Leftist feminist with a handgun? Interesting concept

[Shannon Harper]

Hey everyone,
A good friend of mine posts on this site and convinced me to sign up. The posts appear intelligent and I look forward to debating or discussing this issue that all of you hold so highly. A slight introduction before I get to my main question. You may remember me. P12 has bashed some of my columns openly on this site, posted my letters and what not. Thankfully, the University of Utah is still a gun free campus. I do not believe the Second Amendment protects the right of gun owners to own handguns, however, I am not as crazy and leftist to say that gun control laws are up to par or even plausible for that matter. I own a handgun, a Bersa Thunder .380 ACP. I bought it to see if I actually felt sfaer carrying it, and I do. With this in mind, I read a column by a gun toting advocate who said leftists (like me) don't deserve to carry handguns because they don't uphold the rights associated with them. I completely disagree, however, wanted to see what you guys thought.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Hola. Good to meet you.

I do not believe the Second Amendment protects the right of gun owners to own handguns...

Do you mean that, "The Second Amendment does not protect the right of the individual to own handguns, but long guns are okay," or "The Second Amendment does not protect the right of the individual to own anything?" I'm not a constitutionalist and think little of the 2nd, but I'm curious.

- Chris

 

[MicroBalrog]

Well, if any of you haven't guessed, that "good friend" is me. Methinks our long correspondence has swayed Ms. Harper at least partly to the Dark Side - at least she has agreed with me when I stated that the US has too much gun control.

I believe that isn't not really relevant though if the Second Amendment protects it (even though it clearly does) because that right is inherent both in your right to be free (to do whatever the heck you wish, if you don't hurt anyone) and your right to be alive (and to protect that life).

 

[Thumper]

I read a column by a gun toting advocate who said leftists (like me) don't deserve to carry handguns because they don't uphold the rights associated with them.

What you do or do not support doesn't effect the fact that you are born with certain rights. Fortunately, the right to self defense and the means to accomplish it is one of those rights (except at the University of Utah, evidently).

 

[semf]

You say you don't believe that 2A protects your right to own a handgun, But yet you own one and admit that it makes you feel safer. Isn't that a contradiction.
So what guns exactly do you feel we should be granted permission to own, and why those particular guns. I'm very interested in the thought process.

 

[Shannon Harper]

Chris, my rather cliched 2nd Amendment opinion

I'm sure you've heard this argument before, I bore myself with this argument, but here goes. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.†OK, what does this mean? First, it’s important to note that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited. I cannot publish a newspaper in which I claim that a certain public figure, for example the president of a major company, is a cocaine user, if that fact is known to me to be completely untrue. It would be called libel, and it is a valid abridgment of my rights. The classic example of an abridgment of freedom of speech is the imminent danger rule: I cannot stand up in a crowded theater and scream that there is a fire (if there is not), because the ensuing panic may cause injury. The reason abridgment of rights is sometimes valid is that rights can very easily clash. In the example above, my right to free speech clashes with the people in theaters rights to not be trampled. The same analysis can be applied to the 2nd Amendment. If the right to own a gun interferes with public safety, that right can morally be abridged, in order to protect public safety. And the courts have agreed with this position.
Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well-regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971). If the 2nd truly gave the right to keep and bear arms without any infringement, then surely such high-intensity arms such as nuclear missiles and tanks should be legal -- or your 2nd Amendment "rights" are being abridged! Obviously, allowing free and easy access to any kind of armament would be a bad idea, so there should be some practical limitation. The question then becomes, who decides what these limits should be? The answer, of course, is that the people decide, through their representatives and the limited representation of the Supreme Court.â€
Now, while I do believe gun control laws are necessary, I know very well that they aren't working. So while I have all of this ideology to spread around, I do not have a plausible solution. However, I don't believe anyone can introduce an argument for no gun control that will be plausible either, especially for a country as diverse in background as mine. Perhaps enforcing the gun control laws that exist will work, but I don't trust that pathway either. Hence, the debate contines.

 

[N3rday]

Frankly, I look at it from a modern standpoint

Cities with strict gun control laws have significantly more crime than those who allow Concealed Carrying.

