|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Do Guns Protect Women? They're More Likely To Kill Them, Says Violence Policy Center Report & The Findings Aren't New
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun violence in the United States is a serious problem, and it's one that has serious effects for women. Contrary to claims that guns make women safer, a new Violence Policy Center report shows that guns are more likely to kill women than protect them, and that gun reform laws are actually very effective at protecting women. And those findings are very much in line with what we already know about guns and violence against women.
Opponents of gun reform often claim not only that guns are important for self-defense, but also that guns are especially important for women who need to protect themselves. All available evidence, however, does not support this idea at all, and the new Violence Policy Center report only reaffirms those findings. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/22/2016)
|
| What a worthless piece of progressive drivel. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(9/22/2016)
|
No ability to comment on the article. Typical these days as dissent isn't something they deal well with.
And again they use their newest trick, only counting a defensive gun use if the victim kills their attacker. The thousands of cases where a woman wounded or simply drove off a potential killer or rapist don't count because if they did their entire argument falls apart. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
