I guess the question is, are women as likely to seek training?

If you can't maintain a firearm, don't know how to secure it, cannot accurately fire it under stress, or are likely to hesitate to fire it when needed, owning a firearm will make you less safe -- and possibly make you a hazard to your neighbors. This is true whether you are a man or a woman, whether it is a handgun for personal defense or a rifle for hunting or property defense.

Owning a handgun is also a sobering philosophical statement: it says that you are willing to kill another human being in cold blood if you, and you alone, under strain, judge it necessary. (At least, it should imply this statement, because if you aren't, you generally have no business owning such a weapon to begin with. Holding a firearm you aren't willing to fire just makes you a target; killing something you weren't ready to kill can shred your psyche.)

If there is a problem with women owning handguns, it's not rooted in an assumption of female weakness and vulnerability, but in a premise that women are more likely to own a gun as a safety blanket without owning up to the responsibility and perspective it requires. I'm not certain whether or not this is an accurate statement in modern times, but I'm very much not a fan of the Nancy Reagan "Oh, it's just an itty bitty gun" line of thought I sometimes see, generally in women.

This isn't to say that men are as a gender more likely to be responsible, however. I'm not fond of the "let's get all liquored up and shoot at anything that moves" mentality that I've seen generally in men, either.

The only way that I see this being a feminist issue, however, is in the assumption that women are less likely to be willing to kill other human beings than men are, and firearm training will train them out of this, creating a certain parity of strength in violence.

I get kind of queasy thinking about this. Defensive parity is nice, but I'm unhappy endorsing a social movement towards encouraging more people to be willing to kill each other.

Oh, but it sure would be nice to shoot the knees out from someone who's trying to rape you, Zed.

The itty-bitty gun thing might be a "feminine" thing, but it's also easier to control a smaller gun that doesn't feel like it's going to jerk your arm off when you fire it. If you lack upper body strength that a lot of men have, and a lot of women do, though not all by any means, it helps. How much of that is psychological, I couldn't say.

Guns are mostly fun. The NRA talks a mean game about this or that, but mostly guns are shot at targets for fun. I would rather see someone promote the idea that women should have as much right to own guns for sport as men, but no, it only gets play if it reinforces the notion that women are weak.

Zed:

Women are less likely than men to think that they were born experts in guns and to seek some training. Men who "know" how to shoot are the bane of drill instructors because it is difficult to retrain them.

Women are also more likely to store guns safely and recognize the problem of children.

Incidently no one is "prepared" for shooting another. Cops now undergo psychological treatment. The effects on an individual vary, but there is simply no preparation.

I'm sorry, I was kind of raised as a redneck, so my first impression of this post is--a pistol is not home defense. A sawed off shotgun loaded with birdshot is, because birdshot is less likely to actually kill anyone, though it does sting.

My second impression is that anyone who buys a pistol, rifle, handgun, whatever, has a responsibility to learn how to use it, whether male or female. And if they won't learn how to use it, maybe that responsibility should be legislated to make sure they learn.

That being said, I honestly don't see how anyone can consider this a gender issue. Joe Blow on the street is just as likely to buy a gun and not know how to use is as Mary Sue is.

I also think that men can be just as concientious(sp?) as women when it comes to things like kids and safety. From my point of view, both sides are trying to hard to make erroneous generalizations here.

Home Defense 101:

(1) never try to sweep the house. You're not trained for that, and you don't know who is down there.

(2) If you want to protect your home, get an alarm system, and a solid wood or metal-clad door to your bedroom with a deadbolt. When faced with an intruder, get everyone into the bedroom and throw the deadbolt. Call the police. Tell them there is an armed intruder in the house.

(3) If and only if you are prepared to shoot someone (and deal with the significant psychological consequences), purchase a home defense weapon. Shotguns are prefereable. Take up a covered firing position and aim at the bedroom door. If the intruder breaches the door, shoot him. Otherwise, hold your fire.

This is the approach that exposes you and your family to the least danger.

Fof non-home defense applications, guns are tricky business. Most assaults take place at close quarters. (The FBI teaches its recruits that most gunfights take plcase at about seven feet. Seven Feet!) Having a firearm available for "close-quarters battle," or CQB, requires carrying it all the time in a holster that is readily accessible, and training for quick-draw firing. Carrying a weapon all the time is a major lifestyle choice -- and is simply impractical in many parts of the country.

All this addresses a problem which is fairly far down on the list: most acts of violence against women are by men they know. Stranger assaults are a much smaller problem.

I'm with Amanda -- if you want to shoot for fun, great. If you want a firearm for home defense, fine, but get the solid oak door first.

Oh, and Atuin, You're just wrong about bird shot. At home defense ranges (under 15 yards), even a chokeless barrel will not produce significant spread -- the birdshot will not sting, it will wound. At point blank range, birdshot will in fact remain a tremendously cohesive group, boring a much larger permanent wound channel than a slug or buckshot -- emergency room veterans refer to these as "Rat hole chest wounds," and they are very often fatal. Loading with birdshot for home defense is not a bad idea, but not for the reason you think. It's a high lethality munition at very close range.

Also, _never_ try to would someone. One is generally only justified in shooting someone (using "deadly force") to preserve one's own life or the life of another (laws vary slightly). If you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to shoot someone, it will surely also be a situation where you can't afford to miss. Aiming center-mass (right for the easily hit torso) is proper tactical doctrine. Called shots, whether to the head, shoulder or leg, are the province _only_ of highly trained sharpshooters using specialized rifles with optical sights. Street cops are taught to aim center mass.

If you want to know how hard it is to hit someone in a real street situation, recall that the four officers that killed Amadou Diallo at close range, all highly trained, fired 41 shots and scored 19 hits. That's 22 misses. With your heart climbing out of your throat and your hands shaking, killing someone is tougher than it looks on television.

My $0.02, FWIW.

Something we can agree on! Shotguns are much safer for home defense. Bird/small game shot is much less likely to penetrate the walls of the house next door and kill the neighbors baby in its crib.