Should women be "required" to carry a gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

ShooterMcGavin

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
629
What are your thoughts? If women were supported, encouraged, and given free training, what do you think about a law requiring women to carry?

Let's assume that this is a city ordinance, and there is NO PENALTY for non-compliance. Just having this law and the support for women carrying... don't you think rapes and assaults against women would be greatly reduced? Any attacker in that city would really start to question their victim's ability to defend herself.

(I don't think it's right to force someone to carry a gun. It's just a thought provoking question.)
 
Laws requiring anyone to do anything are antithetical to liberty and just as wrong as laws that forbid women (or anyone) from carrying a gun.
 
You can't force someone to carry but it would make bad people think twice before assaulting someone.
Wasn't there a town in the U.S. where everyone was required to own at least one gun and encouraged to carry, and their crime was practically nonexistant?
 
The mere concept presented suggests a gross desire to violate qual protection saying that a woman's life is more valuable than a males. Blacks aren't 3/5 of a person or even 99%. Men are just as much of people as blacks or women.
 
Good question shooter. You ought to get some good replies from both sides on that one. Personally, I don't belive its right to force anyone to do something that they are not comfortable with, but at the same time, if there was such a program in place to train and equip as you suggested, there would probably be alot more armed women out there and perhaps "chester the molester" would think twice about who he messed with. The simple fact that you never know if she's carrying would probably be an effective deterrent for any would-be rapist, and would probably elimanate many crimes of opportunity. One of my biggest fears is that, because of the places she must go as a result of her job, some horny little teenage punk will see her as an opportunity to do something that he would normally probably not do. If there was a PR system in place to inform these people that, you know, hey you can try it if you want, but keep in mind that she may have a hand cannon in her pocketbook, and she's probably been trained very well in how to use it effectively, it would probably at the very least result in a decline in these types of offences.

Good question though. way to make people really think.

-Gun control is a steady hand-
 
(I don't think it's right to force someone to carry a gun. It's just a thought provoking question.)
Click to expand...
Did everyone read that part of my post??? Yes, I agree that it's wrong to force someone to carry. I already stated that we can assume that there is NO PENALTY. The whole concept is that it is an unenforced (or unenforcable) law that REALLY makes an attacker think "Damn, there are probably a lot of women in this city who are not the easy victims that they appear to be".

The mere concept presented suggests a gross desire to violate qual protection saying that a woman's life is more valuable than a males. Blacks aren't 3/5 of a person or even 99%. Men are just as much of people as blacks or women.
Click to expand...
I disagree. This idea is based on these FACTS:
1. Of all violent crimes committed in the US, an overwhelming majority are committed by men. This is probably an even greater difference when you look at sexual assaults.
2. On average, men are larger, stronger, and better physically equipped than women.

mp510, if ever confronting a possible threat while in the company of a lady, do you stand beside her, or in front of her??? I can't imagine even the most PC man "suggesting" that she help fight the ensuing struggle.
 
Zundfolge said:
Laws requiring anyone to do anything are antithetical to liberty and just as wrong as laws that forbid women (or anyone) from carrying a gun.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

It is also my fervent belief that laws which carry no punishment for violation thereof not only encourage violation of that law, they also educate people that laws in general are to be obeyed only when it is desireable or convenient to do so.

What this country really needs is about 90% fewer laws and regulations, and some teeth and enforcement behind the ones that are left.
 
mp510, if ever confronting a possible threat while in the company of a lady, do you stand beside her, or in front of her??? I can't imagine even the most PC man "suggesting" that she help fight the ensuing struggle.
Click to expand...

No doubt, I would be in front of her and I would be obliged to stick my neck out and protect both of us, and if she did have to fight it would be because I need the ME. However, law,whether be it enforceable or simply symbolic (as this would be) since I assume there would be a C/O clause like Kennesaw has for their mandatory gun maintnance ordinance, has to be based on certain principles which we can't just give up. How one acts and is investegated is a matter of practicality and actuality, since obviously women are usually physically disadvantaged in a confrontation. I just would not support legislation that gave them or anyone a higher status. There are some men who the weakest female could probably take down- who says they shouldn't be given the same nod?
 
mp510, if ever confronting a possible threat while in the company of a lady, do you stand beside her, or in front of her??? I can't imagine even the most PC man "suggesting" that she help fight the ensuing struggle.
Click to expand...

