How do you deal with stalker?

[kittyKaiti]

It's a matter of cost/ benefit. The benefits afforded by kitchen knives, cars, ladders and bathtubs enormously outweigh the probability of being killed by said items. Not so for firearms.

The benefit of firearm ownership (unless you're a hunter or sportsman) is nil compared to the risk. The probability that you're going to successfully use that gun in self-defense is virtually non-existent in comparison to the risk that you or someone you love will be killed with that firearm.

It's better to buy a security blanket. The chances of smothering yourself are pretty low, but (just like a gun) the false sense of security it can provide is priceless.

Even in the lowest figures that anti-gunners are willing to admit, claim that twice as many people use guns to defend themselves from crimes than are killed by them. Unfortunately, until the FBI maintains any official self defense statistics on a scale that it does with crime statistics, there is no way of really knowing how many times per year firearms are used in self defense. The most biased anti-gun reports claim defensive gun uses are as low as 60,000 times per year and the most extremely high up to 2.5 million times per year. Studies between different scholars are constantly varying, but even in the lowest statistics, 60,000 lives saved vs. 32,000 lives lost annually, is still proof that gun ownership is saving more people than is killing. I would consider a woman killing someone with a gun, who is trying to rape her, an enormous benefit to gun ownership.

If a person learns how to properly handle, care for and use a firearm, the risk of injury or death is negligible. That goes for anything people use that is potentially harmful.

If it comes down to the costs vs. benefits of an item, I'd say most people have their priorities wrong. While alcohol can be safe to use, by responsible people, idiots misuse alcohol at ever increasing rates. 88,000 people die annually in the U.S. from alcohol misuse. Nearly four million Americans visit the emergency room or require medical treatment due to alcohol related problems each year as well. However, we don't have a nation up in arms about 3 times as many people dying and millions of hospital visits because of alcohol compared to firearms. Tobacco use is far worse, with no real benefits at all, causing over 450,000 smokers to die annually in the U.S. and another 50,000 second-hand smoke exposed persons to die from cigarette smoke health problems, often including children who have parents who smoke. With 500,000 dead per year and millions more suffering from health problems including cancer and asthma, you would think that we would seek the prohibition of tobacco, just as people are seeking the prohibition of firearms. Even the CDC admits more than 10 times as many U.S. citizens have died prematurely from cigarette smoking than have died in all the wars fought by the United States during its history.

Second-hand smoke alone kills more non-smoking Americans annually than all U.S. gun deaths annually combined. That includes an average of 1,000 infants per year exposed to parents who smoke... The equivalent of 1,000 infants shot dead by their parents. But no tears are shed by those seeking to ban guns.

[trish]

So let me get this straight. Your argument is two-fold:

One, the death rate from firearms is less than the death rate from alchohol abuse;
Two, and people complain more about guns thans alcohol abuse.
Therefore, you should own a gun and carry it with you.

Okay. I’ll buy that

Unfortunately, until the FBI maintains any official self defense statistics on a scale that it does with crime statistics, there is no way of really knowing how many times per year firearms are used in self defense.

Funny, due to the pressure of the NRA lobby Congress has prohibited the CDC from investigating the safety of firearms. Would you support lifting that ban?

If a person learns how to properly handle, care for and use a firearm, the risk of injury or death is negligible.

You can say it, but it’s not so. On a daily basis gun safety instructors and police officers have accidents on the firing range. But if the risks of gun ownership only applied to persons who owned, there would be no problem. But the risks are also taken by others who live in or visit the household in which a firearm is kept. Not only is there a risk of accident but a risk of deliberate use. Sure, you’re not hot headed or suicidally depressed. Is that true of everyone who lives in or might visit your home?

Nearly four million Americans visit the emergency room or require medical treatment due to alcohol related problems each year as well. However, we don't have a nation up in arms...

