13-year-old Katelyn Francis Shoots Like A Girl

I’ll concentrate on one item, since this site IS about women defending themselves and the presumed need to do so:

To wit, while the Julian Center is interesting for its diagnosis that lots of Beta Male types are getting kicked to the dog house and having their cell phones and wallets tossed around or ravaged, with the occasional slap, this is merely giving the appearance–at most–of a “counterweight” type argument that females can in the aggregate be just as nasty as abusive boyfriends. A point which few would deny even as the issue is largely likely under-reported due to obvious stereotype issues. And?

Well, it contradicts nothing from the MJ “factoid”. The question was not whether women can be hateful, jealous, spiteful, and in fact often dangerous in some contexts and betray the usual more mousy stereotypes one can find outside of movies like The Burning Bed where when she’s had enough she’ll roast your sorry tail alive in bed.

I’m guessing this is merely used as counterweight for some odd reason, or perhaps distraction, since surely you’re not advocating that having the ladyfriend or missus rifle through your belongings and tap your phone line is cause for popping her with your favorite Colt.

Nay, the question remains then: Are women *really* in such danger from strange drooling men itching for a quickie rape that (as this very site suggests) they are really better off packing a Hello Kitty steering wheel mounted Glock or whatever, rather than seeking counseling and legal help when the boyfriend comes home in a drunk rage yet again when dinner is not done and beats her to a slop or shoots her?

The latter scenarios, after all, being the far more likely consequences of women being in the presence of guns than being raped by a stranger on the street, et al.

Of course this is a broad brush we’re painting here, as are all aggregate numbers. But cultures and societies have evolved over time to play the odds. That’s why we have laws and regulations, after all, even if they’re quite often not the perfect fit for absolutely every imagined and endless jawboned scenario one can think of?

Um….look…you’re right, chief. I didn’t get your point. You didn’t have one.

I’m not trying to be cute, or curt, or difficult to get along with. Rather, I focused in on just one aspect to make things simple: Since this site is about woman and guns, primarily, is it REALLY true that women around guns and packing da heat makes them safer? It was that simple.

Was not trying to “rationalize” women attacking men, or bad state laws (of which I agree and know all too well, especially hailing from the
Deep South where unless a gal is a crackhead and threatens to use the kids’ guts as fish bait and you have this on tape, in almost ANY divorce settlement or even if she pops you on the skull with a frying pan, she WILL be getting the kids AND the house and half your stuff).

Nor am I in denial mode about how nasty some women can be. And yes, even the toughest hombre can be taken down if not care, by a
woman on a rampage armed and dangerous. And that brings me back to my decidedly NON-agenda question, of which the only plausible agenda is the truth:

Are women really safer around guns in general?

Regis might be, yes. She’s trained to the Nth degree. Fair enough.

But it was also she who mentioned I believe that women these days are being dragged off the street in “broad daylight” (????) and raped in clusters all over the nation.

REALLY!?? HUH?!!

Actually, the stats demonstrate something entirely more worrisome than the rare Central Park kind of incident, which, while tragic, is about as common as winning the Powerball Lottery three times in a row.

The reality is twofold for women: They’re far more likely to be raped, abused, beaten, or killed by a BOYFRIEND or SOMEONE THEY KNOW and TRUST in the presence of a gun–including their OWN
turned against them–than raped by a stranger. And broad daylight rapes are almost unheard of. Few perps are that stupid even among the stupid. Criminals are like crocodiles. They might be tough, but still don’t like risk, and prefer stealth mode over full limelight of broad daylight if possible.

In a scenario of trust, however, it’s harder to draw down on someone. After all, women often don’t see the rape (or any kind of attack) even coming.

YOU said yourself you didn’t see the attack on YOU even coming. OK.

Likewise for many women who get popped by their OWN GUNS in moments of anger where the boyfriend or male acquaintance or someone they trust does something so unanticipated that even the expedient move of going for the gun is of no use and indeed many of these attacks are made by men knowing they have the female in a precarious position where she is NOT able to get her gun, etc.

If the relationship is strong, as in boyfriend/girlfriend mode, it’s more than likely HE knows where the gun is at all times anyhow. How ‘bout them apples, eh? Yeah, you see the problem?

Speaking of the sneak attack, what if your ladyfriend had been packing, by the way? Better hope those are darned good EMTs, eh?

Being placed in cuffs would be the least of your worries, brother.

