A firearm represents a much bigger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself. Men can readily hurt women without a gun, and if a woman is already in physical contact with the attacker so that he can take away their gun, they are already in trouble.The peer-reviewed research shows that murder rates decline when people carry concealed handguns, whether men or women. But a woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than a man doing the same.
I have been asked to train women in the use of handguns, when they've separated from a partner and become afraid of him. I did so gladly, even though I might have liked the guy and doubted that he would in fact pursue any sort of harm towards her. If he did not, as I suspected he would not, no harm would befall him; and if he did, well, then he had it coming.
It's strange, I reflect, to live in an era that turns every piece of once-jovial intellectual property into a complaint by women against men -- Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Marvel comic movies, apparently even Barbie dolls -- yet dodges this simple, practical remedy for the worst sort of actual harm that men do to women. We festoon the complaint rather than solving it.
Victims who are armed aren't victims anymore. They are, to use the language of the complaint, transformed into active agents rather than passive patients. They can assert their will, defend their interests, not be harmed against consent. I might suggest to them that their friends, the real allies, are those who help you get there rather than those who commiserate in the complaint.
12 comments:
Excellent point. I sometimes wonder if the point is not to actually protect women who need it, but to enact some sort of revenge or at least disempowering of men.
It is as if the desire was to weaken men rather than empowering women, you say? The result of that would be a society of weaker individuals, on average; less capable of defending its actual interests, whatever they were, against those who retained power.
When people ask me whether they should "get a gun," I suggest to them--the asker of either gender--to do a serious period of serious introspection: are they ready actually to shoot another human being? And they shouldn't answer me; they should answer themselves.
My concern is that, if the person draws his/her gun, and in the moment of truth hesitates even very briefly, that's the attacker's opportunity to take the gun away and use it on the person. Nor will it matter how good the person is on the firing range; paper targets don't attack or even resist. There's just no threat there, so there's neither any danger nor any live human to bloody up. It's especially true of attackers hopped up on stimulant drugs--they're too excited, too uncaring, and literally feel no pain; they'll just keep coming.
I also tell them not to accept any disparagement if they decide they would hesitate in that moment: there's nothing wrong with being reluctant to shoot a human; they just need to find another means of defense.
For non-gun-oriented defense, I always recommend Krav Maga. That training levels a lot of large men attacking even small women.
Eric Hines
I have that conversation too, although between you and me there’s a middle ground we don’t talk about. An ordinary person might pull a gun they don’t want to use, and still scare off another ordinary person who doesn’t want to get shot. They’re not all hardened killers, who are going to advance on a drawn gun. Just the sight will scare lots of people; shooting into the ground will scare others. We would never train people to do that, and as professionals we would despise it. Pragmatically, though, it might well work.
If anything I think you need a lot more confidence and grit to defend yourself with martial arts. It’s pretty easy to shoot a man by comparison. If you’re not ready to do that, you’re probably not going to hit him hard enough to hurt him. It only takes a single afternoon to teach somebody several ways to destroy a human body; but if they don’t have the grit to do it, even years in the dojo won’t make them safe. Their heart is in it or it isn’t.
I was puzzled by a news story about women being harassed by a naked man in parks in Jefferson County, CO. First, how did he get so close? I'd go on alert as soon as I caught sight of an unclad man approaching me. Second, why did they not fight or try to hurt their assailant? I realize that they can't legally carry firearms on the trails, but there are other things that will help even the odds between a small woman and a larger man.
Then I remembered that normal people don't think like I do, or like most of my friends do. Normal people don't constantly game out attacks, or "what if?" I suspect the women were prepared for a mountain lion, but not for a person. And if he jumped out of concealment, well, that would also make things harder for the women.
Mindset isn't everything, as you say, but it can make a big difference even without having a legal firearm on hand.
LittleRed1
Just the sight [of a drawn gun] will scare lots of people....
That's awfully close to brandishing; Texas' laws on brandishing are hazy, and it's often illegal, depending on circumstance. Shooting after drawing often is easier to defend in court.
Apart from that, it's often hard to discriminate an "ordinary" assailant who doesn't want to get shot from an assailant who doesn't care, especially in reduced visibility conditions. That "ordinary" assailant may well be sober enough to keep talking his way into approaching his assailee, too, and take the gun away once close enough. The ordinary person who doesn't want to use a gun can't afford to take the risk; the hesitation you're describing is exactly what will get that person killed if he guessed wrong about his assailant.
