Anne is not interested in thinking about the fact that guns are not just used to kill people in homicides, but are also used defensively to prevent homicides. I don't think she's responded to ANY of the dozens of people raising your point.
In her book, guns are ONLY bad, and can ONLY be used for evil.
You're right a single or handful of incidents doesn't make a case. On the other hand many incidents do make a case. Take a look at the Civilian Gun Self-Defense blog:
This site contains countless stories about people, many of whom are women, defending themselves with firearms. Instead of saying Smith and Wesson make an implement that causes many deaths you should be saying Smith and Wesson make an implement that saves many lives.
You suggest martial arts? Are you serious? Have you ever been attacked? Had to defend your life? Ever had a burglar break in while you were sleeping?
Martial Arts PROS:
1. Can't be taken away or stolen.
2. You always have it with you. Portable.
Martial Arts CONS:
1. Requires extensive training and several times a week practice over a long period of time to become proficient. Martial art training is effective at self preservation because it's practitioners spend so much time in class they have little time to be mugged :)
2. Although not absolutely necessary, martial arts is most effective when practiced by physically strong people. Not a very effective suggestion for the elderly, handicapped, or small, physically weak people.
82-year-old Man Kills Home Invader: http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/51269647.html
Man, 74, Shoots Carjacker, 18: http://www.click2houston.com/news/20153320/detail.html
3. The less lethal the defense, the more likely it is you'll have to use it. If martial arts is your sole defense, it REQUIRES that you physically engage in hand-to-hand combat with the aggressor. Much higher chance that you'll be injured during this process. The best self defense is one that deters the attacker before they get within three feet of you (when possible). Pepper spray is better than martial arts in this respect. A knife, when brandished, can also deter an attack. The best deterrent, however, is a gun. Very few attackers will continue an attack after it is made aware that their victim is armed with a firearm. That's why in the majority of defensive gun uses, the gun is never even fired.
L.I. Store Owner Takes Pity On Would-Be Robber: http://gothamist.com/2009/06/03/li_store_owner_takes_pity_on_would-.php
4. Very ineffective against multiple attackers. Unless you are a super ninja. But most people who casually learn a few things for self defense are ever going to have the time or inclination to devote their lives to becoming so proficient in martial arts that they can take on a group of attackers.
Recently here in Harlem, a 72-year old store owner was robbed by four men armed with a gun. After the assailants attacked one of his employees, he retrieved his own shotgun and shot all four of them, killing two. Martial arts wouldn't have helped him much. A gun equalized the situation.
5. Not very effective against an attacker with a gun.
6. One of the pros—that it can't be wielded by someone else—is also a con. Someone else can't use YOUR martial arts skills to defend themselves or defend you if you're incapacitated.
A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face: http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=10741492
You've been watching too many movies. The average person cannot just kung-fu themselves out of a life-threatening situation. They also necessarily just shoot their way out either, of course. But it's more likely, and far more common.
I think you're missing the point of self defense. If somebody is attacking me I want every advantage I can get to save my life. Martial arts are fine so long as the attacker is at point blank range and not armed.
What happens when the attacker has a gun? He can easily kill you from a distance where all the martial arts in the world won't count for anything. Having a gun gives you a fighting chance and there are classes that train you in weapon retention so somebody doesn't get your gun away from you.
Finally what if you're being attacked by some drugged out crazy person? You put PCP into somebody and they aren't going to care if you break both of their arms and their nose to boot. They can't feel anything. If you have a firearm you can at least shoot them and if nothing else (say their a square hit to their heart) they will bleed out.
You're effectively saying women should be disarmed which would give criminals the advantage.
Which is quite convenient (and well chosen to make your point) since is doesn’t show up in the top 10 of actual deaths of women. I kinda think that was the other commenters point, but you knew that.
Anne is not interested in thinking about the fact that guns are not just used to kill people in homicides, but are also used defensively to prevent homicides. I don't think she's responded to ANY of the dozens of people raising your point.
In her book, guns are ONLY bad, and can ONLY be used for evil.
You're right a single or handful of incidents doesn't make a case. On the other hand many incidents do make a case. Take a look at the Civilian Gun Self-Defense blog:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
This site contains countless stories about people, many of whom are women, defending themselves with firearms. Instead of saying Smith and Wesson make an implement that causes many deaths you should be saying Smith and Wesson make an implement that saves many lives.
You suggest martial arts? Are you serious? Have you ever been attacked? Had to defend your life? Ever had a burglar break in while you were sleeping?
Martial Arts PROS:
1. Can't be taken away or stolen.
2. You always have it with you. Portable.
Martial Arts CONS:
1. Requires extensive training and several times a week practice over a long period of time to become proficient. Martial art training is effective at self preservation because it's practitioners spend so much time in class they have little time to be mugged :)
2. Although not absolutely necessary, martial arts is most effective when practiced by physically strong people. Not a very effective suggestion for the elderly, handicapped, or small, physically weak people.
82-year-old Man Kills Home Invader: http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/51269647.html
Man, 74, Shoots Carjacker, 18: http://www.click2houston.com/news/20153320/detail.html
3. The less lethal the defense, the more likely it is you'll have to use it. If martial arts is your sole defense, it REQUIRES that you physically engage in hand-to-hand combat with the aggressor. Much higher chance that you'll be injured during this process. The best self defense is one that deters the attacker before they get within three feet of you (when possible). Pepper spray is better than martial arts in this respect. A knife, when brandished, can also deter an attack. The best deterrent, however, is a gun. Very few attackers will continue an attack after it is made aware that their victim is armed with a firearm. That's why in the majority of defensive gun uses, the gun is never even fired.
L.I. Store Owner Takes Pity On Would-Be Robber: http://gothamist.com/2009/06/03/li_store_owner_takes_pity_on_would-.php
Or: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091028/NEWS01/91028011/Police++Dover+teen+fires+gun+to+stop+assault+on+mother
4. Very ineffective against multiple attackers. Unless you are a super ninja. But most people who casually learn a few things for self defense are ever going to have the time or inclination to devote their lives to becoming so proficient in martial arts that they can take on a group of attackers.
Recently here in Harlem, a 72-year old store owner was robbed by four men armed with a gun. After the assailants attacked one of his employees, he retrieved his own shotgun and shot all four of them, killing two. Martial arts wouldn't have helped him much. A gun equalized the situation.
5. Not very effective against an attacker with a gun.
6. One of the pros—that it can't be wielded by someone else—is also a con. Someone else can't use YOUR martial arts skills to defend themselves or defend you if you're incapacitated.
A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face: http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=10741492
You've been watching too many movies. The average person cannot just kung-fu themselves out of a life-threatening situation. They also necessarily just shoot their way out either, of course. But it's more likely, and far more common.
I think you're missing the point of self defense. If somebody is attacking me I want every advantage I can get to save my life. Martial arts are fine so long as the attacker is at point blank range and not armed.
What happens when the attacker has a gun? He can easily kill you from a distance where all the martial arts in the world won't count for anything. Having a gun gives you a fighting chance and there are classes that train you in weapon retention so somebody doesn't get your gun away from you.
Finally what if you're being attacked by some drugged out crazy person? You put PCP into somebody and they aren't going to care if you break both of their arms and their nose to boot. They can't feel anything. If you have a firearm you can at least shoot them and if nothing else (say their a square hit to their heart) they will bleed out.
You're effectively saying women should be disarmed which would give criminals the advantage.
Which is quite convenient (and well chosen to make your point) since is doesn’t show up in the top 10 of actual deaths of women. I kinda think that was the other commenters point, but you knew that.
Pages