I question how much of a recent developement this is, considering that every woman in my circle of kith and kin when I was growing up was more than capable when it came to guns. Matter-of-fact, most every woman in my lineage has used a firarm to proper effect from Mom (hitting mines with a Lee-Enfield .303 off the coast of Malta 'cause she was bored) to Great Aunt Anne (famous in family history for blowing a Yankee
So. Here's ABC
When did we, as a culture, decide that firearms were something that women required protection from?
And why is just firearms?
Driving down the freeway is every bit as dangerous to women as having a gun in the house -- if not more so. Where are the bliss-ninnies to pontificate about women doing this?
More women are taking up SCUBA diving, freestyle climbing and BASE jumping. I await with bated breath the expose from the Mainstream Media inferring that women need to be protected from this kind of thing.
You and I both know that expose will never be written. Women are free to take up any hare-brained hobby they wish -- as it should be -- with nary a peep from the Media.
Any hobby, that is, except guns.
A woman can throw her body down a snowy-mountain slope at 80 EmPeeHaitch, around a motorcycle track at twice that or off a radio antenna with nothing but a "You go girl!" from the Media.
She cocks an eyebrow at a firearm and the Media goes flat barking bug-nuts about the dangers. Bugnuts to the point of inventing statistics and falsifying facts.
By-the-by, whichever editor at ABC
"According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it's at least 20 times more likely that you'll use your weapon to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from an intruder."
By definition, an 'intruder' IS someone in your home. They have 'intruded' into the home.
How. The hell. Can you be "20 times more likely to shoot someone in your home rather than using it to protect yourself from someone in your home"?
Sweet Shivering Shiva, the state of education in this country.