Guns are a feminist issue

I'm hardly the first person to make this observation, but I don't know why it isn't noted more often: guns are the only weapon that equalizes strength between attacker and attacked. It's the only time when men's greater speed, strength, and longer reach make no difference; if you pull the trigger first, you win.

This is an enormous social advance. I am all for strengthening the social contract (and law enforcement) so that fewer men commit rape, assault, or robbery. But until human nature has improved so radically that grievous bodily harm has passed from living memory, I don't understand why more feminists don't push for widespread gun ownership.

Comments

In the 'old west' there was supposed to be a little aphorism: God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.

I've noticed on the left side of the internet that I, for one, frequent that the reaction to Heller is restrained approval. Also seems a good description of the Obama campaign. Is anyone actually keeping count? I've always thought that the 'liberals want to confiscate you guns' meme is utter BS. Maybe we can document that?

Posted by JohnMcC | June 26, 2008 3:08 PM

I think it goes to improvability (or even perfectability) of human nature. Some (but by no means all) interpretations of feminism only make sense if you make strong assumptions about the malleability of human nature. Gun rights is probably the clearest political issue where support hinges on the stability of human nature. That means these issues are largely going to be stuck on the "left" and "right" of the U.S. political spectrum, and after that it all goes tribal.

(Note, libertarian support of both feminism and gun rights works because it makes no assumptions on the malleability of nature either way.)

Posted by Dave | June 26, 2008 3:20 PM

Because they know you're wrong.

Separating out facts from myth makes clear that women are endangered rather protected by the
proliferation of handguns.
Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence.
Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately
higher in states where guns are more prevalent.[3]
Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.
Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a
handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun
than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be
murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in
self-defense.[5]
Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.[6]
Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns,
while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would
be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.[7]
Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.
Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by
offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.[8]

Even if one were to hand-wave away all the statistics, it's difficult to imagine a situation in which you'd be able to locate key, gun, and bullets, and load and aim credibly if under attack. If you think you'll walk around with a loaded gun, you should visit a place like Texas where it's legal but no businesses will let you enter with a gun.

If you are at home these situations would not apply but you'd be better off with a shotgun. There is no scarier sound than a shotgun being cocked and you're unlikely to shoot yourself in the process.

Plus there is the problem of actualy shooting someone dead. Soldiers have to be trained extensively to overcome their reluctant to do this. Any hesitation and you'll find yourself one of the statistics listed above. But lack of proper training could find you shooting an innocent person, by riccochet or other mistake if nothing else. That could be a problem in the city.

Guns aren't a fashion accessory.

Posted by Susan of Texas | June 26, 2008 3:21 PM

link

Posted by Susan of Texas | June 26, 2008 3:23 PM

Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence.
Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately
higher in states where guns are more prevalent.[3]

There is likely to be a higher rate of homicide in areas that are dangerous, period. (For example, areas where there are gangs and drugs and turf wars.) This has nothing to do with the protection that a woman who lives in these areas gains by owning a gun.

Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.
Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a
handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun
than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in
self-defense.[5]
Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.[6]

There are disproportionately more men who commit violent crimes, period. Additionally, a woman does not have to murder her attacker to survive an attempted rape or murder... the vast majority of the time all she has to do is brandish her weapon and the criminal runs. Many of these kinds of uses don't get reported, but they're extremely significant. Even if just showing the gun isn't enough, firing it to the side or just wounding an attacker without killing is still often effective.

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns,
while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would
be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.[7]

I'm not sure where their source got their information from, but this website claims differently: http://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm
"...raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.
Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by
offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.[8]

Irrelevant.

Posted by Amy | June 26, 2008 3:42 PM

a taser would work even better (and wouldn't have any of the issues that are associated with carrying around and owning a loaded gun in your home). not one of your most-convincing arguments.

Posted by cw | June 26, 2008 3:53 PM

John McC, if you want to counteract the "liberals want to take away your guns" meme, you are going to have make Susan of Texas be quiet.

Posted by y81 | June 26, 2008 4:01 PM

My sister and I have often opined that we would love to start distributing guns, probably rifles, to women in places like Darfur or Kashmir where rape is used by fighters as weapons against the female populace. Of course an important part of the distribution would be to impress upon the women that the guns are theirs, not their husbands'.

Susan in Texas, to the extent that women with guns are overpowered is the extent to which people like you make them think that guns are scary and bad and better left to big strong policemen. Yes, women should learn self-defense techniques, but a knee to the nuts or punch to the kidney is not the last word in self-defense. A woman should know how to defend herself with non-lethal and lethal force.

Posted by Christina | June 26, 2008 4:13 PM

" ... 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.[8]..."

An excellent argument for changing the [incredibly stupid] law! Responsible, law-abiding teenagers should have just as much right to self-defense as anybody else.

Actually, I don't even think that's an accurate description of current Law in all states. Here in Montana, 14 year olds are allowed to go hunting alone. I'm not sure if they can carry hangduns, though, or just long guns.

Posted by john w. | June 26, 2008 4:20 PM

I've had guns in the house and don't care if people own guns. I prefer bows and arrows because I think shooting them is more fun, but to each his own. The issue was feminism and the efficacy of guns for self-protection. As fond as I am of archery, I'm not advocating everyone weapon up to solve the problem of unequal power distribution.

Posted by Susan of Texas | June 26, 2008 4:24 PM

I think guns are a masculinist issue: it finally equalized the power between bear and man. Well, on second thought, it may actually give man too much power, because I doubt a bear's paw has the dexterity to pull a trigger.

Posted by Jeff Goldman | June 26, 2008 5:56 PM

Megan, Its not really - "you pull the trigger first, you win", after all you can miss, or you can hit without quickly disabling your opponent.

But you get the broad point correct. Guns are an equalizer in violent confrontations, including confrontations when larger stronger men try to victimize women.

Posted by Tim Fowler | June 26, 2008 6:15 PM

In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a
handgun to kill in self-defense.

Since no one knows how many times a woman uses a handgun in self defense, thats a bogus statistic.

Also since most women don't carry around handguns the statistic could be improved if more of them started to do so.

In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.

Which is pretty meaningless. Someone known to you can still be a deadly threat, and a handgun can help a woman defend herself against the threat.

Guns are rarely used by rapists

Entirely irrelevant to the statement that "Guns protect women from rape." Guns help protect women from rape by people armed with something other than a gun, or by unarmed men, who figured the woman would also be unarmed and figured they could rely on their greater size and strength (and most likely greater aggressiveness and hand to hand combat experience) to subdue the woman they thought was unarmed. And then you have the minor factor of the few cases where the man does have a gun. Even if it is just 2% of cases, helping to protect against those two percent is still beneficial. But of course the main benefit is the help against the other 98%.