Also, drop the wine and cheese art gallery mess. More than a few GOP types attend artsy-fartsy encounters and post pics on Facebook and social media enough that I can tell who’s really stuffing their guts with lobster, caviar, rack-of-lamb, and guzzling down fine wine. Trust me, it might be Beltway libs who do this sometimes, but not your average union-label Democrats.

I always get a kick from in particular from the self-described “hot spicy conservative chicks” doing “selfie” phone cam shots of themselves at a party. Always neat to see someone brag about a social conservative media group encounter party that the onlooker is not invited to. Charming, of course.

I’m a conservative, as I assume you are. So drop the mess on cheese and wine and patronage of the arts–which comes as much from wealthy GOP money bags as from pathetic PBS telethons, by the way.

But back to your tale of admittedly being taken by surprise: would you have been delighted at the prospect of your leading lady drawing down on you–as your back is turned–with her Hello Kitty Glock? That’s part of the overall risk assessment I’m speaking of her: In the aggregate–what is the safest route??

You might be Kung Fu fast. But are you faster than that bullet?
Likewise for her if she got disarmed by some punk boyfriend who knew where her gun was and made she he got to it first to make some ugly point?

Methinks not. I’d rather have the cuffs, myself, as dishonorable and unfair as that seems at the moment. Diggable moment?

I’m gonna put a couple cents worth in here – my mother (handicapped and disabled, now 70, 5′ 3″ tall, and weighs about 120, can’t run, can’t fight) became active in our small town some 10-12 years ago – AGAINST the democraps and the local teachers’ union. She started getting death threats in the mail and on the phone. She lives in the country, 10 miles out of town.

9 years ago, she got her CHL (Texas concealed handgun license) and has been packing since.

In that time she’s drawn on attackers on the streets of downtown 7 times, shooting one (and the others in that pack scattered). She had a pack descend on her in Walmart – and the sight of a .380 drove them off.

Her house has been broken into 3 times while she was home – she shot 2 of them, who were coming after her, armed.

This all started because the local school board wanted to purchase several hundred acres of useless land from a cronie at an inflated price, and charge extra in taxes to pay for it, and mom said “no!” and started fighting them.

The union thugs and local dems now know she packs, and won’t get charged if they go after her and she fires. They leave her alone now – because she packs. Otherwise I would be an old orphan right now….

I try to ask about facts, so you respond with stuff about choices of
women and some crud about the cluster of Afghanistan, which is a different culture than over here. On that note, however, about my supposed lack of luck with the hard core gals, I think I’ll take your advice on what is called “future reference”. And it might be awhile. Even though, of course, we might ask just *who* can deny the superior skills you must have with being a high-powered, high-testosterone “lady-killer” and what with all your choice of mates who literally stab you in the back. Gosh, they must faint and swoon at your very presence when you trot into the bar.

But, as Master Yoda might say. “For now, my own judgment shall I keep on choice of ladyfriends.”

So, well done, sir. Well done!

Just keep the sharp objects in a safe, is that it, eh? And you’ll have a blast with that thing you picked up at the bar.

Oh, and BTW– This ain’t Afghanistan, bud. Not sure why you had to bring in what is basically a civil war combined with Talibanic fundamentalist loony justice into the gun issues of North America and a very different culture.

So, after over 1500 years of this abusive Islamist behavior against
women, because a war is going on some people suddenly in the last ten years some gun nuts take note of the human rights situation in that part of Islamdom—or any part, in fact? Now the tears flow for Afghan women after all this time? Odd.

Where were America’s “tough-guy-CIA-drop-me-off-at-the-North
Pole-with-nothing-but-a-buck-knife-and-48-hours-later you-see-me-in-Tijuana-wearing-nothing-but-a-polar-bear-skin-loin-cloth-and-holding-two-goreous-Senoritas-in-my-arms” types during the Soviet war, when the USSR tried to save that crappy civilization from itself and initiate women’s rights and we gave the Muj types Stinger missiles?? Eh? Any hands in the back of the room going up
yet for a good answer on that cluster that gave us Bin Laden? Women’s rights my backside. Didn’t hear a peep about that then.

Only now, when anti-Islamism is all the fashionable rage.

