The right to bare arms.....for women only

[whatnow123]

As a man reading some of these threads, the fear women have of male violence is greater than I realised.

Is a 2nd amendment, for women, a solution?

Pro gun women in America say the gun is the great equaliser. They say it makes them safer. I think it's a good argument.

I don't want to carry a gun. Not least for the safety aspect of being a mother and then having a gun in my home which my child could potentially access and have a fatal incident with. It's bad enough keeping out of reach things like calpol... not sure where I would store one to be of any use to me whatsoever should I require it. I'm not going to have time to get out a ladder and unlock a cupboard am I?!

Simplest solution: men take the responsibility for NOT attacking women.

Guns create the illusion of safety but not the thing itself.

Years ago I had a Great Dane. So did my up the street a block neighbor and my down the block neighbor. We used to take our evening walkies together along with my Siamese cat.
When there was a spate of burglaries in the area it was as though there were an invisible barrier around our blocks that all the neighbors credited the dogs for. I think they were afraid of the cat myself. She was a fierce guard cat.

I have often thought of getting a shotgun now that I live alone out in the woods but have never done so. Maybe someday I will.

Lots of people having guns may make some of those people feel safer, but it does so at the expense of everyone actually being less safe. So no, this is a stupid idea. Work on getting men to be less violent instead.

I always feel that all these ideas about ways women can protect themselves can so easily be tipped into blaming the woman for whatever happened to her. This one, for example could become 'but you had a gun, why didn't you use it?'
These are just ways to absolve violent men of responsibility as though their assaults are like a rainstorm and a gun is the umbrella.

No.

Anyone else thinking this is an attempt to get us all the say we want to be carrying Uzis around and mowing down men, and especially transpeople? So they can screenshot us and say, look those terfs really are a violent threat!

Personally I agree with the poster who said she’d rather be raped than carry a gun. I mean that. I decided long ago that if it came to it I’d rather be killed than kill another human being. Perhaps that’s an odd perspective, or perhaps I’m just a natural pacifist. In any case, as others have said, when it comes down to it most people can’t shoot a person in anger. They need extensive and repeated training to overcome their natural impulses not to (in Vietnam, wasn’t it shown that nearly all the US soldiers aimed too high, above the heads of the enemy?).

A large part of my commitment to feminism is due to my absolute belief in nonviolence. I want a world in which everyone can feel safe. Guns make me both objectively and subjectively a lot less safe.

Alternatively: Tiger Lady ;-) www.tigerlady.com

Anyone else thinking this is an attempt to get us all the say we want to be carrying Uzis around and mowing down men, and especially transpeople? So they can screenshot us and say, look those terfs really are a violent threat!

Yep, neither this nor the thread about being gay not being innate pass the sniff test. They must be so disappointed that nobody is taking the bait (because unlike them we're decent human beings).

I'd rather have a protective, barky dog than a gun in my house

Yes. For one thing, a would-be aggressor is, I think, more likely to assess the dog as being willing to inflict harm than a woman.

I'm not sure if this thread was started with malign intent or just an idiotic idea from a man thinking about the problem of the mismatch between male and female strength and aggression from a naive masculine POV.

This idea spectacularly misunderstands male violence in two ways. Firstly, most women are raped/murdered by men that they know, not in scenarios like strangers approaching them on the street/breaking into their house, where gun use might theoretically be an option. Secondly, women's perception of feeling unsafe is informed in part by the vast amounts of "low level" sexual harassment etc within society, and I'm pretty sure noone is suggesting gun use in response to this. The only way to protect women from male violence is to reduce male violence.

I really got stuck at cardigans. Like, who would really want those bare arms?

I love the fact that "suggest a cardigan" was the Mumsnet default response.

Is a gun too extreme? Pepper Spray?

Yes, reduction is male violence is the answer but I can never see it happening. Our society is too violent from top to bottom.

Yes, keep pepper spray just in case your husband hits you, or your boyfriend rapes you, or your boss harasses you.
Any of these is probably more likely than a stranger attack.

Male on female violence can decrease if it's not seen as inevitable. And it's punished in courts and socially.

Walk around your house with a tin of pepper spray in your tiny woman sized pockets, just in case your partner or a family member attacks you. The police will not in any way hold this against you if you pepper spray the bastard and he then calls them in.

I always find myself thinking of this experiment carried out by ABC news in America, where they gave a bunch of kids gun training, then (unknown to them) put them in a lecture theatre and simulated a campus shooting (with paintballs):

None of them, even the guy who'd spent years training regularly, even got their gun out the holster before they were shot "dead" (i.e. paintball somewhere where a real bullet would have been fatal).

That's why armed police walk round with the safety catch off, the gun cradled across their chest in a ready position, and their fingers already on the trigger. Because any other set-up means you can't use the damn thing quick enough.

Guns are pretty much useless in surprise attacks, and as people have pointed out upthread, also useless in date rape/partner rape situations (which accounts for the majority of rapes).

@Lweji

^ This, a thousand times. I hope you all don't think that all men share the OP's apparent belief that such violence (any violence?) is inevitable. It is not.

What on earth is wrong with men, when as a class, or individually, they maintain male violence and male sexual violence is inevitable?

Feminists - against all evidence of your humanity - would say it is not, just fucking stop it already.

If you all are telling the actual truth on this, then we should actually cull your numbers dramatically and swiftly.

Your choice.

When people tell you who they are believe them, eh? A man who insists that male violence is unstoppable is telling you who he is.

A man who insists that male violence is unstoppable is telling you who he is.

But this is more than the individual level AAK. We are talking about the vocal majority representing Class Dude online. Where are these supposed legions of non-violent, non-rapey dudes? Why is it left to feminists to point out this shit is wrong? Those dudes, absolute tiny minority online. Why are they not objecting "not in my name"?

Rhetorical. Because I don't believe the it is a minority of violent/rapey dudes, and most of the Nice Guys, seem more than happy for violent dudes to speak for them. Nice Guys are the tiny minority here. Not the other way around.

Well, because if they talked to other men they might get some pushback, and also why should it be men's responsibility to solve what they see as women's problem?

Dude clearly sees men hurting women as a problem for women that women must come up with a solution to. The idea that men might stop hurting women is apparently too silly to even be worth considering.

Personally I agree with the poster who said she’d rather be raped than carry a gun. I mean that. I decided long ago that if it came to it I’d rather be killed than kill another human being. Perhaps that’s an odd perspective, or perhaps I’m just a natural pacifist. In any case, as others have said, when it comes down to it most people can’t shoot a person in anger.

I would be able to shoot my attacker, I hunt for all my meat (deer, turkey, duck etc) I know I can turn off my emotions at the critical point

Hunting something is complete different. A duck isn't gonna rape and murder you now is it? It's just happily minding its own business until you shoot it.
Different scenario if you're faced with a 6ft, aggressive bloke intent on doing you harm!
Silly comparison imo.