1.2.a "Women shouldn't have guns because men will only take them away and use them against them".
Description
This article is from the talk.politics.guns Official Pro-Gun FAQ, by Ken Barnes (kebarnes@cc.memphis.edu) with numerous contributions by others.
1.2.a "Women shouldn't have guns because men will only take them away and use them against them".
see also
Stange, Mary Zeiss, "Arms and the Woman: A Feminist Reappraisal,"
in_Guns: Who Should Have Them?,"David Kopel, ed., Prometheus
Books, ISBN 0-87975-958-5 (1995), a book which is an excellent
introduction to the political issues surrounding gun ownership.
Another variation of the "your attacker will just take it away"
scenario is sometimes used by those in favor of victim disarmament
when the subject is women and guns. "The man will just take the
gun away from you" is a very interesting statement which cries out
to be deconstructed. All too often, this statement goes entirely
unchallenged, not merely on factual grounds, but at a deeper
philosophical level. Repeated requests for civilian examples of
this phenomenon have gone unanswered in talk.politics.guns and
other newsgroups.
All acknowledge that a firearm is a dangerous implement capable
of inflicting serious injury or death. That being the case, it would
seem a simple matter for the woman in question to merely_shoot_the
assailant attempting to disarm her. And in this scenario, the male
assailant is_assisting_the female defender by presenting her with a
larger, closer target, difficult even for an inexperienced shooter
to miss. If the weapon in question is a handgun, wresting control
of it is much more difficult than it would be for the attacker to
grasp a longer-barreled weapon, such as a shotgun or rifle. The
simplest of logic dictates that dead men don't snatch guns away,
and that relatively smart men who don't want to become dead men,
shouldn't try.
Given the odds against the male in purely physical terms, we must
look for another reason why "gun control" advocates might claim
that the attacker can so easily disarm a woman. The only obvious
explanation would be that the woman_voluntarily_gives the gun away.
The entire foundation of the victim disarmer's argument is that
when faced with a violent male attacker, a woman armed with a
lethal weapon, instead of using that weapon to defend life and
limb, will instead_give_that weapon to the man intent upon robbing,
raping or murdering her.
This "explanation" has numerous implications, which are quite
understandably not commented upon by "gun control" advocates when
they advance this scenario. If indeed women have an uncontrollable
urge to arm those who would harm them, does this not call into
question the very concept of armed policewomen? After all, what
point is there in training, uniforming and arming women at great
public expense, when all they'll do is just_give away_their weapons
to any criminal who confronts them?
And what of women in the armed forces? Why give a woman a Beretta
or an M16A2 when she'll just go looking for an Iraqi soldier to hand
it to? Certainly, if the victim disarmers' argument is to be accepted,
no women should be allowed to serve in Artillery or Air Defense
units, since the enemy will quickly amass a stockpile of 8" guns and
Patriot missiles,"willingly_turned over to them by female soldiers.
Can the nation really afford the risk that female pilots will go
off in search of enemy airfields at which they might land their
multi-million dollar fighter planes? If some in the "gun control"
movement are to be believed, we might just as well ship F14s directly
to Libya rather than allow women to fly them unbidden to Quadaffi's
airfields. Only a few defections of female captains of aircraft
carriers would be sufficient to completely neutralize the United
States Navy. Dare we take the risk?
What madman would think to put nuclear weapons into a woman's hands
if indeed women are one tenth as easily cowed as the "gun control"
lobby makes them out to be? It would be sheer national suicide to
elect a female President when only a raised eyebrow or harsh word
on the part of a Rafsanjani or Karadzic would reduce her to abject
surrender...
Of course it could be that women_aren't_the sniveling cowards
that the victim disarmers make them out to be. Perhaps rather than
the immobilized victims of a thousand slasher films, women are rather
more like Buddhist nun Ng Mui, the philosphical antecedent of Bruce
Lee. Perhaps rather than burst into tears, they're more likely to
serve a cannon like the women who fought in the Revolutionary War.
Perhaps rather than arm their assailants, they'll take a more
proactive approach like the_soldaderas_of the Mexican revolution,
or Soviet combat pilots like Lilya Litvak and the "Night Witches".
Perhaps like Israeli women soldiers and female PLO guerrillas,
they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.
The simple truth is that the "He'll just take her gun away"
scenario is wallowing in all of the worst condescending stereotypes
inflicted on women. It proudly proclaims that women are weak,
cowardly, and_want_to be attacked. If there's any good reason
for "gun control," misogyny isn't it.
--
Adapted from a posting by Chris Morton (cmort@RKBAnwohio.com)
--
Continue to:
My Books
