Do women have the right to self-defense even if the chosen means of defense is a gun?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Discuss.

[Kalidurga]

1. Yes

[NaturalHigh]

2. Absolutely.

[onecaliberal]

3. All people should have the same right to

Self protection regardless of gender or color.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Sorry to pick nits but then, does that mean men and all ethnicities

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.

[upaloopa]

6. The OP seems to me to be there for some other

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.

[Lurks Often]

7. Do you have a yes or no answer, it isn't that complicated a question.

[Duckhunter935]

10. I doubt it nt

[upaloopa]

12. Not playing your game thanks

Don't worry nobody here is going to grab your guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. What game? It's no more a game than asking do women have the right to:

* vote

* 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.

[Lurks Often]

23. This is a discussion board, are you unable to discuss things?

if not, why bother posting at all?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. "No self respecting gunner is confused about the answer to that question."

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.

I think this is a fishing expedition.

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.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Protestations notwithstanding, your question couldn't have been more fairly stated. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Thank-you, sir.

[upaloopa]

17. These posts of yours are designed to

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.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. "The fight now is who can raise enough money"

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.

[upaloopa]

29. I am not against gun ownership.

I do think we can reduce gun violence through legislation that is being blocked by the gun lobby. The money is for that purpose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. What legislation though? Legislation that has no effect on criminals?

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.

[upaloopa]

34. Yes that is a good idea and also

Something to help with getting guns away from mentally ill

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. I believe that was part of the President's actions.

Obviously the superior solution, with regards to mental illness, is effective treatment; then the threat of violence is moot regardless of mechanism.

[upaloopa]

37. I work for a county mental health department.

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.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. I agree. Perhaps even a system in the event the family is not present. Obviously this would include

safeguards against abuse but the mentally ill are being left to suffer and that is heartrending.

[upaloopa]

41. Yep

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. i know we don't see eye-to-eye on much of this but thank-you for contributing to the thread.

[upaloopa]

43. Thank you for the nice words.

Hope you have nice holidays and a great new year.

[kioa]

27. You really are a fan of Bloomberg.

"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.

[upaloopa]

30. Ok but I don't follow what Bloomberg is doing.

[oneshooter]

46. No, you want to "lower the rate of ownership" of firearms.

Until it effects your pocket. Then you would rather have the money than "lower the rate of firearms ownership".

[upaloopa]

47. Here we go again

Merry Christmas and happy new year

[oneshooter]

48. Merry christmas to you also.

But you can not deny the truth.

[upaloopa]

50. Thanks

[NYC_SKP]

15. Do black men have the right to self-defense even if the chosen means of defense is a gun?

Fishing expedition?

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!

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Why the hell didn't anyone reply to this.

Yes. Yes. YES. Absolutely. Why would this get ignored?

[onecaliberal]

49. I am a woman

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.

[NYC_SKP]

5. The ability to self-defend is a Civil Right we all possess, a natural and inalienable right.

The California State constitution explicitly describes it as such and the section below even precedes the freedom of speech:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
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.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

[Lurks Often]

8. Nothing to discuss, of course they do.

[Duckhunter935]

9. Of course

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.

[exboyfil]

11. This is probably referring to the South Carolina

DAs refusal to extend Stand Your Ground to domestic dispute cases.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141012/PC16/141019871

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.

[ileus]

19. Self defense with a gun is rude to society....don't be rude.

[sarisataka]

21. Tough question,

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?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. "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.

[sarisataka]

25. Sometimes money in politics

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.

[nichomachus]

24. Do women have a right to self-defense

Even if the means of self-defense is putting rat poison in their husband's coffee?

Why or why not?

Discuss?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. If it's self-defense the mechanism is immaterial.

[sarisataka]

28. Ok

let us look at the definition so we are on the same page:

self-de·fense
noun
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.

[nichomachus]

33. Well, for a woman to get a gun

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.

[sarisataka]

38. I don't see where the OP states

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?

[Straw Man]

53. The thing is ...

... 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.

[jen1980]

32. No, escalating the level of violence is a crime

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. "escalating the level of violence is a crime"

Where?

And even if it were a crime it would be based on an immoral law.

[sarisataka]

40. Follow up question

when is the level of violence too high and a woman should stop defending herself?

[GGJohn]

45. Ahhh, so a woman is supposed to just lay there and be raped?

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?

[branford]

44. There is always another option . . .

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."

[Pholus]

51. Why not. Only unreasoning fantatics think it's a stark choice though.

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.

[branford]

52. Hold on . . .

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."

[Pholus]

55. Overt literalness is a bummer at parties you know.

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.

[kioa]

57. Guns aren't a sacred cow. However, rights are rigorously defended.

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&quot .

[Big_Mike]

59. So if you can't handle sacred cows, what about devout pigs?

Gotta love those baby back ribs!

[pablo_marmol]

54. Yes indeed.

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.

[spin]

56. Why would you even ask? Of course both women and men have a right to defend ...

themselves against any violent attack that might lead to serious injury or death and to use weapons, including firearms, to accomplish that purpose.

[Starboard Tack]

58. In a society where guns are available as tools of self defense, then Yes!

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.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Good position, but your justification works for the mentally ill as well.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/about-us/our-blog/69-no-state/2030-new-study-mentally-ill-are-often-targets-of-violence

http://www.medicaldaily.com/mentally-ill-are-25-times-more-likely-be-murdered-challenging-assumptions-about-mental-illness-and

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:

Do the mentally ill have the right to self-defense even if the chosen means of defense is a gun?

[Starboard Tack]

62. Everyone has the right to self defense

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.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Better. That's a principles-based argument, and I share it. Cool.