Previous Post
Next Post

“From my life experiences, empowerment never came in the form of urinating, menstruating or acting pregnant. It came in the form of shooting a Beretta DT10 for the first time.” – Caroline Carlson in Pens? Girls just want to have guns [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Very nice. Kudos to the Diamondback for actually publishing the other side of the issue for once… I’m a UMCP alum, and it was amazing how one-sided that paper was from a political perspective.

  2. what really galls me is when people say, just give the criminals what they want. What if its your 21 month old child they want? or to molest or assault you?

    • Still, just give them what they want. Anything is better than blowing away some crazy drug addled creep…well…. not really, Randy

  3. I’m surprised more women don’t speak up on this issue. Although, not to stereotype, I’ve generally encountered more hoplophobes that were women than men. It seems like the “guns are icky” are taught at about the same time they are told to love all things pink.

    Frankly, I don’t care as much about the rights of OFWG’s. If gun control was just about removing sporting firearms to make us feel safer I might actually be on board. No one needs a semiauto to go sport shooting, there are plenty of sporting events. I only care about gun control because it disarms the likeliest of victims and most of the proposals will affect the choices of HOW those victims can protect themselves.

    The only people who NEED more than 10 rounds are those that might find themselves in a DGU. The only time you NEED more than 10 rounds, an AR-15, or a semiauto in general is when your life is on the line.

    • “Frankly, I don’t care as much about the rights of OFWG’s. If gun control was just about removing sporting firearms to make us feel safer I might actually be on board. No one needs a semiauto to go sport shooting, there are plenty of sporting events.”

      No. Absolutely not. Its not about NEED. Its about the government not telling me what is “best” for me. Its about the final check on government power: the armed citizen. Its not about making sure you can “feel safer”. I dont know if you were trying to be funny here, but you definitely missed the mark.

      • I think he’s making the utilitarian argument. You’re making a moral and a different utilitarian argument (your 2nd and 3rd full sentence, respectively). I think both types of arguments against disarmament are valid.

        It’s possible that he was just trying to point out that one can make a good practical argument against disarmament to people who are statists, who are fine with armed robbery and don’t buy into moral arguments against the state doing anything.

        You must admit, telling “antis” that you “need” guns for sport and hunting is not going to convince them as well as saving (children’s) lives will.

        • I see your point, but we cannot make this an argument of “needs”. Sure, you can say how dare you try to legislate what women, single mothers, etc are allowed to use to defend their lives. Just dont make it about “needs” when the entire argument from that side is that no one “needs” a semi automatic firearm (or more accurately) any firearm at all.

        • I agree; the term “who needs” is usually followed by a non-logical argument that confiscation of the best currently widely available defense weapon is justified and effective.

          Who needs an M4 when you can use an AR?
          Who needs an AR when you can use a semi-auto shotgun?
          Who needs a semi-auto shotgun when you can use a pump?
          Who needs a pump when you can use a break-action?
          Who needs any gun when you can use an edged weapon?
          Who needs an edged weapon when you can call protective services?

          Words to notice: “who needs”, “gun control”, “should have to/be able to”, “criminal/terrorist” (you may be one), etc.
          TTAG needs a regularly updated politically correct/manipulative vocabulary list to aid us in reading our way through the often verbose and confusing journalistic rantings of the disarmament media. It’s not that we require such a list, but it could be useful, and a good thing to develop and circulate.

        • The reactions have been interesting, but you are on the money.

          I was specifically referring to competition shooting, which I don’t see anymore protected than NASCAR. I don’t have an issue with NASCAR or other competitions, but we don’t have a “right” to them either.

          What’s interesting is that I didn’t suggest any restrictions and I don’t support any restrictions, but the second anyone doesn’t fall into line with ideological purity it’s amazing how the gun rights people turn on another. Hell, we saw it with the “I am a Gun Owner” series.

          I’m against any restrictions and believe we need to repeal some current laws. Does it matter if I don’t agree exactly with the rest of the community. If we insist everyone believe for the same reasons we’re going to lose this fight.

    • When most people think about hunting they imagine going after deer or other ungulate and if you want to be honest it is generally one shot, one kill. Any firearm of the appropriate caliber will do. But not all hunting fits this profile. A rancher who has a coyote problem will be much more effective if he has a semiautomatic rifle. The fastest domestic canine is the greyhound. The coyote is faster. There are people who can nail a coyote on the run with one shot but it’s rare. If you use a bolt gun and miss with your first shot chances are you are never going to catch up. If you are dealing with a herd of ferral pigs who are going to start running after the first shot a semiauto is the way to go. Same for gophers, prarie dogs and groundhogs. So be careful when you say hunters don’t need semiautomatic rifles with 30 round magazines.

