So last night I met up with some friends for some ice cold elixer’s to whet the whistle with, and the subject of self defense came up. One friend stated she would never purchase a gun for self defense, cause that can be used against her. So she carries pepper spray, and mentioned the possiblity of getting a stun gun.
Interesting right?
Her argument is not about using a less lethal device for self defense, but simply biased against guns because *it can be used against her*. Yet, there’s no chance that her stun gun, or her pepper spray can’t be used against her.
See what I’m saying.
The Anti Gun Lobby mantra has permeated the collective conscious of people in ways that we can’t fathom.
Advertisement
Is it that she doesn’t believe either of those tools can ever be used against her, or she realizes that it is a risk and she’s willing to take that small risk with a stun gun or pepper spray, but not a real gun? I would almost see that as rational if she has a strong underlying belief that she might not be able to completely control a defensive tool. If it’s just a gun alone, then it’s obviously not rational.
Because my first efforts to reach out to women were focused on self-defense, I ran into tons of bizarre ideas like this. But when I took a RAD class, I found that these arguments weren’t limited to guns, but many forms of defense. When we were given the chance to beat the shit out of someone with a padded suit, some girls didn’t fight very hard. It wasn’t because they were concerned the padding didn’t provide enough protection, but because they were only willing to put up “so much” fight. They just had a point to where they were unwilling to defend themselves.
It’s a gun thing.
I had another person say the same thing once about home defense.
Why have a gun that can be used against you, when you can just as easily have a baseball bat handy?
I can understand why she thinks this.
1. Any selfdefense tool could be used against her. But if it was a gun, the chance for her being killed is greater.
2. The chance for prison time/lawsuit if she misused the gun in heat of a moment is greater.
3. Carrying a gun for self defense is a great responsibility. If she doesn’t think she can handle it, then I commend her for being honest with herself.
4. Using a gun in self defense requires a person to ask the question. “Is the threat worth killing this person?” With the other two, not so much. She is more likely to use them quicky then be paralyzed by indecision.
Look, there is nothing wrong with carrying a gun for self defense. Your friend just realizes her limitations and is just looking for alternatives.
I’m not questioning what she feels are her limitations, and nobody should put limitations on other peoples means of self defense.
The point of my rambling is that I’m questioning how she simply could not fathom, any other means of self defense, being used against her, regardless of lethality of said means. That’s the problem I have.