A graphic.

[Sean]

https://24.media.tumblr.com/13a5e55f15fead8582b52f971843ec12/tumblr_n66pq6seEw1s8unato7_500.jpg

Thanks to LTR for the numbers.

 

[lovetoread]

Nah, there's no issue for women.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Oh, and thanks for the ever meandering analogy.

So you don't think there's a problem? You think the resource allocation between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and domestic violence is about right?

 

[JohnnySavage]

There's more profit in scary terrorists than protecting women.

 

[JohnnySavage]

So you don't think there's a problem? You think the resource allocation between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and domestic violence is about right?

I made the same analogy yesterday in the Snowden thread, but used drunk drivers, and was taken to the woodshed.

Such is life I suppose.

 

[pointless]

we should have more wars so the numbers will maybe even out. you're welcome, humanity.

 

[Sean]

we should have more wars so the numbers will maybe even out. you're welcome, humanity.

Cost benefit analysis.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Women murder their husbands, etc. at almost the same rate and their offspring even more often.

 

[Sean]

Women murder their husbands, etc. at almost the same rate and their offspring even more often.

You can prove that?

 

[pointless]

nope.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Women murder their husbands, etc. at almost the same rate and their offspring even more often.

You can prove that?

Yes. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

 

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Women murder their husbands, etc. at almost the same rate and their offspring even more often.



Yes. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf[/url]

A 20 year old report that doesn't say what you think it does?

 

[Boxlicker101]

A 20 year old report that doesn't say what you think it does?

It is strictly statistics that wouldn't change much. I'm surprised you were able to link to it because I couldn't until I edited it.

 

[pointless]

like i said, nope.

 

[Sean]

It is strictly statistics that wouldn't change much. I'm surprised you were able to link to it because I couldn't until I edited it.

That's probably because you're a total retard when it comes to quotes and links. You see, I read what you linked and it doesn't say what you said it does. I'm guessing you desperately tried to Google something to back up your bullshit assertion and that was the first one to come up. You obviously didn't read it, because if you did you wouldn't look like such a total moron.

 

[pointless]

It is strictly statistics that wouldn't change much. I'm surprised you were able to link to it because I couldn't until I edited it.

he's not an idiot. you should try it sometime.

 

[luvslingerie200]

So you don't think there's a problem? You think the resource allocation between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and domestic violence is about right?

Soooo money allocation fixes this how??

 

[Sean]

Soooo money allocation fixes this how??

Oh, I dunno, how much effect do you think a few billion for women's shelters and a couple of trillion for a police task force targeting domestic violence would have?

 

[Skiddles2014]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Women murder their husbands, etc. at almost the same rate and their offspring even more often.



Yes. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

From your link:

• A third of family murders involved
a female as the killer.

 

[luvslingerie200]

Oh, I dunno, how much effect do you think a few billion for women's shelters and a couple of trillion for a police task force targeting domestic violence would have?

All the money in the world will not force, entice, convince a woman in an abusive relationship to leave....unless she is willing to do so. While it is true that some women don't leave because they have no place to go, most don't leave because they "love" him and they beleive that it is ther fault that he's abusive......sad but true. Also it is extremely unfortunate that a very small percentage of any additional cash would go to actually helping the women.....it would go tp the admistrators of the program that is helping the women.

 

[Que]

Guess I missed my chance to make your graph by failing to lay a hand on the ex in 20 years.

So..square this with the fondness for gun control.

Clearly if a woman is going to be harmed by a man..(and conveniently left out is: if a man is harmed by a woman) it is likely going to be someone they are intimately involved with. Someone under the same roof. Where they sleep.

Guns are loud and messy.

Blunt objects: the first hit is free and clean.

Knives are very quick and efficient if you don't hang around in a piqueristic frenzy.

Poison is pretty easy to administer for the squeamish.

Cars can conveniently "slip" into or out of gear. There is always "oh gosh! I hit the gas when I meant to brake"..~sings~ "while I was a shiftin' gears.....papa was a trucker nearly all his life..."

Lovers have to sleep sometime.

 

[pointless]

jesus christ.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I made the same analogy yesterday in the Snowden thread, but used drunk drivers, and was taken to the woodshed.

Such is life I suppose.

And Sean's analogy was every bit as pointless as was yours, if not more so. If the argument is that the resources applied to the problem of domestic violence is woefully inadequate as indicated by the disparity in mortality statistics compared with combat operations in two foreign military campaigns, there could hardly be a more glaring failure of logic in such a comparison.

The greater disparity, and a wholly appropriate one, is the manner in which resources are allocated in each case. Federal defense appropriations for combat operations overseas are not funded out of state and local law enforcement budgets. Nor do military expenditures tend to rise or fall in direct proportion to the number of casualties sustained.

Furthermore, I don't know of any government budgetary process that bases expenditure requests in light of the needs of other departments or services that have absolutely nothing to do with their own departmental objectives. Would you really expect an Air Force general in charge of procurement to balk at the rising cost of the Joint Force Strike Fighter simply because it was X-times greater than what we annually spend on our national parks?

But there is one eye-popping fact residing in the Afghanistan figures. The 12-year war in Afghanistan is the longest in American history, and yet compare that casualty figure with American combat deaths in Vietnam, Korea, both World Wars and the Civil War.

Of course any clear-thinking person would ridicule that "logic" based on the obvious fact that there were far more people shooting at each other in prior wars regardless of the length of the conflict. And they would be correct.

And that is just as true when one compares the tens of thousands of deployed combat troops in Afghanistan with the MILLIONS of familial combatants in dysfunctional domestic relationships across this country.

If one wants to make a valid comparison about the law enforcement aspect of domestic violence, then we might start with the number of domestic violence deaths compared to all homicides.

If it's a matter of how to better spend the health care dollar, then let's compare domestic violence deaths to cancer mortality rates from breast, ovarian and women's lung cancer.

But this bizarro compulsion to compare domestic programs with military combat operations is the kind of whacko thinking that you guys typically jump all over rightwingers about.

Stop it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

You're missing the point, or at least my point.

What I'm saying is that the American people have been scared into spending trillions of dollars, and giving the lives of thousands of young people, for a threat that is an order of magnitude smaller than real and tangible threats that do exist, and we live with every day.

And of course it's a cost/benefit analysis. That's reality when funds are limited.