      And remember the first semiautomatic rifles available in America were hunting rifles not military firearms. It is the bolt action rifle that began its life as a military rifle. The two most popular deer rifles are the Winchester model 70 and the Remington 700. Both are direct descendents of the Mauser 98/1903 Springfield military rifles. The 30-06 round used in deer hunting is a military round whereas the 223/5.56 is derived from the 222 Remington which was introduced in 1950 as varmint round.

      Semiautomatic technology was developed for the civilian market and adapted for military use and bolt action rifles were adapted from military to civilian use. Lever action guns were the most popular deer rifles prior to the second world war. It was only after the war that bolt action rifles became the dominant deer rifle in part because of the large number of ’03 Springfields that were sold to the public as military surplus.

        • The Henry was developed as a better technology that was offered to the military. It was not strictly a military design. Only a few Union Volunteer Cavalry regiments bought it. Same with the Sharps rifle. At the time only the Springfield Armory developed military weapons.

          The 1861 Springfield Minie rifle remained the standard infantry rifle until 1873. Civilians had switched to breech loading and lever actions guns in the intervening years. Civilians got magazine loading rifles before the military. By the time the Army got a modern bolt action rifle semiautomatic rfiles had been introduced to the civilian market. From 1865 through the eve of WWII civilians could purchase more advanced rifles than the military standard.

      • I was thinking more of competition shooting. Frankly, I know people who keep AR-15’s in their trucks in case they see wild pigs on their land and it’s good to have follow up shots. Also, I have seen time and again the .223 is a great coyote round even from a bolt-action. Though I personally would prefer a Ruger Mini-14 or some AR-15 platform for that kind of encounter.

        The antis trying to define a hunting rifle as being feature A with caliber X is just stupid. Hunting weapons are not so easily defined.

    • “Frankly, I don’t care as much about the rights of OFWG’s. If gun control was just about removing sporting firearms to make us feel safer I might actually be on board. No one needs a semiauto to go sport shooting, there are plenty of sporting events.”

      I take offense to your entire second paragraph. It’s no different than when the Civilian Disarmament Movement tries to split off the hunters and get them to say, “As long as it’s only those black rifles and not my huntin’ rifle, it’s OK.”

      Your “sporting weapon” might very well be my “home defense weapon,” if for no other reason than it’s the only gun I own.

      “Frankly, I don’t care as much about the rights of…”

      Actually, reading back over it, this is where your problem starts. I don’t care what you tack onto the end of that sentence, you’re wrong. Not like “your opinion is wrong,” but like “you’re flat f*cking wrong.” Rights are rights for everyone, whether you think they should be or not, whether it’s convenient for you or not, whether it’s important to you or not.

      • You can’t get as offended as you want. I am not for civilian disarmament for any reason, however there really is no strong argument for specific firearm types in competition shooting.

        That doesn’t mean they should be banned, and nowhere did I say that. I am saying it’s a pretty weak argument and will not convince people on the fence.

        Also, the 2nd Amendment was about defense. To me, that is the only argument that matters. Either from criminals, government, whatever. Doesn’t matter.

        • I just went back and reread your first post, and you don’t attack the argument of sporting purposes at all, you attack the sporting purposes themselves by placing them on a lower rung of importance. You say that self-defense is your argument against disarmament, but you most definitely do not say that “sporting purposes” is a weak argument.

          I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and decide, after reading all of your comments as one, that we’re on the same side, and that you simply suffered from poor phrasing that led me (and others) to misinterpret your statements.

        • I see your point kind of but….You are confusing need with want. Regardless if the 2nd Amendment is thought of as for defense only or as a means to secure your State, home town, etc from tyrannical government, crooks, theirs, etc it does Guarentee our right to keep and bear arms period!!
          That being said if I want an AR10 or AR15 to defend my home and family then it should be no ones business but mine and my families. As long as I can legally own it there should not be a problem with me having one.
          Too many people want to say” You don’t need it “. Well I want it should be sufficient enough reason to buy one.

        • I think if you read carefully, what I am saying is that you don’t know what you need until you need it.