Sure we do. We have Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we have S.A.D.D, etc. Protestant church goers hear about the evils of alcohol preached at them every Sunday. We also have laws and regulations on alcohol consumption. What we don’t have is polarization on the issue of alcohol because there’s no lobby pressuring us to drop what restrictions we have. There’s no national organization telling us that the right to drink is protected by the Constitution with a mascot declaring, “You can have my bottle when you pry it from my cold dead hands.”
Ditto for Tobacco. If you haven’t heard the cry of arms against second hand smoke you haven’t been listening. That’s why you can no longer smoke on an airliner. That’s why restaurants that allow smoking only allow it in the area designated for smoking and why many restaurants just don’t allow smoking at all. The tobacco lobby is strong, but not strong enough to prevent the government from putting warning labels on their product.

The day of alcohol prohibition is over. The prohibition against marijuana is very slowly but almost certainly waning. No one coming after your bottle. No one’s coming after your cigarettes and no one is coming after your guns. Personally I think the post-modern interpretation of Second Amendment protection extends to ownership of bio-weapons. You can have my vial of anthrax when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

[Ciffer]

Trisha & Kitty with all due respect, this has what to do with "How do you deal with a stalker". Lol

[kittyKaiti]

So let me get this straight. Your argument is two-fold:

One, the death rate from firearms is less than the death rate from alchohol abuse;
Two, and people complain more about guns thans alcohol abuse.
Therefore, you should own a gun and carry it with you.

Okay. I’ll buy that

Funny, due to the pressure of the NRA lobby Congress has prohibited the CDC from investigating the safety of firearms. Would you support lifting that ban?

You can say it, but it’s not so. On a daily basis gun safety instructors and police officers have accidents on the firing range. But if the risks of gun ownership only applied to persons who owned, there would be no problem. But the risks are also taken by others who live in or visit the household in which a firearm is kept. Not only is there a risk of accident but a risk of deliberate use. Sure, you’re not hot headed or suicidally depressed. Is that true of everyone who lives in or might visit your home?

Sure we do. We have Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we have S.A.D.D, etc. Protestant church goers hear about the evils of alcohol preached at them every Sunday. We also have laws and regulations on alcohol consumption. What we don’t have is polarization on the issue of alcohol because there’s no lobby pressuring us to drop what restrictions we have. There’s no national organization telling us that the right to drink is protected by the Constitution with a mascot declaring, “You can have my bottle when you pry it from my cold dead hands.”
Ditto for Tobacco. If you haven’t heard the cry of arms against second hand smoke you haven’t been listening. That’s why you can no longer smoke on an airliner. That’s why restaurants that allow smoking only allow it in the area designated for smoking and why many restaurants just don’t allow smoking at all. The tobacco lobby is strong, but not strong enough to prevent the government from putting warning labels on their product.

The day of alcohol prohibition is over. The prohibition against marijuana is very slowly but almost certainly waning. No one coming after your bottle. No one’s coming after your cigarettes and no one is coming after your guns. Personally I think the post-modern interpretation of Second Amendment protection extends to ownership of bio-weapons. You can have my vial of anthrax when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Unfortunately, in the U.S., police officers lack any real firearms training and most cops today are complete fools. This would make sense, seeing the increase in rampant cold blooded police brutality across the country. The training standards are a joke, especially in most urban departments like the NYPD and LAPD.

Part of the responsibility of gun ownership includes informing others who live with you about firearm safety and if you have kids, keeping it locked away when not in use. If you plan to use a gun for self defense, even in the home, keeping it on your person in a holster at all times, or in an accessible locked container nearby (finger print lock systems or bio-scanning locks exist) ensure unauthorized access is prevented.

Because I'm a gun owner and support the 2nd Amendment, does not mean I stand beside the NRA on all of their views. The FBI should keep statistics on all forms of criminal justice issues, including self defense events.

Most people misinterpret the 2nd Amendment's wording. In the language of the day (1700's English), the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the people to keep and bear arms of a common civilian equivalent to that of a military soldier for purposes of ensuring the security of liberty from tyrannical government. The "militia" has nothing to do with a National Guard or Army. The Army and National Guard are specified under separate sections of the Constitution. As far as I know, U.S. Marines don't receive anthrax-filled grenades as part of their standard load-out. However, a Marine has the M4 Carbine or M-16, the common civilian equivalent of which is the AR-15.

