Legalize carrying guns... but only for women!

Great Debates
1

Hehehe. I think that title is sufficiently inflammatory, yeah?

Anyway, this is one of my patented “half joking, half serious” posts. I hope that A) you get a laugh out of my sillyness and B) maybe you actually consider what I’m saying. I also hope that I will enrage and offend both the NRA-loving gun nuts and the “ban 'em all” gun-control types. I enjoy offending both extremes in an argument.
So, here’s my proposal: We do a sweeping, national-wide
legalization of the right to carry concealed handguns - but only for women.

Why only women? Well, because I think the stereotype is that it’s generally men who abuse guns. (Possibly this stereotype is even correct - I don’t have any figures to back that up though.) So let’s give all the chicks guns and see what happens. ;]

Also, one of main arguments that gun rights supporters make (and personally I think it’s a valid one) is that people should have the right to self-defense. People who are for gun control generally get nervous about the idea of letting people carry guns for self-defense because they’re very easy to abuse. But check this - when was the last time you remember a women (or even a girl) shooting someone? Seems to me like it’s almost always men. There’s also the perception (and again, I don’t know if it’s true or not) that women either won’t or can’t fight against men, so they have a larger need for other means of self-defense.
So, what do you think? What would happen if we did this? Am I just full of crap? Why?
-Ben

2

Well you start a new topic in Great Debates for the main purpose of “offending both extremes in an argument”, (and, I gather, to be silly.)

You refer to women as “chicks” in same said post.

You throw out several “perceptions” or “notions” with no credible evidence to support them

Perhaps this belongs in IMHO or some other forum.

Perhaps the answer to your last question is self evident.

3

So much for equal protection under the law…

Maybe we should only let whites vote.

Only homosexuals can use the roads.

Only blacks can hold office.

Only people over 50 can own land.

4

I find it somewhat ironic that Freedom speaks of equal rights.

5

Implications:

TV ads emphasizing the fashion statement and inherent femininity of certain firearms. No caliber above .32 after Labor Day.

TV ad excerpt
Young Woman and her Mother, sharing a moment of iner-generational wisdom …

“Mom, do you ever have those times when you feel…(embarassed pause)…you know…not so bloodthirsty?”

Mary Kay Ammunition

The Glock Boutique

“Look at her! She simply mustn’t wear horizontal stripes and a snub-nose revolver”

“Is my gun-butt too big?”

You’ll see a woman driving, fumbling around in her purse and then looking intently in the rear view mirror as she presses a bullet to her lips. Stops, frowns, fumbles around some more, retrieves lipstick.

Road PMS will be featured on news magazines.

“Look, ok, so I flipped her off when she took a left turn from the service road. I figured she’d honk her horn, but the crazy BLEEP opened fire…”
All in all, like most really bad ideas, rather amusing.

6

Freedom wrote:

Only people over 21 can drink alcohol. … Oh, wait a minute…

7

elucidator wrote:

Gives “Lady Remington” a whole new meaning, doesn’t it?

(That would be funny, except Smith & wesson really does produce a brand named LadySmith, as evidenced by http://www.smith-wesson.com/women/index.html. I was disappointed to see that the gun selection didn’t include anything with a pink handgrip. :wink: )

8

Well, we already have the GUN BRA!

:smiley:

Actually, I think it would be worse. All kidding aside, I remember in high school-women were viscious.

9

Not to mention “a pair of 38’s”.

Which I certainly wouldn’t.

10

T’hell with the guns… I think we should legalize the carrying of swords. Broadswords, cutlasses, rapiers, katanas, short swords, scimitars… imagine the Utopian society this would lead to, with everyone carrying a sword about with them, on their backs or dangling from their wastes.

Gangfighting would sure get interesting THEN, I guarantee it…

11

Ya! Drive by Head Lopping!

12

???

13

elucidator wrote:

Gives me an idea as to why it’s called a .38 special…

14

I read a science fiction short story where this was the case. NOBODY was allowed to own a firearm except for women, and even they had to have extensive psychiatric testing first.