My husband knows better than to step in front of me. I don't want him in my line of fire.

pax
 
My husband knows better to step in front of me. I don't want him in my line of fire.

pax
Click to expand...
Now, THAT is what I like to hear!!!! :)

What this country really needs is about 90% fewer laws and regulations, and some teeth and enforcement behind the ones that are left.
Click to expand...
I do totally agree. I just don't think that's going to happen.

who says they shouldn't be given the same nod?
Click to expand...
I never said the law would prevent men from carrying.

shouldnt be required but I think all women (excluding all my x girlfiends) should carry a gun but should not be required
Click to expand...
I love my exs and I have told them I think they should carry. I think all women should carry.

When I posted the thread, I used the word "required" (note that it's in quotes in the title) because I did not know what other way to support (more than just support) women carrying AND also alert the BG population that the women of 'this' city are not easy targets. Can someone else suggest a way to do that??
 
ShooterMcGavin ~

From an editorial over at iFeminist (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0813b.html):

After a series of brutal rapes in Orlando in 1966, hundreds of women began buying handguns each week to protect themselves. When the anti-gun Orlando Sentinel Star found out, it ran editorials denouncing the trend. Its publisher, apparently sharing the view of today’s anti-gun advocates that women are too weak and inept to have guns, even went to the chief of police demanding that he stop the sale of handguns to women. That was impossible, of course. But as an alternative, the chief and the newspaper publisher came up with an alternative: If they could not stop women from buying handguns, at least they could co-sponsor a training program so that all these women would know how to use their new handguns properly. The newspaper advertised the course, and in five months more than 6000 women had been trained.

What happened next? Although the yearly number of rapes had been increasing before the classes, reaching 36 in 1966, it fell to only four in 1967. Meanwhile the rape rates for the surrounding metropolitan area, Florida, and the entire nation continued to rise. Although a correlation between two events A and B does not necessarily prove a causal relationship, it is quite possible—and in line with highly controlled studies by researchers like John Lott—that all the publicity about women buying guns scared rapists so badly that many of them stopped preying on women for fear of being shot dead in the act. More important, there was no rash of accidental shootings by women in Orlando. Women were not seized by fits of irrational, panic-fueled violence in the pre-dawn hours, causing them to blow away the paperboy or their late-returning husbands.
Click to expand...

No new laws or nuthin'. Just a buncha women buying guns & learning how to use them -- and some highly-publicized training.

Passing laws that cannot and will not be obeyed just serves to cheapen the value of the laws we have, and tends to cause people to regard all laws with casual contempt.

pax
 
There are some problems that laws just can't fix, violent crime seems to be one of them.

I think all women should carry
Click to expand...

Your experience in having dealt with only mentally stable women is unique and not representative of current trends.
 
Laws requiring anyone to do anything are antithetical to liberty and just as wrong as laws that forbid women (or anyone) from carrying a gun.
Click to expand...
+1

While I personally think all women should carry, I don't believe in requiring anyone to do anything, especially because they are a certain gender. I'm pro-firearm-choice :D
 
Encouraged? Absolutely Required? Absolutely NOT
Click to expand...

ALL persons. My Daughter carries; it was her choice, not my direction (but she made her Daddy much more relieved . . . now if only she'd quit outshooting me with her 1911 . . . ).
 
Forcing someone too do something like carrying a concealed weapon are totally
going against the teachings of our forefathers, and against MY better
judgement~! I don't mind teaching any law abiding citizen anything 'bout
weaponary; but forcing it on someone is just not right; plain and simple.

I know of some women that would not carry under any set of circumstances,
even if their life depended on it. Most of these folks are church types, who
live their lives like Saints~! :uhoh: ;) :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top