Trisha & Kitty with all due respect, this has what to do with "How do you deal with a stalker". Lol

I initially recommended to the victim of stalking that if she is in fear of her safety, what she should do. That included procuring a firearm for self defense.

[trish]

So let’s see:

“If a person learns how to properly handle, care for and use a firearm, the risk of injury or death is negligible.”

Outside of the military, the group most trained in firearm use, care and safety is the police. However, we are asked to believe that

“...police officers lack any real training...”

No, not that training! Not the training the police get! The other training!

It doesn’t help that some States require that citizens applying for a license to carry first take a training course offered by ...da dah duuunnn...the police!!

Any training course in proper use and care of firearms is what... a few months of lessons and some periodic reinforcement? We’re not talking about a doctorate degree. How bad can police training be?

(Or maybe we should require people who carry to have a doctorate in firearm safety and use. Whaddya think?)

Look. You don’t have to cherry pick who is and who isn’t truly, really, actually trained for really real, just to save your original claim. All you need to do retract the claim. Training helps to minimize the risks but it doesn’t reduce them to anywhere near negligible. In spite of training, people have accidents. They accidentally shoot their hunting partner in the face. Or they kill their daughter while cleaning their weapon. Sometimes, they get hot headed and shoot someone for playing their music too loud, or texting during the previews in a movie theater. Sometimes, even people with training get fearful and shoot the girl standing on their porch, knocking on their door late at night and asking for help. Even though the guns are locked away, a clever child gains access. Sometimes it’s a depressed child who commits suicide. Sometimes its an angry child. Shit happens and with guns the risks are never negligible.

I’m not saying ban them all. Yeah, in Jesus’s name, let them have a multitude lethal weapons, and let the weapons multiply even as the people wither under fire____I couldn’t find the exact Biblical reference, but I’m sure it’s there somewhere. I’m just saying, if the person, who has had no previous training, is suddenly worried about stalker, for God’s sake they shouldn’t be advised to carry a firearm. Now is not the time. Carry a can of mace, if you must. Carry two. Carry a taser. But not a gun. An accident is more likely when you’re nervous, on edge and fearful of who’s around the next corner. Lot’s of people have been giving good advice. I don’t have anything to add except: don’t start carrying a gun.

[giovanni_hotel]

Not to further 'jack this thread but when has a gun ever been used to prevent a rape??

Unless you can read a rapist's mind or a would be rapist announces his intentions, the only way you know someone is about to rape you is DURING the rape.

At which point owning a gun is pretty useless.

[kittyKaiti]

Not to further 'jack this thread but when has a gun ever been used to prevent a rape??

Unless you can read a rapist's mind or a would be rapist announces his intentions, the only way you know someone is about to rape you is DURING the rape.

At which point owning a gun is pretty useless.

That is a multitude of ignorant statements. There are untold amounts of news reports of gun owners warding off attacks, including women warding off attacks by suspicious men by using firearms.

One noted instance was an 18 year old mother and her infant child were home alone when two drunken men proceeded to try and smash down the door to her home. Despite being on the phone with 911 and help on way (eta 20 minutes out), she retrieved her shotgun and warned she would shoot them if they broke through the door, which they did. She opened fire, if I recall correctly, killing one of them and the other fled. Had she been unarmed, one can only begin to imagine what these two men would have done to her and her infant.

In my own experience: While living in Las Vegas, most local convenience stores and pharmacies tended to have groups of drug dealers, drunks or meth-heads loitering about. Any woman walking by would be sexually harassed and cat called. Getting gas or picking up meds from the pharmacy, especially after nightfall, is risky for a lone woman. However, with my Glock 9mm openly in view of the public, holstered on my hip, I felt safe every time a group attempted to approach me and then turned right the hell around and left upon seeing my gun. I even laughed when they yelled out to their homies "she got a gun yo!" and the loiterers all clear out. Has the deterring effect of having a gun prevented any possible incidents? Maybe. Muggings, robberies, who knows. All I cared about is that I was able to feel safe going to the store, being able to walk passed a group of drunken dealers and not get messed with.

