Women, Feminism and….Guns?

Posted: October 18, 2011 in Guns, women

Hell, y’all knew this day would come, didn’t ya?

Not even sure how to start this post.  It’s Moon Hut of the She Wolf Sister time around here, but anyway…

As folk who read here know, I do kinda like firearms- hell, just scroll down for proof of that.   I also know from poking around here and there in Gun Blog Realm that the fastest growing group of people who are arming themselves?  Women.  Yep.  “Girls, get yer guns!” is actually happening.  However, I would be a big old liar if I didn’t say that anywhere, anytime, anyplace I have been where firearm fans gather…the gals are outnumbered.   The last few times I’ve been to the range I’ve been the only woman there shooting (one place, the receptionist was a woman, but all the safety folk and range people -so on- men, same goes for all the shooters).  The gun boards/forums I read and participate on…mostly men.  Some women, a few, but the one I joined recently, well yep, sure enough, there was the “it’s really nice to see a woman gun enthusiast here”- a very polite line in a very polite “Welcome to the Board” message I got, but yep, enough to tell me sure enough, as a woman here too I was gonna be outnumbered significantly.  In my area, they even have “Girls Gun Range” nights and a few even women only Gun Clubs, but yep…still kinda a man thing.

I will say truthfully, while I do not mind, even enjoy shooting with the guys and such, it would kinda be nice to have well…more women around.    I’m not saying I am gonna run out and join a girls only gun club, or even hit the range on Ladies Nite, but yeah, it would be nice – just in general- to have more women around.  Heck, I don’t need a ton of sisterhood to go with my guns, but a little could be nice.  I’ve asked a couple of my female friends if they’d ever like to go shooting…I know Rootie and Aspasia would prolly be up for that, but of my local crew of gals?  One, a whole one, has showed any interest at all.  The rest of ’em?  Not even adverse to firearms, but well…chicks don’t do the gun thing, roosters  do…

Which sent my demented In the Moon Hut Chillin’ With The She Wolf Sister mind to wandering.  While I know many-a-feminist are also pacifists and such, not all are.  And if you read feminist blogs, you dang well know that they are concerned with and terrified of and enraged by violence towards women.  They are – generally- pretty quick to point out that true enough, by in large men tend to be larger, stronger, and even more physically aggressive than women…which made me wonder:  Why don’t more feminists (non-pacifist ones) who live in countries and regions where it is possible and legal to do so, own guns?  As they saying goes- God Created Man, Sam Colt made them Equal…and I tend to think that applies to the female of the species as well.  If these women are sure as shit certain that men hate women (by in large) and actually seek to do us harm (in various ways), well then, why not arm themselves?

And I am not even talking about buying some random gun and stowing it in the nightstand or glovebox for “just in case”.  I mean like actually putting some thought and serious
consideration into it.  If one is gonna be a gun owner, they should do it right.  Hell, I am not saying they should be running to the local arsenal and pickin’ out multiple semi-automatic rifles, making a big wish list of high caliber hand guns and joining the NRA and…oh…wait.  Um.  Yeah.  Ahem, I am not saying women other than me should be doin’ that stuff, but yeah, getting a firearm and learning how to use it, care for it, you know…empowering themselves, in that firearm kind of way.   I mean, to me, it almost makes sense that any (non-pacifist)  women would be down with that, especially feminist ones.  To me it makes sense that a woman would want to be able to defend herself, her home, her family, so on, and do so effectively.  It makes sense that they would spend the time and effort- and alas, money- to do so.  They’d try out various kinds of firearms and pick one (or more) that works well for them, fits their hands, is the right size and weight and has  a good,  reliable rep.  (Ah yes, this is vitally important, a good fit with a gun is like a good fit with a bra- makes a world of difference!)  They’d educate themselves excellently on the use of said weapon.  They’d learn to clean and care for it and keep it in proper working order- after all, it will be no good and of no use to you if it don’t work when ya need it to!  I think they’d be educating themselves on the laws regarding firearms in their areas, looking into permits, and concealment laws, and classes and such to well, be competent, if not good or great, shots and gun owners.   And yeah, I know there is the argument that if women have guns, they run the risk of having those weapons taken from and used on them…but between you, me and the Internet?  I look at it like this- the better and more familiar one is with their own firearms, the harder they are to take  away and use as effectively, and if my choices are being shot with my own gun or raped and then stabbed/beaten to death?  Ummm, shot with own gun please.  Yes, grim.  Also true.   Firearms are, in many ways, like them or not, want them or not, a tool that does, in that very serious mortal sort of way, level the field and make things equal.  Thusly, I am somewhat vexed that more women, especially feminists of certain varieties, are not gun owners if they live in places where it is legal for them to be so.

