What about women only CCW?

[Deanimator]

I suppose it depends.

Do you think that elderly men have a duty to be savagely beaten by 225lb. 25 year olds who spent all of their time in prison weightlifting?

Do you deserve to be beaten to death by somebody who outweighs you by 75-100lbs?

Are men with scoliosis more deserving of evisceration than women?

 

[ZeSpectre]

So, for those of you in non-CCW states, how would you feel about a compromise that made CCW shall-issue, but for women only?

Some things just have to be all or nothing. Besides the sexist implications, this would be another step in turning a right into a privilege.

 

[DirtyBrad]

I find the domestic violence thing hard to believe. To me, a woman committing domestic violence on a man is killing him or doing him very serious injury (no Lorena jokes, please). Even if the numbers on that kind of attack were the same (which would surprise me), I don't see women keeping their husbands subjugated by constant indimidation and persistent non-life-threatening abuse.

Deanimator, that's the slippery slope this fantasy is aiming for, of course. Like I said, it's hard for me to picture even antis not celebrating a woman defending herself with a firearm. So, I was just trying to separate out that issue as a way of hitting it from a new perspective.

The all or nothing thing is interesting. I see your point, but we don't have all or nothing as is, do we? Even if we say that not allowing felons, kids, or the mentally ill to carry is still legally letting "everyone" carry, I don't think there's a state in the union that doesn't have restrictions on where, is there? Would you say it's a right to carry in Alaska, but a privilege in Maryland? I'm not sure of the answer.

My feeling is that it's a right everywhere, but that the state is trying to turn it into a privilege. I'm not sure that extending it to another group makes that worse. Maybe it does, though. Maybe permitting it capriciously actually emphasizes the level of control even more than just banning.

No matter how I would vote or how wrong I might think it would be if it passed, if it did, I would sure be glad that my girlfriend could better protect herself.

 

[Phetro]

The anti-gun "feminists" would oppose it.

Weapons aren't the solution. For MEN TO START ACTING LIKE WOMEN is the solution.

Be patient. 70% of them already do--another fifteen years or so and it will reach 95%, where it will probably stay.

 

[ZeSpectre]

DirtyBrad,
You make some good points.

I find the domestic violence thing hard to believe. To me, a woman committing domestic violence on a man is killing him or doing him very serious injury (no Lorena jokes, please). Even if the numbers on that kind of attack were the same (which would surprise me), I don't see women keeping their husbands subjugated by constant indimidation and persistent non-life-threatening abuse.

Although the numbers on abuse where the man is the victim are much smaller, I can assure you that this issue DOES exist and in larger numbers than you might suspect. Back in the LEO days I saw several cases of this with the worst being an average sized guy stuck in the abuse cycle with his crazy-aggressive wife. He was severely beaten several times but always went back (battered "wife" syndrome) and one night she finally cut him up and then smashed his head in with a pyrex baking dish. It took 4 of us (big healthy police officers) to pin her down and disarm her.

The all or nothing thing is interesting. I see your point, but we don't have all or nothing as is, do we? Even if we say that not allowing felons, kids, or the mentally ill to carry is still legally letting "everyone" carry, I don't think there's a state in the union that doesn't have restrictions on where, is there? Would you say it's a right to carry in Alaska, but a privilege in Maryland? I'm not sure of the answer.

You make an interesting point, but I think the underlying principle is that in order to have the full rights of a society (i.e. be recognized as a citizen) you must also be a fully recognized and fully responsible member of that society. (rights AND responsibilities inherent in a Social Contract).

The felons and the seriously mentally ill who are denied RKBA have (usually) been judged to have failed to abide by that social contract. Legally this disqualifies them from being a full "citizen" so (amongst other things) their RKBA becomes null and void. Also, in our society those who haven't reached their "age of majority" are also not considered full citizens and thus do not have full rights (can't drink, drive, etc.)