As for your last comment regarding "having a gun is useless if you are being raped" is like saying having mace or a knife or a taser or anything is useless. Having a gun functions on multiple levels. One, like in my experiences, is the deterrent effect. A criminal does not want to die trying to do something. They will seek out someone unarmed. For someone carrying concealed, once someone is trying to force themselves upon you, simply drawing the gun from a concealed holster and firing into them point blank will also end the confrontation.

[thombergeron]

In my own experience: While living in Las Vegas, most local convenience stores and pharmacies tended to have groups of drug dealers, drunks or meth-heads loitering about. Any woman walking by would be sexually harassed and cat called. Getting gas or picking up meds from the pharmacy, especially after nightfall, is risky for a lone woman. However, with my Glock 9mm openly in view of the public, holstered on my hip, I felt safe every time a group attempted to approach me and then turned right the hell around and left upon seeing my gun. I even laughed when they yelled out to their homies "she got a gun yo!" and the loiterers all clear out. Has the deterring effect of having a gun prevented any possible incidents? Maybe. Muggings, robberies, who knows. All I cared about is that I was able to feel safe going to the store, being able to walk passed a group of drunken dealers and not get messed with.

Good thing nothing bad happened to you or someone else because of your choices. Here's a story about some other folks who chose to shop while armed: http://www.azcentral.com/community/c...-ten-days.html

Two simple altercations that likely would have resulted in bruises if the parties had not chosen to carry firearms while shopping. Instead, a man is in the hospital with a bullet in his face and a young woman is dead.

[kittyKaiti]

Good thing nothing bad happened to you or someone else because of your choices. Here's a story about some other folks who chose to shop while armed: http://www.azcentral.com/community/c...-ten-days.html

Two simple altercations that likely would have resulted in bruises if the parties had not chosen to carry firearms while shopping. Instead, a man is in the hospital with a bullet in his face and a young woman is dead.

Two immature guys get in an argument, proceed to beat on each other and then the loser pulls his gun and shoots the other. This is somehow related to my carrying of a gun to protect myself from rapists or muggers, how? Pulling a gun on someone over a retarded argument is never validated. I've been in screaming matches with my ex-boyfriend while armed at the hip and never pulled a gun on him. Stupid people do stupid shit. If you are a responsible person, things like that news article won't happen.

[thombergeron]

Two immature guys get in an argument, proceed to beat on each other and then the loser pulls his gun and shoots the other. This is somehow related to my carrying of a gun to protect myself from rapists or muggers, how? Pulling a gun on someone over a retarded argument is never validated. I've been in screaming matches with my ex-boyfriend while armed at the hip and never pulled a gun on him. Stupid people do stupid shit. If you are a responsible person, things like that news article won't happen.

You seem to be working very hard to miss the point.

Two immature guys will always get into an argument, because that's what immature guys do. In Chandler, AZ, in 2014, where everyone, including these immature guys, is armed, then someone is likely to die or be severely injured when immature guys do what they're going to do.

In, say, Manchester, where they also have lots of immature guys who get into arguments, the same encounter would more likely result in a black eye, but nobody is dead or permanently disabled.

Gun nuts are fond of claiming that an armed society is a polite society. Not only does this anecdote illustrate the folly of such thinking, it makes clear that public weapon-carrying increases the lethality of these otherwise mundane encounters.

It's also a handy way of undermining this weird argument:

Studies between different scholars are constantly varying, but even in the lowest statistics, 60,000 lives saved vs. 32,000 lives lost annually, is still proof that gun ownership is saving more people than is killing.

In most studies of defensive gun use, and definitely in Gary Kleck's and John Lott's work, both of these encounters would be coded as defensive gun uses (DGUs). And yet, no lives were saved. On the contrary, one person was killed and another hospitalized. It is likely that these DGUs were illegal.

So translating 60,000 (or whatever -- nobody really knows how many DGUs there are each year) self-defensive gun uses per year into "60,000 lives saved" is obviously an invalid and illogical conclusion.

You may have an ideological preference for widespread and unregulated gun ownership, but the data is not on your side.