Explain this to me please.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. I generally take advice to buy guys badly because it puts all the onus on women. It doesn’t require anything of men or society, so it leaves women in the lurch again. Also, why should women have to arm themselves? Some people simply don’t have the ability.

    The thing is, you can go to the gun range all you want, but it’s not going to change the laws or the culture or the fact that one has to be ready and able to fire the thing at another human for it to mean anything. Laws haven’t changed yet, the culture hasn’t changed yet, and so often self defense laws were written for simple, man-to-man conflicts where the combatants were of equal size and standing. Defending one’s self is problematical because women really don’t get a right to defend themselves in certain situations. Victims of domestic violence—-Brrbara Sheehan is an exception, not the general rule—–are especially in danger, because one thing I hear over and over is, “If a woman gets hit once, she’s a victim; if she stays around for a second time, she’s a volunteer.” Which is utter bullshit. There’s incredible hostility to women victims whose assailants are not the villains that everybody loves to hate. Any woman who does not meet the standard of ‘good’ victim is in trouble. In cases of rape, the burden of proof would be on the woman—how do you prove almost rape? You want to stop the crime from happening, so no crime happened, and rape victims face the most incredible prejudice and outright hatred.

    I frankly don’t trust guns in the hands of most cops, who get more training than most civilians and are still often crappy shots prone to over-reaction, and the idea of civilians having lots of guns makes me even more nervous. Everybody thinks that they’re going to be the hero who can tell who the bad guy is in one or two seconds, line up an accurate sight picture and take him out, and then somehow avoid not only hitting another civilian or getting shot by the cops or the guy’s co-conspirator. A guy with a finger on the trigger already—and firing—-is going to react quicker than somebody unsnapping a holster—-or a purse—and racking the slide back, chambering a round, and lining up a shot—-particularly if the latter owns a handgun, which are harder to fire accurately. Add adrenalin making the hands shake, the liklyhood that a good firing position is not possible, and the sheer difficulty of firing at another human being and you have bad odds. It takes years of training to be able to fire freely on a battlefield; hitting the wrong people in a civilian situation is even worse. There’s a tremendous psychological reluctance to shoot at another person, no matter how bad they; add to that the technical problems and it’s disastrous. Also, in a person-on-person attack situation, you have to ask some very specific questions:

    1. How far away is the attacker?
    2. How big is the attacker?
    3. Can the victim get her hands on the gun without the attacker being in grabbing range? Because a weapon’s no good if the guy is close enough to pluck it away from her. She doesn’t get the equalizer effect till he’s safely in the sights and somewhat subdued.
    4. through infinity: is the victim a good victim? Because I guarantee you, if she’s not, she’s looking at a murder charge if she’s at a party, drinking, wearing a short skirt, to infinity. We need to change all that just to make it possible for anybody but cute old ladies and virgins to defend themselves without being dragged through the mud.

    One armed (with blanks) police class was subjected to the attack of a unexpected assailant. Precious seconds ticked away while the would-be cops stared in shock, then fumbled for their weapons, and simultaneously tried to get away. The shooter wound up being surprisingly effective—and some of the cadets wound up shooting other cadets.

    Arming women isn’t going to work till we change society enough get people to not do shit like victim blame and slut shame and all that. Of course, once that stuff is reduced to a great extent, then attacks on women would be reduced as well. The sort of assaults that women are subjected to are overwhelmingly committed by intimates, and there some weird kind of disciplinary mindset comes into play. People like to say, “oh, men are raised not to hit women,” and I’m like—-where the fuck do you live, Polyanna? Because it’s clear that many men are NOT raised that way, and that that mindset needs to be honest and add, “unless she’s your bitch and you’re keeping her in mind.” When I got mugged, the witnesses told the cops later, “We thought it was her boyfriend.” When I went out with a close friend the day of the mugging, it was assumed he was my boyfriend, not a friend—-and he was blamed for the bruises and missing teeth. Nobody considered the idea that I had been the victim of a stranger crime. It was fascinating, because there was also a certain hostility to me being out and about and all that. I was supposed to be hiding and cowering, is the impression I got—-and I could hear people at work sniggering about the bruises and broken teeth. To the extent that anybody assumed it was not domestic violence, they also assumed it was some kind of bar fight situation—-in other words, I deserved the beating I’d gotten somehow, because I wasn’t hiding at home in some way. I was not being a good victim.

