USA (women) "Guns offer false security"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuchulainn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-06-10-palmer_x.htm
Posted 6/10/2003 6:42 PM
Guns offer false security
By Kimberly Shearer Palmer
Before I held a revolver, I thought only police officers and psychopaths shot guns. Guns seemed uncontrollable objects that could inflict death at any moment; I preferred to avoid them.
Then I learned how to shoot. My friends arranged a trip to a shooting range outside Chicago. Our instructor, a former police officer, taught us how to stand and point, hunching our shoulders for accuracy. We shot at the target silhouettes' heart and lungs before aiming for its head. In real life, our instructor explained, our attackers might wear bulletproof vests.

I was thrilled with my new power. A technological advantage now would let me fight the bad guys, even ones bigger and stronger that I am — or so I thought. Guns give women equal killing ability, but they also draw us into the dangerous illusion that owning one makes us safe.

More women are using guns. The number of National Rifle Association Women on Target programs — shooting clinics for women only — more than doubled between 2001 and 2002, says Stephanie Henson, manager of the NRA's women's programs. Last year, clinics were held in 38 states. Henson says women's interest is so strong that the NRA recently launched Woman's Outlook, its first magazine aimed just at women.

Self-defense is the reason the overwhelming majority of Women & Guns' readers are interested in using guns, says Peggy Tartaro, the magazine's executive editor.

Not so equal

But gun popularity among women is based on two misconceptions. First, gun advocates often call guns the great equalizer between men and women. In reality, according to a new study by the University of California at Davis, women who own handguns are more than twice as likely to be murdered with a firearm by their partners than those who do not. While this may be partly explained by the fact that women who fear an attack are more apt to buy a gun, the study shows guns often fail to help women protect themselves.

"Having a gun gives women a false sense of security," says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington non-profit that urges stricter gun control. "Guns can be taken away, and women can be killed by their own guns."

The second misconception is that guns are the only solution to help otherwise "weak" women protect themselves. In fact, a wide range of self-defense options, from chemical sprays to street fighting, gives women the tools to fight back.

Fight, don't shoot

A popular new form of self-defense training simulates attacks on the street and in the bedroom by male "attackers" wearing protective padding. This realistic-training approach includes verbal and psychological elements that prepare women for real-life situations. Fighting off a man in a simulated attack is much more likely to resemble a real incident than shooting at a target-range silhouette.

Self-defense classes also offer a significant psychological benefit. After taking self-defense courses with simulated attacks at The Empower Program Inc., a Washington non-profit, my younger sister and I felt more confident walking down the street. We were aware that at any time, anywhere, we knew how to fight back. The course also taught us how to avoid violent situations and how to de-escalate encounters before they become deadly. Like Jennifer Lopez's character in the 2002 movie Enough, in which she learns to fight to protect herself and her daughter against her abusive husband, we had reclaimed our right to feel safe while depending only on our own bodies.

Considering guns as women's only shot at self-defense is like eating fat-free cookies to ward off obesity; they can make the situation even worse. Instead of buying a gun, I'm sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.

Kimberly Shearer Palmer is a graduate student at the University of Chicago.
 
She thinks simulated "attacks" will "empower" her? Tell you what I hereby volunteer to be the attacker and I won't wear padding, but I won't let you touch me.

"Street smarts"??? And when she get in trouble who will she call? Men with guns.

Spoken like a true Chicagoan--like a sheople.:D
 
What a crock!!! A woman, trained and with a gun is sure as hell NOT gaining ''false security'' ..... she will have the option, the same as any guy .... to defend herself if the need arises.

The ownership of a firearm and even the carrying thereof .. brings with it an implicit and even onerous responsibility but at the same time .. it is the great ''leveller'' .. such that ''in extremis'' the individual (note lack of gender discrimination) can have at least a good chance of defence.

We have had many threads, illustrating the fact that .. by and large, those who carry can enjoy a greater confidence but also ... a greater urge to resist a final confrontation .... until things get so bad perhaps that there is nothing else left. There is no innate and over riding desire to shoot .. anyone ... as the ''easy option''.

This is IMO ''gender insensitive'' ........ the more woman who pack .. the better as far as I am concerned. My wife won't pack but at least she has her SD revo .. and that is something.
 