But back to American homefront issues and away from hypocrisy:

Actually, I know many people who work in security, Mr. Tough Guy, and can say that to a person my friends in the PROFESSIONAL security field claim the effectiveness of guns in the home without special need for one is a vastly overblown claim. No one measure against criminals is some all-cure as advocated by the NRA. It’s a recipe for open war in the streets and on the roads, and road rage and car shootings being on the rise, probably not a good idea for just any Bob or Jane to be packing.

Security workers of my acquaintance also remind me and others that
most of the CCW types are boneheads far more likely to end up with a dead child than confront a robber, and the vast majority of US gun owners don’t have the requisite training for such dangerous weaponry. It’s like asking to drive a big rig truck without a commercial license for such a diesel beast and expect smooth driving results. Same thing. Guns require special care–not playing army in the woods and running around blowing holes in animals thinking that makes you a tough hombre and then you can face down the whole Pentagon’s advanced weaponry in some fantasy insurrection. BS.

These Walter Mitty types would have their skullcaps popped off from 500 yards by the real professionals who work for the Prez should the issue ever come to that. You won’t even see the pros coming near you in the woods or on the street. I’ve met them and spoken to them at length, and they’re not afraid of rednecks or housewives with cute little pink AR-15s. Or any gun nut.

Your body will be dead before it even hits the ground.

Think an insurrection would really work against the Pentagon and the
world’s most expensive and exotic weaponry?

The NRA’s notion that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” can be made shorter in your little noggins by just acknowledging that why these boneheads and others like them mean by this is that “Let’s have a good old-fashioned, Wild West shootout and see who comes out on top.”

Oh, and another thing: Have you heard of the parents’ collective tales about the Sandy Hook shootings? Pics are not available yet, though I assume at some point they’ll be leaked and then you get to show your tough-guy, “I know all about war and Afghanistan” crappola when you hear of the missing eyes, the jaws that were blown completely off, and what used to look like a human child’s face turned into hamburger meat with brain tissue hanging out one side of a separated skull plate. It’s incredibly gory to even read out. Wait til the pics hit the net. At that point after you can survey the gore and horror perhaps I can drop you a line and say “Congrats, this is the realm of the AR-15. Happy now?”

Any advice from Mr. Tough Hombre like you on how to handle their
sadness, or is compassion for wussies and the weak, eh? Just tell them to “suck it up” and “grow a pair, you little sissies and Girl Scouts!!!” and “get over it, you wussy”? Cuz life’s tough! And so if the parents of Sandy Hook’s dead children don’t like they can buy a helmet to thwart’s life’s blows, eh? Man-up, boys and girls!

As to the “defensive gun use” theme, it’s now demonstrated that Lott
(the sock puppet guy who went undercover and pretended to be a gal, and in drag mode praised his own work) is a fraud. Just as much a fraud as with Gary Kleck’s rather weird claim that three are 2.5 million “defensive” uses of guns by law-abiding citizens each year. Most unlikely. Not surprising bunk with funding hailing from the likes of groups like the American Enterprise Institute, which is ever praising the rich and powerful and bashing the poor.

See also Kleck’s nonsense taken utterly apart at: http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

In reality, women—and indeed all homeowners–are more likely to be
killed in a home with a gun by their own domestic partner than some random rapist, or have the opportunity to use a gun to ward off a would-be rapist. *Far* more likely. In fact, overall, a firearm in the house is 40 times more likely to be used against a domestic partner, or suicide, or end up popping some child in the head when he finds he dad’s piece by the nightstand.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf

More: criminals surveyed through a variety of means have done the
opposite of what is commonly claimed by the NRA and other pro-gunners on the very issue of defensive use of guns and allegedly testifying they “fear” armed victims. Usually not, is the sad truth. In point of fact, research done on this topic generally indicates that what criminals really fear are mostly other criminals. That’s who shoots them up the most in survey after survey taken from ER rooms on “who shot you” and in thousands of prison interviews. Rarely are criminals accosted or stopped by homeowners brandishing weapons, and in those cases where this happens, often even here the situation of criminality is one where—like rape—the victim actually knows the perp from some other encounter or is even a friend, but the perp is doing a technically “criminal” activity often AFTER an invitation TO the residence, etc.

Random encounters where some punk off the street just happens to barge in on a family watching TV where someone is at home and gets scared off or shot by a gun, are extremely rare.

Are most perps *really* all that scared of guns? Not really. Not according to numerous surveys. Unless by “scared” you mean “scared of other perps”. That might be the case. That’s who mainly shoots them.. Their partners in crime. Contrary to the popular saying, there is no “honor among thieves.”

