I used to live in that town and the Telegraph was always friendly to gun owners.
I posted this on the Ms Magazine board - let's see how long it takes for me to get banned. wry
http://www.macontel.com/ed_op/woodgeard/index.htm
Women's views on guns vary
Posted 04/09/00
In my life, I have known several women who have been victimized by thugs or crazy ex-boyfriends or husbands.
To me, when it comes to guns, women fall into three categories.
The first group wants laws passed against private gun ownership. The second group, maybe the largest, doesn't have much to do with guns and has no clearly defined public policy opinion. The third group owns guns and is perfectly willing to use them.
This first group will be marching in Washington on Mothers Day. Organizers expect about 100,000 mothers there and hundreds of thousands more in 20 other march sites, including Atlanta. The third group also will be in Washington, although not in great numbers. It is this group that interests me, partly because it will not get anywhere near the attention of the first group.
They call themselves the "Second Amendment Sisters." This recently formed group is based in Dallas. They have their own Web site at www.sas-aim.org. Their toll-free number is (877) 271-6216. "Women deserve to have every option available to them when it comes to protecting themselves from violence," according to spokeswoman Kimberly J. Watson.
I agree, and will guarantee you this: Anyone bent on violence would much rather take on any unarmed man than any woman with a gun. This is particularly true if her children are around. The laws that the million women are promoting will not take guns away from criminals. Those laws will take the guns away from women. Not that I don't think the million moms are insincere or that their overall goals are unworthy. But they have unrealistic expectations for the new laws they are promoting.
The real battleground here is for the minds of the second group of women I mentioned earlier. These women hold the key to the future of private gun ownership in this country because of their numbers and sheer political clout.
I sat in on a fund-raiser for U.S. Rep. Saxby Chambliss last week at a Macon indoor gun range. While women were in attendance, they were not there in great numbers. Women traditionally simply are not very active when it comes to gun-ownership issues. I would argue that the tactics and rhetoric of the nation's best known gun group, the NRA, turn many women off.
So, I was interested to find out that the "sisters" are not a shill for the NRA or the other big group, Gun Owners of America. I hope it stays that way, although it means they won't have access to the big bucks generated by the vast industry associated with guns.
There are many horror stories on the "sisters" Web site as well as lots of generalized reasons women buy guns. For example:
Women who get divorced after many years of marriage are forced to learn a lot of harsh lessons. One of them is facing the fact that they do not have the physical security they once had. For all the trouble they might cause, a reasonably normal husband is at least good for that. A gun in the hands of a properly trained woman can make up for an awful lot of upper body strength.
And in millions of cases in America (yes, millions), firing the gun often isn't necessary. When I was in the military police, we were prohibited from drawing our weapons unless we were preparing to shoot. However, many times I noticed that the sound of jacking a round into the chamber of a shotgun or pistol was enough to bring about a quick change of behavior.
Another thing is philosophical. If people see themselves as perpetual victims, they are less likely to have taken time to consider providing for their defense. Of course, it's worse to have a gun and not know how to store and handle it properly than it is not to have one at all. Statistics are persuasive against untrained or careless gun owners. No question. But statistics do not matter to a person who is faced with with an immediate physical threat.
The two groups of women who will march next month have in common the desire to live free of violence. One group believes the government can do something about it. The other group wants the option of being able to do something about it themselves in those increasingly rare moments when the government just isn't handy.
Ron Woodgeard, editorial page editor, can be contacted at Woodgeard@aol.com, call 744-4319, or write P.O. Box 4167, Macon, 31213.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
I posted this on the Ms Magazine board - let's see how long it takes for me to get banned. wry
http://www.macontel.com/ed_op/woodgeard/index.htm
Women's views on guns vary
Posted 04/09/00
In my life, I have known several women who have been victimized by thugs or crazy ex-boyfriends or husbands.
To me, when it comes to guns, women fall into three categories.
The first group wants laws passed against private gun ownership. The second group, maybe the largest, doesn't have much to do with guns and has no clearly defined public policy opinion. The third group owns guns and is perfectly willing to use them.
This first group will be marching in Washington on Mothers Day. Organizers expect about 100,000 mothers there and hundreds of thousands more in 20 other march sites, including Atlanta. The third group also will be in Washington, although not in great numbers. It is this group that interests me, partly because it will not get anywhere near the attention of the first group.
They call themselves the "Second Amendment Sisters." This recently formed group is based in Dallas. They have their own Web site at www.sas-aim.org. Their toll-free number is (877) 271-6216. "Women deserve to have every option available to them when it comes to protecting themselves from violence," according to spokeswoman Kimberly J. Watson.
I agree, and will guarantee you this: Anyone bent on violence would much rather take on any unarmed man than any woman with a gun. This is particularly true if her children are around. The laws that the million women are promoting will not take guns away from criminals. Those laws will take the guns away from women. Not that I don't think the million moms are insincere or that their overall goals are unworthy. But they have unrealistic expectations for the new laws they are promoting.
The real battleground here is for the minds of the second group of women I mentioned earlier. These women hold the key to the future of private gun ownership in this country because of their numbers and sheer political clout.
I sat in on a fund-raiser for U.S. Rep. Saxby Chambliss last week at a Macon indoor gun range. While women were in attendance, they were not there in great numbers. Women traditionally simply are not very active when it comes to gun-ownership issues. I would argue that the tactics and rhetoric of the nation's best known gun group, the NRA, turn many women off.
So, I was interested to find out that the "sisters" are not a shill for the NRA or the other big group, Gun Owners of America. I hope it stays that way, although it means they won't have access to the big bucks generated by the vast industry associated with guns.
There are many horror stories on the "sisters" Web site as well as lots of generalized reasons women buy guns. For example:
Women who get divorced after many years of marriage are forced to learn a lot of harsh lessons. One of them is facing the fact that they do not have the physical security they once had. For all the trouble they might cause, a reasonably normal husband is at least good for that. A gun in the hands of a properly trained woman can make up for an awful lot of upper body strength.
And in millions of cases in America (yes, millions), firing the gun often isn't necessary. When I was in the military police, we were prohibited from drawing our weapons unless we were preparing to shoot. However, many times I noticed that the sound of jacking a round into the chamber of a shotgun or pistol was enough to bring about a quick change of behavior.
Another thing is philosophical. If people see themselves as perpetual victims, they are less likely to have taken time to consider providing for their defense. Of course, it's worse to have a gun and not know how to store and handle it properly than it is not to have one at all. Statistics are persuasive against untrained or careless gun owners. No question. But statistics do not matter to a person who is faced with with an immediate physical threat.
The two groups of women who will march next month have in common the desire to live free of violence. One group believes the government can do something about it. The other group wants the option of being able to do something about it themselves in those increasingly rare moments when the government just isn't handy.
Ron Woodgeard, editorial page editor, can be contacted at Woodgeard@aol.com, call 744-4319, or write P.O. Box 4167, Macon, 31213.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.