    So. That’s the opinion of one veteran, mugging victim, feminist.

    • dead_vladimir says:

      actually I think it is a bit of a myth that police get more training-once they graduate the academy they usually only have to do a yearly review at a range (excepting special services) in many municipalities, compared to the average gun afficinado they practice less -though they do have the advantage of a good fundamental training; especially in how to handle it in such a manner as not to be disarmed.
      This is purely a subjective story but based on my instructor for my pistol training who is also an instructor for one of the local police forces here in NoVa -the police tend to treat it as a chore since it is mandated, excepting ones with a previous military background. My younger brother who works for a major metropolitan force in the North East of the US says the same thing is true of his force (which is one of the largest in the world; not just the country); that many officers don’t clean or practice with them outside of anything mandated and not a lot of time is mandated at all because 1) its a public relations issue and 2) its a budget issue. He finds it especially concerning amongst that element that joins the police to prove how “big and tough” they are; as they are more likely to draw a gun in a situation that doesn’t call for it and that inherently leads to more dangerous situations, not just for civilians but for fellow officers (actually even with non lethal weapons i can be dangerous-he was once maced by a fellow officer with pepper spray who over reacted to a routine traffic stop because they felt someone in the car was disrespecting them).

      I think we do have a lot of hard working dedicated earnest people who want to do good in the police, but you also have the ones who where it is a family tradition, and the ones who want the uniform for power which (subjectively again it’s only one person’s experience i am relating here) is an issue with both male and female officers.

      Now outside of the urban areas, into the more rural areas where head sherrifs are elected officials and a lot of the positions are almost patronage posts- I can only assume it is worse.

    • Ren says:

      Gin, I hear what you are sayin’ completely, but I am still of the “rather be with than without” mindset. Even IN a worse case scenario kinda thing, legally or such…maybe its a flaw with me in my head somewhere or whatever, but I would rather try and or succeed in defending myself and face the legal bullshit than just take it.

      • Know your limitations. I’ve had to look into a guy’s eyes with my finger on my locked and cocked M-16, and I will never forget how hard I shook after that. Thank God for my CO.

        By contrast, when I worked as an armed guard, I once pulled the unloaded weapon on what was possibly the Dumbest Motherfucking Burglar in the Hemisphere, because he broke into MY apartment and woke up my cat, who in turn woke me up. I didn’t want to load the thing because my flat was so small that the guy could get to me in two steps and take it—and while a firearm is a powerful thing my hands and arms were not. So I pointed the thing at the ceiling, told the TDMFBITH that he was the unluckiest sumbitch who ever drew breath, dramatically cocked it, and then told him he looked like a Republican.

        The cops showed his tracks later. He looked like he was a skimming stone, his feet touched the ground so infrequently.

        Attackers will know if you’re capable of using it, as Rootie says below. I’m pretty sure you could use it, but if somebody doesn’t want to, can’t, or won’t—–you really can’t fake it. And I don’t think people should be forced into it. There needs to be more options. Killing somebody—and you really have to kill somebody in a situation like this—-will affect you, no matter how justified it is.

    • Roy Kay says:

      >I generally take advice to buy guys badly because it puts all the onus on women. It doesn’t require anything of men or society, so it leaves women in the lurch again.

      In that case ALL defensive procedures put the onus on the people being defended. I don’t think having auditors is a bad think because it put’s the onus on stakeholders to review the books. Nor do I think Internal Affairs put’s the onus on the public for bad cops.

      And the main reason to have weapons, defense from a state that has become a tyranny, isn’t saying it’s the public’s fault for not figuring out how to vote right, or get the 100k+ petition signatures to get themselves or an issue on the ballot.

      Sure, it would be great if society fixed itself do there would be no crooks and tyrants, but it ain’ta gonna happen. The fact is that there are assailants out there, both in and out of the government and waiting for “society” to uniformly change for the better is pretty futile.

      That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for persuasion, but I would rather speak persuasively AND have a gun than depend of persuasion along.

      • Oh, give me a break with the ‘guns are no different than anything else’ crap. Please learn something about rape before you blithely compare to all manner of shit that it bears no resemblance to, taking especial care to ignoring just how badly rape victims get blamed for everything. You DO realize that Internal Affairs exists to investigate bad cops, of course?

        • Roy Kay says:

          >Oh, give me a break with the ‘guns are no different than anything else’ crap.

