Besides her evident action-hero bloodlust ("grant me a gun and self-restraint"? really?) Ms. McArdle also makes this claim:

"It's the only time when men's greater speed, strength, and longer reach make no difference"

Am I the only one who thinks that speed, strength, and reach actually do matter, when the question of having a handgun turned against the operator come into play? (Nevermind the effect of speed strength and reach in a quick draw contest, pardner.)

I could see making this argument for a shotgun, better still for a rifle and scope (which is a very effective at levelling the playing field if that field's long). But for a handgun?

I'm probably showing my bias, as I prefer a throwing axe. D.C.'s gonna be so much more fun now.

There seems to be some myth about having a gun in the home that if there is a need, somehow both actors are have equal access and the bigger or stronger will gain control of the weapon like some struggle of titans.
That is about the dumbest thing I have heard to date on this board. These people that espouse these myths are obviously not gun owners.

The reason why police and other professionals that expect altercations carry guns is they are portable and effective means of self defense.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun....

This was a close call on a legitimate constitutional issue. However, isn't it strange that, with so much gun violence in the U.S. and so many humanitarian causes needing help, that so many people, so much money, and so much passion are devoted to guns?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

And the police and other professionals are hopefully trained in keeping control of both a situation AND their gun. Bit different from the average schmoe.

You have to control for the propensity of violent men--as I understand it, most men who murder their wives have a history of domestic violence--to purchase guns. The causation probably runs the other way.

El Viajero, even police have their weapons turned against them:

Of course, none of the studies show how often gun owners scare off intruders. But they do indicate that most gun owners never reach their gun when a burglar does break in -- and suggest that self-defense shootings are relatively rare. Guns are not infrequently turned against their owners, though; about one in six police officers killed in the line of duty are shot with their own guns.

To refute your other point, I've seen dumber things written on this site. I haven't time to dig 'em up, and I'll understand if you don't accept my assertion on faith.

chiggins,

Just the fact that they carry them shows that they believe they are better off with them than without them.

Maybe you could show them this study and they'll lay down their guns.....NOT!!

I'd say that especially for altercations between say, spouses or partners, the likelihood of the man getting close enough to turn a gun on the woman is pretty high.

I socialize with cops. Ms. McArdles statement "It's the only time when men's greater speed, strength, and longer reach make no difference" is simply silly.

Police, including policemen, are specifically trained to avoid a contest of strength for possession of the firearm. Because the stronger party will most always win and that might not be the cop.

But my real point is that Dana is approaching this from a reasoned and logical position. The issue has nothing to do with reason or logic and everything to do with fear. "If I have a piece I need fear no man" is the attitude. You can find it writ large in the pro-gun literature.

If logic and reason had anything to do with this, people would follow the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated militia". The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines "militia" as a body organized and armed by the Congress. It's not a bunch of guys with deer rifles or even combat shotguns.

It's kind of funny that conservatives spent a lot of years deriding liberals for not following the original intent of the Framers. And now they spend all their time avoiding the clear intent of those they claim to venerate.

Hypocrisy abounds.

And the police and other professionals are hopefully trained in keeping control of both a situation AND their gun. Bit different from the average schmoe.

I work with a man who's a retired LA cop (and former Green Beret), whose politics are in his words '"right of Attila the Hun's," and he agrees with you. He owns guns, believes the party line on them, etc., but he flatly says that most homeowners simply are not able to use guns well enough to properly defend themselves, and that the chances are quite good that they will be disarmed by a criminal. That's because there's no gun course that can really teach people how to handle a gun as well as someone who uses one more often, like a criminal or cop. But it's pretty much impossible to tell Mr. Shooting Range Wannabe Badass that he's actually not that adept or prepared for a real crisis, so people get hurt. Oh well.

Might I recommed for home defense a short-barreled shotgun. Police and military use these because they are effective.

I never really thought of Megan as a feminist. Which isn't to say that the characterization is inaccurate, just that it didn't occur to me to describe her that way.

Anonymous says:

If logic and reason had anything to do with this, people would follow the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated militia". The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines "militia" as a body organized and armed by the Congress. It's not a bunch of guys with deer rifles or even combat shotguns.

It's kind of funny that conservatives spent a lot of years deriding liberals for not following the original intent of the Framers. And now they spend all their time avoiding the clear intent of those they claim to venerate.

Funny thing is, the Framers of the constitution did lay out their intentions in the Federalist papers, and I don't think they would have agreed with you on what they meant. A quick Google brought this link up, http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

which may or may not be completely accurate, but my point is that doing research on the Federalist Papers might be something for you to check into.

PS, this site isn't normally one I would endorse, but that doesn't make the source material any less valid.

Regarding statistics related to gun violence, I'd no more trust the Violence Policy Center than the NRA

No no TW, we must believe the VPC's statistics because they reinforce our preconceived beliefs and make us feel smart. We must reject any contrary evidence and all common sense. You obviously haven't spent much time around anti-gun people.

Dana started: "I've always felt that the presence of a gun..." and then quotes an easily refuted study.

Anonymous then writes: "But my real point is that Dana is approaching this from a reasoned and logical position..."

I don't see how these two go together. Condescension is not the same as reasoning.