women to just be helpless victims when they encounter someone like this or just wish people like this didn’t exist?

Do you know anyone who was the victim of sexual violence like this? I do, and I wouldn’t want to take away any woman’s choice to protect herself with a gun so she could potentially not suffer the same way for the rest of her life.

A taser or mace would do just fine. Innocent people should not be at risk just so that one single person can feel safer. Guns can be turned against the defender as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

This ancient canard, in addition to being utterly disproven by the enormous number of defensive firearm uses each year (not to mention other defensive weapon uses), is wholly inapposite when discussing armed people who are trained and competent with their weapons, as compared with the entire population who might own some kind of a weapon.

The irrational fear of weapons and the inability to comprehend or acknowledge the advantage they provide a prepared user defending against unlawful attack, bespeaks a mental disorder.

Being irrational is thinking that living under the constant tension and threat of imminent interpersonal violence is the only or best way to live amongst others in a civilized society.

I don’t want shootouts by untrained paranoiacs taking place all around me. Untrained and likely unskilled (don’t you see how people drive around here? you want those same people to have guns?) citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders. I don’t want someone shooting in a panic at some man on the NW Branch trail because I could be driving my car or riding my bike nearby when stray bullets start flying.

I have a spare tire in my trunk. I don’t live under the constant threat and tension of an imminent flat tire.

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I don’t live under the constant threat and tension of an imminent conflagration.

I have locks on my doors. I don’t live under a constraint threat and tension of an imminent home invasion.

Preparation against potential risks is a rational, prudent action that gives peace of mind. It is precisely the opposite of a paranoiac mindset of constant threat and tension over a perceived risk with no sense of being able to effectively respond to that danger.

If you look back over prior postings, you will see that they consistently refer to people being properly trained, including in weapon retention, and having the correct mindset, including situational awareness.

The spectre you seek to conjure of “someone shooting in panic” and “stray bullets flying” is wholly belied by the thousands and thousands of lawfully armed people going about their daily business in the greater DC area with no “panic” and no “stray bullets.” Even before recent legal changes there have always been a large number of lawfully armed people in this area, either with so-called “need based” carry permits or because of the many federal and other law enforcement agencies. Certainly, if the disaster you fear was going to occur it would have been common and constant in the past and currently. It was not and is not.

Finally, the instantaneous and exclusive interpretation of the term weapon as meaning a firearm ignores the many other options available, from defensive sprays and electronic weapons to bladed and impact weapons, none of which produce any “stray bullets.”

The admonition that “citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders” sounds great — except that criminals or the mentally ill, not their intended victims, typically choose the time and place of their assault.

[Anonymous]

It's honestly kind of horrifying that someone is comparing a gun to a spare tire in the trunk of a car, or a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, or a lock on the front door of a house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

Good job not addressing PP’s point. If weapons made everyone less safe across the board, why would the police, military, and the people guarding US Senators have them? Obviously they have some utility. But people like you just want women to be sitting ducks and to just cross their fingers and hope no one like the rapist in this thread ever crosses their path. That kind of naive, magical thinking is absurd.

If the US Army has tanks and surface-to-air missiles, shouldn't everyone be allowed to have tanks and surface-to-air missiles? Obviously they have some utility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

Yes, I think we all understand that people acquire guns because guns make them feel powerful and safe. The reality is that the guns will actually make them less safe, and everyone else too. But data are ineffective against feelings.

First of all, as previously noted, firearms are not the only self-defense weapons available.

“Feelings,” specifically emotional, non-logical fear of inanimate objects or of a person’s own internal rage and violence, are what motivate some people to try to control others’ choices when it comes to self defense and many other things.

Carried to its logical end, the assertion that weapons universally and uniformly make every person who has one “less safe, and everyone else too” would militate against arming soldiers, police, bodyguards and the like. That would be absurd.

Weapons do not make a properly trained person “less safe and everyone else;” they put the weak on the same footing as the strong, and their very presence frequently stops an attack before it starts.