Its been tested over and over, and the results are relatively the same: more LEGAL guns, less crime.

p.s. how's the bersa workin for you?

 

[Thumper]

Funny that you quote the Miller decision. Have you ever read it? It came down solidly and inarguably in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Miller decision said that the individual had a right to own any weapon used by the standing army.

Also, if you haven't, read the Federalist papers. Madison (Publius) couldn't have made it any plainer that "the People" meant the people, not the states, especially with regards to guns. In fact, when they meant "states," the writers actually used the word "states." Imagine that.

Many other holes in your current state of belief, but if you have an open mind and are willing to do a little research, you will change your mind.

Wait and see.

BTW, welcome to THR.

 

[repsychler]

Shannon Harper
For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited. I cannot publish a newspaper in which I claim that a certain public figure, for example the president of a major company, is a cocaine user, if that fact is known to me to be completely untrue.

That's why printing presses, computer printers, and web servers are subject to government licensing and registration, right? This must be why I had to have a background check when I bought that HP Inkjet at a federally licensed printer dealer.

I cannot stand up in a crowded theater and scream that there is a fire (if there is not), because the ensuing panic may cause injury.

That explains the ball gag they strap on me when I enter the theater. We have to be regulated and silenced because we might slander someone or yell fire.

It's for your own good.

Think of the children.

 

[Shannon Harper]

Does it make me feel safer? Yes it does, but it's merely a feeling, not yet connected with reality (thankfully). I have not yet had the opportunity to use it, nor do I hope I ever will get that opportunity. Overused stats will claim (at least one sided stats will claim) that women who are attacked and have a handgun on their person generally have the handgun used on them instead of used in their own self defense. Is this a gender issue? Perhaps, but the odds can go either way. I usually keep it in my car. What are the odds I will be able to use it if in danger? I have a conceal and carry permit, but carrying a handgun in my purse or backpack is just not plausible. Plus, I know that the majority of my friends and people on campus feel safer without guns on campus, and I respect that right to feel safe. For me, buying that gun was part of a personal experiment. I have learned how to shoot it and am familiar with how it works, however, I have never taken the issue of handguns and safety seriously or to heart, because I don't trust that a gun will be the answer to my problems if I am in danger. A woman is raped every 15 seconds in the U.S. Considering that the majority of rapists use a weapon of some kind when attacking (other than their penises), I doubt a woman carrying a handgun would be any less in danger. If guns are the answer for self defense, why don't more women buy into this idea?

 

[Bahadur]

The classic example of an abridgment of freedom of speech is the imminent danger rule: I cannot stand up in a crowded theater and scream that there is a fire (if there is not), because the ensuing panic may cause injury.

Let's assume for the moment that this is acceptable.

The truth is actually that one IS able to exercise choice in whether to stay quiet or yell "Fire." There is no control mechanism to prevent one from exercising that right of free speech. What prevents - or rather, deters - one from yelling fire disingenuously is that one will be censured AFTER THE ACT for wrongfully and criminally using one's right to speech. This theory certainly does not allow the government to mandate the use of muffles to everyone entering the theater in order to pre-emptively preclude the exercise of this choice.

If we are to follow the same exact logic and analogy, there should not be any PRIOR restriction of (any kind of) gun ownership. What should happen, instead, would be for WRONGFUL and CRIMINAL use of this right to own and carry firearm should be punished when and if it occurs.

Ultimately, one gets to exercise the freedom/right and choose for oneself what to do with this right. The righteous will use it for protection of the State, the People, the family and oneself or simple pleasures of life like hunting and gaming. The evil will use it for wrong-doing.

The government's job is not to pre-emptively restrict this right for ALL in order to prevent the actions of an evil few, it is to identify, bring to justice and punish those who do violate the law and misuse their right for evil-doing.

A similar analogy to the logic of gun control applied to the Internet would be: since the Internet can be utilized to trade kiddie porn (by evil few), let us pre-emptively restrict or make difficult access to the Internet for all law-abiding citizens. Just in case...

 

[Shannon Harper]

Touche Thumper. My research pointed me in the abovementioned direction, however, I will look more closely again. Regardless, I have yet to change my mind lol.