Though many criminals are stupid and do find themselves in a tight spot sometimes, usually among other criminals more than CCW homeowner vigilante types, what IS beginning to happen is that in fact, some more thoughtful criminals are actually *targeting* what they think are homes that they feel have guns due to the dumb signs people have in their yards or on windows like “This residence protected by Smith & Wesson” and so forth. They don’t confront the homeowners. That’s too stupid even for the stupid. They scope the place out for some time and then make sure no one is home, have implements to void alarm systems or make sure they hurry, and scrounge around using various lock pick mechanisms and specially designed tools to open a safe—if necessary. Though usually it’s not, due to the fact that they know many gun owners would keep the gun by a nightstand or on top of the fridge (an old trick to keep it out of the hands of the wee ones) and so forth. We know this is happening especially in light of the unfortunate publishing of CCW permit names from some newspapers that actually ended up INVITING criminal elements into homes in search of a free gun or two. Scardy cats, eh? Warding them off with a gun, eh?

http://newyork.newsday.com/westchester/journal-news-gun-permit-map-used-by-burglars-to-target-white-plains-home-1.4441678?qr=1

As to gun control effectiveness itself: It *does* work, if properly implemented—and consistent. European gun deaths are far below ours, even among the criminal elements.

Note that while handgun violence is legion and out of control in the US, where they are readily available, and semi-autos are used for mass killings, how many FULL auto machines gun killings have you heard about lately? Zilch. Even the rich crime lords of the Zetas in Mexico, who’re known to have cars that are more expensive more than most people make in a 10 years, have a hard time contracting for these. They’re illegal, hard to make, not generally available unless you can bribe someone for some relic for the big bucks, even for the “right price”, and so even the rich hotshots of the Zeta Cartel usually rely on lesser weapons to do the carnage. Full autos are generally outlawed all over the world, and so even cross-border transfers are not possible. The blasted things are usually only available to the military of whatever nation or rebels engaged in conflict on occasion. That even the rich honchos of the Zeta Cartel have a hard time even getting these from across the border indicates that at least in North America, the ban on full auto machine guns works quite well. (For these, they’d have to go overseas and bribe some Fatah or Talib or Hamas types, and that’s risky).

People often make the false connection to dope and guns and say dumb things like “Well, the drug war has failed and you can’t control cocaine or pot or meth, so what makes you think you can manage to control guns!?”

But the analogy is absurd. Meth is easy to make. Guns are not. Pot is easy for the dope lords to grow. You can’t grow guns. Particularly high-capacity machine guns that spurt out hundreds of rounds a minute. Pot is easy to grow. Just ask any North Carolina dope farmer. Alas, those same rednecks that can churn out meth labs and pot patches cannot sell you a full auto M-16. Same for cocaine. There’s risk in the importation, yeah, but it’s an easy plant to grow per the locals in those fields. Alas, those poor dirt farmers who get only a slice of the powder profits can’t make guns there.

And no, don’t go on about the meaning of the NRA’s specialized and
rather new interpretation of the Second Amendment.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/15/guns-second-amendment-47964/

The reality is the Second Amendment is NOT some standing order, “right to own” with no restrictions whatsoever; the Militia clause being the factor in the temporary disbursement of guns to those able to wield them in some emergency. It does not mean you get to keep one on you at all times.

We have restrictions on ALL the rest of our Constitutional rights and
the Bill of Rights as well. You have freedom of press and religion, but can’t yell fire in crowded theatres if there’s no fire, you can be sued for libel or defamation of character, and you can have human sacrifice to some pagan god using your newborn on the Altar of Ramathar.

See how this works?

“Freedom of
Speech” for example is here and alive and kicking, but will not keep, say, PFC Bradley Manning out of prison for disclosing classified documents to Wikileaks.

No freedom is absolute. Why would one tenth of the Bill of Rights stand above all others?

A proper Second Amendment historically contextual analogy would be:

“It being necessary for you to go to the shops, I lend you my car for an hour”

Can you therefore use the
borrowed car for any purpose whatsoever?

Um… NO.

The first part modified the second, and is conditional.

Dig?

The master of the house allows the head Butler to gas up the Bentley once in a while and take it for servicing, etc.

Does he get to drive it home to his own home or go for a joy ride
cross-country? Of course not.

How many here in this forum have served in the armed forces? Where’s your tank, hotshot?

