[bfason]

USA Today (11 June 2003) ran an op-ed piece called "Guns offer false security" by Kimberly Shearer Palmer, a graduate student at the University of Chicago. This was a truly annoying article that regurgitates the old canard that a woman shouldn't carry a gun since it will probably be taken away by an attacker and used against her. She also writes that "the second misconception is that guns are the only solution to help otherwise 'weak' women protect themselves." Guns are the "only" solution? Says who? What a ridiculous strawman.

And of course Palmer quotes Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center, who stated that 'having a gun gives women a false sense of security."

USA Today didn't say what Palmer is studying, but I doubt it is criminology. A shame she didn't interview Runt or Tam or any of the other gun-packing females who populate these parts.

[J Miller]

by Kimberly Shearer Palmer, a graduate student at the University of Chicago.

The bold words kind of say it all, don't they?

[Double Naught Spy]

bfason, I think you are about as guilty of mixing words and meanings. While the author's comment about being an 'only' solution was not accurate, equally not accurate was the title of the thread saying that the article was anti-self defense. It was not anti-self defense, but anti gun for use in self defense.

In another perspective, there are definitely posters on this board and others that feel not being able to take a gun somewhere infringes on their right to self defense. It doesn't. Such limitations simply limit guns as one of the self defense options that might be at your disposal.

[winstonsmith]

I don' think that the fact that she came from Chicago made a difference. I mean, I'm from the bay area and I went to Chicago and I found them to be farily normal....

Oh.

:evil:

[CZ-75]

Such limitations simply limit guns as one of the self defense options that might be at your disposal.

Semantics. :rolleyes:

When you reduce the effectiveness of your response by an order of magnitude, are you really going to do much good?

What if there were a law requiring you to hold one hand behind your back when defending yourself in a fistfight? One might argue that you are still allowed to defend yourself. Only problem is that, should your opponent in such fight be like most bad guys, he'd be fighting with both hands, or more likely, brought a baseball bat, knife, or gun to the duly authorized fistfight.

I find it hard to believe that a gun owner would propound such a specious argument as you've made with any earnestness.

I'm surprised someone didn't call you on it before in the "worst enemies" thread, along with the other points of questionable validity you made.

[DangerousSubvert]

Actually I think I'd have to agree -- word-parsing it and hair-splitting the meanings are ridiculous -- it's anti-self defense propaganda.

[pax]

The article is already under discussion at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26405 , so I'm closing this as a duplicate. Please continue this excellent discussion on the other thread.

pax