Democrats “we make just as many stupid comments about rape…”

Woman expresses ordeal about being raped at gunpoint in a “gun free zone”. Democrat state senator from Colorado responds…

“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun, And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”….”The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them.”

Here it is, she is quoting a massaged and fraudulently mis-representative “fact” from a rabid anti-gun organization.

The claim is, that a handgun only saves 1 women and 83 are killed. So is that accurate?  Let’s ask some reasonable questions. 

1. First, what percentage of times that a firearm is used for self-defense does it result in killing someone? How does that number compare to the number of people shot in self-defense, but who do not die. The criminals merely being wounded?  And even more insightful, how many times has someone merely wielding a firearm in self-defense been sufficient to deter a criminal?  The few incidents I am personally aware of, all ended without a shot fired.

So let’s rephrase this statement and get the ratio of women who use a firearm to protect themselves vs those who are killed by a firearm?  I wager the ratio would be significantly different. Especially as most incidents of self defense in which the criminal is not shot, never get reported.

2. Second, what percentage of those 83 women killed, were killed at the hands of their estranged husbands/partners.  I say this, because I view that differently than say being raped/killed by a total stranger on the street. Its kind of like claiming 30,000 die from guns, without stating that most of those are suicides.

3. Lastly, how many women who were carrying a firearm were successfully raped/killed by a criminal? Maybe only 1 woman used a firearm to kill a rapist compared to 83 killed by guns. Because NOT ENOUGH WOMEN are carrying?  I wager most of the women who do carry, escape rape.  Even if it’s the fact that they merely appear more confident and less of a victim mindset, and thus the rapist chooses what he believes to be an easier target.

This just goes to show, that statistics can be spun to say a great many things depending on how you portray the values, and the question. And frankly, the CCAGV was disingenuious in their phrasing of the question. So as to mix apples and oranges and compare two different figures.

 http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22721762/colorado-senators-comments-rape-victim-drawing-criticism

Advertisements
Published in: on March 6, 2013 at 10:55 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

256-67

Eric Holder held in contempt!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/holder-contempt/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

My understanding is 17 Democrats joined the vote. Media is doing it’s best to spin this as a witch hunt and separate the Obama administration and BATFE and try to pit the blame on one or two bad apple BATF agents.

It’s amazing how much the media campaigns for President Obama and the Democrats. It’s also amazing how many times the media uses “so-called” for a case against the Democrats. But uses “de facto” terminology when critical of Republicans.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE:

Republicans have initiated a contempt  claim in the so-called scandal.

Republicans claim there is no basis to the contempt charges in the scandal.

Always seems that anything laid against this administration is so-called.

Published in: on June 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

PRIMARY TALK: Primaries – should they be regulated?

I often hear people remark on the much maligned Presidential primary system that there is really nothing that can be done about it. Primaries are for private organizations and that’s that.

Well I 100% disagree.  First, the laws have been passed to favor the two-party incumbent system. Essentially, making it nearly impossible for a third party candidate to enter the race. There have been a few exceptions, Ross Perot being one. But most of the exceptions are usually a mere splinter segment of another party – “Bull Moose” anyone?

For that reason alone, and the affect it has on our presidential election, I would feel it acceptable to regulate the process.

But when you factor in the millions of dollars that is spent on such things as candidate security and conventions. Than I believe the case for regulation is even furthered.

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-06-08/who-pays-for-the-conventions-we-all-do/

Here are my thoughts:

All primaries occur on the same date. No more of this game where 20 candidates run, and by the time people like us Pennsylvanians get to vote we are left with one choice.  Perhaps let caucuses run one month prior. And while it’s not a total fix by far, this would do a LOT to clean up the American political system. And it’s not asking a lot.

And if this can’t be agreed to. Than ZERO public money should be used on the process. Yes, that’s right. Zero. And if Romney is afraid of being assassinated, than he needs to pay for his own security detail.  The Secret Service remain out of the process entirely until the candidates are officially candidates for the position of POTUS.

Published in: on June 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,