          Where did I say that guns are no different from anything else? I said they are one of several tools that can be used against abuse of power. There are others, but those are by no means certain of efficacy. Nor for that matter are guns. However, we have fine examples in Libya, where the rebels got guns and were successful; vs Syria, where they do not and seem to be slowly being crushed.

          >Please learn something about rape before you blithely compare to all manner of shit that it bears no resemblance to, taking especial care to ignoring just how badly rape victims get blamed for everything.

          So, tyranny is fine as long as no one get’s raped? Please learn something about tyranny before you trivialize it. Also learn how tyranny is often excused on the grounds that the people are so unruly without it, thus blaming the victims. Fuck, even mainstream media at the time weighed in that Hitler was better than disorder. There is the old, and probably false, excuse for the Fascists “Say what you want, but at least Mussolini made the trains run of time.”

          It doesn’t matter which victim is blamed for their ill fate, ALL victim blaming is malicious. One of the reasons I joined in the Cleveland SlutWalk.

          • You’re comparing HITLER TO RAPE VICTIMS FIGHTING BACK AGAINST YOUR SHIT STAINED IGNORANCE? FIGHTING RAPE IS TYRANNY?

            You asshole. Fuck you.

            • Roy Kay says:

              Please read for content – fighting a rapist and fighting a tyranny are part of a broader fight against ALL oppression. If you weren’t so interested in segmenting the market of oppression into rape and “everything else”, this would be obvious. What you are doing is branding your particular oppression and vieing for market share.

              You are also stating that any advocacy of self-defense is blaming the victim, and that is not the case.

          • xena says:

            How is Slutwalk Cleveland coming anyway? Hope I didn’t miss that one too.

      • Did you not read your own post?

        “In that case ALL defensive procedures put the onus on the people being defended. I don’t think having auditors is a bad think because it put’s the onus on stakeholders to review the books. Nor do I think Internal Affairs put’s the onus on the public for bad cops.”

        Ahem.

        And it’s great that YOU accept rape as something women just have to cope with quitcherbitching. Don’t expect me to and don’t act like your opinion as a man means shit.

        “Sure, it would be great if society fixed itself do there would be no crooks and tyrants, but it ain’ta gonna happen. The fact is that there are assailants out there, both in and out of the government and waiting for “society” to uniformly change for the better is pretty futile.”

        In no other crime is the crime blamed SOLELY on the victim. Rapists are not ‘crooks’ and ‘tyrants’. You display a great desire to make rape just some sort of fact of life. For you, they’re sure as shit not.

        • Ren says:

          Roy, Gin….

          Ahem. Y’all can rant at eachother as you like, free fire zone here generally…but just a few things I’d like to say.

          One: Rape is not the same as other crimes. Period. It’s not.
          Two: All criminals are responsible for their actions, their victims are never responsible for the actions of any criminal. However, we do not see a whole lotta folk world wide saying “oh, well, X deserved to get robbed/murdered/assaulted because of the way they were dressed/were drunk/were flirting” and that does happen with rape.
          Three: In the US, cases of rape are FAR more common than cases of tyranny.
          Four: In cases of tyranny, men and women are victims of said tyranny equally. However, by in large, most victims of rape are women and most rapists are men.
          Five: Apples are not Oranges, so why compare them?

          • Roy Kay says:

            Missed this before commenting.

            1) Rape isn’t the same as other crimes only if you see torture, mayhem and murder as comparatively more acceptable. I see little benefit in market segmentation.

            2) If a guy goes into a “rough bar” and gets beat up, he is very likely to get blamed for being at the wrong place and with the wrong attitude. Likewise people will say “Well, whenyou flash a wad like that your’s just asking to be robbed.” Or are you saying this doesn’t happen? Again, market segmentation.

            3) You are correct, for the moment. However in history, charges of rape were often used to justify “strange fruit on southern trees” – and it is hard to see that system as ought but tyranny.

            4) Given that more men are in prison and subject to rape, it’s hard to get much of a count, especially since reporting rape in likely to get a shiv in your spine. I would estimate more women than men are victims overall, but it’s hardly uniquely a womens problem. In any case, I see no benefit in market segmentation. That only serve to say that it’s okay to oppress some people and not others.

            5) Ginmar’s opposition to people having firearms is generic and not specifically related to women. As such, it makes sense to mention broader causes for citizens to own firearms. Your original post did relate specifically to women and their ability to fight back. I noted that there is more that one prospective target to fight back against and this does apply to women as well as men.

