Bitcoin Forum

The argument is simple. Everyone has a natural right to self defense. However men are stronger by nature than women. Therefore women are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves from a stronger aggressor. Enter in the modern convenience of owning a gun. A gun levels the playing field, it assists a woman in defending herself regardless of physical brawn. As now physical brawn has no longer become a factor in the equation of fending off an aggressor.


Thoughts?

Gun control would reduce the suicide rate and women try to kill themselves more than men.  So if you wanted to take that route, you could argue that gun control is pro-woman.

Personally I don't think the battle of the sexes enters the picture.  Keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics and felons is a good idea; once you go beyond that you need to have a good reason.

Do crazy people and ex-cons not have a right to self-defense?

I'm just curious as to why you would single them out.

The battle of the sexes doesn't enter the picture? Well what about the instance of rape? Where physical domination is key? A woman with a gun, would be more likely to fend off a rapist who is physically stronger than her don't you think? More likely than a woman who couldn't?

Also, suicide is easily done with prescription medication/anything/alcohol. Come on.
 

The girls I know who do martial arts would disagree with you :D while it's true muscle mass wise women are smaller than men anyone who has fighting experience will tell you that muscle strength by itself is never always the deciding factor since there are so many different factors that go off when something happens, never mind the fact that women have been recorded lifting up cars due to adrenaline because a family member or child is trapped underneath. I will agree though that technology has always levelled out the battlefield for the perceived weak. When it came to medieval times it used to be knights on horseback that ruled everything, then normal people started developing longbows and the like to take down opponents that otherwise would run them down.

What about in the instance of gang-rape 3-8 men zerg rushing 1 female (trained or not).

Good point with the longbow discussion.

Then in normal circumstances you're screwed, it wouldn't matter if you're a man or a women but this is why ranged weapons were invented in the first place, I just think the people who support gun control are just irrationally terrified and naive.

Trained, I'd put my money on the woman. Good martial arts classes train how to deal with groups, and several men thinking with their little heads are likely to get in each other's way. But without the training, she's not got much chance. And a gun is a lot easier to learn how to use than tae-kwon-do.

Gun control violates people's natural freedom of trade, as well as inhibiting people's capacity to obtain a cheap and reliable means of self-defense. It's anti-everybody. It makes us all less safe. I see no reason to single out women in particular.

Gun control just means shifting the individual control of weaponry to state control.  The state has no intention of controlling themselves of guns.  Sociopathic proxy killers don't use guns; they equip someone else with them to use against whomever, and it's a lot easier to detain a gunless citizen than a well-armed one.  You're essentially allowing the few to dictate who has the weaponry, and America's military is already as bloated as it gets.  Will the military take away a soldier's weapons because they're so dangerous?

No.  Hell no.  Hell no.

Naturally, a politician, who is disconnected with the real world, will advocate gun control; he's the one getting the control of guns.  I wouldn't mind being the only badass in the nation legally owning the world's deadliest weaponry, myself.  Who would fuck with me?  :)  Whomever owns the weapons makes the rules.  All who disagree get shot/stabbed/stoned.  If anyone can produce evidence of the opposite occurring, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

---

Anyway back to OP.  I suppose the logic makes sense, if we're assuming all men, who are of many shapes and sizes, will generally be stronger than women.  I've never met a girl who can beat me in arm wrestling myself, but I reckon they're out there.  Ever see those muscle mags?  Where women are super beefy and no longer have tits?  I suppose there's always an exception :P  Even the average girl can overpower a man with no arms and legs.  I hope.

But it applies to more than just women.  Grannies, provided they can still be trusted with a gun, won't have to worry about a thing--except where they put the darn thing. 

That reminds me of a song...

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/jukes.shtml

I have the MP3 around somewhere, if anyone wants it.

Very cool lyrics ;D  I suspect the argument is, "But if anyone can own a gun, what if someone goes on a rampage?!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

To which the obvious answer is, "If anyone can own a gun, anyone can stop the rampage."

