The statement is an appeal to fear and hatred: side with those who support ‘the possibility of armed citizens’, OR be associated with Palestinian suicide bombers, Taliban and anyone who kidnaps women for rape and sex-slave trade. This isn’t feminism. It’s a false dichotomy. — Possibility

If feminists are by definition incapable of posing false dichotomies, then fine, they’re not feminists.

Okay. Then if they have term ‘females’ in their name then doesn’t it follow that they represent the views or conditions of females. What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women? — Brett

.

But feminism is not aiming to represent the female view. Rather it is the advocacy for women's rights on the grounds of gender equality. Feminism aims to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.

AFA aimed to repeal restrictions on gun ownership in the US by claiming to represent the female view. They were not advocating for women’s rights in particular.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The real question is, will a gun make me, cause me to be, safer? And the answer to the question is no. No, period. — tim wood

You can only be sure of that if you ignore everything I’ve shared in this thread.

But therein lies the truth: guns often prove to be a cure much, much worse than any problem they're supposed to solve. . — tim wood

Again, you have to flatly ignore the research of John Lott and all that Hitchens cites in his book to make this claim. I’m not saying mass availability of guns doesn’t cause problems, but it seems only prejudiced to dismiss entirely the possible benefits of their ownership by law-abiding people.

What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women?

Edit: okay, I think I see, a feminist is someone who advocates for women’s rights. — Brett

Or maybe you should look into what feminism is all about instead of assuming things and then request to be proven wrong. For example, I have recently noticed in a podcast between 2 self-identified conservative guys that they were talking about feminist activism without understanding it and declaring that it was misplaced based on a similar strawman that it's all about serving the interests of women.

They were talking about an event in which feminists got some (female) cheerleaders fired and thinking that the feminist argument was somehow puritanical and flawed because it went against their strawman, when anyone that has ever listened to a feminist can tell you it's all about "setting unrealistic standards (of physical fitness and sex appeal in this case) for women at large" stemming from a rejection of beauty culture which is seen as serving the "male gaze". You don't need to agree with an ideology to know the positions it takes.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How exactly, does a gun make you safer? Obviously there's a trick; don't fall for it. — tim wood

It’s easy to think why one could, but that’s beside the point; the point being John Lott’s research shows allowing them to be legally owned and carried reduces violent crime. Peter Hitchens cites Lott’s and other research as well in support of this claim. I’m not familiar with the wider debate so perhaps they’ve got in wrong, but if they’re right and ignored simply because they defy prejudice and liberal consensus then people will get needlessly hurt as a consequence of being denied that protection. It runs both ways: Whichever side you’re on, it’s bad to be wrong here.

Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is specially pronounced for women.

I'd want to examine and critically analyze the data for this because the claim seems dubious.

I don’t see why. I certainly feel very inclined to behave myself around people with guns. What I find dubious is your claim that you’d credibly be able to “examine and critically analyze” data already subjected to those things by an academic statistician.

I don’t see why. — AJJ

For one, most people are not murdered by strangers, or in situations where they might be carrying concealed weapons.

Also, Lott isn't a statistician. Not that I think that that's at all the only relevant expertise.

Also, Lott isn't a statistician. Not that I think that that's at all the only relevant expertise. — Terrapin Station

Well alright. He’s an academic who works extensively with statistics then.

For one, most people are not murdered by strangers, or in situations where they might be carrying concealed weapons. — Terrapin Station

Hitchens mentions the most-people-are-killed-by-people-they-know-claim:

In fact, the FBI’s category of people who ‘know’ their victims includes a huge number of rival gang members who know each other. This is not quite why this oft-quotes statistic is taken to mean.

Some people--they tend to be unusually paranoid people--have a notion that a significant percentage of murders occur as random encounters in public. They worry about strangers coming up to them and mugging them or raping them and then killing them, or they worry about "maniacs" simply attacking them for no good reason, or whatever it is that they worry about strangers doing in essentially random encounters. These are the folks who tend to believe that carrying a concealed weapon is going to help them avoid these sorts of situations.

But that's not the source of most murders. Most murders are committed by people who know each other, either because they have a growing beef with them and/or due to more immediate emotional outbursts/crimes of passion, etc.

You say, ignoring what I’ve just posted. Assertions, nothing but.

You say, ignoring what I’ve just posted. Assertions, nothing but. — AJJ

It's not ignoring what you posted. People aren't not thinking of things like rival gang members when they note that most people aren't killed by strangers.

People who are thinking that people are killed by strangers are thinking what I mentioned above. Rival gang members aren't strangers perpetrating crimes on random people.