            • rootietoot says:

              Roy, there is an element to rape that goes beyond tyranny and power, and while I’m not a man who’s been raped in jail, I can’t speak for them, I can speak for the fear that goes beyond the unwillingness for a man to stick his dick where I don’t want it. There are so many emotional, psychological and spiritual consequences to rape that are far, far beyond the physical act of being overpowered. It’s difficult to explain, but it really is a crime beyond tyranny and systemic bullying. Just ask the women of The Congo, Darfur, or any woman who’s been raped either by a stranger or someone they know.

  2. dead_vladimir says:

    on a side note: the range that does ladies night also advertises leave your guns with us ladies and we will clean them-and that’s a mistake as we learned from the Season 2 premiere of the Walking Dead..everyone should know how to clean guns in general and their personal firearm specifically and with great skill. Its also gets you in the habit of visually inspecting the parts making you more likely to notice a flaw or defect (crack etc) that would lead to a potential catostrophic failure of the weapon which can be very bad.
    Check out the ad for the ladies night on their website-i find it a bit patronizing and I am a guy!

    • Cleaning…guns? Notcleaning your own gun? Jesus Fucking Christ, already.

      Everybody needs to go to Basic Training.

      • ROFLMAO

        I have taken an M-16 apart but had a helluva time putting it back together… that is HARD. I had the little printed diagram too… I know they make you do that in basic and I could never pass. That firing pin scares me to death! 😛

        They wanted women to learn that stuff in certain “revolutionary” groups, in fact it was mandatory. The hard left is as gun-happy as the hard-right, and don’t forget it. (lots of people don’t realize that)

  3. It’s Moon Hut of the She Wolf Sister time around here, but anyway…

    You say this in jest, but you’d make a fuckin’ awesome werewolf.

    I’ve asked a couple of my female friends if they’d ever like to go shooting…I know Rootie and Aspasia would prolly be up for that, but of my local crew of gals?

    Hell yes I would! I’d go here but most of the gun ranges that I know of are in the far northwest suburbs and me havey no car, so yeah. Or they’re downstate and again, no car. I should probably buy a car for that reason alone.

    I look at it like this- the better and more familiar one is with their own firearms, the harder they are to take away and use as effectively, and if my choices are being shot with my own gun or raped and then stabbed/beaten to death? Ummm, shot with own gun please. Yes, grim. Also true.

    True, 100% agree. The other problem is a lot of women, in my opinion, aren’t ready to actually kill if necessary with whatever weapon they have on hand. They hold it meekly, make some rather weak threats about using it which gives the assailant time to snatch it away and use it on them. Not that I’m trigger-happy or stabby-happy but I figure my one and only warning to a perp is showing the weapon. Speaks volumes, eh? But that’s me and as you pointed out and Gin as well, this isn’t foolproof but damnit, I’m going down fighting.

    • dead_vladimir says:

      the rule is , never point a gun at anything unless you are willing to see whatever you are pointing it at destroyed-i think it is almost more dangerous to have a firearm if you aren’t prepared to use it-one of the rules from some of my gun classes is that once an assailant is within ten feet, you need to have already decided if they are a threat deserving of deadly force, because people can cover that ground very fast
      -also something else depending on the state -well the whole warning shot is bs-people who have shot warning shots have been arrested for discharging their firearm-because if you didn’t feel threatened enough to shoot your attacker; then you can’t claim self defense

      so even from a legal stand point you have to be mentally prepared to shoot someone – it can’t be relied on as a passive deterrent

      which is a frightening mind set for any one man or woman i think

      but you are 100% correct, the showing of it is the only warning you should give, and if they continue to threaten, neutralize them as my instructor says
      (though be wary of where you live, some states like NY have a duty to retreat which means if you could of retreated at all, then self defense is nullified-which is bs)

  4. rootietoot says:

    Yes! I’d go shooting with you! In fact, the Household Patriarch is president of a local gun club,so we could go for free 🙂
    I’ve never really thought hard about guns for self defense. I’ve honestly never been in a situation that potentially required self defense (that I’m aware of) so it’s something that’s not really on my radar. I like to shoot and mess with guns because it’s a skill set and something I enjoy doing. Here in the Deepest South, it’s very common for women to hunt and target shoot, and Ladies Day Out at the gun club is almost as common as Ladies Who Lunch or a manicure.
    I do not know anyone who carries out of fear of assault, and I know several who do carry, because they might have an hour free to go to the range. I know I’ve thrown mine in the trunk on days when I might have the urge…y’know…those Lunar Excitement days.
    I am familiar with my gun, and comfortable enough with it that if someone were to break into the house and threaten me, I could use it…I think. I am still undecided if I could actually shoot a person. Maybe in the knees. Hopefully it’s a decision that will never have to be made.

