Wait a sec.... are you saying women are inferior to men?

Uhmm... what about mace, pepper spray, tazers, and stun guns? All of those things do a better job of protecting a woman from attack, because they take less training to use and are easier to carry (both physically and legally).

Code have any stats to back up that claim?

What I find most interesting about this case is that it would appear the right to own a gun in DC takes priority over the right to representation in the government. Has that issue ever gone all the way to SCOTUS?

Everyone wins.

Women who want their strength equalized with attackers, theives who want their lack of strength equalized with bank tellers and pedestrians, sullen teenagers who want their grey matter equalized with the stucco on the ceiling, pink slipped former employees who want to equalize their bosses and ex-coworkers with their inner turmoil pink, curious children who want to equalize their curiousity with instant death, Crips who want to equalize with Bloods, Bloods who want to equalize with crips, picked on teens who want to equalize with taunting jocks. Junkies who want to equalize the money from your wallet.

Arm everyone whoever pulls the trigger first wins!

Nation of dumbfecks.

Code_Archeologist: Uhmm... what about mace, pepper spray, tazers, and stun guns? All of those things do a better job of protecting a woman from attack, because they take less training to use and are easier to carry (both physically and legally).

Anyone with military training can get past mace, stun guns require very close proximity and tasers require the same shooting skills, and are available to police only in a lot of places.

Code_Archeologist: Uhmm... what about mace, pepper spray, tazers, and stun guns? All of those things do a better job of protecting a woman from attack, because they take less training to use and are easier to carry (both physically and legally).

"Go ahead. Make me taze."
--Disheveled Harold

brap: Nation of dumbfecks.

there are 200 million guns in america. nothing will change that and bad things will happen regardless of any new laws or restrictions enacted or if the supremes went the other way on Heller.

at least now the law-abiding among the population will be able to defend themselves and preserve their natural right to live.

R.A.Danny: Anyone with military training can get past mace,

Shenanigans. I don't care how tough boot camp was, you can't still rob me with your eyes burning.

Code_Archeologist: Uhmm... what about mace, pepper spray, tazers, and stun guns? All of those things do a better job of protecting a woman from attack, because they take less training to use and are easier to carry (both physically and legally).

In my state, it is just as illegal to keep those in my purse as it would be to keep a loaded firearm there.

As far as physical capability, I'd like to think that I'm just as capable of using a handgun as any of those items you listed. I can also drive a car, vote, and work outside the home!

Unless your ideas of "preserving the right to live" involves making a savory jam out of gunshot wound viscera, you're doing it wrong.

Code_Archeologist: Uhmm... what about mace, pepper spray, tazers, and stun guns? All of those things do a better job of protecting a woman from attack, because they take less training to use and are easier to carry (both physically and legally).

Mace and pepper spray are unreliable and can spray right back in the user's face. Tazers take a good bit of training to use. Stun guns have to be used in very close proximity. Frankly, I'd rather get my wife a hammerless S&W .38. She's tiny and any attacker is going to have a huge size and strength advantage. A good gun is a better defense than any of the other available options. If you want your political philosophy on guns to influence your wife's self-defense issues, go ahead, but I'll pass.

R.A.Danny: Anyone with military training can get past mace, stun guns require very close proximity and tasers require the same shooting skills, and are available to police only in a lot of places.

Note everybody has military training, meaning mace is still effective. The crime most women would want to carry a gun to defend themselves against (rape and robbery) require the assailant to get very close to the victim, meaning that stun guns are still effective. I will concede the point on tasers that they require some ability to aim, and stupidly require a weapon's license to use in some places.

But for a woman to have a hand gun on her person for personal protection requires that she have a permit for the gun, a conceal and carry license to carry it with her (which cannot be obtained in many places), and training to use that gun effectively (guns are not as easy to use effectively in a stressful situation as TV and movies make it out to look).

I would rather my daughter or wife carry a stun gun, some mace, or just take some jujitsu classes than carry a handgun.

Code_Archeologist: Uhmm... what about mace, pepper spray, tazers, and stun guns? All of those things do a better job of protecting a woman from attack, because they take less training to use and are easier to carry (both physically and legally).

Nothing in Heller says you have to choose a handgun over mace, pepper spray, tazers, or stun guns, if you feel those are more effective for self-defense.

Ladies let me introduce you to something that you dont need a license to carry, wont spray in your purse, and if very hard to take way from you. As an added bonus if you choose to show it to the attacker odds are they will to confused to attack you. They are looking for a spray or a gun, and then you pull this:



A simple roll of the wrist and the weapon goes from concealed to ready. When attacked just wait for them to grab you and stab their sorry arses.

Added bonus: It's very unlikely that you will strike the wrong person with it.