Women would
be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

If they even have a prayer of being able to fight off the attacker bear handed, than that gun wouldn't be so easy to turn on them. In any case the two defensive strategies are not mutually exclusive. You can train in hand to hand self defense AND get a gun and train with it.

Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by
offenders known to the victim.

Irrelevant. If its not the greatest danger in terms of being the most likely type of rape its still a danger that can be defended against with a gun. 25% of rapes is a lot of rapes. Also its probably more likely that the stranger rapist will kill his victim. And the gun also helps protect against non-stranger rape.

Posted by Tim Fowler | June 26, 2008 6:27 PM

Aside from a seismic shift in feminist circles. I don't think that you'll see a growth in Women Firearm purchases. Its not that there is no logic to the argument (indeed to me it makes perfect sense). Only that the people involved in it don't see it. I'm not a particular fan of Susanna Hoff Summers, but I think she has done quite a good job in exposing a vast undercurrent of thoughts on feminism that never makes it far in academic circles.

Posted by ben | June 26, 2008 6:36 PM

In 5th grade I was attacked during art class (albeit mildly- this was not a very tough school), by a boy who had a history of bullying everyone in class. I hit back, and the boy was so shocked it ended there. Given that the teacher on duty had been beaten by her husband, you'd think she'd be all in favor of a girl in her class defending herself- but no, she freaked and we both got the same be nice speech for the rest of the day.

Keep in mind, there was never any question that I was defending myself. Lots of people saw him hit first, and several were close enough to know I hadn't instigated it by doing anything other than having a tool he wanted. Nevertheless, the teacher was so freaked out by the thought of violence that we both got the same treatment- which, to be fair, was pretty mild. If this was the kind of school that punished kids I wouldn't have had to hit him.

My point is that (many) feminists aren't just dreaming of world where men and women are equal, they're dreaming of a subset of equal worlds that feature other improvements, like less violence and less income inequality. In a perfect world, there's be no need for guns (except for those of us who like target shooting), and so wider distribution of guns feels like a step backwards, even if it helps other aims.

Posted by Li | June 26, 2008 7:46 PM

It's time for people to learn that FEMINISTS fudge the numbers:

http://www.mediaradar.org/media_fact_sheet.php

Posted by jon | June 26, 2008 8:54 PM

I suspect most people on this thread don't realise how heavily restricted non handgun means of self defence are outside the US. One poster said why not use a taser and another supported shotguns. Both are illegal here in Australia. A key advantage of the US gun debate is that it keeps the debate focussed on handguns - personally I can see advantages in getting rid of handguns as they lend themseveles to misuse but I can guarantee that as and when that happens, the powers that be will start looking at self defence with shotguns, bows, swords, tasers, pepper spray etc.

Posted by iolanthe | June 26, 2008 11:48 PM

I think guns are a masculinist issue: it finally equalized the power between bear and man. Well, on second thought, it may actually give man too much power, because I doubt a bear's paw has the dexterity to pull a trigger.

Actually, you better be carrying and capable of handling a shotgun or magnum load if you're going to use guns to equalize the power between bear and man. The bear need not be able to work past a trigger guard if all you've got are small-caliber arms.

On the other hand, bears are not terribly fond of being burned, either, and man figured out how to work two sticks into a flame a long time before he figured out how to conveniently lock that flame into the workings of a handheld machine.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | June 27, 2008 12:40 AM

I think they're not acting as a feminist issue because guns are overwhelmingly a cultural issue, and the cultural politics aren't sympathetic to feminism (and I hereby just cross-posted my blog post to your comments section).

Posted by Justin | June 27, 2008 1:27 AM

When I teach Women's Personal Protection classes, generally about 1/3 have been raped. They are very serious students, very focussed. Who gives a shit about statistics? Violence is personal to the thug and to the victim, not statistical. The rest of us, especially the academic rest of us, get to hang back in a fog of numbers, discharging little lightning bolts of conclusion about the women who were raped and the men who attacked them. But these are real women, and the damage done to them is obvious years later. There is no reason these women should ever have had to go through this, and really no reason why gun control laws should make them go through it twice.

cw suggests a taser would work better. This is not true for two reasons. First, they hang up in thick clothing and even when they penetrate, can be ripped from the skin before the capacitor is discharged. Second, these attackers need to die, and there's a near-perfect chance they will survive being tased. A taser is not an ideal defensive weapon, but it is very good 1) for robbing people: if you can deploy it unexpectedly, from ambush, it generally does work; and 2) for pain compliance, which police are not supposed to use it for, but do.

Posted by Simon Kenton | June 27, 2008 8:13 AM

If you think you'll walk around with a loaded gun, you should visit a place like Texas where it's legal but no businesses will let you enter with a gun.

As a licensed concealed-carry holder in the state of Texas, I can say that this is not the case. Businesses in Texas have a choice to allow or disallow guns on their property, by posting signs in required places with required verbage. Whenever you see a sign starting with "The unlicensed possession of a firearm", that's a business that allows you to carry on their property. The only catch: you have to be licensed, and less than 2% of Texans are.

If you are at home these situations would not apply but you'd be better off with a shotgun. There is no scarier sound than a shotgun being cocked and you're unlikely to shoot yourself in the process.

Many people will say that a shotgun is the best "home defense" weapon, and I personally agree. As noted the sound of cocking the weapon, the fact that you don't have to aim precisely and the reduced concern about overpenetration (sheetrock stops shotgun pellets better than pistol or rifle rounds) are all factors to consider. A tactical (i.e. non-hunting) shotgun can be purchased for the same or less than a good quality semi-auto pistol.

For people on a budget though, a single compact pistol for carry can double as an effective home defense weapon.

Posted by James in Texas | June 27, 2008 8:18 AM

Even if one were to hand-wave away all the [Brady] statistics,

If you'd look at even those a mite closer, you'd find that they're not actually saying what you think they're saying.

it's difficult to imagine a situation in which you'd be able to locate key, gun, and bullets, and load and aim credibly if under attack.

I suggest you work on your imagination. It happens thousands, nay, millions of times a year in this country.

Even if (somehow) the facts backed you, are you still saying women should submit to rapists, because it would be difficult to shoot them?

Just for a sample:

Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.[6]

Rare cases (only a few hundred thousand documented, hey, who's counting, right? (Well, actually, nobody official is, which allows this blatant opinion to masquerade as fact)) or not, what's wrong with shooting an attacker if you know them or not?

