Ah. I understand. Despite the fact having a gun in the house means it is more likely a woman will be killed by a domestic partner, we shouldn't do anything but make it more likely women will be killed for purely partisan reasons.
What a mensch.
If your husband is committed to murdering you, there is little or nothing you can do about it, gun or no gun.
Nonsense, less. The fact of the matter is that if a gun is present, the likelihood of the woman winding up dead is higher. Period. Full stop. Seems that making it easier to kill someone makes it more likely. Like with suicide, take away an easy way to do it, i.e. a gun, and the odds of suicide goes way down like the Australians found. Seems that with a gun, a spur of the moment decision means you are more likely to be dead. Likewise, someone being killed during a DD(domestic disturbance).
If you are a woman qualified, ready, and able to defend yourself, you are nearly 100% more likely to defend yourself from.
This isn't backed up by your link. Unsurprisingly.
What is meant by "100% more likely"? Odds go from 1% chance to defend yourself to 2%? I would be dubious about even that. Attackers are not going to approach their victims from the front and announce their intentions before presenting a weapon. Typically, they attack from behind and by surprise. The odds of a weapon being useful is pretty close to zero. And it means yet another weapon "being sold by a private party so no background check required"... |