No matter how I would vote or how wrong I might think it would be if it passed, if it did, I would sure be glad that my girlfriend could better protect herself.

I guess my feeling is that it would be good if your girlfriend could simply protect herself without adding yet another layer of law to the mess that already exists.

Just my take on the matter

 

[DirtyBrad]

That domestic situation is extremely rare though, isn't it? I'm sure there are more cases of women assaulting men than is commonly understood, but the "battered husband" you talk about is an extreme anomaly, right? Do you know the ultimate resolution of the situation?

That's what I meant about those people. I meant that, for the sake of the argument, we put aside the discussion over whether allowing them to carry is a restriction. Let's say it isn't and that effectively all of the population can. Even in that scenario, there are still a ton of places where you can't, so it's restricted and not an absolute freedom.

It would be good if she could protect herself, yes. And you're completely right, the ideal would certainly be less laws not more. I'm sickened by the amount of legislation out there in general. We certainly shouldn't have "laws" saying that you can walk backwards or wear a green shirt if you want to.

 

[pax]

Not so rare as you think, Brad.

From http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.49

According to the Centers for Disease Control, men comprise over 35% of all domestic violence victims. A meta-analytic review of 552 domestic violence studies published in the Psychological Bulletin found that 38% of the physical injuries in heterosexual domestic assaults are suffered by men.

The National Institute of Mental Health funded and oversaw two of the largest studies of domestic violence ever conducted, both of which found equal rates of abuse between husbands and wives. California State Long Beach University professor Martin Fiebert maintains an online bibliography summarizing 174 scholarly investigations, with an aggregate sample size exceeding 160,000, which conclude "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners."

Nevertheless, many states still define domestic violence as a crime only committed against women, and exclude male victims and their children from receiving state-funded DV services.

Scholarly study, with slighly different figures: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

pax

 

[Manedwolf]

As emotional, ignorant, and fear-based as the anti-gun arguments can be, it seems like they might actually be swayed imagining a woman coming home late on the train and being attacked, raped, or killed. Or a single parent defending her home from an invader. Neither of these scenarios is exactly rare.

No, their answer to that is that if the woman has a gun, the bad guy will take it away from her and use it on her, that she'd be safer without one.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Manedwolf... ya beat me to it. I was elsewhere trying to find what the typical response to that scenario would be.

 

[DirtyBrad]

pax,

That is interesting and surprising.

But I remain skeptical

I agree that men can certainly be hit, stabbed, beaten, killed, whatever by their spouses, but I just don't see the vicitimization part as being anywhere near equal. Being injured is one thing, but being kept under someone's thumb is another.

I admit I could have the old sexist blinders on for this one, though. I'm someone who doesn't think a 40 year old woman sleeping with a 14 year old boy is even the same game as the reverse, much less the same ballpark.

That kind of "over-protective" sexism is probably as maddening to women as the traditional kind. I'll have to give it some thought, but my cement may be dry on that one.

***

Mandewolf, yeah I figured that would be the counter. It's tough not to lose hope. Another thing that gets me is that, in the movies, we're all cheering for the heroine to get that gun that's just out of reach so she can save herself and her poor crippled babies from the big scary man. Why is it we can root for the gun in those situations where it's very clearly an invaluable tool, but can't translate that back into the real world?

 

[DirtyBrad]

Okay, what's their response to seeing ten articles about women actually saving themselves with successful firearm use?

I'm thinking specifically about the story just posted about the woman who was raped and managed to fight off her attacker after he made it clear that her young daughter was next. Also, the young boy that got his dad's gun and killed the home invader that had bound him and his mom and was going to kill them.

Is the parallel to these the accidental shooting by an eight-year old? Both are mostly emotional appeals, but built on real life events. Our response is that poor parenting and storage negligence resulted in the child's death, the same as it would have been had it been an ingested household cleaner.

What's their response, that the bad guy never should have gotten in to begin with, that she should have got him with pepper spray, or called the cops? None of those explanations is very satisfying.

