When Guns are women's only form of defense (India)

[The Straight Story]

Margaret Mead and other anthropologists have conducted cross-cultural studies that show women can be as fierce as men in self-defence. Think history and mythology.

Women from Kali to Razia Sultana to Rani Jhansi have all borne arms in major wars and fought pitched battles to defend the family caves, forts, or land against invaders.

Yet the perception in India persists that women are weak and passive by nature and faced with physical violence at home or outside, are easy pushovers. And indeed, given their social conditioning, most Indian women are incapable of swift and violent retaliation when threatened. This proverbial worm may be turning in western Uttar Pradesh, which has been registering the highest number of crimes against women in India.

Neglected and exploited by patriarchal society for centuries, the long-suffering women here seem to have wised up to the fact that virtue may not be its own reward, but gun ownership certainly is. So, in both the urban and rural areas, they are fast arming themselves.

A rise in women’s applications for gun licences at the offices of district magistrates confirms this fact. In rural Meerut, of 9,000 registered arms, 1,000 are owned by women. In Meerut city, out of 11,000 gun owners, at least 900 are women, and according to police sources, some 7,000 applications for gun licences from women are pending approval.

http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/26225325/When-guns-are-women8217s-on.html?h=B

[anonymous171]

1. Overcompensating insecure cowards nt

[The Straight Story]

2. The bigger the gun the smaller the breasts I hear

[guardian]

5. Brave talk

Maybe you'd think differently if there was a very real chance someone would try to BURN YOU ALIVE!

http://rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/15858/

[anonymous171]

12. Relax,

I was merely mocking certain anti-gun zealots who always say that guns are simply external manifestations of penis shame/envy

[katandmoon]

11. Unlike overcompensating insecure MEN, they aren't trying to overcompensate against each OTHER

They're trying to protect themselves from overcompensating MEN.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. In situations where law and order have broken down, private gun ownership may do more good than harm

In countries which haven't suffered a serious breakdown of law and order and which have moderately functional police and courts, however, such as the USA, it does far more harm than good.

The second ammendment was a far less stupid and harmful piece of legislation when it was passed than it is now.

[anonymous171]

4. The first amendment is pretty dumb too. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. The first ammendment doesn't lead to thousands of needless deaths every year.

The second, however, does.

The first ammendment also does a great deal of good; the second does very little.

There is no single greater threat to the security of a free state than well-armed militias.

[The Straight Story]

8. free speech leads to folks like limbaugh, who lead to bush, who lead to war which kills a lot

just saying :)

More killing has been done by our government than by it's citizens with guns. We should ban government :)

[anonymous171]

9. This country was founded by well-armed militias. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Two obvious points.

1) It was founded by an army, with a general, representing the populace, a role that is now filled by the US Army.

2) It wasn't a free state at the time.

I pointed out a few posts up that in situations where law and order have broken down, gun ownership for self-defence may do more good than the inevitable harm it will do. Similary, guns help overthrow the government; if your government is a) bad enough that overthrowing it by force of arms is a good thing and b) poorly-armed enough that doing so might be possible, then that might be an argument in favour of gun ownership. However, the odds of the US government becoming either of those in the forseeable future, let alone becoming one without the other, are neglibable, and private gun ownership won't make it any less likely (private gun ownership means more crime, necessitating more police and prisons and so on).

[The Straight Story]

13. So was gun crime a big problem back in the days you are discussing?

I think the biggest problem we have is poverty and moral issues. I would venture a guess most gun crimes are done by people wanting money/goods, or fueled by alcohol.

[Sanctified]

14. If police are so great for protection why do you worry if someone owns a gun?

After all you have a moderately functional police force to protect you from all the gun owners.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. The key word is "moderately".

If the police were 100% perfect and could prevent all crimes (and all accidents as well), like in Minority report, I would have no problem with widespread gun ownership.

In a state of complete breakdown of law and order, the amount of safety I gain from my having a gun probably outwieghs the amount I lose from lots of other people having guns and the (non-trivial) amount I lose from my having a gun.

In a state with good but non-supernatural police, I gain a little safety from my having a gun, but lose significantly more from lots of other people doing so (and still the same amount from my doing so).

[Sanctified]

17. How do you protect yourself if the police cannot protect you from someone with a Gun?

Even if we killed the 2nd Amendment criminals would still obtain and posses firearms and since we have already determined that our police officers are unable to protect us from an Armed populace how can you defend yourself from armed criminals?

[L0oniX]

18. Indeed ..it takes at least 15 minutes for the police to get there if you can manage to make the call

Typical response time in America 15 minutes but your dead before that. We have armed home invasions here where people die and the murderers don't get caught. I have a M&P9 just waiting for such an occasion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Your urban bias is telling

For those of us who live where a LEO is nominally 30 minutes away, and neighbors are a mile away, guns for self defense is a must have, especially for women. Someday that may change, but its some time off.

[hedgehog]

15. I think you are on to something when you point the finger at the presence or

absence of civil order. For example, the Swiss have both a high rate of gun ownership and a very civil society with both a low crime rate and a low fear of crime.

[Yavapai]

19. Have read in a couple places where the main reason that Japan didn't

invade the US west coast during WWII was they were afraid of millions of civilian snipers.

When the USA has a tyrant arise like Bush who decides to declare Marshall law and suspend all
of your civil rights and become "President for life", I bet many of the gun haters here will wish
they had the guns back!

"Home of the brave"? Ha!

More like home of the Sheeple!

[pennylane100]

6. I do not care for guns but

if I lived in a place where the law was not there for me, especially because of my gender, I would certainly own one. In rural places in India and Pakistan, I think I would prefer an AK47 and a few grenades.