    • Ren says:

      Oh, make no mistake, my primary reason for having guns is to shoot for fun/sport. I LIKE the range and target shooting and would, at some point, love to develop enough skill to shoot at a competition level- I enjoy all of that a great deal and its my main focus when it comes to guns.

      But I am also a small female person who keeps grim shit in mind.

  5. rootietoot says:

    You know what kinda cracks me up- that stupid sideways hold you see people doing on TV. When the boys were big enough to handle Terry’s .40, we took them to the range and made them try to hit the target holding it like that. Phphpt. I’ve never tried it with the revolver, because the ghost of Sam Colt would probably rise up and laugh. And you can’t hit the broad side of a barn like that. *and* what it does to your wrist when it kicks…

    • That reminds of me of an episode of The Simpsons (most things do, actually) and one of the cops asked Wiggum if he could hold his gun sideways “cuz it looks so cool!” Then Wiggum says, “You can do whatever you want, birthday boy!”

      Holding the gun sideways is probably the quickest way to shoot someone by accident.

      • dead_vladimir says:

        it also causes jams and can damage the extractor on a semi auto -not conducive to a long life or reliabilty in your fire arm

    • Roy Kay says:

      There you go, opting for substance over style. Honestly! How are you ever going to get us to look at you as a hot dangerous babe?

    • I saw a driveby shooting where both participants used that stupid hold. I mean, the one guy jumped out of a car in front of me as I sat at the bus stop reading a book about the David Irving trial, and his vehicle was in the center lane of a four-lane street. Both guys emptied a standard clip and all they hit was one guy—in the thumb. The cops determined that was a ricochet.

  6. Amber Rhea says:

    I’ve been shooting once (back in 2006) and I loved it. I would love to go again but it’s hard to find people who want to go!

  7. xena says:

    Hmm… I don’t usually comment on Ren’s gun posts. Cultural Relativism definitely applies here. If I were Ren I might actually feel the same way she does. She’s a small woman in a dangerous environment. Everybody else is armed and dangerous, so why be the only dumbass who brought a knife to that fight?

    But I’m not Ren. I live in what some of you folks lovingly refer to as Soviet Canuckistan. What we have to do here to get a gun is fucking absurd. First, they dupe us into paying a *small* fee to process a Firearms Acquisition Certificate. Any fool can get one of those. Spend the day lined up at the office, present your ID, pay again for the criminal record check, wait 30-90 days for the approval which is nearly always granted (as long as there are no violent offenses on record), go back to the office, pay again. Pretty simple by Canadian standards. The catch is that having an FAC doesn’t allow us to own, store, carry or use a firearm. Only to buy them. Once we purchase our firearms, we have to bring them in and register them. That is where the shit gets frustrating. I have a friend who spent $2000 on an antique revolver for his collection. Most of his guns are just for show. 17th c muskets, that sort of thing. The stupid cuss at the registration office confiscated it for the same reason a dog licks its stuff. No explanations. No excuses. No apologies. No refunds. The laws up here allow the bureaucrats to approve or confiscate whatever they want for no good reason. Legal gun ownership is a rich man’s game up here.

    Besides that, I’ve never been in a situation where I wished I’d had a gun. Even when I was lost in Shithouse Falls PA with a young black kid at the edge of what looked like a potential lynchmob, some crazy woman screaming shit through her window with her rifle cocked at us. “I’m 16! I don’t fuck anybody yet! NO! I’m not fucking him!!” was all I had to say to turn the situation around. When I can’t talk my way out of a fight I’m usually ok to fight with clubs or beer bottles or whatever else is lying around. (You should see what my attempts at weight loss through exercise did to my body when I was unable to choose my diet. Shelter food is pure salt, starch and protein. I put on 20 lbs of muscle mass. I am now a hulking size 14 and able to lift all of Mom’s bookcases without breaking a sweat. One GNC expert I spoke to about my problem told me I should try Olympic weightlifting. I keep trying to tell myself that was a compliment.)

    So unless some Idiot Future Republican Administration decides to make good on Ann Coulter’s stupid threats about going to war with us, I have no reason to own or learn about guns.

    Thanks to Gin for your excellent arguments. I was batting an idea around before I read this post. One of my housemates has some questionable firearms and some questionable friends. He’s mentioned bringing me and his mom to some American gun range for a little vacation. Jeez Louise, don’t even get me started on how my stress vein pops at trying to process the logistics of getting his illegal weapons across the border for a day of play, and then trying to smuggle them back across! But because his friends are so shady, I considered learning how to use them… just for a minute…just in case… Thanks for pointing out just how dumb that would be.

