Following is a letter received at WAGC: A man who thinks that women shouldn’t have fireams for self defense. It’s too dangerous for us women!
Male writer’s comments = >>>
My Response = >>
A friend of mine who is a retired LEO responds = >
When people write to WAGC and criticize our members, we think that our members have the right to rebuttle. any member who wishes to send the writer (>>>) a rebuttle let me know, privately.

>>—–Original Message—–
>>From: a male writer to WAGC
>>To:WAGC
>>Date: Sunday, October 24, 1999 4:14 AM
>>Subject: Self-defense for women

Mr. (name snipped) Writes:
>>>I’m inclined to think it’s better for women to >>>take self-defense training (martial arts, >>>boxing, kickboxing, or the like),
>>>than to arm themselves with guns.

My response:
>>I’m inclined to think that women have a right >>to choose whatever means of self defense they >>wish. It’s called FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Ever hear >>of it?

A retired LEO responds:
>As a retired LEO with lots of sex crime and >homicide experience, I agree with nancy. On what >experience and expertise does Mr. (name snipped) >form this thought?

>>>Suppose a criminal gets the drop on the woman.

>>Suppose a criminal gets the drop on a women who >>practices martial arts. Her hands can be held >>behind her back.

>Suppose it happens to a man or a male cop, >trained in Martial Arts and
>armed? It happens to uniform cops every month >and many are killed by their own weapon.

>>> She can’t get to her gun,or the gun is taken >>>away from her. Then what?

>What do MEN do in the same position? Happens >more to men than women.

>>As with martial arts you practice with whatever >>form of self defense you
>>choose to practice until you are confident in >>it’s use. As always you remain alert to your >>surroundings.

>Roger that.

>>Suppose you got a 5 ft 125 lb women against a >>200/300 lb 6ft+ male… what
>>does she do? Not but one thing that makes them >>equal and that is knowing how to use a firearm.

>Roger that, twice.

>>>A cousin of mine takes boxing training at a >>>boxing gym. She’s physically confident and >>>able to handle an antagonist. She doesn’t need >>>a gun–or access to a gun–to protect herself. >>>Her fists will do that!

>This is patent nonsense. She wouldn’t last 10 >seconds against me or most serious male >aggressors without a weapon to equalize the >disparity. Yes there are women who can take care >of themselves against unarmed aggressors,
>but those are largely a thing of the past. A >good man is better than a good woman. Ergo, the >ladies should go armed with the largest caliber >they can tolerate and be proficient with.

>>That’s wonderful. I’m happy for your cousin. >>But your cousin does NOT represent ALL women. >>That’s her choice! It’s not my choice.

>Her choice is silly and fraught with legal >issues. A firearm is a defensive weapon and >viewd by the courts as such. If the lady happens >to hit an attacker several times and lands a >lucky blow that kills the perp, the case
>can be made that she did in fact use excessive >force in beating him to death and not simply >stopping him, which is the intent with a firearm >and it’s use in disparate force scenarios.

>>What about women who are not physically able to >>do martial arts?

>>I’ve taken firearms training at a shooting >>range. I’m physically confident
>>and able to handle an antagonist.

>roger that.

>>Martial arts takes time and energy to learn, >>can only be used by the young
>>and physically fit AND is close contact.
>>Learning firearms training is easy, takes less >>time and energy and does NOT require that the close contact with the rapist.

>>BOTTOM LINE: FREEDOM OF CHOICE!
>
>Bottom line…you survive and do not have to >risk the close encounter
>required to use fists, feet or knife.
>Yes there are those that think they can handle >it, but I’ve bagged and
>tagged numerous ladies who were unarmed, never one that was armed. So there
>you have it. With all due respect, Mr. (Name snipped) >point of view regarding women being armed is >naive, sexist, patriarchal >and unrealistic.