Is this a reason to semi forcefully put a small gun in a female frd/relative's purse?

[Kimber45acp]

Obviously, if she's too hostile then it won't work, but I know several women who, if I knew they were heading to a dangerous area, because of repeat rapists like this on the loose, and because our state allows a few forms of carry w/o a permit, I would look them in the eye and say "you're GOING to keep this in your purse, then glovebox, then purse" as I put a kel tec p32 in there. Pardon my sheer disgust and rather extreme tactic, but after DAILY reading of examples like this of a repeat rapist who is only on an ankle bracelet, who then rapes again, but this is the world we live in. Let's be honest folks, some of our close women are in real danger because of what is slithering around on the streets, and let's deal with the reality that many of our women refuse to carry, and/or even get a permit. Yes, many of us have TRIED to get our close women to get a permit to carry and we get nowhere. We've encouraged, we've tried to reason, but they refuse to take responsibility for their own safety and walk unarmed in dangerous areas (my mother does this regularly).

What is the alternative? To sit back and wait for your female relative to become a statistic? If she's not super anti, but won't get a carry permit, what alternative do you have if you cannot shepherd her everywhere she goes?

Let's face it, some guns are just point and shoot. Six weeks of training at front sight are just not required.

Obviously we know our female relatives enough to know if a particular one is capable of pulling a trigger in an emergency, and won't throw it in the river the first chance she gets.

http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=1254

 

[mljdeckard]

No.

I have a female relative who was working in a bad part of Salt Lake in bad hours as part of her social services job, and she had some scary experiences. I had already had conversations with her, and she wasn't exactly anti, but she certainly wasn't pro-carry either. I steered her toward less lethal devices. I told her at the time, "This isn't because I trust these devices or like them better, it's because I would rather give you tools you will use than tell you to get a gun when you don't have the training and resolve to use it."

Anyone you FORCE a gun onto is not going to have the resolve to use it. When it really counts, even if they draw it, they will freeze up. We have trained over and over to react in a certain way to a deadly threat, when we need to use deadly force, we let the training take over. If they have no training, what will they fall back on?

 

[taliv]

absolutely not.

you're not their shepherd. and forcing one to commit a crime is a galactically poor decision

 

[jakemccoy]

I know how you feel because I have a girlfriend who I'm worried about sometimes. The answer depends on the circumstances and the state. In California, if you did what you said, you and her would both be breaking the law, unless she had a concealed carry permit for that firearm. You'd be sending her off with a pretty good possibility of facing some dire consequences with law enforcement.

What I've done is provided my girlfriend with a nice, sharp flip open pocket knife. These are legal in California. While we're watching TV or whatever, we sometimes practice opening folding knives with the intent of having them for self-defense. This may sound weird to outsiders, but outsiders don't matter. It's not weird to us.

 

[Kimber45acp]

and forcing one to commit a crime is a galactically poor decision

As I mentioned, some forms of carry w/o a permit are legal in many many states, which is why I mentioned the glovebox.

The issue I'm mostly dealing with in this thread is women who are smart enough to defend themselves, but are too "girly" (for lack of a better term) to get down and get the permit, and/or carry in ways that are legal without the permit, in combination with the INCREDIBLE danger our women face out there.

 

[Kimber45acp]

Anyone you FORCE a gun onto is not going to have the resolve to use it. When it really counts, even if they draw it, they will freeze up. We have trained over and over to react in a certain way to a deadly threat, when we need to use deadly force, we let the training take over. If they have no training, what will they fall back on?

See I thought that in the past, but A. as we've repeatedly seen with women shooting BETTER than we do, almost naturally, and B. the way women are better under pressure than the T.V. dramas portray (night and day difference between TV and reality), I think once a woman saw that a pack of thugs was following her, I think even an inexperienced woman would reach into the purse and get ready, and wouldn't hesitate to fire if they cornered her in a parking garage.

 

[mljdeckard]

I would suggest,

If they have shown they can handle a gun, and yo DO think they have the focus to carry well, see if you can steer them towards getting a permit and living in the lifestyle.

 

[LibShooter]

If she's not super anti, but won't get a carry permit, what alternative do you have if you cannot shepherd her everywhere she goes?