    But don’t be so hard on Roy. He’s a friend of feminists. When he splits hairs, it’s because he’s a bit of a philosopher, not because he’s into some MRA kife.

    • Friend? He’s a rapist apologist. That’s not splitting hairs. Rape is rape. Anybody who minimizes it is not my friend.

      • xena says:

        That was exactly his point, Gin. Rape is rape and torture is torture, whether the victims are male or female. And he compared rape victims to Hitler’s VICTIMS, not to Hitler.

        Depending on the level of brutality involved with the vaginal rape in question, anal rape can be much more painful. According to the best Canadian statistics I can recall, men only get raped about half as often as women, tho. I believe that’s 1 in 4 women/girls and 1 in 7 men/boys. I can check those stats if you’d like. I’m sure the global stats vary widely.

        Frankly, if I had to choose between getting my teeth or fingernails yanked out one by one, getting my limbs hacked off with a machete, etc. etc., and rape, I’d choose rape. There’s an equal risk of nasty infections with any of the above, and removing a rapist’s spawn falls under my “if and only if” criteria for a justifiable abortion. Note: that’s what’s justifiable for me, not everybody, and not meant to be interpreted as a guideline for lawmaking.

        As for being a ‘ruined’ woman, it’s a social construction, nothing more. Those social constructions make life horriffic for women in the Congo, as you mentioned, but life is horriffic for everybody over there: women, male AND female child soldiers, infants. Militiamen have even taken to slaughtering 90% and more of dozens of endangered animal species in conservation areas over there, just to be vicious. The place is a bloodbath all around.

        • No. Rape is something that’s targeted at women first and most, and one thing you find in apologists is the constant tendency to tuck it into larger, generic ‘human’ issues, thus erasing women from the scene. Rape is unique, and most especially, it’s not up to some dude to tell a woman that she has to lump rape in with a bunch of generic shit. If he’s such a friend to women, he ought to STFU to that shit, because at some point he had to read a book or two about the history of rape and knows not to get snippy with a woman talking about it.

  8. xena says:

    Btw, some gangsta flick fan told me once that the sideways hold is supposed to make the kickback easier to deal with. According to Mr. Probably-Never-Even-Saw-A-Gun-Outside-The-Gangsta-Movies, dude’s fist hits him in the chest when the gun fires instead of knocking his hand back over his head. True? Not true? I couldn’t tell you. Can any of you tell me?

    • Ren says:

      uh, never heard that one myself, and if the kick is THAT bad, the gun is too big for the person using it

      • xena says:

        Yeah, I thought it went something like that. Like I said, this guy didn’t do much to convince me of his expertise.

        Just thought of another exception to my “don’t think I’ll need a gun” comment. The day I can afford a decent meat freezer. I wouldn’t be opposed to hunting for food. Of course, sticking to all the girlie ethical guidelines I blah-blahed about on your whaling post in May might make that more headache than it’s worth. Easier to buy my dead birds at the supermarket 🙂

        • rootietoot says:

          We find hunters who do it for sport, pay their deer tickets and keep the meat. They get to keep the head. For the price of a meat grinder and $10 ticket per deer, I get venison enough for the year 🙂

      • dead_vladimir says:

        you’ve shot a .40, and even when i first shot the .45 and didn’t like the recoil it wasn’t flying back over my head-i think we can chalk this up to has no clue what they are doing syndrome

    • rootietoot says:

      No, not really. The kickback will throw your wrist laterally so unless you’re wearing a brace it can cause a pinched nerve, or worse, particularly if you’re using a larger caliber gun. I’ve tried it twice, once with a .22, which wasn’t so bad; and once with a .40, which required ice and a glass of Wild Turkey for recovery. Maybe I was doing it wrong. Even if the kick isn’t that bad (which c’mon…those movie guys have no idea what they’re talking about anyway), it’s a stupid hold because you can’t HIT anything.
      The thing is, in movies, they always show people holding their pistols one-handed,which in some cases is ok, but for the average recreational shooter, holding something as big as a .44 and getting off several rounds without taking time to recover and re-aim just doesn’t happen. Especially

      • Ren says:

        Rootie, do you watch “Top Shot” on history channel? THOSE folk are amazing, season finale this coming tuesday they are making ’em shoot AK’s one handed lol.

