Reply to Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?[/quote]

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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![/quote]

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Yeah, I mean [b][url=https://imgur.com/a/2enzYUh]look what happened in Australia[/url][/b] 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!
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Um.. did you even bother to click the link that shows similar [b]mass shooting[/b] 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".[/quote]

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics