|||||[ceiling fan going whirr whirr whirr...]||]|
Yet another case of a
out of control.
This time, someone suggested (upon reflection, I'm
guessing that it was somewhat in jest) to
nux_vomica that, instead of getting a
gun for self-protection, she instead find a Big Guy
with Scary Tattoos and Lots of Money to
escort her around.
This was my response:
Handguns are not a good thing. 90% of the time they are used on a
person you are having a relationship with or someone you know.
Ah yes. Lies, damned lies, and statistics:
72% of murders are committed by acquaintances.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, for 2000.
Acquaintance homicides: 4726.
Stranger homicides: 1892.
60% of rapes are committed by people the victim
— Bureau of Justice Statistics.
70-80% of child abductions are by family
— NISMART-2, page 6; 33k stranger abductions v. 113 family abuctions.
My point being: yes, people often need to use guns against people
they know. And often for all the right reasons. Think about it
even more simply: don't you spend 90% of your time around
people you know? (Hopefully you've selected them a bit better
than randomly, but...)
Even the smallest hand guns can kill. A .22 will go right through a
bullet proff vest.
Offhand, this sounds like bullshit (or at least, a partial truth).
A high-power cartridge in a .22 rifle might indeed be able to make
it through some bullet-proof vests. A .22 pistol, on the other
hand, is not much of a threat to someone in a bullet-proof vest:
[bullet-proof vest] is a misnomer since such protective vests are of little
or no protective value against rifles regardless of the type, style,
materials or caliber of the rifle ammo or even against handgun ammo
fired from a rifle. These vests have proven to be fully protective
against handgun ammo fired from handguns, again, regardless of type,
style, materials or caliber of the handgun ammo. Almost any ammunition
can penetrate such a vest when fired from a rifle, even handgun
ammo. The exception is the common .22 caliber LR, which can usually be
stopped by these vests even when fired from a rifle.
See also that there are a variety of different resistence levels
specified, of which the 0.22 is the minimum handgun bullet
that must be stopped:
(search for heading “Armor Classifications for
Back to miskatonic01:
So here is the best solution. Get a boyfriend that is huge you will
not need either number 1 or 2. If he does tatoo work that takes care
of number 3. If said huge tatoo artist is also loaded and wants to
be a sugar daddy that takes care of number 4 and 5+.
And here is where you completely go off the deep end. Maybe she
wants to protect herself, feel confident in herself and in tools she
makes available to herself. Or would you really prefer women to be
delicate little flowers, requiring the protection of Big Strong Men
at all times? Heck, why don't we require that they be in the
company of a male relative every time they're in public? And
make 'em wear a robe, so they won't excite the lust of
men? Sounds like it'd work great!
Guns are, and hopefully will continue to be, a great equalizer.
Even if she has a Big Dumb Guy handy, a little punk with a gun can
take out the BDG. Now you have delicate flower facing punk with a
gun. Who's going to win that one?
There are valid reasons to be concerned about gun ownership.
It's a huge responsibility, and it has the potential to have
huge liability as well. baconmonkey points out the
very real danger of Devin getting his little hands on it.
It would be nice if everyone were so civilized and sane and rational
and polite and altruistic that we didn't need guns. Sadly,
such will never happen: civilization is not natural, and if
everyone else played by the rules, one person could take over the
world (with, dunno, maybe a pair of boxcutters or something).
It's an unstable equilibrium at best. (And, at the moment,
we're nowhere near it.)
Me personally? I don't own a gun: I don't want that level
of responsibility. (But then, I am a Big Dumb Guy, and
have been mistaken for security staff at shows before, so maybe it
doesn't apply in quite the same way).
I have many friends who do own guns. Some of them own many guns. A
few of them have kids in the same house with the guns. And I have
very little worry about this situation: they're responsible
gun-owners, they keep the guns locked up, and they train their
children in gun safety very very early.
Summary: I found miskatonic01's post to be
offensive (1) by playing into every
stereotype about women needing men to protect them; and (2) by
parroting baseless and irrelevant statistics to claim that guns are
bad. Guns are tools; they are, in themselves, ethically