Also as Dr Glick proved in his research, guns are effective in stopping crimes just by being displayed. More victims repel criminals by displaying a gun than ever have to shoot.
For a full, detailed, serious study of the subject get "More Guns Less Crime" by Dr. Gary Klick it puts this BS to rest and shows it for the distortion it is.
But that's okay...if they want my guns, they're perfectly welcome to come try to take 'em.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
What's the solution?
Putting Occam's Razor to work. Occam's Razor is a theory wherein the simplest explanation has the highest probability of being the correct explanation. One example is the question: How can women better protect themselves from being rapped? Now, to put that question in context so that a person unfamiliar with firearms can grasp the answer via Occam's Razor:
Simple question for women (Or asked of a man in regards to his wife or daughter's safety.): If your were confronted by a criminal wanting to rape you which would you prefer?
1) A cell phone to dial 911. (Keep in mind that you'd have no defense to stop the rapist from ripping the cell phone out of your hand before you can dial 911.)
2) A hand gun that you were trained on to use in self-defense.
It should be obvious to the reader that honest, full-context statistics can answer the question. But we're dealing with irrationality, dishonesty and false-context/partial-context. Thus the reason for applying Occam's Razor as though both sides had equal weight. This has the added benefit of demonstrating how the side that is being deceptive uses statistics in attempt to defy common-sense logic.
Here's another example of Occam's Razor to work. This example regards the "war on drugs". The question needing an explanation is: Why has the war on drugs by all accounts failed to be won? Answer: That DEA has no motivation to reduce any drug problem. For, it has no desire to reduce its jobs or power.
Further edification:
If a person thinks they've harmed by a person's drug possession they can take the defendant to court and do their best to prove to an impartial jury that they/plaintiff had been hammed by that. The plaintiff would be lucky to convince a third of the jurors that they had been harmed by the defendant -- let alone convince all twelve jurors, which the plaintiff needs to obtain a guilty verdict.
Proof is simple and best expressed by a defendant's lawyer speaking to an impartial jury:
"Clearly the plaintiff and his lawyer have failed by all accounts to show any evidence -- failed to show even one single piece of evidence -- to support his claim that he has been harmed by my client's drug possession. The plaintiff's claim is wholly unsupported.
"Since supporters of the war on drugs have nothing but wholly unsupported claims they chose to harm people that possess drugs by enlisting government agents to initiate force on their behalf. That is, they are truly guilty of that which they falsely accuse others of -- initiating harm against a person that's minding his or her own business."
Then my daughter and I will be part of those 12 women. We're keeping our weapons!
Bottom line (reiterating some of the above arguments):
1) The stats only cite women with guns that have killed their assailant. No mention of simply scaring them off, winging them, and women that simply wouldn't want to go through the hassle of reporting such a confrontation to the police.
2) The stats presented show women killed with guns, but the implication seems to be that these women were killed because they had no gun, i.e. were defenseless, and therefore died as a result. How many would have died if they could not defend themselves with a firearm?
The level of dishonesty in this article would prevent it from publication in a decent peer reviewed journal, but is probably just fine for our esteemed press!
They compare killings in self defense by women who have handguns with killings of all women by handguns!!! Is that slanted or what?
Properly, they'd be comparing killings by women who do own handguns against murders of women who do have handguns. (Women who do have handguns will effectively protect themselves at X rate.) Then they'd compare that with killings by women who don't have handguns with murders of women who don't have handguns.(Women who don't have handguns effectively protect themselves at X rate.)
I believe they'll discover that women who do have handguns protect themselves at a much greater rate than those women who do not have handguns.
1) Only 6.6 percent of women own handguns.
2) Only 12 people were killed by women using handguns in self-defense.
3) 1209 women were killed with handguns.
What can we conclude from these facts? Nothing logically.
The conclusion that women are better off without handguns is ludicrous.
Would the 12 women who killed attackers have been better off if they had not had a handgun?
Would the 1209 women murdered with handguns have been worse off if they had a handgun?
Obviously not in both those cases.
What about instances where the attacker was merely wounded by a woman with a handgun in self-defense? No statistics presented.
What about the instances where the attacker fled after the woman made the gun's presence known by revealing it? No statistics presented.
This is akin to stating that:
1) 16 Hospitals in Arizona have rattlesnake anti-venom
2) 4 cases of rattlesnake bites were treated with Anti-venom in Arizona last year
3) 300 people a year die of poison snake bites worldwide
and concluding that rattlesnake anti-venom is useless in fighting the scourge of poisonous snake bites and should be done away with.