Men, women and guns

A message for women: don’t reject useful technology

I often wander through the Royal National Park alone. I have been doing this for the past 40 years. As a male I am able to enjoy these activities whenever I feel like it. But, I have observed that the ratio of lone men walking along bush tracks or jogging along remote beaches or cycling along fire trails to lone women doing the same thing would be at least 50 to one.

I could not imagine life without the freedom to be as spontaneous as I am - and yet half the population do not have that freedom because they do not trust the other half. Statistically, women are safer than men are - but that is only due to the great majority of women placing restrictions on their own movements.

Although the imbalance of aggression and physical strength between male and female has been set down by nature, a handgun can narrow the gap. The purpose of carrying a handgun is not for the woman to shoot anyone, but to be able to relax while alone in a remote place. If the handgun has to be pointed at anyone, then the expectation is not to shoot him but to force him to turn around and walk away.

But, the right of women to feel as safe as men feel in remote places is being denied them by people fueling an unfounded image of guns as equating to deadly danger for society.

The “benign” gun

Many guns used by criminals have been stolen and children finding the household gun can accidentally harm themselves. However, if a key unlocking the cocking mechanism is kept well separated from the gun, this problem is overcome.

There could be a weapon manufactured for women with a single bullet sealed in the chamber. After discharging that one bullet, the gun becomes useless.

It would seem that if women had a gun in the house, then more burglars would carry guns (and have an itchy trigger finger). That could happen - but, almost all houses which are burgled have no one at home at the time. Besides, the burglar would not expect himself to be in danger as relatively few women would take up the option of having a gun even if it was available.

In a heated domestic, it would seem that the enraged spouse could now be able to reach for a gun. But then a gun is no less deadly than a carving knife from the kitchen or a length a water pipe from the shed.

In scenarios where women walking, jogging or cycling alone in remote areas could choose to be armed, only one in several hundred would actually fire her weapon in defence. Even when that did happen, most attackers would not be killed but would be wounded.

The alternatives to the handgun: there are none

No amount of self-defence training will overcome fear in a face-to-face confrontation.

What about pepper spray or mace? The person has to be dangerously close for the spray to be used effectively. A second of hesitation is enough for him to shield his eyes and negate her defence.

Summary

1. compared to other causes of premature death, that due to gunshot is insignificant;
2. resistance to guns in this country is driven by emotion and based upon assumptions which are wrong;
3. a simple and relatively safe handgun can be manufactured which should then be made easily available to any woman who feels the need for it; and
4. when a woman is confronted by a dangerous man in a lonely place, she cannot negotiate - unless she has a gun.