Nabb1: If you want your political philosophy on guns to influence your wife's self-defense issues, go ahead, but I'll pass.

Its not a matter of political philosophy, its a matter of public safety. Because to be frank, I don't trust the average Joe and Jane citizen to use a hand gun responsibly. They don't drive responsibly, they don't handle their finances responsibly, I would rather my life and the lives of my loved ones not be in even more jeopardy because they can't be bothered to handle their personal weapons responsibly.

If a person wants to have a gun for home protection, that is perfectly fine. But unless you have received significant training in the use of that firearm, leave it at home.

The whole portrayal of a gun as some sort of one-way justice hammer that protects those who can't protect themselves is specious at best. Guess what you bring more guns into an urban environment you get more gun violence. People get raped and robbed at gunpoint, I know people who have gotten raped and robbed at gunpoint. It's been my experience that handguns just amplify asshattery, like say giving a bullhorn to the NRA.

As the economy heads south it looks like we're gearing up for another good old round of urban flight.

Code_Archeologist: If a person wants to have a gun for home protection, that is perfectly fine. But unless you have received significant training in the use of that firearm, leave it at home.

My wife isn't going to carry the thing without significant training in gun self-defense. I wouldn't carry myself without that, and she certainly wouldn't. And, we do have CCPs in Louisiana. And they require eight hours of gun safety training by State Police-certified instructors. She may decline, but it's nice to know it's an available option.

We went over this all yesterday. When you look at the rates of victimization where the victim's own weapon was used against them and rates where the level of violence was precipitated by some action or escalation from the victim, it does not appear that guns do anything to actually make you safer.

Now I support your right to bear arms, and I think Heller went the right way, but this idea that guns make people safer is just pandering to your fears for political points and capitalizing on what little understanding most Americans have of what a violent encounter is like in real life.

Snarfangel: Nothing in Heller says you have to choose a handgun over mace, pepper spray, tazers, or stun guns, if you feel those are more effective for self-defense.

I understand that, but I just think the author's argument that Heller is somehow a win for feminism is dumb; because women do not need guns to be equal to men (unless the author was trying to equate guns to a phallus in some sort of weird Freudian penis envy thing that I really don't want to touch).

what_now: R.A.Danny: Anyone with military training can get past mace,

Shenanigans.



/i have nothing meaningful to add to this discussion
//don't mace me bro

Code_Archeologist: I understand that, but I just think the author's argument that Heller is somehow a win for feminism is dumb; because women do not need guns to be equal to men (unless the author was trying to equate guns to a phallus in some sort of weird Freudian penis envy thing that I really don't want to touch).

Mark this day on the calender. We are in total agreement on this point.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, that thinks that people should be allowed to carry or own a gun without the appropriate training?

When the constitution was written, EVERYONE was taught at a very young age to properly use and respect firearms. You should be required to take a gun safety class, you SHOULD be required to know how the hell to use your deadly weapon.

Honestly? Does ANYONE disagree? and if so...HOW????

Nabb1: My wife isn't going to carry the thing without significant training in gun self-defense.

Good... Georgia has CCP laws as well... and I unfortunately know of at least one person who has illegally carried without the permit. And it is those people that piss me the hell off and make me very twitchy about gun laws.

Code_Archeologist: Snarfangel: Nothing in Heller says you have to choose a handgun over mace, pepper spray, tazers, or stun guns, if you feel those are more effective for self-defense.

I understand that, but I just think the author's argument that Heller is somehow a win for feminism is dumb; because women do not need guns to be equal to men (unless the author was trying to equate guns to a phallus in some sort of weird Freudian penis envy thing that I really don't want to touch).

Crime statistics clearly show that men commit far more crimes of violence by women, and women are often the victims of that violence. Yes, many women are robbed and raped at gunpoint, but allowing women to legally obtain fire arm protection is, in a sense, an equalizer in a society where men are far more prone to violence (God help me, I sound like a "womyn's studies" major at a liberal arts school.), and where the vast majority of gun crimes involve weapons that were obtained illegally in the first place. So, yes, it is a bit of a victory for women.

what_now: Is there anyone, anyone at all, that thinks that people should be allowed to carry or own a gun without the appropriate training?

When the constitution was written, EVERYONE was taught at a very young age to properly use and respect firearms. You should be required to take a gun safety class, you SHOULD be required to know how the hell to use your deadly weapon.

Honestly? Does ANYONE disagree? and if so...HOW????

Ok, you may need a tin foil hat on this one. The only way I could disagree with requiring a training course is if the course was designed to be so difficult that only master marksmen could pass it. But I could never disagree with a reasonable training course.

"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."

How did this ^ get turned into a personal safety discussion?

