Guns and Roses - No, not those guys

            I’m cold and tired and withered-like-a-raisin from sitting in an air-conditioned room all day. And I can see my summer break slipping away like, as they say on The Days of Our Lives (Friends reference anyone?), sand through the hourglass. But I’m trying to be patient because so far, despite these things, I have been impressed by my new job and my new state and my new life. Still, I’m withered and summer-less. So if he wants to get my attention – this man talking at the front of the room at my new teacher orientation whose title I cannot remember, so berated have I been by names and acronyms – he does an awful fine job when he says, to all the teachers sitting in the room, in reference to school violence, but in no way, he assures us, trying to alarm us, in a voice full of pride and conviction: “You’re not commissioned, and you don’t carry a weapon and all that stuff, but we need you, we need everybody, to be security.” And I have to patch my brains back together using only my will power because my hands and my face must remain pleasantly deferent.

            Now, I’m a teacher of language, so I know that I have a distasteful habit of accusing people of murder who have only mistaken a grammar rule. As such, I will try not to expostulate for too long on the semantic betrayal this gentleman (who I’m sure is a gentleman, despite my unforgiving attitude toward him) took by lumping weapons in with “stuff,” as though using a weapon in defense is about as necessary as using a pop tart as a floatation device. And the guy’s thesis, when you get right down to it and give him the benefit of the doubt, was that teacher’s should not just be looking out for their students’ academic success, but also their personal well-being. I get that and I agree with it. His thesis also included the idea that people are less likely to be violent and abusive to people who they like and who they know care about them. It’s a sensible and I would agree accurate point (though a little bit obvious.) The obvious question that he did not go on to answer was: What happens to us if our single method of defense – apparently, niceness – fails to work, and we are left standing in front of a lunatic without anything to protect us but our smiles? Because what he has ultimately asked us to do is to defend other innocent people and sacrifice ourselves with absolutely no tools at our disposal. And what he has also said, in essence, is that people whose job it is to physically defend others (actual security guards, police, soldiers) do not, practically speaking, need weapons to do so, just the kindness in their hearts. I wonder, delusional district administrator, why no one has ever tried this kindness model of civilization before. What, I ask, should a security guard do if a criminal’s heart does not, in fact, grow three sizes right before he pulls the trigger? In what alternate universe is it reasonable to tell someone that if she finds herself staring down the barrel of a crazy person’s gun, she should take a moment to reflect on whether she could have been friendlier to the person on the other side and come to the ultimate conclusion to do nothing about her present predicament because, after all, she is a peace-loving teacher, navigator of the mind and soul, who need never resort to physical violence? I’ll tell you what, I am insulted and outraged that my employer should ask me to take on a job of defense without a weapon, as though it were an honor to be the inevitable loser in a righteous cause. And just like that, I am ready to take on this discussion.

            See there are over a dozen reasons, probably, why I am a firm advocate of the second amendment. That topic, for me, is a long, though surprisingly straight forward discussion that should amble patiently over a long series of days or blogs, over coffee, and alcohol, and walks on the beach. But the first argument that I simply cannot understand from those who advocate strict gun control is the effect that it has on innocent people. I am not talking statistics – YET – because statistics on both sides of this argument, as with nearly all arguments, are so manipulated and askew as to retain little integrity for debate. I am talking logic and sense. (Logics and senses people. As rare and valuable as a gold-backed dollar.) Because it seems to me that the answers to the following two questions could be answered as accurately by a child as by an adult and that the answers are innate in the definitions of the words themselves: What does a criminal do when you tell him he may not do something that he wants to do? (He does it anyway.) And what happens to the safety of innocent people when you make them weaker? (Their safety, too, is weakened.)

            Which brings me to my main point today, a topic I have pondered and deliberated over for some time. It has to do with feminists and guns.

