exorbitant fees while waiting months to clear bureaucratic hurdles to buy a large, unweildy gun that holds 6 or fewer rounds then those women will be morally superior as they have the life choked out of them by a man twice their size.

It's how God would have wanted it.

on how to safeguard themselves and their families.

Women are far more likely to die from guns than to be saved by one. Reminds me of this exchange on Fox:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/perino-domestic-violence-vics-better-decisions-article-1.1215389

I don't care for Perino one bit, but the whole argument of women benefiting from more guns is one that only Fox would try to proliferate.

Again, women are FAR more likely to be killed by a gun than saved by one. More guns = more women killed by guns.

Those who want to do them harm are not prevented from doing so. We already have a thousand laws on the books and yet the OP remains true. Demanding that good people remain defenseless and hope they can call 911 and not have their oxygen run-out before the police arrive is not an act of kindness on their behalf.

That includes guns which were purchased strictly for defense. This isn't terribly difficult to understand. The U.S. has a gun culture, a very dangerous one. If you don't want to get killed by a gun, your best bet is to stay well away from them.

The murder rate is NOT > 2 million people annually; so, I'm not sure what you're basing that statement on. Gun homicides run around 8,000 annually.

Do you think all those people who die from guns do so from homicide?

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Also, that 2.5 million figure is kind of ridiculous, there are MANY problems with it.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

Again, having a gun means you are more likely to die by a gun than someone who doesn't own one. So that means that the very act of owning a gun makes you far more likely to be put into a situation where you might need/want to use it than someone who doesn't own one. Gun owners are their own worst enemy. Owning a gun makes you far more likely to die by a gun than someone who doesn't own one. This really isn't difficult to understand.

And I'm making no demands of you, that's a big, fat strawman. I want there to be far less guns in this country. It is only then that our rate of gun violence will decline and we'll be more in line with the rest of the developed world.

and worth saying again:
Women are far more likely to die from guns than to be saved by one .

Or are you going to argue they don't have access to guns?

Make it mandatory for all military women to carry RPGs wherever the go and that problem will be solved right quick. Of course deaths via RPG will increase significantly, but freedom ain't free.

But of the military assaults that o occur how many occurred while the female was carrying her weapon?

A ton of military assaults occur when the woman has reasonable access to her weapon - for example, it's on the other side of the room.

That kind of situation is going to arise very frequently. Roughly once a day. Kinda makes the gun not the solution.

Non-deployed soldiers do not have ready access to weapons. And as alcohol is a prevailing factor in SAs and alcohol and weapons aren't permitted together so that is further proof that you're just fabricating statements.

After all, they've got access to their guns and little-to-no access to alcohol.

non-deployed the figures hold-up. Good grief, now you're just flailing angrily.

Your argument is access to guns is the best way to prevent rapes.

The women with the best access to guns, and the training to use them effectively, suffer more rapes than the civilian population.

You're now busy arguing about alcohol. Yet alcohol does not make a rapist bulletproof.

doncha know.

WOMEN-- ARM YOURSELVES AGAINST YOUR HUSBANDS AND BOYFRIENDS!!!!!!

and she and the ex-SO can have shootouts in the parking lot of the Food Lion...

Great Idea!!!!

/sarcasm btw

Women are threatened and killed by guns by their partners all the time. More than they are able to protect themselves with guns from their partners. I suspect it's easier to protect yourself from a stranger with a gun than from a partner. You have to get it, including getting money for it, and spousal abuse often involves controlling money, and then hide it and keep it hidden with the fear that it could be found and used against you. I suspect women who are in abusive relationships aren't major buyers of guns.

We're trained to wait for the prince on the White Horse to ride to our rescue to save us from the ogre (Sorry, Shrek! Love yoooou!). If girls were brought-up to see ourselves as determiners of our own destiny I'd hazard a guess there will be damned fewer damsels in distress and probably fewer ogres too.

In most abusive relationships that I've been aware of, there has been a huge amount of control involved, including financial control. The woman doesn't have enough money to buy a cup of coffee, let alone a gun. And if she DID have the money, she'd have the fear that he would find out she had a gun, which could lead to horrible consequences.

It has nothing to do with women waiting to be rescued. It is about women trying to survive a difficult situation.

Domestic assault is much more complicated than that and in most cases, the perpetrator knows where the gun is and either moves it or just grabs it first.

Women don't need guns, they need the law to step up and do its job.

Men get assaulted in the home, too. Are you suggesting they need to be packing at all times? Both partners in a marriage armed to the teeth just in case?

Great way to live, buster.

And the history of that is -- ???

What's wrong with letting women decide for themselves? "The law" has shown itself to have failed at prevention by the time "the law" gets involved. That's not zealotry, that's fact. You aren't interested in stopping anything you just want to control people with worthless schemes so you can feel like you did something. If criminals have easy access to the drugs what makes you think they'll give up their guns just because you took away some woman's right to self-defense?

right on schedule.

It is referring to the fact that the pandemic of male violence against women is still treated as if it is an inescapable fact of life. If these numbers reflected almost any other reality (except poverty related statistics) there would be a hell of a lot more awareness. Poverty is another issue which many treat as a problem that can never be solved.

Society treats women with contempt. It is thoroughly patriarchal and misogynist.

You act as if there is some grand conspiracy among all men to beat up their wives and girlfriends and keep them in line. That's complete bullcrap. There are millions of male victims of domestic violence every year that the feminists completely ignore.

We need to stop being gender-specific with these domestic violence awareness and assistance programs. These programs and legislation we have now all promote the idea that all men are abusers and all women are victims.

No. But you go on and preach about domestic violence some more. Domestic violence against men is a problem worthy of discussion, but you're using it as a distraction. Be proud.

I bet you didn't even read the linked piece.

please provide links from legitimate, reliable sources to back up that claim, and then be good enough to look at that statistics for female victims of domestic violence which society seems so adept at ignoring. and then, perhaps you could tell us what you are doing to help eliminate the problem all across the board.

most of us can count down almost to the second the "what about the MEN?" whine, whenever there is an issue that affects primarily women, with a small percentage of men.

...is what I'm hearing too. And men do not get their needs met by feminists. (What a buncha...) Some men just can't imagine what a better world it would be-- for everybody-- if women were not "otherized." (To use a blanket term). It has benefits for them, they just don't get that tho.

Real men don't feel the need to throw out empty taunts.

my response is, "you mean, the way men haven't been paying attention for a couple of thousand years?"

Thank you.

I am sick to death of seeing the news of women murdered by their exes and partners being treated like background noise.

disheartening.

You can pretty much expect those responses to this kind of information. Silencing tactics, derailing, etc. So sadly predictable.

that the toll of both "wars" is equally ignored.

RUMSFELD: Well, we don't do body counts on other people. And we have certain rules on people we capture, in terms of exposing them to the public, Geneva Conventions and the like.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101956,00.html#ixzz2OJvA3zpW

Eve supposedly ate that damn apple. If you considered what happens to women worldwide, it would make the the stats the OP posted look pathetic. This frakking war against women has been going on so long, we barely notice it.

I believe the only way most women exist in this world is by having blinders on. There's 100 percent blinders all the way down to 10 percent blinders and for those women who completely rip the blinders off, this world is a truly horrifying and disgusting place. Many women and girls can not even trust their own fathers and mothers to keep them safe. If that's not truly horrifying and disgusting then I don't know what is.

see it for what it is, are generally treated as though they are insane, or making it up, or exaggerating.

and, when that war is within our own homes, it is truly horrifying.