BlogHer - 2nd Amendment Empowers Women - Comments

Not holding them liable for...

nelle2nelle — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:10:23 -0500

the misuse, I'm proposing we hold the last person in the chain responsible if they transfer the gun to someone who legally should not have one.

Big difference.

nelle

Training and background

BackyardConservative — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:28:31 -0500

Training and background checks are fine.

I don't think you should hold manufacturers liable for misuse of guns. (If the product is inherently defective that is a different story.)

We don't penalize auto manufacturers for crimes committed with stolen cars, or even your own for that matter. Nor should we. That would make all products that much more expensive for all of us.

Trial lawyers' opportunistic lawsuits drive up costs and they are the ones who get the benefit.

Of course...

nelle2nelle — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:39:49 -0500

we respect individual freedom and responsibility with automobiles, but
most states require you to have it inspected annually and insured if you drive it on the road.

I don't believe anything mentioned above infantilises peop;e. I'm not for taking guns away or banning them, only for safety steps that keepsa manufactured and dangerous product out of legally wrong hands.

Some don't like the idea of background checks, but it already is in place in some ways... it needs to be made absolute, with no exceptions.

nelle

When it comes down to it I

BackyardConservative — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:56:45 -0500

When it comes down to it I think we need respect and a recognition of individual freedom and individual responsibility. We shouldn't infantalize our citizens. There are other ways depressed people can kill themselves--how about drug overdose--prescription not illegal drugs, and irresponsible parents whose kids fall out of windows or run into traffic, or light matches.

And no, I am not advocating for individual ownership of nukes.

Liability...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:22:58 -0500

is a means of righting a negligent act.

To date, suing manufacturers goes nowhere, after all guns don't fire themselves. That argument isn't good enough. We do control more hazardous equipment, and we can create an environment where gun transfers creates a heirarchy of responsibility. At some point, a manufactured gun leaves the legitimate train of commerce and ventures into a world where those we really don't wish to have guns get them. That event horizon (to borrow a term from black hole talk) is where we can make inroads.

I have to differ on it not being about robbers... in this state, one has a duty to either flee or show imminent threat or actual harm underway. Having law that makes it ok to shoot anyone who is perceived to be in your home for ill purpose is adding a very dangerous element to the mix.

nelle

This isn't about shooting

artpax — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:05:16 -0500

This isn't about shooting robbers. This is about maintaining a militia. Handguns have little to do with keeping a well armed militia.

Handguns are easily concealed, accidentally kill children, and aid easy suicide in the depressed. I don't like the idea of nutcases having concealed guns. Do they get concealed carry permits? Do they have training. Training is a biggie. You can't drive a car without passing a test, but you can purchase a gun. D'oh. Handguns are largely urban and largely criminally involved. I'd much rather have the billions of dollars spent in insurance due to ease of handgun access be spent on education and crime prevention.

The big question here for me is training and proof of competence. I was taught to shoot as a kid on the farm. How many gun urban owners actually have use and safety training?

Very good gun facts here.

The suicide numbers and rates in this country are vastly larger than the homicice ratea. You are far more likely to die at your own hands than someone elses's.

Nelle, you have far more confidence in the free market than I do. I would like to see a fair market.

Nancy

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

Pass the smelling salts in advance...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:28:56 -0500

or in the wake of my post. Those who know my writing will need it. ;-)

I'm not in favour of banning guns - the normal everyday type suited to hunting or even self defence. I've more of an issue with weaponry that serves no useful purpose in either realm.

The debate reshapes in other directions. First, where should the line between allowable and not allowable be? And there is a line, because I can't own a nuclear bomb, or even a howitzer.

And furthering the need for smelling salts, this leftist invokes the free marketplace to help play a role in responsible gun policy, and that is the role of insurance and tort law. As a former commercial lines underwriter and holder of a CPCU aka Can't Produce, Can't Underwrite designation attained through 39 hours of exam time) I believe insurance can help this issue find sane ground.

Insurers are not keen on product liability suits, be it against manufacturers, or to a lesser extent, resellers. So they pressure manufacturers to adopt safe practices and to make safer products. To control who might access their product, and under what conditions they might proceed with selling said product.

I like the idea of holding the seller accountable for doing a background check. If the person is clean, cool. No worries. If they aren't and sell it, worries. And there should be no exemptions to having a check ran, not even on an individual level. We could easily remake the system so that individuals would have a go to for checking.

And while the president is fond of calling for caps on jury awards, I'm totally against such restrictions (preferring punitive damages flow to the government or community, not the individual) said awards strike fear into the heart of insurers, spurring them to get out there and manage risk. This has greatly increased product safety in my lifetime (after product liability became more legally accessible through civil suit.)

Guns are no panacea. I've seen what happens when someone accidentally shoots and kills their best friend. And even shooting someone who threatens you will haunt for a long, long time.

Elsewhere we talked on Texas law that apparently allows the shooting of a burglar in one's home. That is just bloody foolish. A teen being stupid and stealing a tv should be met with death? No logic there whatsover...

so lets have rational law, rational ownership, combine some regulation with free market forces, and there will be some sanity eventually.

nelle

I had a roommate who was

BackyardConservative — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:49:33 -0500

I had a roommate who was nearly raped on the way home. She carried a brick around with her after that, as that state did not allow concealed carry.

You aren't always at home, and a shotgun isn't as portable. Nor does it give the element of surprise that a handgun does, to deter an attack.

But again--you have your preferences--why take away someone else's preference?

Others may have a different opinion. The police can't be everywhere, nor are they always in time.

