My whole point here is this. Men can kill women almost easily; the tool doesn't matter much to men, and if no tool is available, they'll just beat the wife to death. Women on the other hand, must almost certainly use some sort of tool to kill a man because they are inherently weaker.

So I cannot understand why so many women's groups continue to support restrictive gun laws, when women are the ones who would benefit MOST from having a gun available to them to help save their life? How many times to you read of a woman being killed, after calling 911? This happens far too often. A restraining order is only as good as the restrainee makes it, in some cases worthless. The best tool for self defense is a handgun - this is why police use them.

When a judge issues a restraining order, they should also IMMEDIATELY issue her a handgun permit, and give her instructions and a handgun. Then issue instructions to them both, saying "If he comes within range of you and this pistol, use it." No man is going to even come near her and start harassing her. They may be violent brutes, but for the most part they are self-centered cowards who aren't going to risk their own lives.

Were the lives of the 626 women murdered over this period not worthy enough? Is this what society is telling women today? Paper protection is no protection. Stand up and DEMAND your right to armed self defense.

If there are guns in the house, chances are the abuser knows about them, and is probably the one who owns them and controls them. If a woman is in a relationship so abusive that she feels she needs a gun to protect herself, chances are she would have left the relationshop by then. I know it sounds wacky, but there you go.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Secret Agent Style ]

I have to say, my first reaction was utter shock. My second reaction was 'no way in hell'. Why arm the perpetrator to better help kill or maim me?

One potential argument could be that feminist groups have more on the agenda than simply protecting absused women.

Perhaps they are interested in making Canada a less violent society overall. Perhaps they are interested in increasing the likelihood of having their sons survive through adolescence.

But, I also have to agree with the other poster, who suggested that if a woman feels that she needs a gun to protect herself from her partner, she should probably leave that partner.

The guy is out of the house or she is out of the house, and she is carrying the gun on her person so he's not going to get it. Violence begets violence? What kind of argument is that? How about the threat of being shot means the guy never goes near her again, or in the best case scenario - gets killed. Who would you rather see living - the abuser or the woman? So for a less violent society, you must be willing to let only the men be violent, is that it? Is defending your life promoting violence? SAS, your point is just plain false. Are you making that up?

There's nothing cynical in my argument. Police generally aren't mugged or raped or beaten to death at the same rate as the civilian female population. Why? Respect for authority? Not. Dashing uniform? Uh uh. Because they are armed and fully able to counter just about any attacker. My goal is to empower women with the responsibility for their own protection. Call 911 and hope that the dispatcher decides you need help immediately. Then pray that there is a police unit available. Hope they get to you in time while angry Mr. X smashes down your door . . .

Any good screenwriter would be ashamed to propose a scene like that, because nobody over the age of three would believe it.

In fact, people who want to attack and don't even know you have a gun are still not likely to give you fair warning. Even that three year old knows it's the nature of violence, especially when committed by cowards--like, say, abusive men--to be sudden and out of the blue.

So that leaves the handgun for other uses. Like attacking people. Bravo.

The police argument is at least an amusing piece of work.

Again, a limited, regressive personal agenda is conveniently linked to a progressive cause, as if they share the same values.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

most women and feminist men understand the wide ranging, global social justice issues that create the conditions for violence against women.

there is no use arming women against men, just as there is no use in arming countries against each other. it only escalates and creates tragedy and horror for everyone.

every time that a gun is purchased, an arms company makes money and gains power.

over 1 trillion dollars a year is made in the arms trade.
why would feminists support that?

feminism is ultimately about making the world a more humane and graceful place for everyone.
feminism is inclusive and optimistic.

Gamil Gharbi (Marc Lepine), the misogynist son of an immigrant Algerian wife-beater, had issues with feminists. The fact that he used a rifle, and not gasoline bombs, poison, or explosives to kill them is irrelevant. The issue was and is how to identify and deal with hatred of women. It's not about the guns, it's about the violence. Until we stop focusing on the tool we will not be any better off.

And wouldn't it have been much better if just one of the hundred or so people around Lepine at the time had been armed, and stopped it before it began, as we saw at that Virginia law school?

Women are murdered by knives in large proportions; are knives now anathema to women? Why not?

Self defense, with or without weapons, is a basic human right, which this gov't has stolen from every one of us. In a utopian's world without guns, men can still easily kill women. We need to change minds, attitudes, behaviours, in order to stop the hatred and the violence. The money wasted on the gun registry could have funded women's shelters, marriage counselling, support groups, protective services, psychologists, and research into what makes these murderous thugs tick.

Check out Pink Pistols, a handgun defense group for gays and lesbians. I love their slogan "Armed gays don't get bashed". Liberty Belles, for women. Also Second Amendment Sisters. And keepandbeararms.com to see daily news reports of people saving their own lives by using guns. You'll never see those stories in the MSM, but it will open your eyes as to how much goes on. The safest States you will visit have CCW laws; the most murders occur in the cities/counties with strict gun 'bans'. The worst massacres occur where people have been purposely and specifically disarmed. Check out John Lott and Dave Koppell. The Canadian research comes from Barry Mauser of SFU.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spitfire:

And wouldn't it have been much better if just one of the hundred or so people around Lepine at the time had been armed, and stopped it before it began, as we saw at that Virginia law school?

---

That depends. Would having homicide rates equivalent to the United States be "much better"? Would someone drawing their gun and provoking Lepine to start shooting earlier have been "much better"?

quote:

---

Self defense, with or without weapons, is a basic human right

---

Um, actually it isn't. Human rights include such trivialities as housing, education, freedom from persecution, equality before the law. You know, that sort of lefty stuff.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

And, um, spitfire, weren't you asked to keep out of the feminist forum?

quote:

---

Originally posted by spitfire:
The best tool for self defense is a handgun - this is why police use them.

