Because your first comment (the one to which many of these replies were referring) doesn't make the distinction "violent death".
You haven't refuted a single point that's been made in this thread. Your entire rebuttal amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "naa naa naa, I can't hear you".
Of course, bigotry of any type is not rational and requires no justification in the mind of the bigot so I suppose it's unrealistic of me to expect you to be able to defend your position...but just in case you are capable of evaluating facts rationally, lets take a look at some:
There were 1,905 females of all ages that were victims of gun homicide in 2006 (the last year for which the CDC has figures).
It is estimated that guns are used in self defense up to to 2.5 million times per year. Lets be conservative and say 1 million defensive gun uses a year, and we'll be even more conservative and say that only half of them involved women...probably more of them did because many DGU's happen at home where both men and women are present...but we're being conservative, so, for purposes of this illustration, we'll guestimate that 500,000 defensive gun uses per year involved defense of women.
Now, not all crimes result in a homicide, so that must be considered also. The most obvious comparison is with actual completed crimes. Since we used 2006's numbers for gun homicide, we'll stick with that year. In 2006, there were 1,418,403 violent crimes (I limited it to violent crimes because non-violent crimes, by nature, typically do not warrant defensive gun use, or result in a homicide, so those crimes are irrelevant to this discussion). In that same year there were a total of 17,030 homicides (all ages and genders). Therefore, the rate of homicide per violent crime was .012.
Let's assume that the rate of homicide for all of the crimes prevented through defensive gun use would have been the same. Using the figure of 500,000 defensive gun uses involving women, times the rate that violent crime results in homicide (.012) we reach an estimate of 6,000 women who's lives were saved through defensive gun use in 2006. Granted, that's only a rough estimate, but remember that I was conservative with my DGU estimates in the beginning. if anything, this estimate is probably on the low side.
6,000 women's lives saved by gun use, versus 1,905 who were killed by perpetrators using guns.
And your contention is that the gun industry should feel guilty about saving the lives of 4,095 women?
Once again, your logic is flawed. Can a woman suffering through chemotherapy effectively defend herself using martial arts? How about someone physically disabled? Or a woman suffering with osteoperosis? Guns are the great equalizers. They allow all people to defend themselves against violent attackers no matter their physical traits.
And, by the way, responsible gun owners are trained in their use so that they can't be taken from them and used against them. Responsible gun owners also keep their guns locked when not in use so that they can't be stolen by criminals. Certainly you don't mean to imply that most women who choose to arm themselves for defensive purposes are irresponsible?
Anne, I think you need to take a look at your feedback. You are THE ONLY PERSON posting here who agrees with your stance. It makes one wonder who is really taking advantage of this issue for PR purposes. Smith and Wesson, or you?
They're way ahead of you. Here's a [http://www.shopgradys.com/servlet/-strse-4282/BUCK-KNIVES-0292PNS***-IMPULSE/Detail Breast Cancer Awareness Pink Buck knife!]
If used for slashing others, then yes, I am offended.
Because your first comment (the one to which many of these replies were referring) doesn't make the distinction "violent death".
You haven't refuted a single point that's been made in this thread. Your entire rebuttal amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "naa naa naa, I can't hear you".
Of course, bigotry of any type is not rational and requires no justification in the mind of the bigot so I suppose it's unrealistic of me to expect you to be able to defend your position...but just in case you are capable of evaluating facts rationally, lets take a look at some:
There were 1,905 females of all ages that were victims of gun homicide in 2006 (the last year for which the CDC has figures).
It is estimated that guns are used in self defense up to to 2.5 million times per year. Lets be conservative and say 1 million defensive gun uses a year, and we'll be even more conservative and say that only half of them involved women...probably more of them did because many DGU's happen at home where both men and women are present...but we're being conservative, so, for purposes of this illustration, we'll guestimate that 500,000 defensive gun uses per year involved defense of women.
Now, not all crimes result in a homicide, so that must be considered also. The most obvious comparison is with actual completed crimes. Since we used 2006's numbers for gun homicide, we'll stick with that year. In 2006, there were 1,418,403 violent crimes (I limited it to violent crimes because non-violent crimes, by nature, typically do not warrant defensive gun use, or result in a homicide, so those crimes are irrelevant to this discussion). In that same year there were a total of 17,030 homicides (all ages and genders). Therefore, the rate of homicide per violent crime was .012.
Let's assume that the rate of homicide for all of the crimes prevented through defensive gun use would have been the same. Using the figure of 500,000 defensive gun uses involving women, times the rate that violent crime results in homicide (.012) we reach an estimate of 6,000 women who's lives were saved through defensive gun use in 2006. Granted, that's only a rough estimate, but remember that I was conservative with my DGU estimates in the beginning. if anything, this estimate is probably on the low side.
6,000 women's lives saved by gun use, versus 1,905 who were killed by perpetrators using guns.
And your contention is that the gun industry should feel guilty about saving the lives of 4,095 women?
What have you got against women?
Once again, your logic is flawed. Can a woman suffering through chemotherapy effectively defend herself using martial arts? How about someone physically disabled? Or a woman suffering with osteoperosis? Guns are the great equalizers. They allow all people to defend themselves against violent attackers no matter their physical traits.
And, by the way, responsible gun owners are trained in their use so that they can't be taken from them and used against them. Responsible gun owners also keep their guns locked when not in use so that they can't be stolen by criminals. Certainly you don't mean to imply that most women who choose to arm themselves for defensive purposes are irresponsible?
Anne, I think you need to take a look at your feedback. You are THE ONLY PERSON posting here who agrees with your stance. It makes one wonder who is really taking advantage of this issue for PR purposes. Smith and Wesson, or you?
Septicemia still kills 2,500% (25 times) more women than are killed by an attacker with a firearm.
No worries though, when you wake up in the morning, you still won't be a journalist, but you'll still be exceptionally biased.
This site is as worthless as your opinion.
They're way ahead of you. Here's a [http://www.shopgradys.com/servlet/-strse-4282/BUCK-KNIVES-0292PNS***-IMPULSE/Detail Breast Cancer Awareness Pink Buck knife!]
If used for slashing others, then yes, I am offended.
Anne Landman
Is that not enough for you? Are you serious?
Anne Landman
Pages