          That is the logical fallacy with most gun control legislation and many anti-gun arguments.

          “Nobody needs….”

          I can only see a logical argument against competition shooting, since that is a recreational activity. Hunting is often too narrowly defined by people who have no idea what they are talking about. In terms of self defense, what you NEED will vary widely based on location and circumstance.

          For example, if I owned a good bit of land, trying to secure it or defend myself with a double barrel shotgun against multiple assailants is a losing situation. No one with any amount of firearms knowledge is going to think that is an optimal situation.

          The government only believes in one size fits all approaches. You cannot introduce any meaningful legislation that does not eventually put people in peril. People are going to die as a result of NY’s SAFE act. Yet no one will report on it because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    • Here’s my theory on women and guns:

      Men are usually hunters. Women are usually gatherers. That is just the biological way things are, conditioned into humanity by centuries of non-civilization. It is neither good nor bad to be one or the other; both are necessary. But hunters, by nature, run the pre-civilization show because of their ability to use force.

      Hunters use weapons. Gatherers don’t. Is it any shock that gatherers (women) instinctively fear weapons (guns) that are the stock in trade of the often dominant hunters (men)?

      I’m not trying to be sexist here; I’m simply trying to explain why pre-historical behavioral patterns may be influencing modern opinions.

      • I think it’s more about indoctrination.

        The Soviets had female aerial combat aces and women in the infantry when the U.S (the Bastion of Liberty) was still institutionalizing and lobotomizing women who refused their husbands’ sexual advances.

        In another twenty years, what with the military finally getting it right, I suspect there’ll be a lot less gun fear among women.

        Yay G.I. Jane and her gay BFF Ranger.

        Some change is Good.

    • “The only time you NEED more than 10 rounds, an AR-15, or a semiauto in general is when your life is on the line.”

      True, but our communities, states, country and human society in general “needs” for as many responsible gun owners as possible to be prepared to stand up to tyranny in all its forms (from the petty to major organized governmental type). It is this check that keeps tyrants mostly in the shadows, fearful that they will be recognized for what they are. The tyrant will never go away but with us at the ready they don’t dare try too hard to push the limits.

      • I think we’re agreeing but you may not realize it.

        The biggest problem with magazine capacity limits is you don’t know how many rounds you need until it’s too late.

        To put it another way, I’ve never known anyone, police, law enforcement, or civilian, who ever complained they had too many bullets in a gun fight.

        Magazine capacity limits are potentially deadly to the people who need it the most. Capacity limits are a mere inconvenience to a bad guy. Disarming the law abiding seems to be the clearest infringement of 2A that I can think of, yet continues to be the knee jerk reaction of many.

        If an armed populace keeps the politicos nervous, well, what’s the downside? Politicians should be nervous. They should be regularly reminded who works for who.

  4. Kudos schmudos. Presenting a complete picture of an issue is a friggin’ newspaper’s job. Kudos instead to Ms. Carlson for pointing out the obvious: these politicians (mostly men) are taking away not only our tools of self-defense, but our choice of tools. What would most college-age women say to male politicians giving them advice on how not to get pregnant?

    • “What would most college-age women say to male polititions giving them advice on how not to get pregnant?”

      Um, they do. Especially in the South.

  5. I was going to say how impressed I am that a college sophomore is more intelligent than many a politician, but then I reminded myself that being smarter really doesn’t take a whole lot of work.

  6. While I’m pleased to have her on board. Her definition of empowerment is irritatingly childish.

    Empowerment doesn’t come from a T-Shirt, a hair color, or a gun.

    Empowerment comes from working hard, not giving up, and overcoming difficult obstacles.

    Empowerment is not something you can buy or be given by someone else. It doesn’t come from slogans, books, or speeches.

    Empowerment is something you have to earn for yourself.

    All that other stuff is just marketing.

    I suppose that if she was afraid of guns, and decided to overcome that fear, that we could call that a kind of empowerment.

  7. Nicely stated, Ms. Carlson.

    I think more women nowadays, especially those raised by sensible fathers, are open to the use of guns as a both a defensive tool / force equalizer. The gun community needs to include their voices as a part of any campaign to defend our rights; not ostracize them for the other views they may have, especially in terms of pro-choice and/or feminism.

    • Women have the untrammeled do-gooders tying to protect them from those dangerous, unnesseary firearms.

      They have the progressively further and further right holding them in utter contempt because of an apple.

      They’ve enemies on both sides.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here