You mean those anti-Second Amendment zealots and gun banners didn’t let you take it home with you!?!?! Why, the raw nerve of the Pentagon’s top brass!

Millions have served in the military and have dealt with high powered weaponry that required advanced training. Upon discharge, do they get to take home their own personal M1-A1 Abrams tank, or F-16 fighter jet just in case tyrannical government is just around the corner at some later date? Of course not.

It also does not mean what the nutcases like Judge Andrews Napolitano thinks it means, when he advocates “offing” those considered tyrants (which has led to dumb assassinations and assassination attempts—congrats, the US is number one in not only gun violence of 30,000 deaths a year, but also the nation with the highest hits on elected officials to high office due the “death to tyrants” crap spouted by alleged men of the law like this idiot Napolitano. See for example, the raw ugliness any good American should be ashamed of due the “Death to Tyrants” explanation and mythology surrounding the Second Amendment. It was about a well-regulated militia, which today is the National Guard and Army—not a bunch of gun nuts running around blowing holes in cans with full auto weapons and tough talk:

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/11/napolitano-gun-control-assassination-obama-47844/

And yes, we had “gun control” even in the alleged “Wild West”—most of which is myth—guns were allowed by not to be generally carried in public. See also: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/guns-wild-west-48208/

As to the myth of self-defense and guns, see also:

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/23/guns-safety-48182/

Lott is long discredited.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_09/002120.php

And in reality, I added the link below and the ones above just to be
kind.

Truth be told, I don’t have to go beyond common sense measures to tell you that not only is Regis wrong about women being yanked off the street and raped in “broad daylight” (statistically most unlikely, folks, as like I said before, most perps prefer stealth, as do all criminals. See her head-scratcher of a quotation at http://jezebel.com/5766070/teen-girl-conservatives-second-amendment-remedy-for-rape), or that on one tiny factoid alone we can debunk at least the concealed carry deters millions of intruders a year” meme of Lott and other NRA hacks:

The people most likely to get a CCW are well-off, suburban or rural and white, and thus generally far removed from the larger problems of criminal gun use in the inner city. So any effect their mere possession of CCW permits would be minimal, as they don’t generally encounter the issues of Chicago’s inner city or LA’s gangland wars. As the links above show, statistically you’re FAR more likely to kill a friend or loved one when there is a gun in the home than face down or even wave away some intruder. Far more likely. Handguns in particular are far more prone to be used for suicide that ridding the yard or home of some stray (and unlikely) intruder.

Like Kleck, John Lott, the poster boy debunked in the above link, for
the “ shoot-em-up” defensive gun use/concealed carry myth, fudged much of his data. If libs are willing to recognize that Michael Bellesiles’ anti-gun rants were based on phony data and they pulled away from using his work, why can’t the Right do the same regarding gun stat fakers like John Lott and Gary Kleck?

I think it’s a good question myself.

Why are they still relying on junk science and the discredited
“econometrics” model of bad data samples, loaded, open-ended questions and samples that don’t take into account demographic and urban vs. rural differences, and much more?

Is no one here at least curious?

And yes, I AM a conservative. A REAL one. Not some nutcase who utters macho mumbo jumbo like a bad Arnold Schwarzenegger flick while popping holes in cans thinking that’s what makes people tough. Making a society that is cohesive and polite and far less prone to violence is the task at hand that makes people tougher. Not a gun. Guns are easy to tote around. Making a better world with the common sense application of laws that Reagan and both Bushes agreed to on practical restrictions on assault weapons and capacity, etc.–not so easy Which task requires more toughness, Mr. Tough Guy?

“The NRA cannot cut federal funding for any gummint program. CONGRESS does that! Do you think that maybe Congress when faced with 47 million folks on food stamps, a $16 trillion defict, the cost of two wars and Michelle Obama’s constant vacations that maybe, just maybe they have something better to spend the taxpayer dollars on?”

Cute. And yes, it seems this administration specializes in enjoying the finer things in life on the taxpayer dime, not to mention more than a few failed policies, handouts, give-outs, bailouts, and other goodies and lollipops. True enough. But while NRA per se does not cast the final authorization for funding votes, it DOES heavily influence what has become the Tea-centric House of Reps, and while the Senate and House dems have some counterbalance on many ideological issues via their still relatively large numbers and slight majority in Senate, many Dems dare not cross the NRA’s endless lobbying and warnings.