Added to the ordinary defender's plight is his fear in the moment--he won't shoot accurately even if he does fire. There's a fair amount of literature that indicates that however skilled a soldier is in peacetime training, he'll only be about 70% that skilled in the fear of actual battle. Our ordinary defender likely won't be that capable in the moment.
shooting into the ground will scare others.
That's risky to do in cities, or in yards like northern Texas' where the soil really is that clay-y and hard: ricochets endanger others, and others' property. And in most Texas cities, it's illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits without proper cause. Again, it's often easier, legally, to just shoot the guy than it is to fire a warning shot, even were there a safe direction in which to shoot.
Regarding physical fighting vs shooting from some at least minimal distance, maybe it's harder to fight than to shoot, but not necessarily. One anecdote: a young woman in a Krav class with me wouldn't hurt a fly, didn't like guns, likely would not use one even were it in her hands. But she was in class to learn to defend herself, and she was accosted in bar. A short time later, her assailant was on the floor curled around certain parts of his body. She said she felt terrible in the aftermath, but her response had been automatic.
Eric Hines
I understand why we teach the way we do, Mr. Hines; all that is part of why we don't generally talk about the thing I was talking about. This schema of training has shaken out of a combination of the legal framework and the practical realities, as you say. All I'm saying is that even if they do it wrong, there's a good chance it'll still work. It's not a guarantee, and all of those things you said remain true.
...a fair amount of literature that indicates that however skilled a soldier is in peacetime training, he'll only be about 70% that skilled in the fear of actual battle.
True, although sometimes you get surprised. Kyle Rittenhouse, for example, blew the doors off that model. Of course that's just one counterexample, which doesn't invalidate the literature.
Then I remembered that normal people don't think like I do, or like most of my friends do. Normal people don't constantly game out attacks, or "what if?" I suspect the women were prepared for a mountain lion, but not for a person.
It's funny, isn't it, what people do and don't plan for? I remember somebody joking about how everyone has a plan for what they'd do if they won the lottery, but how many have a good retirement strategy? (I certainly don't.)
I always suggest they go through some training first, then decide if they could pull the trigger. Seeing what it takes, visualizing an attacker and acting as they go through the training, often clarifies things for people. Not that a lot of people have asked me, though.
They can assert their will, defend their interests, not be harmed against consent. I might suggest to them that their friends, the real allies, are those who help you get there rather than those who commiserate in the complaint.
In order for a woman to realize this, she must put her need for protection above what she has been told is the greater good: the elimination of guns from society. Women often seem far too willing to set aside their own best interests in the service of the interests of others.
The idea that if a woman has a gun for self-defense an attacker will take it away from her and use it against her is thus very useful. It allows a woman to convince herself that having a gun for protection is not actually in her own best interest and thus lets her sidestep the conflict between her self-interest and the "greater good".
...she must put her need for protection above what she has been told is the greater good....
Except that a woman with a gun who's mentally able to use it in her own defense (or defense of others, come to that) is serving the greater good. Her overt ability to defend herself contributes, however smally, to a reduction of (the likelihood of) such assaults generally.
The idea that if a woman has a gun for self-defense an attacker will take it away from her....
I'll assume this isn't a response to my comment, since it's not what I said. What I said was [emphasis added]:
... if the person draws his/her gun, and in the moment of truth hesitates even very briefly, that's the attacker's opportunity to take the gun away and use it on the person.
It's that momentary hesitation that's key, and as I noted, the hesitation isn't gender-specific. Nor is it necessarily impossible to overcome, but it is a very strong mindset. I continued with a recommendation that the person--man or woman--learn another means of self defense.
Or, I'm being paranoid again.
Eric Hines
Except that a woman with a gun who's mentally able to use it in her own defense (or defense of others, come to that) is serving the greater good.
Yes but my point is about what she's been told is the greater good: getting rid of guns.
No, the point about an attacker taking away her gun was not in response to your comment, Eric. It's about how people resolve cognitive dissonance and maintain their world view:
A woman is at risk (abusive ex, stalker, works night shift, lives alone). She considers that a gun might be a good idea to protect herself. But The Right People have hammered into her the idea that guns are bad, guns are dangerous, no private citizen should have a gun. Now she's looking at a situation where it seems that The Right People don't care about her well-being. Looking too closely at that would cause some serious cracks in her world view. If she can seize on the idea that an attacker would just take the gun away from her then she can believe that The Right People do care about her and she has no need to resolve the apparent discrepancy between what would be best for her and what she has been told is best for the world.
There are a lot of little factoids like that floating around out there. Doesn't matter if they're lies; doesn't matter if they're not really related to the main point; all that matters is that they can be deployed to keep people from having to look at some uncomfortable facts.
Post a Comment