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists

Again, so if the rapist has a knife, it's just bad for the sisterhood if you shoot him?

Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.[7]

Oh, so violence is OK. Just hand to hand - where the women have almost no chance. Meredith Emerson was well-trained in self-defense, and a somewhat elderly, not-in-shape man was able to overpower her. Guess it was her fault for not having studied and spent more time in the gym?

Say what you will, make up the facts you want to, Susan.

But this has always been the way it is - without guns, women require men's protection. As one of those knuckle-dragging neanderthals who prefer to protect women, despite what I'm sure Susan's insulting opinion of my political beliefs, isn't it interesting that I want them to be able to be actually independent in deed, and not just in word?

Posted by Unix-Jedi | June 27, 2008 8:23 AM

I'm not anti-gun. I believe there are so many already circulation that controlling them would be impossible anyway. I also think most gun owners are law abiding and the problem is not guns but those who use them in violent crime. Furthermore, I do think the framers of the Constitution intended for Americans to have a right to own weapons.

That said, though, the argument that guns make us safer is ridiculous. Of the 30,000+ gun deaths per year, how many of those shot were attacking someone who defended themselves with a gun? Not many, I'll bet. If you believe all the guns in America actually make you safer, you are kidding yourself.

Posted by Pug | June 27, 2008 8:41 AM

There are certainly some self-defense techniques that can immobilize an opponent quickly, but real-life is not like the movies, where women and children can beat up the toughest of thugs. Even expert male fighters are separated by size.

Posted by 8 | June 27, 2008 8:52 AM

Pug, I KNOW guns make me safer because I have some. I also have a permit to carry and as such am in a 100% better position to protect myself from anyone (armed or not) than someone without a gun or a carry permit.

By the way, my wife has a gun as well (given to her by her father when she was 22 and leaving home). She will be getting her carry permit this year as well.

Posted by Todd | June 27, 2008 9:02 AM

As noted the sound of cocking the weapon, the fact that you don't have to aim precisely and the reduced concern about overpenetration (sheetrock stops shotgun pellets better than pistol or rifle rounds) are all factors to consider. A tactical (i.e. non-hunting) shotgun can be purchased for the same or less than a good quality semi-auto pistol.

Thanks, James in Texas. Me and my sweetie have been thinking about a weapon for home protection and this is good information.

That said, though, the argument that guns make us safer is ridiculous. Of the 30,000+ gun deaths per year, how many of those shot were attacking someone who defended themselves with a gun? Not many, I'll bet. If you believe all the guns in America actually make you safer, you are kidding yourself.

Sorry, Pug, but you are making an assumption that people who kill people with guns wouldn't be murderers without the presence of firearms.

When the homicidal urge hits, people can get rather inventive with their choice of weaponry. If a gun is not present, people are able to adapt kitchen knives, baseball bats, prescription medication, the family car, even bricks and rocks into lethal weapons if they want someone dead. If nothing else, they can use their own two hands to choke someone to death.

And, yeah....call me crazy, but if someone is coming after me with a knife or baseball bat, I think having a gun will make me a little bit safer.

Posted by KoryO | June 27, 2008 9:12 AM

Posted by Susan of Texas | June 26, 2008 3:21 PM:

If you think you'll walk around with a loaded gun, you should visit a place like Texas where it's legal but no businesses will let you enter with a gun.

I live in Texas and this is false. The vast majority of businesses (over 90%) do not post the section 30.06 sign that prohibits concealed handgun licensees from carrying their concealed guns onto the premises. Perhaps you should apply for a CHL, take the training course and educate yourself about the process.

If you are at home ... you'd be better off with a shotgun. There is no scarier sound than a shotgun being cocked and you're unlikely to shoot yourself in the process.

It sounds like you have little to no experience with handguns. If you are trained in the use of a firearm, you are unlikely to shoot yourself, period. If you can safely drive a car, you can safely use a handgun, which is much less complicated.

The gun issue is one on which misconceptions are enormous. The good news is that it is relatively easy to find an instructor or knowledgeable friend, spend some time on the range, and remove these misconceptions. If you are in the Austin area, please ping me and I would be happy to introduce you to shooting handguns and other firearms in a safe and responsible manner.

Posted by Kevin P. | June 27, 2008 9:18 AM

Megan, it's a control and 'moral' issue for a lot of the nut-level feminists. I can't remember her name, head of a feminist organization said(paraphrasing, don't have time to find the quote) that 'for a woman to protect herself from a rapist with a gun makes her as morally wrong as the rapist; violence is always bad'.

KoryO, for a home, generally speaking, a shotgun is the best thing(though some choose a carbine, a short, light rifle firing a pistol cartridge). No handgun ever made has the close-range stopping power of a scattergun. That said, the carbine or a handgun can be better for people who have trouble with recoil or are just comfortable with a pistol.

Posted by Firehand | June 27, 2008 9:35 AM

I've taught my sister to shoot and some of the basics in how to handle a revolver or a semi-auto handgun. I asked a retired State Trooper what he'd recommend for a small woman. He said he recommends a 38 Special revolver with a 2" or 4" barrel. A shorter barrel for concealed carry and longer barrel if it's left at home, the longer barrel is usually more accurate. He said the advantages of a 38 Special are that it doesn't look like a toy and won't be confused with one, it has enough stopping power and a modest recoil, it's easy to find one with a grip that can fit in the hand of a small woman and you can buy one of reasonable quality for around $200.

Posted by Neo | June 27, 2008 11:05 AM

How come anti-gun and anti-self-defense laws are absolutely necessary to enact "if they might only save one child" but pro-self-defense laws are not OK because "only in rare instances can someone protect themselves with a gun" - just asking.....

Posted by Mikee | June 27, 2008 11:32 AM

Some comments:

Yes, shotguns are great for home protection. Unfortunately, sometimes we find ourselves outside our homes, and even inside our homes shotguns require two hands. Try answering the door with a shotgun; then try it with a handgun in your back pocket.

Any advanced skills course for firearm self defence should include retention training. Try retention with a shotgun, then try it with a handgun.

Depending on whom you believe, between 800,000 times a year (federal government estimates) and 2.5 million times a year (Prof. Gary Kleck) ordinary citizens use firearms as a self defense tool. Since we don't have 800K or more dead bodies laying around each year, it's obvious that presentation of a firearm by a prospective victim has a deterrent effect.

