jodelie,

What of those sections of Indian society which are matriarchal, where women are the heads of households?

There are already armed women in India and we never hear of any of them being raped or otherwise molested.

There are many formidable Indian women, one only has to mistakenly enter a "Women Only" carriage on a suburban train in Mumbai to meet some of them!

Is mise. Good to learn something positive. Im sure there are some wonderful women in these areas of India you mention. They must be further developed areas, and the women who are already strong no doubt would be enjoying their new opportunities and self sufficiency. And of course their concealed companion.

Those not so lucky, still suffering women, (where unfortunately ancient rules and beliefs still reign)should be blessed with the gift to self protect. They remain very vulnerable, so to have in their possession this tool, for once they may feel slightly empowered, new feeling of safety. A new beginning.

For their sakes also it must be condoned by the law, so there can be no chance of criminal charges for possession. Or in the unfortunate event she is required to discharge the gun for intended reasons, resulting in injury or death of the attacker, the incident is deemed justified and and a non offense

I don't think there are easy answers to the issue. Fundamentally I think people should have the right to defend themselves with whatever force it takes but with that goes an obligation to get it right each and every time regardless of the circumstances. One person's being confused or frightened does not give the right to carry out capital punishment against another.

As an example Oscar Pistorius's defence that he was confused when he shot his girlfriend should weigh heavily on our minds when we thing about people having guns to defend themselves. I doubt his version of events is true however even if it was does it really mitigate the taking of an innocent life.

A system that provides legal protection for the use of deadly force without absolute proof that the threat was real is not a viable option. I suspect that the situations where the certainty of assault combined with the opportunity to access and use a concealed gun during assaults outside the home would be very rare.

R0bert

Robert. I agree this is not an easy one.
I think the initial heading 'Women specific pistols' followed by the reference- Indian women, does suggest an isolated group. Certainly not being offered willy nilly.
These women are essentially strong, and have experienced many of the real hardships of life. There vulnerability lies at the hands of the men in their community.
These men who believe it is still their earthly right to possess, and treat these women however they desire as something disposable.
So all I can see is, offer the girls the means to protect themselves, or somehow dispel the deep seeded rules and beliefs that define these men....

Dear RObert,

Wise words and I would have agreed with you
one hundred percent in the past. Now I'm beginning
to have some doubts since I recently saw a program
dealing with the raping of women in India. It apparently
is a very horrendous problem and in certain areas women
are forming self-defence clubs, learning martial arts,
and going out in groups instead of alone. I've always
been against the use of guns, having lived in the US
for many years. But in a place like India, where women
are deliberately targeted so viciously - perhaps we need
to re-think the solutions to this problem. At least being
armed, the woman if attacked will take some of those
bas**rds with her.

RObert, "A system that provides legal protection for the use of deadly force without absolute proof that the threat was real is not a viable option"

If only you could convince the criminals of that.

The burning issue is why should a victim be subjected to the obviously unfair reversed standard of proof in the case of self defence? In all jurisdictions in Australia excepting NSW a reversed standard of proof re-victimises the victim. Why?

A rape victim who defends herself and injures her attacker, even if she herself was injured in addition to the disgusting rape, is still subjected to the infamous and patently unfair reversed standard of proof. She is interrogated, may be held in a cell and will be required to justify her act of self defence in court. The police and police prosecutor hold all of the cards.

That tells women they must always give in to rape.

The only difference with India is in the frequency of rape. At least in India women are allowed (!) to defend themselves. The problem has been the availability and cost of an effective deterrent. That is now solved for many. Of course the attackers do not know which women have the means for self defence, which is a very effective deterrent for all women.

I am interested in why you would deny all Australians the changes to NSW law that removed the despicable reversed standard of proof for self defence? What possible deficiencies do you find in the NSW legislation? If you are worried about 'excessive self defence' that is not possible because self defence must stop where the attacker gives up his attack, is subdued or takes flight. The criminal still retains the safety that he denies to his victim.