Self protection regardless of gender or color.
have the right to defend themselves even if their chosen means of defense is a gun or that guns are off limits and women are included in this restriction?
Again, sorry if that sounds hair-splitting-ish but it's an honest question.
reason other than the question asked.
No self respecting gunner is confused about the answer to that question.
I think this is a fishing expedition.
* use contraceptives for reasons other than medical
* work outside the home
* get paid the same wage for the same work
* serve in the armed forces
These questions aren't games. They're prescient because there are some who like to exert control in the name of making a better world.
This group is not exclusive to "gunners" as your presence here shows. I'm just as curious to know if the self-respecting anti-gunners believe a woman has a right to self-defense even if the chosen means of defense is a gun.
Fishing for what? It's a simple "yes" or "no."
If silence is maintained because of a reluctance to confront the implications of one answer or the other then the silence becomes telling enough.
support gun ownership. Each person has a point if view that isn't going to change because of this OP.
Gun grabbers gun owners it is all a fun game here. I think we have exhausted the talking points. The fight now is who can raise enough money to fund the future legislation or stop it from being written.
Is that how rights are determined? Assuming you were of the opinion a woman had the right to defend herself with a gun why would you so passively shrug-off the defense of that right as a mere matter of fund raising.
However, I don't think your characterization is all that correct as opinion polls seem to indicate that support for the RKBA is at a 2-decade high. That may not be the direction you prefer but it does demonstrate the number is not as static as you portray.
I do think we can reduce gun violence through legislation that is being blocked by the gun lobby. The money is for that purpose.
It was just last week, I think, that someone poste in GD that Obama was spend a few ten million dollars to shore-up the flagging NICS database and get local and state policing agencies to update NICS and keep it up to date.
I strongly applaud this action and having spoken to a firearms dealer I was surprised to learn how effective NICS actually is at stopping illegitimate purchases.
Obviously the superior solution, with regards to mental illness, is effective treatment; then the threat of violence is moot regardless of mechanism.
We have very effective treatment. The problem is you can't treat people unless they come to you. We need the ability to have family intervention.
safeguards against abuse but the mentally ill are being left to suffer and that is heartrending.
"The fight now is who can raise enough money to fund the future legislation or stop it from being written."
Gun control has the big money.
Gun Rights has the support of the people.
I am very comfortable & confident where I stand.
Until it effects your pocket. Then you would rather have the money than "lower the rate of firearms ownership".
Hardly. The OP question and mine both have the characteristics of inviting discussion and of making a point.
Are they provocative? Sure they are.
Do they contain ad homina like "gunner" and "fishing expedition? No, we don't need to resort to these things the way others seems to.
Both questions invite the open-minded reader to think for a moment about the most vulnerable and oppressed among us, and it's not difficult to picture a woman or a black man caught in a dangerous situation, no fault of their own, where self-defense becomes necessary.
Did you know that self defense is a natural and inalienable right?
In California it is, it's written right in the first paragraph of our Constitution, before freedom of speech!
Yes. Yes. YES. Absolutely. Why would this get ignored?
My husband and I own guns. I know how to use them. I would not hesitate to defend my children, myself or my home if necessary. Like I said before, I don't care if you're a man or woman so long as you're not a felon or mental I also don't care what your skin color is.
Just to add, I don't feel the need to carry or wave the guns around to make up for small body parts.
The California State constitution explicitly describes it as such and the section below even precedes the freedom of speech:
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
as long as they are not a prohibited person under the law.
I think all people has the right of self defense. We have put in sensible limitations on firearms for people with a criminal history and that should be.
DAs refusal to extend Stand Your Ground to domestic dispute cases.
The woman in the story used a knife, but you get the idea.
All individuals have a right to defend their persons including using a gun.
if you are a self-proclaimed judge of what is progressive. Can't say yes because that could damage your 'cred' but if you say no you're admitting it is about guns, not victims.
The answer is simple.
Everyone has the RIGHT to protect their body from assault - no qualifier needed
Why is that so difficult?
Apparently we aren't even supposed to ask. The issue of our rights is -- according to some -- to be adjudicated by fund raising and we should passively accept this state of affairs without so much as bothering to discuss the matter.
is a good thing- at least when a 1% billionaire and his pals write checks backing your pet issue. Then you can turn a blind eye to how you just opposed them on seven other issues
I am sadly becoming convinced that for many (most?) gun control advocates they do not care at all about victims- as long as a gun is not involved. In the last week we have seen the "true progressives" refuse to support a woman's right to defend herself, support bringing guns to school, ignore a man who cannot use his arms egregiously charged with firearm possession, support a Surgeon General only because of a passing statement made about guns (they also admit he is inexperienced and underqualified medically) and of course the obligatory cheering of racist authoritarians.
If all that is "progressive' then I am glad to be whatever I am= pro-environment, true equality (social, economic and legal) for everyone, fair share taxation, quality public education, global unity through diplomacy and trade, economic reform, social safety net, and more- oh including respect for the entire bill of rights, people may own guns if they choose and if someone wants to listen to my phone calls, get a damn warrant like the 4th says.
Even if the means of self-defense is putting rat poison in their husband's coffee?