 

[Thumper]

Overused stats will claim (at least one sided stats will claim) that women who are attacked and have a handgun on their person generally have the handgun used on them instead of used in their own self defense.

Untrue...according to FBI stats. Also doesn't pass the sniff test: what would YOU personally do if someone tried to "take your gun away and use it on you?"

I have a conceal and carry permit, but carrying a handgun in my purse or backpack is just not plausible.

Rape victims in this forum tend to disagree. Personal choice, however.

 

[N3rday]

Well, Guns are equalizers. In yonder olden days weapons were muscle based, meaning the strong beat up (or raped) the weak. A gun is good because it doesn't need brute strength to use, so anyone, no matter what they weigh or how much they can lift, can use it.

It is rare that a weapon is turned on its user, and even then, simply having a handgun or showing it will threaten a criminal greatly.

In most cases, you won't even have to fire a shot. They see a gun in the hands of a citizen, and they run their arses!

 

[MicroBalrog]

For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited.

Correct: You cannot employ that right in any manner to intimidate or deceive people. (Fraud, threat, libel).

I also may not employ my RKBA in any way to hurt people. Thus, in an ideal world, I'd be free to own AK47's, tanks, cannon - so long as I don't shoot people with them.

WMD would still not be protected under the Second Amendment because you cannot use a nuclear weapon without hurting innocents ( every test blast killed people)

More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well-regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia:

They should have read the Militia Act (federal law) which defines the militia as... (gasp) every citizen.

Also, try US. Court off Appeals, 5th Circuit Court, U.S. vs. Emerson.

However, I don't believe anyone can introduce an argument for no gun control that will be plausible either

Here's one: Being that there's an obvious drawback to gun control (the loss of liberty), it is the proponents of gun control that bear the burden of proof. If they can prove there's a visible benefit to it, such that justifies Waco, Weaver, and all the countless little abuses by ATF and their ilk, then gun control should stay. Until then, there's a drawback and no proven benefit.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

 

[MicroBalrog]

Overused stats will claim (at least one sided stats will claim) that women who are attacked and have a handgun on their person generally have the handgun used on them instead of used in their own self defense.

Reference, please?

 

[Spot77]

Certainly many, if not most people here will agree with the notion that we don't all need rocket propelled grenades and surface to air missles (Although I'd imagine they're a hoot to use), and many will agree to the idea of reasonable gun control. The problem arises from the people who want to confiscate or ban ALL types of firearms and leave law abiding citizens completely defenseless against A) the robbers, murderers and rapists that plague us, B) The idea the the government prefers an unarmed and helpless society, and C) the evils of global terrorism that will dominate our fears in the next century. Even domestic terrorism or civil unrest. Ask the Korean store owners in L.A. how they would feel not having their AK-47's should another riot break out like the King riots a few years ago.

And you stated the problem already: CRIMINALS have guns and use them for dubious purposes, not responsible citizens who have jumped through the hoops, filed all the paperwork, and played all the games to purchase firearms. Let's enforce our currnet laws, and let's punish the murderers and rapists accordingly.

Do I think everybody should own Uzi's and MAC 10's? No, probably not. I don't think our society is ready for a complete reversal of the current laws. But I wish MANY of us (like the fine people who pass rigorous background checks and have current C&R, or CCW permits) would have the opportunity to own what pleases us. I for one (and I know many of my fellow THRers disagree) do not mind the background checks or MANDATORY SEVEN DAY WAITING PERIOD to buy a handgun here in Maryland.

So tell us what firearms you think we should be allowed to have and why. (Nice choice on the BERSA; I have one myself....it's the only gun I keep loaded for home defense)

Welcome to the most educated, diverse, rational and polite crowd on the internet.