I’m going to explain this once. If you don’t get (which I know you won’t), then you don’t get it.

A lot of that statistic, according to what I’ve shared, is made up of gang members killing other gang members, who they “know”. This means that the statistic is for the most part not referring to regular people being killed by other regular people known to them.

A lot of that statistic, according to what I’ve shared, is made up of gang members killing other gang members, who they “know”. This means that the statistic is for the most part not referring to regular people being killed by other regular people known to them. — AJJ

"Most people are not killed by strangers; they're killed by people they know" does not amount to anyone saying "Killed by other 'regular people.'" That's a misunderstanding of "Most people are not killed by strangers."

The reason we point out that most people are not killed by strangers is because some people have a belief that a significant percentage of murders are committed by random encounters on the street. They're not.

Most women, however, are killed by "regular people" they know. Most women are not killed by rival gang members, drug dealers, etc.

Your comprehension level is near-retarded. And that's not a joke or an exaggeration or just said to be an insult. It's meant as a serious observation.

A bizarre misunderstanding of what I said followed by more assertions.

Like I said: Only once. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No, it's not beside the point. Answer the question; let's see where it goes. — tim wood

It is beside the point and I think I made it clear why.

John Lott’s research shows allowing them to be legally owned and carried reduces violent crime.
— AJJ
I am unfamiliar with the research, but one thing I know immediately:it does not say what you say it says. — tim wood

Fair enough, it doesn’t say what I say it says, but it may actually say what John Lott says it says.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Ok. What does he say? — tim wood

His book is called More Guns, Less Crime. The quote in the OP is from it.

And the question, "How exactly, does a gun make you safer," is a fair question. Either answer, or say why you won't. — tim wood

I won’t, because it’s beside the point. If John Lott’s research shows what he claims it shows, then the freedom to carry guns does make people safer, however that may be the case.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

You won't answer a fair question? And how can any relevant question "be beside the point"? — tim wood

It’s not relevant, because it’s beside the point I was making. But regardless, I think these are pertinent examples, from Hitchens’ book:

A school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 was stopped by a teacher with a legal gun before police arrived. Another shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania was stopped by the owner of a nearby restaurant producing a legal shotgun, also before police arrived.

I have now read on Amazon a sampling of Lott's book and am deeply suspicious of his methodology and his conclusions. Others can read there as well. — tim wood

What makes you suspicious?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

So you’re suspicious for a bunch of vague reasons to do with your obvious prejudice. Great.

A no-brainer thought experiment: in a bar full of drunks late a Saturday night do you feel safer if all have guns or none have guns?

Or everyone: no guns? Some guns? Everyone carrying a gun at all times? In my opinion Lott is selling something and I wonder what. — tim wood

If they’re people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place then no, I wouldn’t feel safe. If they’re responsible people deserving of their permits, who are also drunk, then I feel perfectly safe; very safe in fact, since a loose cannon will be taken down by the rest of them (which would make that loose cannon less likely in the first place).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Or everyone: no guns? Some guns? Everyone carrying a gun at all times? In my opinion Lott is selling something and I wonder what. — tim wood

I genuinely feel safer that the vast majority of adult males in my country do know how to use an assault rifle, aim the rifle by using the sights and know how to clean it… or will remember after a 10 minute recap on the weapon.

That you would have to have a personal firearm to defend yourself or your family from apparently other citizens of your country means that something has gone wrong in your society, like social cohesion and rule of law for starters.

Actually, no. Very concrete and definite reasons having to do with statistics, which I understand well enough to know when they smell. — tim wood

Prejudice:

Anyone who supposes that guns make people safer is someone who left off thinking when he entered the room. — tim wood

Vagueness (and prejudice):

Some guns can make some people safer than they were under some conditions, and with certain prior qualifications. I see no evidence of that kind of consideration. And as well, the gun that makes that person safer in some ways increases his or her risk or danger in other ways, as well as affecting the safety of others. — tim wood

So you don't answer questions but ask them, draw false conclusions, are ignorant, and throw a little shade because you think that's argument. You must be a Trump! — tim wood

I’ve answered your questions. The only conclusion I’ve drawn is it’s very possible legal guns make people safer. I’ve been citing from two respectable books by two intelligent authors. I’m not claiming to be well informed, but you’ve only read an Amazon preview.

Or try being a bit more intelligent - I suspect you have it in you. Or quit. You've made this thread to this point useless. See if you can put back into it the life you've sucked out of it. — tim wood

I’m happy to quit this particular exchange.