January 1st is such a moment of hope and possibility. It's a
time to reflect upon our own lives and consider what we can each/all do to make
our lives better in the coming year.
Yet here we are, seemingly more divided than ever, as unkind to
each other as ever, living in a “civilized” society as violent as ever. Unless
we individually/collaboratively decide to think and act differently, January 1
is just another day. The hope for change lies within us.
I began this blog a year ago. It's been virtually unread.
But I still remain hopeful for connection. And today I seek input from
you, answers to questions, new questions, new perspective...
I’m re-reading Paxton Quigley’s 1989 book, Armed & Female, in anticipation of digging into her revised
version of the book, Total Control. Quigley has become renowned for promoting
women’s gun-centered self-defense, identifying gun ownership by women as
feminist, as empowering.
Quigley was, in the 1960s, an ardent gun control activist according
to her book, working to get the 1968 Handgun Control Act passed. By the 80s, she’d switched gears and begun
her journey as an equally passionate advocate for women owning and using guns
for self-defense.
Quigley sees direct correlation between women’s gun ownership—and
training to use guns effectively—and their ability to protect themselves from
danger. The debate here isn’t new: women are safer from attack w/ guns versus women are more likely to become
shooting victims if guns are present.
I’m not fully settled myself on whether owning a gun would make me
safer, as a means of protection when I’m alone.
I live in the rural mid-South, so opportunities to buy guns, get
firearms training, and regularly practice my shooting skills are abundant. Since one of my scholarly areas of interest
is gun rhetorics, especially women’s arguments for and against guns, I sorta
feel obligated to learn to shoot.
But Quigley’s arguments both trouble me and prompt deeper
thought: So I’d like to run some
passages from her book by y’all for comment.
Note: Quigley’s exact
words are italicized. Capitalized words are my emphasis due to my own
questions/alarm/reflection on those words and what they might or are intended
by Quigley to mean. I also add “side bar”
comments in brackets.
- Describing passage of the 1968 Handgun Control Act, Paxton explains:
“if guns were made
harder or impossible for EVERYone to acquire, we thought violent crimes would
subside….We waited for change….But crime continued to escalate….We bolted
doors, installed alarm systems and expanded our police departments. Yet we grew
more FRIGHTENED…Had we finally become A NATION OF VICTIMS?”
By the late 1980s, her views had changed:
“It was only last
year that I came to realize that our gun control laws did not work…
- In a southern Idaho gun shop w/ a friend:
“Mr Clayton [the gun store
owner] wasn’t much of a women’s libber,
he said, but he had taught his daughter early on that she shouldn’t ever trust
men to do anything she should be able to do herself [he had ensured that
his wife & daughter knew how to shoot]….He
carefully reminded me that once I had thought about buyng a gun [Clayton
had just shown her a gun he thought would be good for her to have for
self-defense] was like putting off buying
a fire extinguisher for the kitchen….my attitude about guns has changed…my
views on the nature of nonviolence do not conflict with defending myself or my
family”
- Quigley’s cause & effect logic:
“If this trend [in the 1980s] of
gun ownership by women continues…there seems to be every indication that fewer
and fewer people will try to rape or assault women.
“It is apparent…that
the arming of American women needs to be brought out into the open, discussed,
AND ADVANCED…PERHAPS THE LAST FRONTIER NEEDED TO BE WON BY WOMEN ON THE ROAD TO
EQUALITY” [So women owning guns is
feminist, empowering, and puts women on a more equal footing in society w/ men]
- Telling the story of one of her sources for her overall argument in the book, attorney Randi McGinn:
“ ‘I would never have
bought a gun of my wn volition…Guns were things men used…GUNS WERE USED FOR
VIOLENCE AND DEATH. I HAD EEN RAISED TO BELIEVE THAT I WAS NOT CAPABLE OF
VIOLENCE’ [Quigley doesn’t go on to make explicit if McGinn specifically
means that she was raised as a female to believe she wasn’t capable of
violence—it’s left for the readers to infer; my opinion is that the inference
is intentional on Quigley’s or McGinn’s part].
“Years have gone by
since then. Now Randi owns more than one
gun….’But if I’m in that situation, I would hate myself for having a gun but
having t somewhere else.’”
“Randi has always
considered herself a liberal and a feminist, her article [which Quigley
explains Randi wrote to explain her gun ownership as a woman] PRESENTED A STRONG FEMINIST VIEWPOINT IN
TERMS OF SELF-PROTECTION AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY” [This idea of Quigley’s of the responsibility
of women to own guns and be capable of defending themselves when they need to
is very important to Quigley’s overall argument]
- Quigley’s feminist argument:
“Women can use two
types of strategies in response to fear.
They can use restrictive, passive behavior, which limits or restricts
their lifestyle…or they can learn RISK-MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES that involve
engaging in defensive tactics in the presence of danger….
“We know that women
are at a distinct disadvantage in a world that is dominated by men….They are
not taught to defend themselves….
“Even though there
are many WOMEN WHO REFUSE TO TAKE THE TIME AND PRECAUTIONS TO ENSURE THEIR OWN
SAFETY [presumably by owning guns], othes
are actively defending our security as members of the police forces of every
city in the Western world….IF FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU THINK IT IS TIME FOR YOU
TO DO YOUR SHARE TO END THE VICTIM STATUS OF WOMEN…”
[So the implication is that women’re clearly to blame if they
refuse to use guns to defend themselves and end up as victims of violent crime]
- Finally, Quigley makes the “guns are simply a tool” argument:
…being prepared for
the statistical long shot of being a victim of violent crime [again, the clear
implication is being prepared=owning a gun]
is really no more extraordinarily PRUDENT than wearing seat belts in a car or
having a fire extinguisher in the kitchen [perhaps returning to Mr.
Clayton’s argument].
****** References to
passages from Quigley’s book end here.
Sooo….
Guns are simply technically equivalent to seat belts and fire
extinguishers.
YET they’re the key to women’s equality with men in the world; any
woman who refuses gun ownership and use is simply irresponsible. (There’s almost a sense that women get what
they deserve if they’re successfully attacked by an aggressor b/c they didn’t
have a gun).
There’s “no conflict” between espousing nonviolence and gun
ownership (the willingness to kill for self-defense).
QUESTIONS--
- So then, there’s no conflict between building an atomic arsenal and espousing nonviolence as a nation? Or no truly “responsible” nation should be without armed drones as a means of national defense against terrorism?? Or are these analogies “apples and oranges” when compared to individual gun ownership??
- Am I wrong to be bothered by the TOTAL lack of challenge to a violent society, in such “guns are an absolute necessity in a violent society” arguments like Quigley’s??
Perhaps addressing our propensity toward violence is inappropriate in
a book about
guns for self-defense?
I think it’s essential to consider the cultural history and
character of our society
together with deciding how best to individually
/nationally protect ourselves from very
real violence. But I could be expecting
too much at once.
- Can we build real, lasting peace while holding so tightly onto the right/need to defend ourselves against violence by using violence? I don’t think so. But I also recognize that there’re times when, as a last resort, violent deterrence might, in fact, be “prudent.
- What questions do I still need to ask?
No comments:
Post a Comment