15

I think we can all agree that all the best policy decisions are based on stereotypes. :rolleyes:

About 2 months ago, at a Catholic middle school in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, a day or so after the Santee shootings.

16

I have seen the argument made that women’s groups should be pro-gun, because an armed woman can stand up against an man, even if he’s stronger.

17

Well, the idea isn’t without its flaws, certanly. Besides the obvious equal protection under the law problems (which are HUGE), there’s also the fact that, I think in general, women are inclined to take firearms less seriously than men. Well, maybe “less seriously” is the wrong word, let me explain…

Guys who have guns, in general, think guns are cool. This attitude may be misguided, but even so it tends to instill in them a certain amount of respect, or at least desire to understand, firearms. Whereas, I think women who have guns (again, in general) are more inclined to treat guns like appliances. More like the way they are stereotypically thought of treating cars.

I’m generalizing tons here, of course. I know that, at the very least our own Anthracite is both a gun and car freak, and I bet she can recite the displacement of her car’s engine and the caliber of her guns in her sleep. And there are plenty of guys who don’t know a dipstick from a tension rod bushing, and plenty of male gun phobes too.

But, to get back to the stereotypes, I think one actual downside to having lots of women carrying guns around might be that they might treat their firearms more casually than a man would. Now, I think on average a woman is also a lot less likely to go off and do some bullshit macho thing with a gun. But she also might forget to put the safety on before she puts it in her purse. I think, in general, a guy might leave the safety off intentionally (stupid), but only very rarely would he just space it and forget.
So one thing I think would be absolutely necessary, if my rather preposterous OQ were to be enacted, is a gun safety training course. Basically, a “this is how not to shoot yourself in the foot” lesson.

What do you think of that?
-Ben

18

Oh dear. Where do I begin?

ModernRonin2, um, I have MAJOR problems with your stereotyping women viewing guns as “appliances” and not having the proper respect for them, and I think you really need to RETHINK the the logical flaws in the position you just posted. Stereotypes indeed.

Now admittedly, I am a woman, I don’t know anything about cars or guns, and I can be quite ditzy about a lot of things, but I do know one thing: If I ever get a gun, I WILL HAVE THE PROPER RESPECT FOR AN INSTRUMENT THAT CAN CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO EITHER MYSELF OR TO OTHERS, not to mention if improperly used–If I murder someone–that may send me to jail for life or get me executed. Basically my attitude toward guns mirrors one I heard an ex of mine voice. He said: “If I pull it out and take off the safety, I’m going to use it. There will be no bluffing or stalling. I’m going to use it, and I’m going to shoot to ensure that the other guy can’t shoot back.” And since I think that way about guns, I will never own or use one because as much as I RESPECT guns, I RESPECT LIFE more. I abhor violence of any kind. I think that people who opt to own guns SHOULD EDUCATE themselves on how they work, how to clean them safely, AND HOW TO KEEP THEM HIDDEN FROM LITTLE CHILDREN who do not understand how dangerous these weapons are. I also think that if a woman opts to get a gun she needs to make sure she knows other means of self-defense because to rely on a gun can give one a false sense of security. The thing to keep in mind is that whatever weapon you carry, there is always the possibility that it could be taken away from you. So women in particular need to be ready to defend themselves if that situation should arise.

I think the most interesting thing you said in that last post was that there should be a training program for anyone who buys guns. I don’t know if this is already a requirement in the process of getting a gun license and buying a gun. I really doubt it is, and if this is the case, then perhaps it should be.

19

The way to keep kids safe around guns isn’t to hide them–an inquisitive child is going to find pretty much anything eventually–but to teach them about safety with them, what they can do when careless with them, etc. (Speaking of children here, not toddlers and barely out-of-toddlerhood kids.) I spent quite a lot of childhood time plinking at empty cans with an air rifle, then later a .22, and was never in danger of shooting myself or others.

