Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gun is an equalizer, a woman carrying a gun has a much better chance of defending herself against a larger and stronger man. Sure the gun can be taken from you and used against you, but if someone gets close enough to do that and can physically overpower you then you probably would have been dead even with no gun present. A 200lb man can easily kill a 100lb woman with his bare hands.

A idea of a woman defending herself with a gun like some kind of Annie Oakley is laughable.

So, men can do that, but a woman can’t? OMG your sexism is off the charts.

As for a trained off duty person defending themselves, it’s obvious PP, you do not actually know any professional law enforcement officers, or you would not be posting such ridiculous lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gun is an equalizer, a woman carrying a gun has a much better chance of defending herself against a larger and stronger man. Sure the gun can be taken from you and used against you, but if someone gets close enough to do that and can physically overpower you then you probably would have been dead even with no gun present. A 200lb man can easily kill a 100lb woman with his bare hands.

A idea of a woman defending herself with a gun like some kind of Annie Oakley is laughable.

I think you only need to be able to hit center mass from less than 7 yards. No trick shots in a mirror are necessary for self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you saying the women on the trail knew this attacker?

Huh? Are you high?

The PP said that most rapes are committed by someone the victim already knows.

That was likely not the case here, so that post seems irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Women enroll yourselves in a self defense course. It's physical. I don't believe that if one of the women had a gun, the rape could have been prevented. The man took the phone away from one of the women. What makes you think he couldn't take the gun away?

However, the man at some point in the attack has to make himself somewhat vulnerable. It's the training and practice of taking a self defense class, where you might be able to spot the vulnerablity of the assailant. It is very challenging to get away from an attacker who is physically stronger than you. Imagine someone twice your size is physically on top of you. But, the other woman could have done something. The attacker had to have put the weapon/machete (which is a very large weapon) down. He had to pull his pants down, etc.

Women must get comfortable with running away from someone and not worrying about hurting the man's feelings because you don't want to be a Karen.

Or, gauge his eyes out and kick and knee him in the balls. Push the bone of his nose into his brain. Those are his soft spots on his body. He's an animal now who wants to kill you. Don't think of him as a human, who you don't want to hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women enroll yourselves in a self defense course. It's physical. I don't believe that if one of the women had a gun, the rape could have been prevented. The man took the phone away from one of the women. What makes you think he couldn't take the gun away?

However, the man at some point in the attack has to make himself somewhat vulnerable. It's the training and practice of taking a self defense class, where you might be able to spot the vulnerablity of the assailant. It is very challenging to get away from an attacker who is physically stronger than you. Imagine someone twice your size is physically on top of you. But, the other woman could have done something. The attacker had to have put the weapon/machete (which is a very large weapon) down. He had to pull his pants down, etc.

Women must get comfortable with running away from someone and not worrying about hurting the man's feelings because you don't want to be a Karen.

Or, gauge his eyes out and kick and knee him in the balls. Push the bone of his nose into his brain. Those are his soft spots on his body. He's an animal now who wants to kill you. Don't think of him as a human, who you don't want to hurt.

“He has to put the machete down”

No he didn’t.

[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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women enroll yourselves in a self defense course. It's physical. I don't believe that if one of the women had a gun, the rape could have been prevented. The man took the phone away from one of the women. What makes you think he couldn't take the gun away?

However, the man at some point in the attack has to make himself somewhat vulnerable. It's the training and practice of taking a self defense class, where you might be able to spot the vulnerablity of the assailant. It is very challenging to get away from an attacker who is physically stronger than you. Imagine someone twice your size is physically on top of you. But, the other woman could have done something. The attacker had to have put the weapon/machete (which is a very large weapon) down. He had to pull his pants down, etc.

Women must get comfortable with running away from someone and not worrying about hurting the man's feelings because you don't want to be a Karen.

Or, gauge his eyes out and kick and knee him in the balls. Push the bone of his nose into his brain. Those are his soft spots on his body. He's an animal now who wants to kill you. Don't think of him as a human, who you don't want to hurt.

The victim of society wasn't afraid of being shot by a phone.

[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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

The majority of heinous crimes committed in society are committed by people with legally purchased handguns. We absolutely would cut down on gun crime if we cut down on guns.

[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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

Yeah, I mean look what happened in Australia which used to have lax gun rules like US when they passed more restrictive legislation in the late 1990's and early 2000's on gun ownership! It went from having similar frequencies of catastrophes as we do here in the US to nearly 0. Oh wait, I'm sorry I think that proves that good gun control actually does stop mass shootings and runs counter to your republican talking point narrative! My bad!

[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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

Yeah, I mean look what happened in Australia which used to have lax gun rules like US when they passed more restrictive legislation in the late 1990's and early 2000's on gun ownership! It went from having similar frequencies of catastrophes as we do here in the US to nearly 0. Oh wait, I'm sorry I think that proves that good gun control actually does stop mass shootings and runs counter to your republican talking point narrative! My bad!

What BS. Australia never had anything like the number of shootings before they passed draconian gun confiscation. Their drastic action was a ridiculously knee-jerk reaction to a single mass killing, which happened to be committed with a firearm, instead of a truck, a bombing, or an arson.