        • rootietoot says:

          I’ve watched it a couple of times, I was impressed! I can hit targets and such, but not like those folks.

        • AK’s are garbage guns. You’re lucky if you can hit anything with ’em even if they’re aimed properly. I’ve handled them and fired them because there was always the implication you might have to. They’re designed to be indestructible. I don’t think they really have much of a kick.

          • rootietoot says:

            I’m not fond of any sort of automatic, but I’m a control freak and have little experience with them. They just seem…not very controlled. A semiautomatic is fine, fun even when you’re shooting turtles in a pond, but automatics seem indiscriminate. I can understand them in a war situation, but for JoanAmerica hunting and targets…meh. Give me a nice hunting rifle, a .30.30 or some such (oo! or a shotgun!) and I’m much happier.

            • Ren says:

              been pondering a crossbow myself…

              • rootietoot says:

                Crossbows are fun, just for funsies. They kind of suck for hunting (not much range and it takes too long to reload). For hunting (oh I know, that’s not your thing) a good compound bow works well…but yeah, crossbows are kind of fierce to look at and are wicked short range.

                • Ren says:

                  heh, I already have some of the other kinda bows….and I do dig how crossbows work. I have sorta been in and out of archery for a long time, so already the proud owner of a long and recurve bow 🙂

                  • rootietoot says:

                    I love a recurve bow. I have an Osage orange one from 100 years ago when I was a teenager, that a friend of the family made. CJ has a compound bow but I simply do not have the upper body strength anymore to pull it. (thank you, nasty shoulder). Here’s a story: When CJ was 9 we got him a small compound bow for Christmas. Dad set up some hay bales for him to shoot at, and he practiced and practiced and never hit them (from about 20 yards). Toward the end of the day,he was futzing around and a rabbit hopped across the field. He threw up the bow and shot an arrow at it, and hit it. He never even aimed. He came in with that poor dead rabbit, squalling about having shot it. “Mom! I never even aimed!” It was the first non-bug non-fish he’d ever killed.

                  • I’d love to learn archery. My brother did at our high school, as well as fencing, but I transferred to a different school by the time that came up in P.E.

                    One of our neighbors many years back used to hunt with a bow-and-arrow. He was very dedicated to the “even playing field” when hunting game. Hardcore. If I’m not mistaken, he grew up on a Native American reservation in the Dakotas and learned how to hunt the way that is traditional to his tribe.

                  • rootietoot says:

                    Aspasia, archery is loads of fun. There is a skill and grace to it that exceeds guns, I think. Plus it’s quiet! The projectile is slow enough that you have to learn to account for gravity, and that takes skill. I don’t care to hunt, but really, target shooting is tremendous fun, and you can use the arrows more than once. There’s something almost elemental about it. It’s interesting to see the fellows who get really hard core with it, making their own bows (Osage orange around here, it’s super flexible with a high tensile strength)and arrows (alabates flint, more osage orange, and turkey feathers), then hunting with them.

            • dead_vladimir says:

              even the us military is moving away from fully automatic weapons- some of the newer m-16s have a 3 round burst setting instead of fully auto

              studies have shown troops using fully auto tend to waste ammo and hit little (or hit lots of non combatants in urban enviorments)

              their big attraction is a value as suppressive weapons not actual killing weapons
              they are throw a wall of lead at thigns and today’s us military seems to prefer more precision

          • Ren says:

            …BLASPHEMY!!!

            (ok, true enough, there are nicer fancier more accurate guns than an AK…I am just partial to them in an unholy way and yep, sure enough, they are hard to fuck up….still love ’em anyway. Though I am drooling over AR-15s these days)

    • Nope. I’ve handled all kinds of firearms up to belt fed crew-served weapons, and even those don’t kick that much. If they did, the guy would probably shoot himself in the bottom of the chin and do us all a favor anyway.

  9. xena says:

    Lucky bunny, Rootie. Did you eat your son’s first kill for dinner? Rabbit meat is yummy. The fur makes beautiful mittens, hats and boot liners, too.

  10. xena says:

    I liked archery when I was kid. Summer camp was so much fun. I didn’t do much with it when camp was over tho. Yet another thing on my “must finish when I set everything else right” list…

  11. Sorry I missed the gun party! Although I am a feminist peacenik, blah blah blah… I think guns are good. Always have. I am an excellent shot myself.

    Low class. 😉

  12. Debi says:

    For some weird reason I have always been more drawn to medievel style weapons like morning stars and bow n arrows! If someone invited me to go to a shooting range, I would go though!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s