For those businesses - in Texas and elsewhere - who have decided they do not want licensed carriers of firearms on the premises, just don't patronize those establishments. If they seek to deny you the right to protect your life and the lives of your family, spend your money elsewhere. Except for government buildings in which one is statutorily prohibited from possessing a firearm, it is completely your choice as to whether you retain the ability to defend yourself or transfer that responsibility to a property owner or lessee. If one pays attention, one will discover that such establishments are quite few and very far between.

I taught a firearms class last weekend - 11 students, 7 of whom were women. Several of the 7 indicated that, once licensed, they intended to carry in their purse. That's their privilege, but the odds are good that when accosted their purse will be either out of reach or of less concern than fending off the attack, and the attacker will seek to separate them from their purse as early in the attack as possible. Needless to say, no attack will provide the time necessary to rummage through the lipsticks, wallets, phones, keys and hankies most purses contain to get to the gun. On-body carry for women requires a smaller firearm than a similar carry mode for men.

Situational awareness is key to preventing and/or surviving an attack. Chatting with Susie or wrangling with your son/daughter on your cell phone is not conducive to seeing it coming.

The first rule of gunfighting is: "Bring a gun." If you're the only one with a gun it's still a gunfight. There is no requirement in the realm of self defense to reduce your level of armament to whatever your attacker possesses.

You get to choose for yourself whether you own your life and are willing to conduct it in such a manner as to, first, avoid situations which have a higher probability of you becoming a victim, second, deal with the immediate prospect of becoming a victim in an affirmative manner, or just become a victim.

Posted by Homer | June 27, 2008 11:49 AM

Susan in Texas, my family and I are alive today due to our guns. When I was a child my parent worked in a state mental institution for the criminally insane. Long story short one of the inmates came after my parents after his release. I will never forget being nine yrs old standing in my living room watching this man get out of his car with a gun, I was holding our 12ga shotgun and knew I would only get one shot since it would knock me on my ass (my father had taking me shooting many times). Luckily my father came around the corner brandishing his .357 out the car window and scared the guy away. Without those two weapons there would have been a mass murder that day.

Posted by Bob S | June 27, 2008 12:02 PM

Feminists tend to have an over-reaching view of what constitutes violence. Personally, I do not believe that aggressive self defense equals violence.
Webster's dictionary defines violence this way:

1 a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure

Not every exertion of physical force qualifies as violence. The act of self defense is intended to stop an act of violence. Yes, the attacker is often injured, but it is not the intent of the action.

Posted by Jennifer | June 27, 2008 12:18 PM

I don't understand why more feminists don't push for widespread gun ownership.

I would say it is due to alliance politics. Feminists are broadly allied to other left-of-centre single issue campaign groups. Anti-gun campaigners are one of those groups.

If feminists were to support wider gun ownership they would be launching a direct attack on one of their own allies. Whatever the outcome of such a war, starting it would do nothing to endear them to their other allies.

Even if it benefited women, it would do feminist politics a lot of harm. From their point of view, the battle just is not worth it.

Posted by ad | June 27, 2008 12:29 PM

Funny you should bring this up...I was thinking the same thing. Not only as a woman, but in general: to protect oneself against any physical harm toward you (regardless of sex) from an attacker.

As far as all of the uproar about crime in metropolitan cities, I don't get it. People are always looking to police and gun stores! What about the parents of the killers? That's a START!

You want to decrease crime? Parents should take better care of their children and make concious decisions before having them (if partner wants children, if partner wants to actively raise children, if partner is dependable, if partner is financially stable, etc) . As Obama has said, the government can only do so much! And claims of race and racism should be banished! A wise man once told me, 'when you eliminate excuses, you'll improve'.

Posted by eaglecapri | June 27, 2008 12:33 PM

I'm a new shooter. First time I ever held a firearm was in April when I attended a CCW class and my instructor loaned me a gun. I learned to shoot pretty well (groupings at 7 yards are within an inch now) and have started shooting rifles recently. I now own two handguns and two rifles.

My mystified friends and family have all wondered why I suddenly took to shooting.

There were two reasons.

The first was an acknowledgment that my discomfort with firearms stemmed from ignorance. I didn't know anything about guns except what we were told growing up, that they're dangerous and "they kill people." There's only one way to get rid of that ignorance, and that's to get to know guns well.

The second reason was a story I read where a woman was hunkered down in her bedroom, desperately calling 911, and the recording documented the last minutes of her life when her attacker stepped inside the room and killed her. I decided I will never be helpless like that. Ever.

And there's your feminist issue, although it has nothing to do with feminism. It's about choosing to be a survivor. I don't go around looking for trouble, although I now have a permit to carry a firearm concealed. But if trouble comes looking for me, I won't be waiting for someone to rescue me. I'll be doing the rescuing myself.

Posted by Anna | June 27, 2008 1:46 PM

“God made men and Sam Colt made them equal” The Colt revolver was sold with the name “Equalizer”. It was so smaller men could be on equal footing with large men. Women in pioneer days were quite proficient with a rifle to defend the children and household.

It is truth that the physical strength of a man to women is unequal. Women also are not used to using physical strength to intimidate. Boys learn that early. Women use verbal tools to demolish their enemies. Usually quite effectively.

Since women are more at risk for rape they should learn basic self defense techniques. But how many women sign up for karate or judo compared to males? Their fathers, who decided their daughters should never be at risk, pushed most women who know self-defense into it as children. Mothers don’t push their daughters into learning self defense or shooting sports generally. They usually teach girls to avoid danger, a good lesson but not always successful.

Women are biologically designed to be nurturers not the hunter/ defender. We bear the children and hate to see them hurt or killed. Women have a hard time separating the gun from the crime when their child is killed or shot.

I was taught by my father to shoot. We both started and did skeet shooting as something to do together. I expressed an interest in target shooting and he bought me a S&W 22 caliber target pistol when I was 13. That gun is now worth over a $1000, so he bought me something that I could have fun and increased in value.

From one shotgun there are now 8 in the gun cabinet and I just received another that I have no room to put in the cabinet. Several of the shotguns are my husbands and several are my sons. A friend gave him his first gun a 22 LR rifle when he was 14 or so.
These are not home defense weapons, but they can be used as such. Just the ammo is kept separate from the gun since the guns are kept unloaded for normal safety reasons.

I got a 380 caliber Sig Sauer semi automatic as home defense when I got married. I first had a Walther but it was too small and I cover the barrel when racking the slide. Since that was dangerous, I got another.

Now I do not live in the District. I have a very noisy German Shepard that is very protective. I left my doors unlocked for years since I had the dog at home. Even when I was at work. My son usually would not carry house keys.

