Perceived safety is important and is an issue to deal with, but it is not the same thing as actual physical safety. Both must be dealt with.
To use the trans references already in this thread, telling trans people that they have a life expectancy in their 30s and that they have high risk of being attacked and killed, well - not shockingly, there is significant evidence that it causes higher rates of depression, anxiety, and a lot of other issues and some evidence that it's connected with the disturbingly high suicide rates. All of those perceived risks are not true in the UK, that does not stop their view of safety to be truly negatively affecting people's well-being. An open conversation about the actual physical safety issues while not dismissing the effects of the perceptions and their impact is important.
It also goes the other way. I read writings a while ago by women who trained in martial arts who were sexually assaulted or raped. There was a lot of discussion in their writing on how much they shamed and blamed themselves for not being able to fight them off because they feel they should have been able to do so. Many wrote about how this perception impacted their depression and identity. They had the skills everyone says should keep them safe, they were meant to be safe, but...and the same will likely be true with guns. Being honest about the limits of any protective preventative method is important as well because, in the end, while our perceptions of safety do impact how we interact with the world, our feelings won't protect us in the end and likely neither will guns for most people. It takes a lot of practice and training to use any of these under emergency conditions and even then it is not a guarantee. We need in place far better for safety than a gun can give us.
And, being tongue in cheek here, if you want to use Americans culture to justify the idea of only women having guns, you better take into account the multiple American communities that have a 'we take care of our own business' attitude. Does it not concern you at all whatnow123 that there are so many country songs celebrating women murdering men, sometimes simply for the men being accused of cheating? Gotta say, my American childhood certainly had quite a few violent women who, even the ones who hate that type of music, found those songs inspirational and no qualms discussing what they'd do to a man who crossed the line...and I know at least one of them tried.
whatnow123 do you really think women so infantile that we'd only ever use weapons to react rather than act out ourselves? I've seen no evidence to back that up. And if we're going by physical weakness and likelihood to be attacked, what about disabled people of both sexes? How about for dealing with elder abuse? What about children - one of the highest risk groups for abuse...how does your plan cope when the mother is violent, when it's the mother hurting the child or trying to get the child to hurt/kill themself or others? I've seen all of that and I would really rather not see that with guns involved.
Weapons don't reduce violence, they don't level the playing field, it does not equalize, they just give an advantage to those who have the ability and will to use them. That's not everyone and it certainly won't just be women who use them for self defense even if only women could legally get guns. Men would still get access either through trusting relationships with women or by force and some women are murderous assholes. While I get the appeal of guns to some, I don't think it's the solution to this due to the limits and risks of guns - if it did solve this or any other issue, the US would be a very different place. Really, I think any preventative weapon/fight-based measure will have more flaws that will backfire than benefits. It will work for some, but it won't for many more.
I'm all for bare arms though. My spotty arms are usually hidden in a fleece or denim shirts instead. I seem to keep sprouting new moles and more spots on my arms and shoulders now than I ever did as a teenager.