Oh, and "A Militia of One!" snarkcasm still applies.

what_now: When the constitution was written, EVERYONE was taught at a very young age to properly use and respect firearms. You should be required to take a gun safety class, you SHOULD be required to know how the hell to use your deadly weapon.

I have had people give me the argument that because there is a right to own guns, they should not be required by the state to get training. And it is only because driving is a legal privilege that we have to get licenses for that... but if it was a constitutional right, then training for driving would be optional too.

/I know some pretty stupid people

what_now: Is there anyone, anyone at all, that thinks that people should be allowed to carry or own a gun without the appropriate training?

When the constitution was written, EVERYONE was taught at a very young age to properly use and respect firearms. You should be required to take a gun safety class, you SHOULD be required to know how the hell to use your deadly weapon.

Honestly? Does ANYONE disagree? and if so...HOW????

I think you should be properly trained and checked out before being given the right to carry a concealed weapon, but just for pure gun ownership, well, I think that's a smart notion, but not one that should be the law. That's like saying only people who are properly educated and display proper knowledge of political issues should be given the right to vote. Maybe that would be a desirable thing, but it would be unconstitutional.

As for when the Constitution was written, well, I don't think there is any way to support or rebut your assumption about people being taught "respect" for firearms. Quality firearms (especially long-rifles desperately needed by folks on the frontiers for hunting and protection) were rather expensive, and were a major investment for many people. So, they probably were taught how to properly care and operate the weapons out of necessity, not out of any sort of sense of civic responsibility.

Code_Archeologist: I have had people give me the argument that because there is a right to own guns, they should not be required by the state to get training. And it is only because driving is a legal privilege that we have to get licenses for that... but if it was a constitutional right, then training for driving would be optional too.

/I know some pretty stupid people

That's not stupid when you consider the Supreme Court for years has looked at the difference between enumerated rights (such as those in the Bill of Rights), and rights "essential to democracy" (voting rights), and then other "rights."

Nabb1: I think you should be properly trained and checked out before being given the right to carry a concealed weapon, but just for pure gun ownership, well, I think that's a smart notion, but not one that should be the law.

I simply can't agree with you. I may just be a dirty hippie, but I think if you're gonna have a gun, you should know how to use it. I wouldn't mind if not being trained would simply lead to a Darwin award, I'm worried about the other people you may take out when you try to figure out which end is the boom end.

Code_Archeologist: what_now: When the constitution was written, EVERYONE was taught at a very young age to properly use and respect firearms. You should be required to take a gun safety class, you SHOULD be required to know how the hell to use your deadly weapon.

I have had people give me the argument that because there is a right to own guns, they should not be required by the state to get training. And it is only because driving is a legal privilege that we have to get licenses for that... but if it was a constitutional right, then training for driving would be optional too.

/I know some pretty stupid people

how about, since it's a right, it should be offered for free. they could even use it for local military or police recruitment.

"good shot son. you wanna shoot some brown people?"

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ladies let me introduce you to something that you dont need a license to carry, wont spray in your purse, and if very hard to take way from you. As an added bonus if you choose to show it to the attacker odds are they will to confused to attack you. They are looking for a spray or a gun, and then you pull this:



A simple roll of the wrist and the weapon goes from concealed to ready. When attacked just wait for them to grab you and stab their sorry arses.

Added bonus: It's very unlikely that you will strike the wrong person with it.

It's so cute! And when you close to grabbing distance with a much larger attacker (which you shouldn't ever do if you can avoid it), it fills your hand and eliminates an entire pivot point which you now can't use for anything rather than poking (as the handle is round and at right angles to the blade, if you hit in any other direction than straight-on, it's probably gonna roll on you.

And the handle provides another great benefit -- the doctor can grab it to pull it out of your ass at the ER.

Avoidance is the first line of any defense. Done correctly, the gun-armed citizen will never remove their weapon from concealment for their entire lives. But for those special occasions, I prefer something I can use without getting into bludgeoning range of my combatant.

That's why I use: Glock 26.

brap: Guess what you bring more guns into an urban environment you get more gun violence

and you bring more guns into a rural environment and you'll get more peaceful target shooting and hunting, i'd wager. because their culture is different.

the problem is the culture and society and their breakdown in urban areas. gun laws won't solve that.

what_now: Is there anyone, anyone at all, that thinks that people should be allowed to carry or own a gun without the appropriate training?

*raises hand*
assuming you mean official government-required training, yes.

actual training to use your gun involves a couple simple rules and an hour at a range. a new gun owner will do that--he needs no law to require him to do so, nor is one necessary

burndtdan: how about, since it's a right, it should be offered for free. they could even use it for local military or police recruitment.

