I think Una has made a highly defensible choice to arm herself.
This is not a very good depiction of reality, again IMHO. Firstly women face far greater risks than males do and the statement was unqualified. Secondly, it’s by no means clear whether a firearm enhances the risk of the individual or reduces it. There’s an association between firearm ownership and enhanced incidence of violent death, but I haven’t seen causality established and there are methodological problems to consider. But given that sort of ambiguity, the case for firearm ownership is nowhere near as strong or as categorical as you suggested. The statistical correlations do not flow in the direction of arming oneself.
Though to be fair, careful and complete Una did say this:
There’s no systematic evidence that gun ownership has advanced this sort of world: after all, the US has both high gun ownership and a high murder rate. And the anecdotal evidence (available every month in the NRA magazine of your choice) is mostly of the “Wave a gun and scare a criminal” variety. That’s fine, but I’ve known of quite a few unarmed encounters where the bad guy has simply run away, but if a gun was involved I trust the NRA would imply a cause and effect relationship.
Admittedly, there’s a case to be made for having a segment of the citizenry effectively deputized. But that does not quite extend to an assertion of duty. It seems to me that one’s obligation is to be careful and sensible in one’s behavior, however that applies to individual circumstance.
Keep at it Bricker. This thread could be a solid and useful example of left-side fact resistance. I’m serious: this is interesting. (I’m not picking on Der here, the sentiments expressed are sufficiently widespread in my view.)