How is a woman with some rudimentary self-defense training going to fight off an armed attacker?

I believe I read that Bruce Lee didn't think that martial arts were any advantage against guns, and I certainly won't dispute that.

Did anyone notice that the pro-gun portion of the writer's attempt to present balance uses weak and general arguments, while she includes a significant quote from an anti and a cite to a study proving her conclusions? Nah, couldn't be. Her "in reality" phrasing sure gives her away; particularly ironic since this is as close as she gets to reality. Using her new found "kung fu death grip" techniques taught her at her Wednesday night self-defense class, she will surely be able to disarm multiple attackers, dodge bullets, and fight off a varitety of weapons. :rolleyes:
 
Where to start on this thimble-headed gherkin?

"Having a gun gives women a false sense of security," says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington non-profit that urges stricter gun control. "Guns can be taken away..."

So pull out your back-up gun and shoot the guy. Duh! :rolleyes:

The second misconception is that guns are the only solution to help otherwise "weak" women protect themselves. In fact, a wide range of self-defense options, from chemical sprays to street fighting, gives women the tools to fight back.

Let me see if I have this right: you're too weak to keep him from taking your gun away, but you're bad enough after your little once-a-week classes to be able to go Jet Li on his arse. Uh, okay, whatever... :scrutiny:

Self-defense classes also offer a significant psychological benefit. After taking self-defense courses with simulated attacks at The Empower Program Inc., a Washington non-profit, my younger sister and I felt more confident walking down the street. We were aware that at any time, anywhere, we knew how to fight back.

Oh, that's just rich! A .357 would give you a "false sense of security", but an hour a week of punching a friendly man in a red rubber outfit gives you "self-confidence in your ability to fight back". Honey, have you any idea how flippin' stupid you sound? :D

...we had reclaimed our right to feel safe while depending only on our own bodies.

Do you depend only on your own body to change a flat tire or fly to Spokane? Didn't think so. Look down at your hands. See the one wiggly digit that's pointing in a different direction from the others? That's your "thumb". Notice how it can be moved in opposition to your other fingers, allowing you to grasp "tools" to manipulate your environment? Getting any ideas? No?

Instead of buying a gun, I'm sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.

That would be what we call a "false dichotomy". See, when you carry a gun, you have even more need to use your "basic street smarts", because the object of the game is to not have to shoot somebody, get it?


Honey, why don't you just admit that you are still scared of guns instead of deluding yourself and misleading your readers (at least those with a complete absence of critical thinking skills)?
 
Tamara-

BTW-Did I tell ya I luv ya????;)

(God, it's GREAT havin' a first-class female around!:D )
 
Somebody doesn't grasp "disparity in force," a.k.a. no mater how fit and tough-minded she gets, the typical man will be able to tear her limb from limb with his bare hands if he so fancies.

Also, she's obviously a sponge-head. That never offers a tactical advantage. :evil:
 
Right on, Tamara!!! Especially the comment on street smarts.

Ms Palmer and women like her perpetuate the "two-brain theory" and why a lot of people think that women really are dumb. It this half-wit thinks an hour-a-week 'self-defense' class is sufficient and 'empowering' (Lordy, I hate that word!), I fear we will soon be reading her obituary. I'm gald it helps her self-esteame, but I doubt it will kep her whole. Take thee to the range, lady, and train there, too. Sheesh.:rolleyes:
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of buying a gun, I'm sticking to basic street smarts that will always be there when I need them most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Street Smarts are handy, but no da** good when you are encircled and outnumbered 5-to-1.
 
Oh, that's just rich! A .357 would give you a "false sense of security", but an hour a week of punching a friendly man in a red rubber outfit gives you "self-confidence in your ability to fight back". Honey, have you any idea how flippin' stupid you sound?
U of Delaware (Along with most other colleges, I assume; I attend UD) offers the Rape Aggressive Defense (might have the A word wrong, but its acronym is RAD) class for women only. It is pretty pitiful from what I have heard, the guy in the suit outweighs most college girls by 2.5 or 3:1 and hardly even tries to hold onto them. For some reason, I doubt they would let me show up with an Asp (or a concealed Airsoft Glock) and see how well I did (or how fast the Kampus Kop in the suit runs away when the Airsoft comes out).