I once knew a girl in high school who "attempted" suicide fourteen times.  I don't know how you goof up suicide that many times, but she managed.  AFAIC, it's just a cry for attention.  We can call them attempts but if you really wanted to die, there are an infinite amount of successful ways.  My own sister's attempted suicide before, by swallowing a whole bottle of sleeping pills.  Well, she threw them up and had her stomach pumped, but probably had a good chance of having some serious damage.  Anyway, she ain't dead, so there's that.

...but aside from that, what do guns have to do with suicide?  ???  I'm not seeing any obvious connection, outside of people successfully killing themselves with guns, in which case, if a woman used a gun to attempt suicide, she would likely be successful.  Doesn't change the fact that she wants to die, which is a completely different issue.

Its exactly that.  Most people who try do commit suicide go on to lead normal lives.  Those who use a gun for the attempt generally don't.  Most people who try to kill themselves are women and the US has the highest rate of female suicide.

Its worth saying that I don't accept this as a reason for gun control myself.  Keeping guns away from felons and lunatics is all that I see as needed.  But OP asked the question and deserved an answer.

Men are also at a disadvantage against a stronger aggressor.

Why bring feminism into it?

Lets agree that crazy and ex-con are a huge overlapping population because we nowadays use prisons to warehouse people who used to be in mental institutions. People who have the misfortune to fall into these 2 categories are more likely to initiate use of violence than others.  As such, it doesn't make sense to give them guns. 

Well, if we're simply going to limit it based on percentages, on the chance that they might initiate violence, Men are statistically more likely to initiate violence than women, so perhaps we should simply ban all men from owning weapons. No, we cannot base it on statistical risk, for down that road lies madness.

Is there anything inherent in these two groups which makes it certain that they will, if provided with the means of defense, turn it upon their fellowman? Certainly there is a higher risk in the mentally unstable doing that, and an increased, but lesser, risk from the previously violent individuals. But nothing that makes it certain.

Now, thankfully, our modern economy provides a means to manage risk, to socialize it while focusing more of the cost on those individuals performing risky behaviors and less on those avoiding them. This means, of course, is the insurance industry. A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon. Likewise, to a much greater degree, with a mentally unstable person. These premiums would likely decrease over time, as they showed themselves capable of owning a firearm without initiating violence. If the risk was too great, the insurance company could refuse to insure the person if he were to purchase a firearm, and this would provide incentive to avoid that purchase.

If the mentally ill and the ex-cons can get insurance against their own misbehaviour and if they do pay the premiums, its all well and good.  

I do have to say that my experience of being inside leaves me with a very sceptical view on the chances of either of those conditions being met.

Understandably so. Prisons in our current society are not so much rehabilitation centers as criminal colleges, where poor criminals are sent - at the expense of their victims - to learn to become better criminals.

Gun Control In the USA was Mainly started By the KKK early on to keep guns from Blacks.
http://www.examiner.com/article/kkk-began-as-gun-control-organization-confirms-racist-roots-of-gun-control (http://www.examiner.com/article/kkk-began-as-gun-control-organization-confirms-racist-roots-of-gun-control)

How Ironic these days that some gun control advocates are trying to say gun rights supporters are racist!

Ironic indeed, given that statistically, blacks (in the US) benefit more from loosening gun restrictions than whites.

Why do you think that these people care about insurance at all?

That's a rather long explanation, which I'm more than willing to give you, but the short version is that with out it, they'd be on the hook for the entirety of any damages they caused.

If someone has a gun to commit a crime or because of a violent delusion, your idea is that they would go out and buy insurance before using the gun. 

???

This is why it was a long explanation. No, the insurance would be purchased long before the gun was.

And you would not allow someone to get a gun without insurance?  Isn't that very restrictive?

Who said anything about not allowing people to get a gun without insurance?

I'm relatively sure I've explained this to you before, but if you'd like, we can go through it again. I'm a patient man.