 

[madmike]

Radical thoughts makes a good point.

The courts would apply it to everyone. A backdoor way in. Or else the people who passed it would have to turn around and take it away again.

 

[Spot77]

DirtyBrad,

It was tried here in MD last year. Didn't even get a commitee vote.

So much for trying to appeal to the MoCo liberal soccer moms.

 

[Sidhepro]

*waves*

I'm female and I'd vote no. There are women out there that should -never- have access to any firearm because they're psycho-whackjobs. Why would/should a state say that -all- women have the right to CCW? I know, it's a fantasy scenario.

As far as domestic violence and abuse goes, take it from an abuse survivor, sometimes (often) it is not physical violence that keeps you subjugated, but the mental abuse that keeps you under control and unable to act. Yes, there are women out there that beat the holy hell out of their husbands, just as there are men that delight in pummelling their wives/girlfriends into bloody pulps. Oftentimes in an abusive relationship, it begins with verbal and mental abuse, to create that situation of control over the abused and THEN progresses to physical abuse.

My cycle with my ex was ten years start to finish. It took two years for him to convince me (and cut me off from ANY support that I may have had) that I had nowhere to go and that I was worthless and useless. Four years of oppression on top of that. Two years (this would be year seven and eight) for me to start realizing I was going to die in this relationship if I didn't figure out how to get away. To be honest, year nine was the worst and I have the spinal damage to prove it. Last half of year nine and first half of year ten were when I decided I fight or I die, and I survived and got out with my then five year old daughter.

Yes guys, I divorced the SOB, and I'm remarried now to an incredible man (who happened to be my high school sweetheart). I find it hard to believe that I put up with so much for so long, and those that have met me/know me and realize what I've been through say the scarring to my personality is minimal, fortunately.

It's incredibly easy to fall into a cycle of abuse and incredibly difficult to get out.

Kat

 

[DirtyBrad]

They tried it here?? I honestly had no idea. Perhaps I'm a visionary after all. Do you have a link to the bill or anything?

Kat, thank you for sharing that. Very good work on fixing the problem and getting your daughter and yourself out of there.

That's the type of situation I think of when I think of a woman being abused, not just some random moment of violence that either sex could inflict. Trying to think about a man in your situation is bizarre to me, which is why I have a whole lot of trouble seeing things as equal.

 

[Michael Courtney]

I think a distinction that would make more sense would be to allow women CCW at 18, while maintaining the male age at 21. Women in the 18-21 age range are much more often victims of violent crime than men, especially sexual assault. College campuses would be much more free of date rape if college women ventilated a few overly eager frat boys who cannot understand the maning of "NO!". If date rapists can't understand "NO!" the meaning of a .380 ACP should be pretty clear!

Michael Courtney

 

[madmike]

But guns are prohibited on campus. It makes people safer. So say those in charge.

A gun would just "escalate the violence."

 

[kungfuhippie]

A gun would just "escalate the violence."

so true If a girl had a gun she might kill the would be rapist rather than just scratch him as he rapes her. At least everyone can go home if there is no gun

Sorry, just the thought of a potental future daughter getting raped because some jerko decided she'd be safer unarmed.

 

[noresttill]

Edit: misinterp

Jesse

 

[madmike]

Norest: I was being sarcastic and quoting something that was thrown at me.

Hence this part:

I've debated those nutjobs.

 

[doubleg]

It would be discrimiation. All citizens should be granted the same rights.

 

[unspellable]

Women only

As I recall, something like this was done in Kenya in the 50's. Didn't last.

 

[gopguy]

Violates the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitiution.....not that it has stopped "Affirmative Action" which is clearly reverse discrimination. Clearly all law abiding citizens should have the right to self defense. "Shall issue" is the way to go if you can get your state to adopt it. It was a long hard slog in Ohio.....and we need to fix the many flaws in our law.