Having a Gun in the House Doesn't Make a Woman Safer
The gun industry has promoted their product as “the great equalizer” capable of making a 130 pound woman as powerful as any man. It seems reality doesn’t bear that out. I’m curious about people here make of this article from the Atlantic Monthly.
From the article:
‘Christy Salters Martin is a professional boxer and the owner of a concealed carry permit. But when she attempted to leave her husband, she was shot with her own gun. Today, she cautions other women against making the same mistake. “Just putting a weapon in the woman’s hand is not going to reduce the number of fatalities or gunshot victims that we have. Too many times, their male counterpart or spouse will be able to overpower them and take that gun away.” ‘
. . .
It has long been recognized that higher rates of gun availability correlate with higher rates of female homicide. Women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world, even though they make up only a third of the developed world’s female population. And within American borders, women die at higher rates from suicide, homicide, and accidental firearm deaths in states where guns are more widely available. This is true even after controlling for factors such as urbanization, alcohol use, education, poverty, and divorce rates.
. . .
Another large case-control study compared women who were murdered by their intimate partner with a control group of battered women. Only 16 percent of the women who had been abused, but not murdered, had guns in their homes, whereas 51 percent of the murder victims did. In fact, not a single study to date has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership. Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
links in the article to sources of data
= new reply since forum marked as read
Have a good holiday.
8. There are literally reams of data showing that availability of guns results in
View profile
more women being killed. Research from countries world wide and from the US support this contention.
So, with all due respect, which isn't much, what you "think" and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Show me some studies that support your point of view. Follow the links and refute the sources for the article.
I could say that I "think" you're an idiot and it would hold as much credibility as what you "think" about all the studies that say you're wrong.
Way to build consensus.
Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)
I'll just say that research is a large part of my field, I've had to conduct research in the course of my work, and there are hundreds of ways to screw it up and even with good methodology there are always margins of error and degrees of unreliability.
So you post this article that exploits an anecdotal gun violence act, then ties it to a study of violence against women and then challenge me to produce studies to refute your article's claim.
AND THEN you go to the protected group to show off your special treat here to see if people will applaud your very productive and mature efforts today.
Well fuck that, I know my data, I know my clientele, and I am guessing that I know what good reliable research requires far beyond the average gun control fanatic, not that any of them post here, but they are busy writing articles that people here consider valid.
Y'all crack us up.
Carry on, it makes DU suck on the one hand but it's entertaining on the other, especially watching your side fail so frequently.
But the sad part is that there's a lot of common ground and room for consensus, but folks are too busy calling others names to actually communicate, a problem fundamental to your group's failure.
The feeling is mutual; I respect your opinions. 
I'm quite critical of the way the press manipulates data, and of poorly designed and conducted research, and of tactics that are used by either side of any issue to persuade people to draw conclusions compatible with an agenda.
Examples include the gun industry's attempts to use fear to drive sales, especially to women. They would impress me more if they provided free safety trainings with each sale.
Another example is the gun control group's attempts to associate the RKBA with slavery and oppression, and now with misogyny.
Another angle is to call gun violence a public health issue. Well, yes, it's a public health issue as are many other problems, but the framing of it that way is a move, IMHO, by many to open the door to finding a workaround the second amendment. I mean that. "Well, since it's a public health matter we are compelled to make exceptions."
The honest and more effective way to address gun violence would be to consider and label as a public health matter "violence", all violence, not just gun violence.
Take away the guns and you still have the violent behaviors and intents.
Few people seem to be willing to address the root causes of violence and prefer the quick and easy gun control approach, make it hard or impossible for anyone to own one.
I will continue to fight that approach, but am happy to find common ground, close loopholes, remove guns from bad people, background checks and the rest.
In reality, we all have more in common than we seem to realize. (well, most of us, some really want to confiscate and destroy all guns, but let police and military keep them).
And know what? Nobody died or even was ever hurt.
My grandmother taught me to shoot my grandfathers rifle, which I still have.
Thanks for the article, which included this picture, which is actually heartwarming as a family fun activity.
BTW, I support mandatory gun safety training for owners, and in school, annually, for students and for parents.
Good dad with 14-year old daughter:
