Excerpt: "A Senate witness tried to portray a proposed new ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines as some sort of sexist plot that would disproportionately hurt vulnerable women and their children."
NYT: 'The debate over what to do to reduce gun violence in America hit an absurd low point on Wednesday.' (photo: unknown)
Dangerous Gun Myths
04 Febuary 13
he debate over what to do to reduce gun violence in America hit an absurd low point on Wednesday when a Senate witness tried to portray a proposed new ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines as some sort of sexist plot that would disproportionately hurt vulnerable women and their children.
The witness was Gayle Trotter, a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the limits on firepower proposed by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, would harm women because an assault weapon "in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon." She spoke of the "peace of mind" and "courage" a woman derives from "knowing she has a scary-looking gun" when she's fighting violent criminals.
It is not at all clear where Ms. Trotter gained her insight into confrontations between women and heavily armed intruders, since it is not at all clear that sort of thing happens often. It is tempting to dismiss her notion that an AR-15 is a woman's best friend as the kooky reflex response of someone ideologically opposed to gun control laws and who, in her case, has also been a vociferous opponent of the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law that assists women facing domestic violence.
But it is important to note that Ms. Trotter was chosen to testify by the committee's Republican members, who will have a big say on what, if anything, Congress does on guns; and that her appearance before the committee was to give voice to the premise, however insupportable and dangerous it may be, that guns make women and children safer - and the more powerful the guns the better.
Ms. Trotter related the story of Sarah McKinley, an 18-year-old Oklahoma woman who shot and killed an intruder on New Year's Eve 2011, when she was home alone with her baby. The story was telling, but not in the way she intended, as Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, pointed out. The woman was able to repel the intruder using an ordinary Remington 870 Express 12-gauge shotgun, which would not be banned under the proposed statute. She did not need a military-style weapon with a 30-round magazine.
But there is a more fundamental problem with the idea that guns actually protect the hearth and home. Guns rarely get used that way. In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.
The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is "a particularly strong risk factor" for female homicides and the intimidation of women.
In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was "no clear evidence" that victims' access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.
Regulating guns, on the other hand, can reduce that risk. An analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that in states that required a background check for every handgun sale, women were killed by intimate partners at a much lower rate. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, has used this fact to press the case for universal background checks, to make sure that domestic abusers legally prohibited from having guns cannot get them.
As for the children whose safety Ms. Trotter professes to be so concerned about, guns in the home greatly increase the risk of youth suicides. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics has long urged parents to remove guns from their homes.
The idea that guns are essential to home defense and women's safety is a myth. It should not be allowed to block the new gun controls that the country so obviously needs.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
My father always told me, "Never give a retarded child a loaded gun". I always dismissed that "wisdom" as redundant, but maybe it wasn't so redundant after all?
Yeah ...... and by THAT logic, I can see why we should also STOP treating Cancer Patients everywhere, bcuz, ya know, Cancer will *still* find some OTHER person to kill.
Therefore MUCH better to do NOTHING about the problem, and just keep manufacturing as many sources of Cancer as we can POSSIBLY produce.
As for *prevention*, again, FAR better to do just keep doing NOTHING, rather than to do everything within our POWER, even if what we DO only just REALLY HELPS the situation, but does not fully and completely ERADICATE the problem.
Yeah ! I GET it !
Signed, Loony Logic Lover
Yeah ..... before we get our P.C. knickers in bunch over the perfectly accurate, and perfectly accepted MEDICAL TERM "retarded", go check a dictionary. There is nothing "offensive" about the word, other than the fact that some clown has TOLD you to think of it as offensive, and apparently you have conformed and complied.
Calling the condition of retarded mental development by any other name does not change the *fact* of retarded mental development. Soon the "new" term becomes "offensive", and the chain never ends. "Retarded" means "slowed", not "backwards", and it identifies the observed symptoms.
Any word can be used as a pejorative. Are we really going to eliminate every word in the English language that can be MADE "naughty"? Because then, of course, Third Graders out behind the garage are going to thoroughly wipe out our ancient and illustrious language.
It was Sarah Palin who tried to make the medical term "retarded" a National knee-jerk "n-word" in defense of her Down's Syndrome Child. More B.S. from the P.C. Thought Police.
Personally, Sarah Palin makes NO binding decisions over my own use of the English language. And do you truly think that mentally afflicted children object to the perfectly accurate term?
No one is recommending hurting anyone here. Just urging all to THINK FOR YOURSELF, and leave the Thought Police to fade away.
In Webster's New College Dictionary, the meaning of retarded is: Slow or limited in mental, physical or emotional development. OFTEN CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE. (Caps mine)
In this country we are free to determine on our own, just what we think is offensive, and the term "retarded", when used to describe a child, has been offensive for many decades. Sarah Palin has nothing to do with it. Taking your advice to think for myself, I think your entire comment is offensive, and you need to spend some time with Down syndrome kids. But please don't call them retarded.
Part I
First off, I was commenting re: English usage among adults. I have a background in child development, and have worked with many children.
Children are some of the most psychologically cruel entities on the planet, simply because they lack the empathic wiring to easily "project themselves" into another's pain". Children will ALWAYS find a way to be cruel to other children until they simply outgrow that phase, and the brain develops higher functioning.
When you say sarcastically, "she didn't know that these kids meant her no harm" .... you miss the point. OF COURSE the kids meant her HARM ! And OF COURSE she knew that. What adult would argue that she DID NOT ?
I will not defend statements that I did not make. She knew FULL WELL that the kids meant to hurt her, which they could have *just* as effectively done using ANY WORD.
It is NOT the *word* that is the problem, it IS the hurtful INTENT behind the word that causes the pain! She may not have had the slightest idea what "retarded" *meant*, but she DEFINITELY could not miss the intent to hurt that was behind it. Down's Syndrome children are usually highly intuitive, but almost no child could miss that abuse.
Cont'd
Part II
This problem is not solved by changing the language. The kids could have called her "skunk". Depending upon how it is applied, that word can ALSO be "offensive", and yet it still has LEGITIMATE uses in the language. Shall it also be banned ?
Again, ANY WORD can be turned INTO a pejorative. Forbidding all such words from the language is ridiculous, and, more to the point, it will NOT address the problem.
If you forbid all language that can possibly be used "offensively" by children, they will simply INVENT THEIR OWN ! "Doo-doo head", being a familiar example.
As for a bit of "dueling dictionaries", my Miriam Webster's Deluxe defines "retardation" as " an abnormal slowness of thought or action, also, less than normal intellectual competence usually characterized by an IQ of less than 70."
Simply fact. NO mention of "offense". Nothing "judgmental" in the word itself. That has to be supplied, if it is to be present, by the *user*.
The fact that you find my "entire comment [to be] offensive" is of absolutely no interest to me. You are fully responsible for maintaining your own emotional balance. And you are entirely free to deal with that problem on your own.
You may even gain comfort by refraining from presuming to tell other adults how to make their own personal vocabulary choices.
WoW ! WELL and convincingly argued !
Good thing I don't have such a hypersensitive and thin skin that
I suffer "offense" over your use of the word "wrong".
It is merely your opinion, and I simply consider the source.
Thank you
1. Guns were initially hailed by women as The Great Equalizer since they allowed women to defend themselves against (usually stronger) men.
2. There are dozens of reported cases of women defending themselves using assault rifles -- including a couple of recent cases.
3. Jimmy Carter's Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes they studied, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
Only a willfully blind eye could write this editorial.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Gayle Trotter needs to give public speaking a rest if this is all she's got to offer: the irrelevent and rediculous. And speaking of "willfully blind" eyes, perhaps you might open yours...
THANK YOU for reminding us all that the exact same insanity that you reference above WAS actually "trotted out there" by Wayne LaPierre during the NRA's original "response" to the Newtown shootings, right along with his recommendation that all adults in the school be armed. (Like the armed guards that WERE in Columbine High School had so much power to "change the outcome")
LaPierre called for "firearms safety training" for the toddlers. I cannot BELIEVE that he was allowed by the media to "walk that back" without so much as an explanation of what he could have POSSIBLY been thinking ! These people fully demonstrate their *certifiable* insanity on national TV, and the media helps them to hide it !
Kudos to YOU for holding some feet to the fire !
So in your 3rd paragraph you cite a Justice Dept. study of rapes. Now I haven't had the chance to read the sudy in its entirety, but can you tell me of the of attempted rapes studied how many were foiled by a gun versus foiled by a knife? Also, how many rapes were foiled by a handgun with a large capacity magazine or by an assualt rifle? Also, can you please explain the math? I read it as of the 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. That's 10,240 rapes. Then you said only 3% of the attempted rapes were successfull. That's 960 rapes. Can you explain your math more carefully? Also can you be more specific and cite a few of the "dozens of reported cases of women defending themselves using assault rifles?" And finally, who said "guns were initially hailed by women as The Great Equalizer?" Statements such as the ones made in your posting need to be explained further to have any traction. I find them to be misleading and spurious, at best.
There's a rather lengthy Internet chain-letter going around, basically it's about 40-some lines of "If a Conservative wants X, he does X, if a Liberal wants X, he makes EVERYONE do X"
Is that not the pattern here?
Seriously? You're citing an internet chain letter as a "credible" source?
I have to show a photo ID when I buy sinus medication. Where was your outrage when THAT law was proposed? And don't tell me "That's different"--the only difference is the degree of hypocrisy. I don't use meth, I don't cook meth--so for those of you with guns who don't have sinus problems, you seem to be saying (to use your own words), "If I don't have pseudoephedrin, NOBODY should".
There is a potential problem with this. Some home invaders wear body armor, which a shotgun will not penetrate. We must remember, however, that in 90-95% of cases where someone defends themselves with a gun, no shot is ever fired.
Are you kidding ? They buy it on the Internet. To my knowledge, it's not even illegal.
I am really as much in the dark as you are on that one. I don't have any idea what that law actually states. But RSN is running another article elsewhere in which the author recounts his ability to buy (four or five - don't quote me) AR-15s on the Internet within the span of FORTY minutes. And ALL without the "fuss" of a background check being involved.
Body armor is also easily purchased on the Internet, but I could offer no solid opinion upon the legality of the transaction.
So, I am thinking that whatever laws are actually on the books, the Internet will be the toughest place to police them.
RSS feed for comments to this post