Guns as a feminist issue

[catsittingstill]

Over at Feministe, they are saying that guns are not a feminist issue, in response to Megan McArdle saying on her blog that they are.

(McArdle redux: easy availibility of guns is good for women because you can fire a gun (and thus fight off a male attacker) without being strong.)

(Feministing redux: when you get right down to it, it doesn't *matter* that you can fire a gun without being strong; women in practice are more likely to be killed by guns than to defend themseves with one.)

What do I think?  First I think there's a tendency to revere, or revile, guns as guns--for a lot of people they're not just tools; they're symbols and the symbol gets in the way of evaluating the tool.

So I'm going to try to think about a tool to throw lumps of metal very fast.  Theoretically I could indeed use such a tool to fight off a bigger, stronger attacker, just as I could use a crowbar or a chisel or a plugged-in circle saw.  However:

1) Such tools tend to interest men more than women, in my experience (whether because of their symbolism, or because most tools to work metal get more use by men I don't know).  Easy availability of such a tool is more likely, I think, to promote its possession by men than women--just like easy availability of a circle saw is more likely to promote its possession by men than by women.  (Note that of course I agree that women use tools and of course I support a woman's right to use any tool that a man may use.  Just in case anyone was getting confused.)

1a) Such tools don't interest me, given the responsibility of making sure no bystander is hurt by them (I don't carry around plugged in circle saws everywhere I go either, for pretty much the same reason--in any given day I won't have a use for one, and subjecting myself and others to that hazard unnecessarily is stupid).  Like a seatbelt, this tool only works for self defense if you have it when you need it--I wouldn't tend to have it, and I suspect I am not alone or even in the minority among women in this.

2) You'd be amazed how many tools I am not strong enough to use without a mechanical assist.  Some among these have been examples of metal-throwing tools I was not strong enough to cock on demand.  I am by no means convinced that these tools are the promised equalizers that will make it possible for smaller weaker less aggressive people to fight off bigger stronger more aggressive people.

3) my life experience has been that where these metal throwing tools are highly valued and frequently possessed, women tend to be treated less equally.  Sometimes *markedly* less equally.  Make of it what you will.

4) the crucial element in all this is the willingness to seriously hurt or kill somebody.  My limited experience suggests to me that I'm not good at this (I'm fine with it in self-defense, in theory, but in practice I would hesitate).  I think that a lot of people aren't good at this--and furthermore I think women are in general less likely to be good at it than men.  The metal throwing tool does no good without the willingess.  The willingness takes actual training and/or experience.

So, no, I don't think guns are the solution for women getting equality or even for women fighting off attackers.  Some women will choose to carry them and that's fine with me.  But feminist issue?  Unless someone is trying to ban only women from owning guns, no, it's not.  Feministe wins.

Comments

[andpuff.livejournal.com]

Since McArdle seems to be referring to handguns, her theory that they're equilizers for the weak seems to be postulating that they're a 'point and shoot' tech. Well, in a way they are but the actual accuracy of a 9mm handgun -- which would be your most common caliber -- in untrained hands is low. There's always the "put it on full auto and spray the immediate area of your attacker" option I suppose but it seems to me she's vastly oversimplifying and that does make me wonder why.

I thought Susan from Texas' comment raised good points.

4) the crucial element in all this is the willingness to seriously hurt or kill somebody.

I think guns dilute this a bit because of the distance involved but... you can fight off a larger attacker by slamming your pen -- a perfectly legal accessory -- into his eyeball (if you hit hard enough, you'll actually go through the thinner bone at the back of the socket and into the brain) and yet, no one seems to do that so I think you're right on the mark with your willingness requires training and/or experience comment.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I would think that in a "repelling an attacker" scenario, one would be fairly close. Otherwise, how would one know one was being attacked? I mean, yes, bullets flying by would be a clue (though it might just be someone else defending herself from an attacker down the block) but I got the impression McCardle was envisioning "woman with gun defending herself against attacker without gun."

So if one is fairly close, perhaps only moderate accuracy is required. Though I'm not sure I could achieve even moderate accuracy in a hot state (in fear for my life) and I hope nothing less than fear for my life would make me deliberately try to shoot someone. On the other hand, being fairly close might tend to reduce the "dilution of distance" on the violence one is committing.

But in the end, it seems to me that McArdle is presenting herself as an economist, and economics is not about what ought to be, it's about what *is*. So the question becomes "Do women purchase more handguns than men?" If the answer is no, easy availability of handguns does not differentially benefit women, and it's not a feminist issue.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"So the question becomes "Do women purchase more handguns than men?" If the answer is no, easy availability of handguns does not differentially benefit women, and it's not a feminist issue."

I don't think that there's necessarily a direct correlation to how often people purchase something and how much benefit it produces.

That said, the framing as a "feminist issue" does seem a bit like special pleading.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I don't think that there's necessarily a direct correlation to how often people purchase something and how much benefit it produces.

I'm suggesting something a bit more complicated than that. "If object X benefits Group A more than it benefits Group B, Group A will want it more, and will express that want economically, by buying more of it or paying a higher price for it." This does depend on people knowing what will benefit them, but that's a pretty common assumption in economics.

Plus it seems to me that a self-defense tool is going to benefit the people who own it more than the people who don't. If women don't own it, it doesn't benefit women much. If women don't buy it, they mostly don't own it (I suppose a few might be bought by men as gifts for women, but suspect that most men who buy them buy for themselves).