Your alternative is to respect her right to make her own decisions. The same Constitution that gives you the right to arm yourself gives her the right not to. I applaud your passion to protect your loved ones, but the one person you can't protect anyone from is herself. Or himself.

 

[Balog]

Dear God no, that is not under any circumstances a good idea.

 

[Gungnir]

Yes, many of us have TRIED to get our close women to get a permit to carry and we get nowhere. We've encouraged, we've tried to reason, but they refuse to take responsibility for their own safety and walk unarmed in dangerous areas (my mother does this regularly).

What is the alternative? To sit back and wait for your female relative to become a statistic? If she's not super anti, but won't get a carry permit, what alternative do you have if you cannot shepherd her everywhere she goes?

Main Entry: tyr·an·ny
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural tyr·an·nies
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
Date: 14th century

1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>
4 : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

If the 2nd amendment is retained for the overthrow of a tyrannical government, then it makes a mockery of it to use a tyrannical act to force someone to exercise that right...

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You just eliminated one of the three charter rights of the US. It's not you responsibility to decide, its theirs deal with it.

 

[Kimber45acp]

If they have shown they can handle a gun, and yo DO think they have the focus to carry well, see if you can steer them towards getting a permit and living in the lifestyle.

Like I've already mentioned, I'm talking about female relatives who won't cooperate with that, but who are smart, and who are in real danger when they walk at night, and who I don't want victimized by some piece of trash that is out on parole and who just cut off his ankle bracelet so he can rape again.

Your alternative is to respect her right to make her own decisions. The same Constitution that gives you the right to arm yourself gives her the right not to. I applaud your passion to protect your loved ones, but the one person you can't protect anyone from is herself. Or himself.

That sounds good on paper (or on a comp screen), but if we're talking about your sister, it flies out the window.

 

[Kimber45acp]

If the 2nd amendment is retained for the overthrow of a tyrannical government, then it makes a mockery of it to use a tyrannical act to force someone to exercise that right...

Holy Hannah, I've already stated (multiple times) that I'm not talking about women who are so anti that you have to tie them down to get them to carry. Look at the very FIRST 9 words in this thread, and notice I used the word "obviously." Good grief. I thought it was very very clearly stated and implied that I'm talking about our sisters, mothers, wives etc who are smart enough to handle a gun, but who just aren't really interested, and who just refuse to care enough to get a permit or glovebox carry. You make me sound like I'm tying her up and putting it in her purse. I really cannot stand intellectual dishonestly like that. Calling me a tyrant and forcing me to RESTATE things from earlier posts is just not cool man.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'll also mention what I told my relative from the first post. If you feel that your life situation is dangerous, don't get a gun. Change the circumstances. (She did, she quit because it was too dangerous and got a different job.)

The man asked a question, he's not a troll, can't we cut him a little slack here without the hyperbole?

 

[Kimber45acp]

Thank you mljdeckard. Sometimes, in fact, I'd say most times, "changing the circumstances" is just not possible in the short term. Getting a different job is next to impossible in this economy. When bills need to be paid, what gets sacrificed? Safety. There is just about nowhere in this country left where you are guaranteed to be safe (and even then it's doubtful).

 

[Geno]

Can't be done. I understand how passionate you hold this emotion, but it can't be done for a multitude of reasons. Simply possessing a firearm will do nothing. Practice and developing situational awareness are equally important. I couldn't get my wife to carry a gun for the world. She grew-up under a military dictatorship, and she simply fears firearms. It has taken her 25 years of marriage to become tolerant of firearms. The odd part is, the woman can shoot! I mean, seriously good shootist, but fears firearms.

Good intent, bad idea.

Geno

 

[Gungnir]

Gungnir's wife here, just a little female perspective on the subject:

If you, or any man, EVER took away my right to choose what methods I was or was not comfortable with for my own self protection and safety... I would physically make you regret it. You'd be just as likely to have shove that Keltec (POS weapon that BTW) right up your chute!

Having a weapon, or even defensive training, is absolutely no guarantee that some schmuck isn't going to violate or hurt you or your loved ones.

Why don't you ask them what sort of measures they're willing to employ... stun gun, pepper spray, whatnot... don't just assume that a gun is the only way to solve the problem.