[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:

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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

Yeah, I mean look what happened in Australia which used to have lax gun rules like US when they passed more restrictive legislation in the late 1990's and early 2000's on gun ownership! It went from having similar frequencies of catastrophes as we do here in the US to nearly 0. Oh wait, I'm sorry I think that proves that good gun control actually does stop mass shootings and runs counter to your republican talking point narrative! My bad!

What BS. Australia never had anything like the number of shootings before they passed draconian gun confiscation. Their drastic action was a ridiculously knee-jerk reaction to a single mass killing, which happened to be committed with a firearm, instead of a truck, a bombing, or an arson.

Um.. did you even bother to click the link that shows similar mass shooting levels between the US and AUS in the 80's and 90's until said legislation passed? And what you characterize as a "knee-jerk" reaction is you know, actually a reaction to a terrible even, instead of what we do here where its like "ah just another tuesday, let's move on now".

[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:

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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

Yeah, I mean look what happened in Australia which used to have lax gun rules like US when they passed more restrictive legislation in the late 1990's and early 2000's on gun ownership! It went from having similar frequencies of catastrophes as we do here in the US to nearly 0. Oh wait, I'm sorry I think that proves that good gun control actually does stop mass shootings and runs counter to your republican talking point narrative! My bad!

What BS. Australia never had anything like the number of shootings before they passed draconian gun confiscation. Their drastic action was a ridiculously knee-jerk reaction to a single mass killing, which happened to be committed with a firearm, instead of a truck, a bombing, or an arson.

Um.. did you even bother to click the link that shows similar mass shooting levels between the US and AUS in the 80's and 90's until said legislation passed? And what you characterize as a "knee-jerk" reaction is you know, actually a reaction to a terrible even, instead of what we do here where its like "ah just another tuesday, let's move on now".

Why cherry pick? I'm more interested in facts and I'm not so interested in talking to people attempting to mislead others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gun is an equalizer, a woman carrying a gun has a much better chance of defending herself against a larger and stronger man. Sure the gun can be taken from you and used against you, but if someone gets close enough to do that and can physically overpower you then you probably would have been dead even with no gun present. A 200lb man can easily kill a 100lb woman with his bare hands.

A idea of a woman defending herself with a gun like some kind of Annie Oakley is laughable.

You very obviously know nothing about firearms or how they are used in self defense. Annie Oakley was an exhibition shooter. Self defense isn’t an exhibition.

Is “a woman defending herself with a gun” “laughable” if she’s a law enforcement officer? A member of the military? An executive protection agent?

If you think so, you have a mighty low opinion of women.

[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:

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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

Yeah, I mean look what happened in Australia which used to have lax gun rules like US when they passed more restrictive legislation in the late 1990's and early 2000's on gun ownership! It went from having similar frequencies of catastrophes as we do here in the US to nearly 0. Oh wait, I'm sorry I think that proves that good gun control actually does stop mass shootings and runs counter to your republican talking point narrative! My bad!

What BS. Australia never had anything like the number of shootings before they passed draconian gun confiscation. Their drastic action was a ridiculously knee-jerk reaction to a single mass killing, which happened to be committed with a firearm, instead of a truck, a bombing, or an arson.

Um.. did you even bother to click the link that shows similar mass shooting levels between the US and AUS in the 80's and 90's until said legislation passed? And what you characterize as a "knee-jerk" reaction is you know, actually a reaction to a terrible even, instead of what we do here where its like "ah just another tuesday, let's move on now".

Why cherry pick? I'm more interested in facts and I'm not so interested in talking to people attempting to mislead others.

LOL okay. Yes, the US policy of unlimited guns for anyone can never be wrong. We should just completely ignore all those other counties that had similar lax policies and lots of guns who implemented changes and stopped their mass casualty events nearly if not 100% and had ridiculous reductions in one-off gun crimes as well. No need to think about those. Just good old head in the sand "Without my rifle, I am useless."

[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:

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.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

Yeah, I mean look what happened in Australia which used to have lax gun rules like US when they passed more restrictive legislation in the late 1990's and early 2000's on gun ownership! It went from having similar frequencies of catastrophes as we do here in the US to nearly 0. Oh wait, I'm sorry I think that proves that good gun control actually does stop mass shootings and runs counter to your republican talking point narrative! My bad!

What BS. Australia never had anything like the number of shootings before they passed draconian gun confiscation. Their drastic action was a ridiculously knee-jerk reaction to a single mass killing, which happened to be committed with a firearm, instead of a truck, a bombing, or an arson.

Um.. did you even bother to click the link that shows similar mass shooting levels between the US and AUS in the 80's and 90's until said legislation passed? And what you characterize as a "knee-jerk" reaction is you know, actually a reaction to a terrible even, instead of what we do here where its like "ah just another tuesday, let's move on now".

Why cherry pick? I'm more interested in facts and I'm not so interested in talking to people attempting to mislead others.

LOL okay. Yes, the US policy of unlimited guns for anyone can never be wrong. We should just completely ignore all those other counties that had similar lax policies and lots of guns who implemented changes and stopped their mass casualty events nearly if not 100% and had ridiculous reductions in one-off gun crimes as well. No need to think about those. Just good old head in the sand "Without my rifle, I am useless."

That pesky old constitution. Why do people defend it??

It was written by dead white males, you know.