My neighborhood is changing and we don’t want the firearms stolen, so the house is locked when we leave. But my first home defense is the dogs. That gives me enough time to get to a weapon, load and rack the slide if needed.

Unless the District approves CCW, the only defensive use will be in the home. IF you are really concerned a small handgun will be good. But all women like different guns than men and you should try out a variety for comfort and fit. Practice with the gun so you know you can hit the target. Later buy different guns if you get into shooting sports.

The shotgun is the best since you do not need to be accurate. Can be shot from the hip. The birdshot will not go through walls and kill a neighbor. We even got two pump shotguns since my son loves those and all burglars recognize that sound.

From 8-12 feet the shotgun kills most effectively. Large hole in midsection. But I agree that is not a weapon I keep ready at the door. Only if I feel that something is going down and I have unusual danger. Since I do live near a juvenile facility, that happens several times a year, that a juvenile escapes and could be dangerous.

You have to analyze you own defensive needs. See what suits you best. Try to get a women friend to go shooting with you. Women are surprising accurate shooters and usually have a lot of fun shooting. That is the best way to get women in using guns, is to take them along and teach them or take a class together.

Posted by Tasha | June 27, 2008 2:04 PM

Susan, most of your arguments don't express causality. They're great little factoids, but they don't actually show how one relates to the other. You just assume that they do in a way that makes sense for you.

Here's another not-so-factoid. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or preventing rape. It's about killing your government. It's the final veto. That's why it's obvious that a "militia" is NOT something the government controls. We were officially ruled by Britain. Our militias were OUR militias designed to kill the British. Similarly, if we're ruled by Congress, OUR militias are designed to kill Congress.

It's really pretty simple. But if you're going to rely on pretty numbers, here's a basic one.

In the 20th century, how did more women and children die: by the hands of their own gun-banning government or by other private citizens committing crimes?

Don't even bother. You're outgunned by literally tens of millions. No contest.

You might say that under your enlightened totalitarianism people won't have to worry about an over-aggressive government. I'm afraid that's a useless petition. I will not count on your expression of good intentions, thank you.

Oh, and tasers? Aside from having a limited distance (I'm not sure you'd want to bet a taser against a man charging with a knife), they don't get the point across.

The point is to let your government know that WE THE PEOPLE not WE THE GOVERNMENT are the rulers. If you have to do that by putting holes in half of them, then that's what you have to do. WE rule here. Not them.

And not shabby little people who would be happy to submit to rulers if doing so would force their neighbors into being ruled as well.

Posted by Amos | June 27, 2008 3:13 PM

When I teach Women's Personal Protection classes, generally about 1/3 have been raped.

You certainly have an ... interesting ... teaching style.

Who gives a shit about statistics?

Statistics reflect actual events and what's going on in the world. If 100% of raped women were killed afterward, don't you think that statistic should be important to all women in the interest of self-defense? You're an idiot.

But these are real women, and the damage done to them is obvious years later. There is no reason these women should ever have had to go through this, and really no reason why gun control laws should make them go through it twice.

All the more reason to pay attention to the numbers, so you know what's going on. You're an idiot.

Second, these attackers need to die, and there's a near-perfect chance they will survive being tased.

Uh, play god much? Many cases of "rape" are, in fact, mutual intoxication and/or mixed messages, but you blithely condemn all men to death on your own judgement, completely ignoring that not all "rape" cases are stereotypical Lifetime movies? You're an idiot.

Your "classes" would be a total joke, if it weren't so sad that you're actually teaching fear instead of defense.

Posted by Toot Uncommon | June 27, 2008 3:13 PM

I would be amazed if anyone else is convinced by Susan of Texas hilariously bad and oft debunked list of 'facts'. The methodology is fraudulent and the logical inconsistencies stunning.

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists

Genius! I can see this extended to other 'myths' today.

Myth: steering wheel locks protect your car from theft
Fact: Car thieves rarely use steering wheel locks

Myth: abuse hotlines protect children from domestic violence
Fact: abuse hotlines are rarely used by domestic violence perpetrators

I could go on, but why bother?

Women would
be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

This one is just mind boggling in its inanity. The entire reason the gun can be 'easily turned against them' (which isn't true, by the way, for a handgun if you are properly trained) is that men are stronger than women, faster than women, taller than women, and have a longer reach than women. Being trained in physical self defence isn't going to change any of that.

The idea of a elderly woman physically 'fighting off' a determined 6'2" 240 pound assailant is just laughable. That same woman, with a bit of training, could drop said assailant with two shots of a handgun.

That's why, as many have pointed out, guns are the great equalizer. They allow the weak to defend themselves against the strong.

Posted by JD | June 27, 2008 3:23 PM

That said, though, the argument that guns make us safer is ridiculous. Of the 30,000+ gun deaths per year, how many of those shot were attacking someone who defended themselves with a gun? Not many, I'll bet. If you believe all the guns in America actually make you safer, you are kidding yourself.

There is no question that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens makes America safer.

Obviously, guns in the hands of criminals doesn't make us safer, but then, gun bans don't affect criminals, do they? If criminals would obey the law on not carrying guns they would also obey the laws about not attacking people.

Secondly, the *VAST MAJORITY* of successful home defenses where firearms are involved do NOT INVOLVE THE DEATH OF THE ASSAILANT.

All the hundreds of thousands of cases where the assailant is wounded, or merely scared off by a gun shot, or simply scared off by the sight of the gun are all instances of guns in the hands of law abiding Citizens making us safer without anyone getting killed over it.

It really comes down to one question: are more innocent lives taken by law abiding citizens with firearms or are more innocent lives saved by law abiding citizens with firearms. The saved lives category has it by a landslide.

If it was really about banning anything that might accidentally hurt someone, all the gun banners would be going after pools instead, as those accidentally kill way more people per year than guns and, unlike guns, are not used to defend your family and loved ones from thugs.

Posted by JD | June 27, 2008 3:35 PM

I've been saying this for years. It's also a good deterrent against violence towards gays; hence, the creation of "Pink Pistol" clubs.

I always found irritating the boiler plate Democrat mantra "we defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen." Translation:

"It's OK to shoot, kill, and eat Bambi's Mom, but it's NOT OK for a woman to scare off a would-be rapist by pointing a handgun at him."

There is also a kind of inverted civil-liberties issue when we make stalking laws the context. There really is only so much that a justice system can do to discourage and contain stalkers without a blanket prohibition on socially-inept behavior by men in general. If a woman is dealing with what she and others can reasonably perceive to be a dangerous stalker, she should have the option of owning a gun.