There's a fine line between caring for someone and being concerned with their safety and being an over-aggressive dominance freak who thinks we can't take care of ourselves.

 

[FROGO207]

I am thinking that it is a real possibility that IF that person does freeze then that weapon will and can be used against her. How would you feel if this DID happen. I would think of spray or even a taiser would be a better choice in this respect. Remember not everyone will react to the same problem the same exact way you will.

 

[Balog]

So this woman is smart, not anti, and in real danger on a regular basis. However, she refuses to take measures to ensure her safety. I think one of your basic premises is wrong.

 

[Kimber45acp]

I am thinking that it is a real possibility that IF that person does freeze then that weapon will and can be used against her. How would you feel if this DID happen. I would think of spray or even a taiser would be a better choice in this respect. Remember not everyone will react to the same problem the same exact way you will.

That is a fair question. I mostly answered it earlier when I said that based on my experience, I believe that women will react better than we think they will. T.V. dramas portray women as panicky, screamy, and excellent victims. When I take women shooting, and watch them out shoot all of us, the view of the T.V. dramas starts to evaporate.

 

[jakemccoy]

I think Kimber is coming from good intentions. I don't understand the need to show out and gang up on him. He presents a real issue that concerns many men who don't have limp wrists if you know what I mean.

 

[TexasRifleman]

In the middle of a violent crime is not the time to learn how to use a firearm, or to make the decision that carrying one is a good idea.

I understand where you are coming from but you simply can't expect someone who is against carrying to all of a sudden have a moment of clarity, not only in fundamental beliefs of firearm ownership but also of instant competency to use the gun.

Firing a gun in defense is not point and shoot. It requires a mindset that this person you describe does not possess.

It's just a paperweight without the mindset to use it at best, and at worse it proves the old anti saying right... "the bad guy will just take it away and use it on you".

Mindset, then skillset, then toolset.

 

[Kimber45acp]

So this woman is smart, not anti, and in real danger on a regular basis. However, she refuses to take measures to ensure her safety. I think one of your basic premises is wrong.

Hmmm, so you think such a woman is rare? Let me tell you, the VAST majority of women I've met in life are smart, only partially anti gun or even NOT anti, and in danger on a regular basis, (just look at our dangerous society) yet refuse to carry a gun. I suggest watching more women, and listening to them more closely.

 

[Gungnir]

Holy Hannah, I've already stated (multiple times) that I'm not talking about women who are so anti that you have to tie them down to get them to carry. Look at the very FIRST 9 words in this thread, and notice I used the word "obviously." Good grief. I thought it was very very clearly stated and implied that I'm talking about our sisters, mothers, wives etc who are smart enough to handle a gun, but who just aren't really interested, and who just refuse to care enough to get a permit or glovebox carry. You make me sound like I'm tying her up and putting it in her purse. I really cannot stand intellectual dishonestly like that. Calling me a tyrant and forcing me to RESTATE things from earlier posts is just not cool man.

Erm I guess we have different perspectives on tyranny.

Forcing anyone to do something that is against their will is a form of tyranny. It's not intellectually dishonest, indeed by not considering that what you are doing could be seen as tyrannical or overbearing I could accuse you similarly, I suspect it's more naive than intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Kimber45acp]

Erm I guess we have different perspectives on tyranny.

Forcing anyone to do something that is against their will is a form of tyranny.

Oh boy. No, we have the same views on tyranny, you are just applying that term where it does not belong. You have chosen to use a different definition of FORCE than I am. For some reason, you've conjured up some image of me tying her up or something. Since I cannot use the word "force" without you misunderstanding me, let me use the phrase "very pushy until she understands that her safety is non negotiable." Again, for the third time, if she's so hostile to the idea that she takes it out of her purse every time, then you've done all you can. Please don't make me repeat this again because THAT would be tyranny

 

[TexasRifleman]

let me use the phrase "very pushy until she understands that her safety is non negotiable."

If you have that ability then why not use whatever persuasion you have to get her to take a class and get a permit?

Just having the gun doesn't really do much without the willingness and skillset to use it. I think you are really making a mistake by skipping mindset and skillset here.