Kharn
 
Tamara:

[sing-song voice on] some-body needs to write a let-ter...[/sing-song voice off]

:neener:
 
Delaware also has (had) standard self defense classes for both genders which are far more complete. I believe you have to take them for credit though. Thats not including the free classes from the Shotokan Club which are probably at least as useful as batting a guy in a rubber suit around.

When I was in college a female friend said "I bet I could take you" in friendly conversation on a similar topic to this one. I said "you're on" and we went to a suitable soft grassy spot. Keep in mind she is fairly athletic and I am not (I was 6' 145 and she was about 5'4" 130ish). Long story short, I was nice and tried to be gentle when I took her off her feet. After three or four tries, she realized she wasn't going to be able to knock me down. I think it shifted her understanding of self defense against even unintimidating men like myself.

Awareness is a powerful weapon to have and probably the more important weapon out of the two choices presented. But awareness and a gun are not mutually exclusive. This reporter is creating a false dichotomy.
 
What a bunch of condescending, patronizing, hippie load 'o crap

Do these people realize how demeaning they are to women with this tripe?

About the only thing they left out is referring to a woman defending herself as "little lady"!

Tamara, your response was thoughtful, well written and downright funny in some places.

And please don't generalize about Chicago, there are still 2 or 3 of us here that haven't grown wool yet and are still struggling.

Don P.
 
according to a new study by the University of California at Davis..., ...Having a gun gives women a false sense of security," says Naomi Seligman, communications director of the Violence Policy Center

Well now.... At least she cited some objective and unbiased sources. Of course she would have to in order to receive a high mark for her paper at an institution like the University of Chicago where an objective Socratic search for the truth is always the operative principle.
 
WARNING: ILLOGIC ALERT! ILLOGIC ALERT!

Women are weak, pathetic enough creatures to have a .357 taken away from them by a criminal savage, yet....

A week of self-defense training and that previously weak woman can now take on and defeat an aggressor twice her size
 
On a more serious note…

It is a bad side effect of a good thing that most women don’t grasp how far behind the power curve they are in relation to men when it comes to the use of muscle power.

Proportionally, women have (to use a generous estimate) 60% of the upper body strength of men at equal levels of physical training. But women aren’t proportional to men… they are, on average, substantially smaller. Thus, a woman could very easily be half the strength of her attacker from the get-go.

With lower-body strength, which is a hell of a lot less useful in a melee, women are closer to men (anywhere from 75% to parity, depending on who you believe), but they still lag in absolute terms.

With training, if anything the gulf gets even wider. Let’s look at the high end. In the 198 pound class, the men’s bench-press record is 683 pounds. The record for women of the same weight is… 390. All the women’s records hover around 2x body weight, while the men’s records hover around 3.5x body weight (with some higher and some lower for both). This may sound abstract, but guys in prison aren’t lifting weights and getting huge to look good in a tux the next time they go to the opera. They are doing it so they can beat you up, rape you, and/or kill you.

Lest you think I’m slanting the numbers unfairly against the women, consider this: the woman who set the 2000 record in the 198 pound, CERTIFIED DRUG-FREE, bench-press made it up to only 265 pounds. That means that a top-tier, non-steroid using woman power lifter is arguably weaker than most guys who get a good workout at the gym 3 times a week.

What is the bottom line of all this? As a woman, you will NEVER close the gulf in raw physical power between you and the average male, let alone a larger-than-average or physically fit one. The fact of the matter is, the typical 60-pound dog is more dangerous to a man than an unarmed 120-pound woman.

The author has indulged in a dangerous, but comforting illusion in the place of coming to grips with uncomfortable reality. She rests somewhere between sad and contemptable.
 
Small people (male or female) can learn to effectively defeat larger mass folks -- see Asian martial arts -- but a gun sure makes it a lot easier.

The obvious corollary to Tamara's comments: If the woman has the martial arts training to out-fight a bigger man, why the huge fear of him disarming her (whether of a gun that she warns against or the chemical spray that she advocates)?
 
Guys (and gals) its academia. She is just writing what her professors want to hear. And leave it to USA Today to print it. Morons.
 
I get it....relying on a lucky punch to the throat or a kick to the crotch is less risky and safer than carrying a gun for self-defense.
:rolleyes:

Do the clocks melt in the world you inhabit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top