Posted by Roderick Reilly | June 27, 2008 4:04 PM

One caveat:

Should you be able to persuade liberals/progressives that there are compelling reasons why women and gays in particular should arm themselves, be prepared for a slew of legislation and proposals to grant women and gays exceptions to handgun prohibitions. This is how progressives/leftists/liberals think.

Posted by Roderick Reilly | June 27, 2008 4:08 PM

Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.

I think Susan's list is mostly either irrelevant or incomplete data, as relates to this issue, but I wanted to make a point about this comment because I think it proves exactly what she was trying to disprove.

Basically, in these rare cases when women know their attacker, it sounds to me like your talking about a situation where a women knows she is going to be in danger, whether from a stalker or an ex or someone else, and so she gets a gun to protect herself. And according to this statistic, It WORKS! Why she thought this disproved the feminist point is completely beyond me.

Posted by Lea | June 27, 2008 4:53 PM

@ Toot Uncommon- You should dispense with your strawman interpretation of Simon's comments. I think it was pretty obvious that he meant that 1/3 of the women who took his class had previously been raped, and thus decided to do something about not ever letting themselves be similarly victimized. Not that 1/3 of the people who took his class then went on to be raped. How on earth you thought the women that took his self-defense class were magically raped at a much higher level than the rest of the general population is beyond me. Not so good with the whole statistics thing yourself, huh?

Also, I second his point that if someone violently attacks and rapes someone, in voiding their victim's right to live peacefully and safely, they void their own right to the same and should be put down.

Third, have you ever been to one of Simon's classes? Didn't think so. So then how would you know he teaches fear instead of defense. Finally, in the future, do try and stop being a d-bag for now reason.

Posted by Joe | June 27, 2008 5:39 PM

@ Toot Uncommon- You should dispense with your strawman interpretation of Simon's comments. I think it was pretty obvious that he meant that 1/3 of the women who took his class had previously been raped, and thus decided to do something about not ever letting themselves be similarly victimized. Not that 1/3 of the people who took his class then went on to be raped. How on earth you thought the women that took his self-defense class were magically raped at a much higher level than the rest of the general population is beyond me. Not so good with the whole statistics thing yourself, huh?

Also, I second his point that if someone violently attacks and rapes someone, in voiding their victim's right to live peacefully and safely, they void their own right to the same and should be put down.

Third, have you ever been to one of Simon's classes? Didn't think so. So then how would you know he teaches fear instead of defense? In the future, do try and stop being such a d-bag for no reason.

Posted by Joe | June 27, 2008 5:41 PM

This cracks me up.

Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.

A friend of mine was stabbed to death by her ex-husband in a parking garage last month--in violation of his restraining order, although he did comply with the part that said he couldn't own guns. What I'm getting from women like Susan from Texas is that it was better for her to be killed than to *gasp* own guns.

I don't know if she would have carried a concealed weapon or not because Wisconsin makes that decision for us, but at stabbing range, you don't have to be very accurate to make 'em hurt enough to drop the knife.

The question I ask, that no one will answer for me: Why do liberals hate women?

Posted by HeatherRadish | June 27, 2008 6:11 PM

I realize that most commenters here use the term "feminist" to refer to the majority of classical, left-wing feminists. However, let's not forget groups like the Independent Women's Forum, which applauded the Keller decision. Not to mention the Second Amendment Sisters. I'm not even a woman and these groups warm my heart. (Forgive me if I overlooked a reference to either of these groups in the earlier comments. I love reading this stuff but didn't have time to read all the comments in detail.)

Posted by notaclue | June 27, 2008 6:47 PM

I realize that most commenters here use the term "feminist" to refer to the majority of classical, left-wing feminists. However, let's not forget groups like the Independent Women's Forum, which applauded the Keller decision. Not to mention the Second Amendment Sisters. I'm not even a woman and these groups warm my heart. (Forgive me if I overlooked a reference to either of these groups in the earlier comments. I love reading this stuff but didn't have time to read all the comments in detail.)

Posted by notaclue | June 27, 2008 6:49 PM

I actually know the former Mid-Atlantic Co-ordinator (I think that was her title) for Second Amendment Sisters. When she went on local news channels to describe her organization's mission she would often make the point that you've made.

There is also a group here in Philadelphia (I'm not sure if they're outside the region as well) called the Pink Pistols. They focus on increasing LGBT gun ownership, I assume to reduce hate crimes or something.

Posted by Lisa L. | June 27, 2008 10:53 PM

You're arguing with people who think that Women should Take Back The Night with a *whistle*, so someone else can rescue them.

Posted by mouse | June 28, 2008 1:02 AM

Yes, concealed handguns easily accessible are the equalizer for women. That means on-body carry, some like shoulder holsters (you can put your hand on the gun unobtrusively) or pocket holsters (same). When something just does not feel "Right."

That of course requires training to develop situational awareness, something women generally are quite good at. Guessing intention from body language, walk, etc.

For home defense I would advocate a .38 special revolver, or .357 loaded with .38 special, in a under-the-bed lockable gunsafe. You can press combinations of keys quickly, to unlock the safe and get your gun in about 2 seconds. The revolver is also easy to load/unload, make safe, and is very reliable. It won't go out of battery pressed up against an attacker like an auto pistol. Shotguns are harder to lock up.

Cannon and a few others have this nifty little gun safe, your local gun store should have a few models you can demo and see how they work.

If you were going to carry, I would get both training and licensed.

One benefit, women carrying, particularly the muggers favorite target (old women) shift crime into lower risk encounters -- car thefts, burglaries when no one is home, etc. Mike Tyson at 17 used to mug old ladies for their social security checks. But not even a Tyson can punch out a bullet.

Posted by whiskey | June 28, 2008 1:37 AM

Just wanted to second the person who seconded Simon. (Simon, consider your post to have been at least doubly seconded - and thanks for the work you do to help women protect themselves). Many other great and useful comments on this thread as well.

Btw - I've been carrying police-strength mace. Wonder how the gunnies think that compares for protection with carrying a handgun... Other than the obvious psychological difference of pointing a gun vs pointing a mace container...

Posted by Miriam | June 28, 2008 4:13 AM

Miriam, mace has good points, among them it seems much more effective at stopping an attacker quickly than pepper spray, from what I've heard. Fact is, a lot of self-defense instructors have taught it's not a bad idea to have both, a non-lethal and lethal means of defense on you. Not something I'd want to trust to in the house, though; talk contamination of the room...