Mostly, gun safety is so absurdly easy a concept that people who don’t know guns find it hard to accept, but it all boils down to one basic thing: the weapon is always loaded. It’s always loaded if you’re holding it. It’s always loaded even if it was empty when you picked up, loaded six rounds, and fired off six rounds–because it wasn’t empty when you picked it up, it was loaded then, too. About the only time it’s ever not loaded is when it’s disassembled all over the tabletop on newspapers being cleaned–and even then, that’s dubious. The weapon is always loaded. Treat it in a manner that flows from that–don’t touch the trigger till you’re ready to fire, regardless of what state you think it’s really in (because regardless of state in reality, it’s always loaded), always keep the business end pointed at either what you intend to shoot, or something you’re prepared to deal with the consequences of having shot–and there you go. That’s gun safety.

Too much of popular culture, movies and such, treat guns as mysterious things, somehow sexy and cool. I’d like to see properly supervised riflery sections in school phys ed programs, actually, to counteract that guns-are-mysterious-and-cool thing, but it’ll never happen–I can just picture media op-eds and attack lawyers going into orbit from the sheer velocity of the kittens they’d be having.

What an idiotically macho posturing statement. It’s that kind of nonsense that poisons many peoples’ attitudes to guns for self-defense. Self-defense is just that–the goal of it is to keep oneself intact, not be Dirty Harry.

I’m also reminded of a great bit in a show called “Sledge Hammer”, which died a tragic, too-early death (among other things, it committed the cardinal sin of not having a laugh track). Titular character, the not-too-bright supercop Sledge looks importantly at the camera, drawing his Dirty Harry .44 Magnun Hand Cannon and displaying it proudly to the camera:

“NEVER draw your weapon unless you intend to use it.”
He starts to move to reholster it, then looks at it, looks at the camera, looks back at it, and fires a round up into the ceiling, plaster raining down in a powdery shower as he only then reholsters with an embarassed shrug.

20

Celestina said:

He said: “If I pull it out and take off the safety, I’m going to use it. There will be no bluffing or stalling. I’m going to use it, and I’m going to shoot to ensure that the other guy can’t shoot back.”

Drastic’s reply:

“What an idiotically macho posturing statement. It’s that kind of nonsense that poisons many peoples’ attitudes to guns for self-defense. Self-defense is just that–the goal of it is to keep oneself intact, not be Dirty Harry.”

Well of course it’s a stupid way to look at self-defense, unless you live in the 'hood where gang violence is rampant; OR if you’re in a gang, where violence and breathing or not breathing go hand in hand; OR if you live in a war-torn country and even in those situations shooting people with guns is still stupid. Unfortuately, that’s reality. There are people out there who own guns who view guns in the “macho” manner of my ex. I’m against guns because I don’t like violence and killing, AND I don’t think that shooting someone or engaging in any other kind of violent behavior is the best way to either defend yourself or to settle a dispute because once the dust settles you still have to deal with the original problem and/or several new problems that result as a consequence of killing someone.

I told you my ex’s statement out of the context of the original conversation where we were talking about the reality of gun use versus the romantic notions of it that you see on tv. My ex told me his philosophy on guns actually as a way of debunking the romantic depictions of gun use that we see on tv, for example on the cop shows where there is a hostage situation and the actors pull out guns and bluff with them but don’t shoot. It’s not a realistic way of looking at how guns are used. If you see someone in the park, mall, at school, in church, or basically anywhere pull out a gun, you’d best assume that they are going to shoot and probably shoot to kill. In that case, I’m going to get the hell out of there–or certainly out of range!–if I possibly can. I’m not going to consider that s/he may be bluffing or do not intend any harm, and I’m not going to pull out a gun and try to defend myself with it because most likely I’ll get shot. I may get shot while I’m running or while I’m ducking for cover, but I’d rather take my chances with that than have to deal with the awful reality that even though I was defending myself, I took another person’s life. I know there are other people out there who love guns and know how to take care of them who are less-tenderhearted than I am and who have no problems with the possibility that in defending themselves, they had to kill someone. Fine. I just know that for me I couldn’t deal with it. I guess I’ve rambled on to say that if you’re going to own a gun, then consider carefully what an awful responsibility that gun represents.

On another note, Drastic, I like your simple tip on gun safety. Thanks for posting that “a gun is always loaded.” As simple as it is, I think it’s something that people lose sight of far too frequently for comfort.