Why or why not?
let us look at the definition so we are on the same page:
the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
So to use self-defense a violent crime must be attempted. Fists, knives, guns etc. provide an immediate direct counter to a violent crime. Poisoning, infecting with anthrax, hiring an assassin while they may eventually stop the offender will not have any effect on the crime in process which calls for self-defense.
So no, putting rat poison in someone's coffee is not self defense.
Now you may be thinking of an abusive relationship. That too is a serious matter but not legally an immediate threat. If the man is abusing the woman physically at that moment then indeed it would be self-defense and lethal force may be justified. If the abuse is a threat of future injury or in reply to past injury, then it is no longer a matter of self-defense. A woman is no more justified in poisoning the man's coffee than emptying a .357 into him while he sleeps.
This is not to say the court or a jury may not take notice of such abuse and consider it a mitigating circumstance however. the claim of self-defense would be rejected.
Implies that she is in a relationship that will eventually involve a "crime in process" against which she will need to defend herself. If so, staying in the relationship, waiting for such an episode to occur, and then emptying her .357 into him isn't far different that the scenario you describe. Getting out of the relationship and avoiding the confrontation would be the most prudent thing to do.
If you are in a relationship where you feel the only way to defend yourself will be to go to the gun store and buy a .357, get the freak out. Don't sit around and wait for the opportunity to use the gun.
It's a lot like the guy who had it in for a neighbor. So, he opened his garage door and sat in the garage waiting for the guy to show up and then shot him. I belive that was covered on DU a couple of weeks ago.
a woman is getting a gun to protect herself from an abusive spouse. In court I believe that is called assuming facts not in evidence.
I would agree that leaving such a relationship is the best, and nearly only, solution. Purchasing a gun in such a situation could lead to a charge of murder, by an overzealous prosecutor, even if it was used in self-defense.
Women do own guns for reasons other than to kill their spouses (at least I hope so otherwise I better watch my back )
It wasn't his neighbor but unknown people who were breaking into his garage. He killed a teen who made a bad choice and he was rightfully found guilty of intentional homicide by a jury. setting up at trap for a criminal is not self-defense. Last year we had a man kill two teens who broke into his house. They came in separately and in both cases he incapacitated them with an initial shot then fired again to kill them.He was found guilty of murder. The first shot was justified but once incapacitated they were no longer a threat so there was no self-defense.
The OP however asks a simple case without splitting hairs- A woman faces being an immediate victim of a violent crime. She has a gun. Is she justified in using it? The implied consequence is by not using it she is victimized by her attacker.
So- defend herself or be a victim?
... that frequently women who do "get the freak out" of abusive relationships are subsequently stalked and beaten or killed by their ex-partners. Do you think these women should be allowed to arm themselves in their own defense? I do.
And even if it were a crime it would be based on an immoral law.
when is the level of violence too high and a woman should stop defending herself?
She's not allowed to defend herself because it would, in your words, be, "escalating the level of violence"?
Under what set of laws are you living under?
Perhaps women should carry around a can of beans.
More seriously, defense of yourself and others is an inalienable rights, and when presented with a serious risk of injury, death or sexual assault, any individual, man or woman, should be permitted a tool best able to equalize odds regardless of number of assailants, age, disability, strength, speed, etc. At this stage in our history, the only tool to able to adequately meet such a need is a firearm.
Pardon the quote to Colt advertising, but they correctly, if amusingly, stated, "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
We're just talking about a regular gun here right? Not some tricked out gold plated SKS with sapphires on it or whatever floats the gunners boats (and other parts) these days?
The clarification is needed to render the most precise answer.
If a gun has rhinestones, wouldn't that make it a prohibited "assault weapon?" Maybe I'm just confusing gemstones with other purported lethality enhancers like bayonet lugs and "those shoulder thingies that go up."
Kinda like being a gunner. Look dude, no matter HOW fascinating you find this stuff in the end nobody actually gives a crap about the strange chamber location on the Mateba 6 Autorevolver.
Obviously you felt hurt by my comment so sorry. Don't take it too personal, I'm the guy who cracks Jesus jokes at a fundy BBQ just because I can't stand sacred cows.
Perhaps guns shouldn't be a sacred cow, that's all I'm saying.
Particularly when the proposed laws & bans that infringe on aforementioned rights are arbitrary & pointless (like the ever changing and cosmetics based definition of "assault weapons" .
Studies have determined that the more lethal the (defense) weapon used, the less chance the victim has of being injured or killed.
This dynamic is more pronounced when women use guns for defense.......though I've never encountered an explanation about why this is the case.
themselves against any violent attack that might lead to serious injury or death and to use weapons, including firearms, to accomplish that purpose.
Why should women be excluded? I find it far more reasonable for a woman to consider owning a gun for self defense than a man.
Women are far more likely to be the victims of predators than men.
Given the results of that study, let's see if you stand by that justification if we alter the original question ever so slightly, to identify a group that is also more likely to be a victim of a predator:
If the society one lives in allows gun ownership, then nobody should be excluded, except by a court and on a case by case basis. Mental illness is a very broad term. It does not necessarily infer that an individual is a danger to himself or others. Same goes for convicted felons.