Above Tasha said with a shotgun 'you do not need to be accurate. Can be shot from the hip.' Well, you can shoot anything from the hip, but you need to aim a shotgun same as a rifle or handgun. At across-the-room range, the shot charge doesn't spread very much, and you can indeed miss. She is right that birdshot or(better)light buckshot tends to be stopped quite well by walls.

Toot, statistics can also be gamed. Like anti-gun types work to skew the numbers to show guns make no difference in self-defense. Also,
Many cases of "rape" are, in fact, mutual intoxication and/or mixed messages, but you blithely condemn all men to death on your own judgement, completely ignoring that not all "rape" cases are stereotypical Lifetime movies?
Who's acting like a Lifetime movie? You're thinking women would be shooting men right and left seems to fit right into the 'women can't be trusted with guns' mindset. Who's the idiot?

Posted by Firehand | June 28, 2008 9:32 AM

Sorry to drift off topic slightly, but I need to modify some peoples' beliefs, and maybe also debunk a few myths. I should be able to remember this -- I taught it for enough years.
.
Firearms for home defense ? Well, first of all, the best gun for self defense is the one you HAVE. Always remember that. And if you are trained in tactical shotgun techniques, (including using an empty shotgun as a close-quarters weapon by itself), it's certainly devastating. But.

1. DO NOT THINK TRAINING AND/OR AIMING IS UNNNECESSARY. Even shotguns with an open bore (no choke) do NOT spread their shot like in the movies. If you buy a shotgun, choose your ammunition, measure the LONGEST line-of-sight in your house, and head off to the range. From the same distance, shoot a target and examine the spread. In the movies, the shot opens up immediately and covers the room. In ral life, if you get a shot pattern appreciably larger that a paperback book you have a LONG line-of-site in your house. So much for not having to aim. (Oh, and if this test is too much "bother" you should reconsider your choice to buy a firearm for self-defense. The doggone things don't do ANYTHING without an owner willing to train and practice.) Learn to aim carefully. And practice as often as you need to for your purposes.

2. Penetration / ammunition selection: if you are handy, build several sheet-rock/stud/sheet-rock wall samples to match the walls in your home. Now test your ammunition on them to see what sort of overpenetration you get. Any fool who loads 00 is begging to injure or kill someone in the next room unless s/he aims carefully. This is not to discourage shotgun ownership, only to prevent novices from buying massive shot sizes and increasing accidents. Last I knew, USSS used #4 birdshot, it might be a good choice TO TEST. Your mileage may vary. Choose your ammo carefully.

3. Close quarters and long-arms: I mentioned earlier using the physical weapon against someone(think 'pugil stick'). Guess what ? It can be used against YOU as well. The longer the firearm, the easier it becomes for an attacker to lever and deflect the weapon sideways. Once the muzzle is not pointing at the attacker, pulling the trigger will not stop him/her. Do NOT close with an attacker when you are carrying a loaded long-arm (not that you should get too close even when carrying a pistol).

4. Ensure your shotgun is unloaded. Open the breach. Now, while holding a simulated attacker at gunpoint, try manipulating and dialing your phone to call 911. And realize that when loaded, the shotgun will be even heavier. My loving spouse has has a wrist injury. Holding a shotgun in one hand is out of the question. Ditto for her arthritic aunt.

5. Ensure your shotgun is unloaded. Open the breach. Make sure no one is in the line of site. Now hold ths shotgun down at your side. Now bring it to a position of function (aim it at an inanimate object). How quickly did you react ? The shotgun can be a somewhat heavy and unwieldy weapon for a person of small stature.

6. Ensure your shotgun is unloaded. Open the breach. Make sure no one is in the line of sight. Now hold the shotgun at the ready, and walk thru your home. Are there obstructions to be concerned about ?

None of this is written to make anyone NOT get a shotgun. Or to use one they may already have. As I started with, the best weapon for self defense is the one you have.

But those who think that a shotgun is BETTER for home defense than a reliable pistol are usually overlooking many factors. Shotguns have to be aimed. Shotguns can be taken away at close quarters. Shotguns are difficult to wield with one hand.

There's a reason that cops don't carry them around all the time. Pistols are usually (not always) preferred for many reasons.

As always, practice regularly and be safe.

Posted by 1charlie2 | June 28, 2008 10:20 AM

Homer, Megan, whomever

re: women, firearms, purses.

If they must carry in their purse, and given fashion and women's physiognomy that's not difficult to understand, there are quality holster purses available. The Galco Pandora comes to mind immediately. If a woman spends $XXX on shoes (I won't hazard a guess at how much), a couple hundred for a high-quality holster-purse for her handgun shouldn't be too shocking. Magills has a good selection.

Posted by 1charlie2 | June 28, 2008 11:01 AM

Miriam,

re: Mace, OC, etc.

It's effectiveness depends on usage, context and determination. A good faceful against an opportunity attacker, followed by bravely running away at top speed, might be a good choice.

As one who has had a faceful of police-issue OC (in a training exercise, thank you), it certainly is painful, makes it difficult to breath, hard to see straight, and it would be a good anti-Viagra for any decent man. If nothing else, I'd be hard pressed to breath well enough to run any distance after a womam sprinting away to safety.

Note that "sprinting away." Do NOT stick around to see the results of your handiwork. The effects are not permanent, and of variable effectiveness. It's buying you time to exit stage left.

On the other hand, if a friend's ex has sworn to kill her, I would not recommend it. I was OCd thoroughly years ago, given 15 seconds for it to take full effect (and it DOES, believe me), and I then drew and fired at a B25 (police target) from 21 feet. I won't embararass myself by reporting my score, which frankyl sucked since I was mostly seeing blurry/double at that time, but ALL. SEVEN. SHOTS. HIT. THE. TARGET.

The purpose of the demonstration, which began with police officers laughing at my plight when I was OC'd, was to demonstrate why they should NEVER rely on less-than-lethal weapons in a lethal situation.

After all 7 shots went home, no one was laughing.

Last hint -- do NOT "brandish" OC at criminals. Keep it concealed in your hand until it's used. Many criminals have previously been OC'd, They'll close their eyes or turn their face if they think you're going to use it. They know it's survivable. Conversely, the effect is much greater if used as a surprise.

Posted by 1charlie2 | June 28, 2008 11:19 AM

Sorry, my comment is for Susan from Texas, I know that everyone pretty much deconstructed her craziness already, but they missed a couple of things.

Even though every single one of her points compared things that do not even equate to each other, the final statement was the most profound to me. Think "hamster" equals "bucket truck."