Stand up and DEMAND your right to armed self defense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by spitfire:
Keep an eye on the newspapers as I have done for the past several years, and you'll see an ugly pattern. Woman leaves husband. Man threatens her. Woman gets restraining order. Man shows up one day (at work, at church, at school, at daycare) and kills her. Or she's on the phone with the 911 operator as the dispatcher hears her screams as she's murdered before police get there.

---

Spitfire asks "why don't feminists support handguns." First off, many do. I am a feminist and I support handgun ownership (but I also respect the progressive nature of this board, so I won't be discussing that opinion! ) I got great target instruction from a self-identified feminist at a pro-feminist women's retreat. It's not uncommon. There there are many pro-feminist organizations working to educate women about gun ownership and use. It's a big deal in gun circles. This thread title simply isn't true.

I'm troubled my much of what spitfire wrote, but I do think this is an interesting question. Given the scenario described above, which I agree is not uncommon, why would a woman not promote handgun ownership?

Guns don't solve problems. They certainly don't solve any problems for women, nor do they solve the problem described above. Like I said, I'm pro-gun. But I would never in a million years promote gun ownership as a feminist principle, or think that relaxed gun laws would result in less violence against women.

Why might a woman be opposed to handgun ownership?

Because women are tired of gun violence that kills our children.

Because women are tired of gun violence directed towards their fellow women.

Because women have traditionally been disenfranchised from gun culture.

Because owning a gun stil won't protect you from someone who is hell-bent on harming you and has a gun of his own.

Because women correctly worry that a gun could be removed and turned against them by a physically stronger and more experienced assailant.

Because we all want a world where handguns aren't necessary.

Because it would be so much easier to stop the situation above before it escalates to gun violence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spitfire:
And wouldn't it have been much better if just one of the hundred or so people around Lepine at the time had been armed, and stopped it before it began, as we saw at that Virginia law school?

---

Specifically predicting when people are going to snap and go on a shooting rampage is impossible, so the only way for your argument to work would be to arm everyone everywhere, and with that mix of weapons, that only invites potential for greater violence and bloodshed.

Look. Some people just really, really like guns. I suspect that's the main reason why they want no restrictions on them. The other stuff about guns' supposed effectiveness against surprise attacks--say, in the home, where such a large percentage of sudden violent attacks occur, and among people who know each other--or the supposed freedom of an armed citizenry, etc., I think it's all secondary, and mainly self-serving. Though they may believe their own propaganda, I really think the bottom line is that people who like guns so very much just want to have the damned things. Moreover, they live, as we all do, in a consumer society where it is expected that all wants should be gratified without restriction or delay, as a quasi, implied right. (It just hasn't been written down yet.) In fact, with shopping recently elevated to a patriotic duty south of the border, and the likes of the NRA apparently doing so well linking guns and patriotism, this object has arguably come to mean the Holy Grail of consumer freedom. Given all this, the persistant thwarting of the desire to go out and buy an assault weapon in Canada must be especially galling.

[ 08 July 2006: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freecanuck:
Despite what Rambo wannabes will tell you, having a gun makes you no more armed than having a piano makes you a musician.

---

Yes, I agree.

quote:

---

But as silly as just telling someone to get a gun is, the polar opposite, telling someone it will be taken away and be used against you.
With proper mindset( and training) this is almost impossible.

---

With proper mindset, training, and experience, I agree. The reality, however, is that the assailant usually has better mindset and experience.

I agree that in a perfect world everyone who carried a handgun would be thoroughly trained and would be mentally prepared to use it to do harm to another person, but in reality that's rare. Lots of people get guns for the reasons spitfire outlines above, stash them in their purse/pocket and feel much safer, giving no thought to training or mindset. I believe that the presence of a handgun in that situation is more likely to harm the owner than help her -- it is likely to be taken away if its owner has little training, no experience, and the wrong mindset. And that meshes with everything that I've been taught over the years.

That's why I reject hangun ownership as a solution to violence against women, desptite being generally in favor of gun ownership.

[ 09 July 2006: Message edited by: v michel ]

I don't own a firearm, despite being gun-positive. Sure, I worry about assault. But it would be irresponsible of me to carry a gun unless I was mentally and emotionally prepared to use it. The fact is, most of the time I am not. I could get into that place, I am sure, if I needed to. If I had a specific concern for my safety, then I would definitely carry in the situations where I had that concern (and do what I needed to do mentally to prepare myself to use it). But my fear of assault is general. It is a possibility 24/7. I don't want to carry a gun 24/7, and be in that zone 24/7. So for me, I feel it's safer to do without a gun and rely on the other self-defense tactics you mention than to carry. Arming myself isn't safe, and it isn't a solution to my general vulnerability to violence.

I am curious what you think of that, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by morningstar:
spitfire---get better educated about
your version of 'the real world' is not going to change anything for the better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:
Why might a woman be opposed to handgun ownership?

Because women are tired of gun violence that kills our children.

Because women are tired of gun violence directed towards their fellow women.

Because women have traditionally been disenfranchised from gun culture.

Because owning a gun stil won't protect you from someone who is hell-bent on harming you and has a gun of his own.

Because women correctly worry that a gun could be removed and turned against them by a physically stronger and more experienced assailant.

Because we all want a world where handguns aren't necessary.

Because it would be so much easier to stop the situation above before it escalates to gun violence.

---