 

[Shannon Harper]

A recent study titled Guns in America found that only 6.6 percent of adult American women owned a handgun—less than one out of every 10 women. But of these women, nearly 85 percent owned their handguns for self-defense—a figure that offers gunmakers continual hope in their marketing endeavors.3 Yet how often are handguns actually used by women to kill in self-defense? The answer, as revealed by unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data, is hardly ever. Women were murdered with handguns more than 1,200 times in 1998 alone. As these numbers reveal, handguns don't offer protection for women, but instead guarantee peril.4

For all of the promises made on behalf of the self-defense handgun, using a handgun to kill in self-defense is a rare event.5 Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians.6 To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.7

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on homicide among intimate partners found that female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all female homicide victims. The study finds that "the figures demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by IPV [intimate partner violence]."b

In addition, gun use does not have to result in a fatality to involve domestic violence. A 2000 study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers analyzed gun use at home and concluded that "hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women."c

 

[N3rday]

Yes, please post your opinions!

You'll find that the people on this forum don't get into really heated arguments that often, we like to debate peacefully.

and debate....
and debate....
and debate....

That little .380 of yours might save your life one day!

 

[MicroBalrog]

Yet how often are handguns actually used by women to kill in self-defense? The answer, as revealed by unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data, is hardly ever. Women were murdered with handguns more than 1,200 times in 1998 alone. As these numbers reveal, handguns don't offer protection for women, but instead guarantee peril.4

LOL!

This is so hilarious.


Hoax 1: They only count the cases in which the woman kills an attacker in self-defense. In most cases of successful self-defense with a gun, that does not happen.


Hoax 2: They imply that those 1,200 women were murdered with their own handguns while trying to use them in self-defense. In actual fact, we don't know if any of them even HAD a handgun.

So this doesn't prove anything.

 

[Thumper]

Yet how often are handguns actually used by women to kill in self-defense?

I can tell that you are smarter that that by your writing. What's wrong with that stat?

Hint: How much more often is a gun brandished effectively than actually used. Studies show a lot. At least a hundred...based on your life experience, would you agree?

Another hint: Regardless of what you see in movies, pistol shots usually stop, but rarely kill.

You will find that most of what you've read from the antis is easily dispelled with only a little digging.

 

[gilles3297]

Hello Shannon. Welcome to the site. I(ts nice to see a woman on the site. It gives some perspective other than the view of all the guys. Question: How did you come to choose your handgun?

 

[Waitone]

Welcome Shannon to the THR. You've dropped by the premier forum on the second amendment on the web. I think you will learn pretty quickly that gun owners and second amendment advocates are not a bunch of homicidal, knuckle-dragging sociopaths. We are plain people but those who haunt this forum are a cut above. I think you will find the debate stimulating once the crowd wanders by. Right now we are recovering from turkey overdose.

Besra .380 is a fine choice. My daughter chose the same pistol as her carry piece right after she had a gun shoved in her face in the lobby of a well-known hotel chain. The hotel had a panic button ringing in the police station. Still took 20 minutes for LE to respond.

Sometime this year we had a mega thread develop over the same issues you've broached. Does anyone out there remember the name of the starter. Seems I remember the handle of Metallic Kitty.

Shannon, thank you for coming by. I think you'll be surprised by who responds. Prepare to debate.

 

[Phil in Seattle]

A recent study

You mean 1996 right?

titled Guns in America found that only 6.6 percent of adult American women owned a handgun—less than one out of every 10 women. But of these women, nearly 85 percent owned their handguns for self-defense—a figure that offers gunmakers continual hope in their marketing endeavors.3 Yet how often are handguns actually used by women to kill in self-defense? The answer, as revealed by unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data, is hardly ever. Women were murdered with handguns more than 1,200 times in 1998 alone. As these numbers reveal, handguns don't offer protection for women, but instead guarantee peril.4

All of that istaken directly from the VPC they aren't your thoughts at all and the VPS is an organization that wants to ban handguns right now.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on homicide among intimate partners found that female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all female homicide victims. The study finds that "the figures demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by IPV [intimate partner violence]."b

Again just more direct quotes from VPC "studies" which they will shameless use any tactic they can to further there goal of banning guns.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/dv5intr.htm

Are the memebers here going to be discussing the issue wth you or with the VPC?

 

[semf]

I agree with Phil
If you are going to post somebody else's opinion or words you should give reference to them and not post these as your own words. I'm not saying that you are but it gives out definite troll vibarations.

And you never answered my question- What firearms should we be granted permission to own?