I would think we could agree

BackyardConservative — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:45:25 -0500

I would think we could agree that technological developments are a good thing, including advances which make firearms easier to handle for women of all sizes and strength.The Founding Fathers would have been fine with this--they said Arms, not shotguns, and as they didn't wish the right to be infringed surely they would wish to preserve this choice.

As Justice Scalia and the women scholars pointed out--you can point a handgun one-handed and call 911 on your phone with the other. Not possible with a shotgun.

I'm with Nancy on this

Dagny — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:38:02 -0500

I'm with Nancy on this one. I have no problem with a ban on handguns. I have always felt that if one feels that if one feels one needs a gun for home protection, then a shotgun is much more effective. I know that I also have less of a problem with shotguns than handguns because shotguns have other purposes besides home protection -- like hunting. In fact I can see little purpose in individual ownership of handguns.

Handguns & Constitutional Intent

artpax — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:14:32 -0500

Those founding fathers and their intimate advisors were a pretty thorough bunch when it came to thinking things through. I remain unconvinced that they were talking about handguns. Pistols of the day were not easily concealed given their large size.

I support this amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." in order to keep the government in check -- and I an pretty sure that was the intent. Militia, free state.... sounds like they were talking about revolution by and for the people when the government decides the rights of the people are secondary to needs of the state (or corporation.)

I'd rather have a shotgun. Broader spread. If you are going to have a gun in the home you better damn well know how to use it. The physical "weakness" of women comes into play only when they are unschooled in the proper use and maintenance of arms.

Scalia as a champion of women's rights? Surely you jest, Anne.

Peace,

Nancy

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

Possibly. If you were a very

BackyardConservative — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:17:18 -0500

Possibly. If you were a very strong woman used to handling one.

But it's good to have the choice, isn't it.

Thank you Lisa! Well, yes

BackyardConservative — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:16:12 -0500

Thank you Lisa!

Well, yes gun bans don't work-- another one of those illustrations of the law of unintended consequences.

I just wonder if one could

Dagny — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:48:03 -0500

I just wonder if one could protect one's self just as effectively with a shotgun as a handgun. Because my relatives? They had shotguns, not handguns to protect themselves against potential lynchings and what not.

Welcome Backyard Conservative!

Lisa Stone — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:43:33 -0500

Anne, I'm so glad you've joined BlogHer as one of our official conservative bloggers - and just in time for a conference where we will be talking here, in Second Life and on the conference floor about a number of political issues.

As someone who grew up in gun country, I'm a big believer that gun bans are a political non-starter in the U.S. I just don't believe they're sustainable.

And thanks for the Dixie Chicks video - I do love them so.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

2nd Amendment Empowers Women

BackyardConservative — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:16:13 -0500

Kitchen table issues like jobs, health care, gas and food prices are on voters' minds this year, but after the Supreme Court decision overturning the DC handgun ban, the 2nd amendment is on the table as
well. This hits home for me as my suburb in Chicago instituted a
handgun ban some years ago, along with the City of Chicago, similar to DC's. My town has suspended the law and I welcome the change. Why? The handgun ban was a welcome mat to criminals seeking an easy target for robbery. Our community will be safer now that they can't be sure what awaits them when they break into someone's home.

And yes, someone's home in my town was broken into, and a father who protected himself and his children ran afoul of the law. That's one reason I am glad the ban was overturned.

Consider as well that the 2nd amendment comes second only to the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights--individual free speech and self-defense go hand in hand. This spring in the Chicago suburbs we were all witness to murder. Chicago Tribune, "The Law Didn't Save Her":

The March 7 slaying-suicide and the wrenching ordeal that led to it illustrate the harsh realities of domestic violence and the limitations
of the system designed to address it.

A woman’s risk of being seriously injured or killed by an intimate partner increases when she breaks off the relationship. In certain cases, a protective court order is not enough and the only viable option is for a woman to either enter a shelter or relocate, experts say.

The Tribune later editorialized for repeal (a kind of let them eat shotguns approach), but the Second Amendment Sisters want to be able to defend themselves. Then there are the honor killings, overseas and now here.

UW Madison Law School Professor Ann Althouse on the decision, noting that the conservative justice Antonin Scalia was sensitive to the arguments made by women legislators and academics to uphold their women's rights. Althouse excerpts their brief:

The District would like to restrict women's choice of firearm to those it gauges most appropriate rather than to allow rational women the ability to decide whether a handgun is more suited to their needs. Petitioner's Brief cites two articles from firearms magazines in which a shotgun is mentioned as appropriate for home defense. Pet. Br. at 54-55. An assembled shotgun is certainly better than nothing and could provide deterrence benefits provided it is accessible to a woman. However, most women are best served by a handgun, lighter in weight, lighter in recoil, far less unwieldy for women with shorter arm spans, and far more easily carried around the home than a shotgun or rifle.

Moreover, women who are holding a handgun are able to phone for assistance, while any type of long gun requires two hands to keep the firearm pointed at an assailant...

Allison Kasic, Independent Women's Forum notes that gun bans do not reduce violent crime, in fact the reverse is true, in DC and elsewhere. Kasic also counts the benefit to the community, with the story of a brave grannie who stopped a serial rapist in his tracks.

The 2nd amendment also protected blacks from lynch mobs--some gun control measures were put in effect to keep them from defending themselves. That's un-American, and now the Supreme Court has confirmed it. The decision empowers the vulnerable, and women are among those who benefit the most.

P.S. Then again, some ladies just love their guns. After all, they might run into an Earl kind of guy.

Contributing Editor Anne Leary also blogs at BackyardConservative and UNCoRRELATED