Give women guns

Via an email from Mike B. I found out about this article in the NY Times. Once you get over the cringe factor of the improper grip of the gun that has me wanting to find a box of band-aids just from looking at the picture you find an anti-gun person proposing an interesting experiment:

I propose curbing gun violence not by further restricting the availability of guns but by expanding and reorienting it. Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Never mind all the facts he gets wrong like “men would still be forbidden” (emphasis mine), his belief in the existence of “safe guns”, etc. I find it exceedingly interesting that an admitted anti-gun advocate is willing to consider experimental data in the formation of gun policy. And furthermore that he would suggest arming those that are more likely to be in need of arms. He seems to actually get the concept but just needs some more data to convince himself of the efficacy of the RKBA.

Of course such an experiment would be illegal in forbidding men to be armed and perhaps requiring women to be armed (they are required to wear clothes in public so how is it different to require they be armed?). But it does bring up delightful thoughts of proposing such experiments to other anti-gun people to see how they handle such a curve ball thrown at them.


3 thoughts on “Give women guns

  1. How is this a “curve ball” for antis? In my experience this is one of the most essential arguments going for the Second Amendment: putting personal protection technology and skills into the hands of people who are usually slated for prey status. I commented on the NYT blog–thanks for pointing it out, I don’t read the NYT much, and I’m sure they won’t post my comment.

    When I advocate for RKBA–as the liberal of your nightmares (though I’ll bet we’d get along great at the range, especially because I shoot better than you)–the examples I use are from my own experience confined to a wheelchair, a freethinker (and Daughter of the American Revolution), who has loved both women and men, in my 70s. I went to candy-ass “self defense” training in my 30s and couldn’t believe what a bunch of nonsense it was. Spray your rapist with spices, then throw up on him, then beg him to wear a condom. Yeah, right–that’s gonna happen.

    We RKBA people have got to learn to pull together, or the corporations and Congress millionaires and affirmative action/Whitman’s Sampler Supreme Courtists are going to make it impossible for law abiding citizens to protect ourselves. To put it another way, you can be a Neanderthal all you want, dood…but I will cover your back if you cover mine when we go up against the NYT. 😀

    In my experience, “antis” are people who’ve been really really privileged…and also vicious in their own way. They think bad things always happen to those OTHER people. They think that victimization is superior to strength. But I also know that there are way more 2A liberals than anybody knows.

    By the way, that photo also made me cringe. OUCH!

    Thanks for reading.

  2. It’s a curve ball for them because it empowers victims (at least more likely to be victims) in a way that makes it difficult for them to decline the experiment.

    I don’t know any liberals that are nightmares for me. I get annoyed with people that want the government to exceed the constitutional boundaries without constitional amendments. But that isn’t confined to just liberals.

    Anytime you want to go to the range and demonstrate how much better a shooter you are than I am name your terms and let me know… 🙂

  3. It’s a curve ball for antis because they generally refuse to recognize guns in the hands of serfs as being useful for any beneficial purpose (hunters are blood-thirsty and cruel to animals, and self defense gun owners are either paranoid or they’re itching for an excuse to kill someone).

    I’ve read probably a couple million or more words on gun forums over the years and I don’t recall anyone coming right out and saying they were a better shooter than someone else. I’m sure it happens, but it’s that rare. Posting photos of targets, or IPSC times/scores sure, but that’s different in that it carries some level of objectivity with it. Almost universally, rather than an “I’m better than you” statement, people are sharing the joy they derive from doing something well even if it’s not up to world-class shooters’ standards.

Comments are closed.