“Feeling” powerful and safe is not the goal of an intelligently disposed person who chooses to arm themself. BEING more powerful by becoming properly trained and competent doesn’t make a person “feel” safer — they are safer, because they can repel violence that otherwise would overcome them.

Except they're actually not safer. They're at greater risk of dying by homicide and dying by suicide, and so is everyone who lives with them, and so is everyone who lives in the US.

This ancient canard, in addition to being utterly disproven by the enormous number of defensive firearm uses each year (not to mention other defensive weapon uses), is wholly inapposite when discussing armed people who are trained and competent with their weapons, as compared with the entire population who might own some kind of a weapon.

The irrational fear of weapons and the inability to comprehend or acknowledge the advantage they provide a prepared user defending against unlawful attack, bespeaks a mental disorder.

Being irrational is thinking that living under the constant tension and threat of imminent interpersonal violence is the only or best way to live amongst others in a civilized society.

I don’t want shootouts by untrained paranoiacs taking place all around me. Untrained and likely unskilled (don’t you see how people drive around here? you want those same people to have guns?) citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders. I don’t want someone shooting in a panic at some man on the NW Branch trail because I could be driving my car or riding my bike nearby when stray bullets start flying.

I have a spare tire in my trunk. I don’t live under the constant threat and tension of an imminent flat tire.

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I don’t live under the constant threat and tension of an imminent conflagration.

I have locks on my doors. I don’t live under a constraint threat and tension of an imminent home invasion.

Preparation against potential risks is a rational, prudent action that gives peace of mind. It is precisely the opposite of a paranoiac mindset of constant threat and tension over a perceived risk with no sense of being able to effectively respond to that danger.

If you look back over prior postings, you will see that they consistently refer to people being properly trained, including in weapon retention, and having the correct mindset, including situational awareness.

The spectre you seek to conjure of “someone shooting in panic” and “stray bullets flying” is wholly belied by the thousands and thousands of lawfully armed people going about their daily business in the greater DC area with no “panic” and no “stray bullets.” Even before recent legal changes there have always been a large number of lawfully armed people in this area, either with so-called “need based” carry permits or because of the many federal and other law enforcement agencies. Certainly, if the disaster you fear was going to occur it would have been common and constant in the past and currently. It was not and is not.

Finally, the instantaneous and exclusive interpretation of the term weapon as meaning a firearm ignores the many other options available, from defensive sprays and electronic weapons to bladed and impact weapons, none of which produce any “stray bullets.”

The admonition that “citizens should not be engaging with criminals or the mentally ill when there is any risk to innocent bystanders” sounds great — except that criminals or the mentally ill, not their intended victims, typically choose the time and place of their assault.

So you have a series of red herrings…. I never suggested that a person not prepare for an attack. My point is that I don’t want to live in the kind of society where the social contract is based on vigilante threats of violent death. I want trained and vetted members of our community to have that kind of power and responsibility rather than any random citizen.

You gun nuts are living in a fantasy world where a handgun is the answer to any problem. If a criminal thinks you have a gun and he wants to hurt you he will just chop you with his machete from behind before you can react. All a gun accomplishes is a general escalation of violence in response or in anticipation along with innocent bystanders getting shot. Just imagine the number of well trained and heavily armed professionals that refused to do anything in Uvalde!

[Anonymous]

Most rapes are committed by someone the victim already knows. A gun wouldn’t stop that in the vast majority of cases because usually the victim has their guard down.

Random “stranger rapes” are very rare. But when they do happen, the rapist typically has the advantage due to the element of surprise. Very difficult to fish your gun out of your purse or waistband before being physically attacked and restrained. And there’s probably a 50/50 chance the rapist will take control of your firearm and use it to control you. So that’s made a bad situation even worse.

If the USG was able to keep accurate statistics about firearms, it would shock most Americans out of complacency.