            I think that men think about safety on many levels, and probably even more so when they are also looking out for their female friends: what to do, and when, should a certain situation escalate. But I have had several conversations with men of various ages that suggest to me that they are fairly unaware of the level of focused energy that women put into their personal defense against rape, sometimes as frequently as on a daily basis. Now, I live a fairly safe life in a fairly safe place and I always have, so I don’t lose sleep or have debilitating terror over thoughts of being raped (although some women, tragically, do). Still, it is a frequent and consistent fear that I have and, more importantly, something that I (realistically or futilely) am constantly trying to safeguard against. I don’t think I’m alone. I have read articles and talked to other women about this topic. It seems it is something many women – even those who are not as statistically likely to be victims of rape – accommodate for. Why do we walk with a firmer step and a higher chin, and ears constantly tuned to what could be coming up behind us when we’re alone in an unfamiliar place? Why, when we jog alone, is the music on our headphones significantly quieter than when we jog with a buddy (especially if that buddy is a male)? Why do we watch shadows at night, or stay out of unlit, quiet places entirely? Why do we keep our keys and our phones out as we walk to our cars? Why do we carry pepper spray in our purses? I can tell you, if I was only worried about someone stealing my wallet, I wouldn’t be half so diligent or cautious.

            The fact is that, whatever our emotional, psychological, and mental strength, there is no denying that most women are physically weaker than most men. At the very least, the strongest women are weaker than the strongest men. And, yet, we have the same human rights, and the same intrinsic worth, and deserve the same level of social justice as do our equally innocent male equivalents. I think that not only feminists, but most other people, would agree with this assessment in our day and culture. This is why I cannot understand why, even if you are indifferent to all the other reasons that guns should be readily available to private citizens, if you are a defender and advocate of women, you could possibly be unwilling to put guns in the hands of innocent, competent women while simultaneously knowing that they are in the hands of rapists and other criminals. It is illogical that a feminist who demands equality for women in all ways does not fight for what is virtually the only way for women to be equal to men in a battle of physical strength. It seems ironic to me that many of these same people support women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies regarding abortion, but do not support women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies when they are being attached from without. For that, we must merely be victims. Otherwise, it seems, we are setting a bad example for people who illegally possess guns.

            Now, I know some will say that if we had more gun freedom, then more men, as well as more women, would own guns, thus making it more likely that a rapist – as well as the woman he attacks – would be carrying a gun on any given night. And this is true. This would also be true in cases of domestic violence in which, in a strictly gun controlled world, a man may be more likely to punch a woman than to shoot her, the former, of course, being something she could more likely heal from. Furthermore, there are evil women out there too, who would also be empowered by possession of a gun, to the detriment of other, innocent people. So yes, I acknowledge that having more armed citizens does not just save innocent people from abuse without having an effect on other elements of society. But the deciding factor, in my book, is a matter of equality. Innocent people will die from gun abuse – and ignorance – and stupidity – regardless of any gun laws. But taking guns out of citizens’ homes disenfranchises an entire group of people that is already involuntarily weaker and more vulnerable than others.

            To me it seems that the right to bear arms is an essential element to empowering women. And to empowering innocents, and to empowering righteous underdogs, and to destroying the people who try to oppress and overtake those people. If the odds of a woman walking in an alley alone, carrying a gun, are greater in a society than the odds of that same woman and that same alley and no gun, mightn’t I, a criminal, think a moment longer about attacking, even though she looks small and undemonstrative, even though I  know (this being the real world and not a fairy tale) that there are no strapping, muscular, heroic men waiting in the shadows to whisk in and sweep her from danger in the nick of time?

            Mightn’t I think twice about robbing a liquor store if the man behind the counter is as likely to grab a gun from under the counter as a wad of hundred dollar bills? Mightn’t I, even as a disillusioned, tragic, unstable, lost, and pitiable adolescent be more likely to consider the limits of my strength and power if I am not absolutely certain that not a single person on the high school campus (filled with innocent and often just as troubled teenagers) I am about to shoot up could pull a gun on me?  I have never seen the weakening of the weak and innocent as being a part of our culture as Americans, as women, or as rational, peace-loving, and good people. If we know that we cannot eradicate forces of evil and criminal intent (not all at once, not all the time), why are we not all, indignantly and wholeheartedly, advocating for the strengthening and empowerment of the good and the innocent?

-R.E.A.