She ended with "Guns aren't a fashion accessory."

I guess that means that women are not even remotely concerned about their individual safety, they just want to look good while getting assaulted or raped. That in itself seems to be very insulting to women in general. Yeah, the misinformed Leftists really care about problem solving.

Posted by Two Dogs | June 28, 2008 6:52 PM

I am a woman, a Texan, and a CHL holder. I am also a student of Krav Maga (google if you've never heard of it - it ROCKS) as are BOTH of my daughters (now 17 and 11) at **MY** insistence.

I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to raise daughters who think like victims. For me, this means being willing and able to use any and all means to secure my own safety and protection with or without the help of a man. To me, this is what being a feminist means.

A gun is just another tool. I don't even carry most days, only when I'm under threat (as I have been due to helping friends out of domestic violence) or are going into areas of town that aren't friendly or going out at night. Or traveling. But having that tool available to me is important, and I will fight to keep that right.

Incidentally, a purse is a useless (not to mention insecure) place to carry unless you keep it on your person all the time (and who REALLY does that?) And hydroshock loads not only have more stopping power, they don't tend to penetrate walls. So a handgun can make a great home defence weapon, though I'll admit the sound of a racking Mossberg is impressive for an intruder. (One more tool, you know.)

So I agree that it *is* a feminist issue. Not everyone will choose to carry, but we should have the right.

Posted by TheAntiChick | June 29, 2008 5:35 PM

In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense.

That is interesting but beside the point. What is important is how often women used a handgun to avoid rape or murder. Killing is just one way to use a gun in self defense. By not counting any others you present a false picture.

BTW a similar con job is the stat that a handgun in the home is three (10?) times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

OTOH your bathtub is probably 100 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. So by that measure a handgun in the home is somewhere between 10 to 30 times safer than a bathtub.

Posted by Abdul Abulbul Amir | June 30, 2008 12:04 PM

Here in Boston, you need a Firearm ID to carry anything -- pepper spray, mace, etc. The waiting time for a license can exceed 6 months -- if you ever get one. I suppose I am expected to defend myself with my quick wit and a knee to the groin. Good luck to me.

Posted by M | June 30, 2008 6:43 PM

It seems to me that maybe we should look at what's happening in the real world.

Do women buy handguns at a higher rate than men do?

If not, easy availability of handguns does not benefit women. Never mind what they *should* be doing; economics isn't about what should be, it's about what *is*.

And if easy availablity of hanguns doesn't benefit women I don't see how it could be said to be a feminist issue.

Posted by Cat Faber | June 30, 2008 7:59 PM

Cat - That's a fairly silly argument. If women buy less guns then men that doesn't mean that women don't benefit from the guns. Some women do buy guns and they benefit. And presumably the women with more need for guns are more likely to get them then the women with less.

Also its not like all men are criminals, women can benefit from non-criminal men having guns. And greater restrictions on guns would be likely to cause a relative shift of guns to the criminal types, as they don't reduce their ownership nearly as much as more law abiding individuals.

Its not a feminist issue in that its an issue that gives all women more power against men, but its a feminist issue in the broader sense that it helps women to become more equal in regards to violent confrontations if they see the need to do so, and they put the effort in to get a gun and get trained in its use.

Posted by Tim Fowler | July 1, 2008 11:30 AM

I have to laugh at the folk who talk about the need for self defense, then earnestly tell us how important it is to train and carefully handle guns.
Lets face it, in the real world, the average gun buyer is going to buy a cool looking gun, buy ammunition, load the gun, put it in his bedside dresser, and think: home defense problem solved.
No way is he going bother with going to the gun range, training, etc, unless forced to. Why should he? He knows how to fire a gun; after all, he saw "Dirty Harry" five times.
I had a friend who was cleaning his .38 revolver when to his surprise, the gun went off and drilled the bullet went into the next apartment. It's doofuses like that who will be the vast majority of new gun owners. Think of what will happen if guys like that had fully automatic AK 47s to play away.
That's real world.

Posted by stonetools | July 1, 2008 9:49 PM

This is a really interesting set of comments, although it seems like a lot of commenters could work harder to understand the other side.

Personally, I'm torn.

People like 1charlie2 and TheAntiChick strike me as people I'm very comfortable having guns, as many as they like. Like stonetools, it's the rest of the American public that worries me.

I'd have a much easier time getting behind people pushing for broader gun rights if they were simultaneously pushing for at least as much training and testing as we do for cars, and hopefully a fair bit more.

Posted by William | July 2, 2008 2:20 AM

But until human nature has improved so radically that grievous bodily harm has passed from living memory, I don't understand why more feminists don't push for widespread gun ownership.

Because the problem is MEN, you silly goose! God forbid that women should have to change ANYTHING like learning how to protect themselves! I mean, if women actually had to hurt people to protect themselves, then they'd lose the moral ground of being the "gentle gender"!

The vast majority of feminist arguments that I've seen advocate replacing "the evil patriarchy" with an even bigger even grander "evil patriarchy" which will take care of them... rather than women taking care of themselves. Wage gap? Have the government/patriarchy take care of it rather than finding was to earn higher wages! Etc., etc.

Posted by Demonspawn | July 2, 2008 5:11 PM

stonetools - re: "Lets face it, in the real world, the average gun buyer is going to buy a cool looking gun, buy ammunition, load the gun, put it in his bedside dresser, and think: home defense problem solved."

Quite a large number of gun owners do recieve at least some degree of training with their firearms.

Also its not like they serve no useful self defense function without training and range time, its only that such training greatly increases the self defense utility of (and the safety of) having the weapon.

It's doofuses like that who will be the vast majority of new gun owners.

"some of" not "the vast majority of"

Posted by Tim Fowler | July 2, 2008 7:20 PM

What it all comes down to is that if women are going to carry a handgun (and they should) they need to get out and shoot the gun, get familiar with the gun and get good self-defense training with the gun they own. If they do so it is unlikely the gun would be taken and used against them. Shame to anyone who is trying to get guns out of the people's hands, gun control is just going to get more innocent people killed by gang members or criminals who wouldn't care if guns were made illegal when they get their guns through black market or stealing them anyway. Gun Control is Bogus!

P.S. If the second amendment gets taken away from the people all are rights are sure to get thrown out too! Thats when America takes a nose dive right into Communism. This would be all thanks to the idiotic gun control freaks. Oh yeah I bet the first time a gun control activist's house gets robbed by gun point I guarantee they wished they had a gun in the house to protect themselves.

Posted by Mike Cookson | July 9, 2008 12:26 PM