"good shot son. you wanna shoot some brown people?"

My boyfriend has said that he thinks only people with military or police training should be allowed to have guns. But he often talks out of his ass, so I'm not sure if he really believes that.

albo: what_now: Is there anyone, anyone at all, that thinks that people should be allowed to carry or own a gun without the appropriate training?

*raises hand*
assuming you mean official government-required training, yes.

actual training to use your gun involves a couple simple rules and an hour at a range. a new gun owner will do that--he needs no law to require him to do so, nor is one necessary

You guarantee that? You think everyone who buys a gun is as responsible as you? You have some pretty high expectations of humanity my friend. As a public safety measure, I think training should be required. Like driver's ed.

Code_Archeologist: I have had people give me the argument that because there is a right to own guns, they should not be required by the state to get training. And it is only because driving is a legal privilege that we have to get licenses for that... but if it was a constitutional right, then training for driving would be optional too.

I figure that you should be able to buy one without training. To carry one, you should have MAJOR training (a lot more than the three-hour piece of junk class that I had to take to get my CCL). Written test, test on laws of your state, loading/unloading/drawing from concealament/firing/cleaning your weapon. In addition to the upgraded background check that FL does for concealed permits.

If you want to go one step further, I am even willing to pull out this one: If you USE a gun anywhere (range, farm, home in self-defense, anywhere) you should have to produce a training permit saying that you at least were introduced to the damn thing, and the laws surrounding its use. Which end is the sharp end, how to load it and fire it without killing yourself, that sort of thing. If you are caught wielding/firing a gun without a permit, even if you are legally entitled to do so otherwise, you get put on the "no gun" list and they take it away from you.

That way everyone's happy. Your right to buy/own a gun is not impeded, but public safety is respected by insisting on user training if you intend to do anything but look at it.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ladies let me introduce you to something that you dont need a license to carry, wont spray in your purse, and if very hard to take way from you. As an added bonus if you choose to show it to the attacker odds are they will to confused to attack you. They are looking for a spray or a gun, and then you pull this:

A simple roll of the wrist and the weapon goes from concealed to ready. When attacked just wait for them to grab you and stab their sorry arses.

Added bonus: It's very unlikely that you will strike the wrong person with it.

I don't agree with you on much, if anything. But I completely agree with this post.

what_now: You guarantee that?

yes, i guarantee that. an owner of a legal gun took the time to obtain it legally and responsibly. it's difficult to make the case that, now that he has the gun, he has suddenly become an irresponsible person who needs training.

on the other hand, the owner of an illegal gun won't, by definition, get any training even if you require it by law. and these are the gun owners who are causing crime.

so, a training requirement doesn't achieve the state's goal of stopping gun crime.

Sliceablekitty: Code_Archeologist: Uhmm... what about mace, pepper spray, tazers, and stun guns? All of those things do a better job of protecting a woman from attack, because they take less training to use and are easier to carry (both physically and legally).

In my state, it is just as illegal to keep those in my purse as it would be to keep a loaded firearm there.

As far as physical capability, I'd like to think that I'm just as capable of using a handgun as any of those items you listed. I can also drive a car, vote, and work outside the home!

It's illegal to carry pepper spray in WI? I find that hard to believe. Hell, it's so mild it can be used as a condiment.

Before this one goes supagreen and gets piled onto, might as well throw this out there:

There is NO constitutional right to police protection (new window)

None. If you cannot defend yourself, the police do NOT have to respond, they do NOT have to pay attention to your pleas for help.

They usually DO respond, and often take their job seriously, but anyone who claims that in this day and age, nobody really needs a gun for self-protection, is quite delusional.

I believe we had a time when there was no such equalizer, when brute strength was the only way to inflict violence, either aggressively or in self-defense.

We called it the Dark Ages.

dahmers love zombie: They usually DO respond

Eventually.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:

me likey that blade

NightOwl2255: It's illegal to carry pepper spray in WI? I find that hard to believe. Hell, it's so mild it can be used as a condiment.

I believe you are legally obligated to carry Cheez Spray^TM.

Which is helpful if you are ever attacked by crackers.

/mmm, aerosol cheese.

albo the problem is the culture and society and their breakdown in urban areas. gun laws won't solve that.

Yet guns will?

I just RTF(useless blog post of an)A, and realized that it doesn't even link to anything relevant. With that in mind, here is the link to the amicus brief on the exact issue of women and guns. Reasonably readable.


http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCu 12 6WomenStLegis.pdf (new window)

brap: Yet guns will?

letting the abiding protect themselves from criminals is a good thing. it also tells criminals that their victim may be armed, which is a good deterrence. with strict gun control, ala DC or chicago, a mugger knows for sure his victim has no gun.