Women are more antigun than men but they shouldnt be.

Statistically, women are more anti-gun than men. If you look at any poll regarding support for gun control, "assault weapons" bans, etc... women are reliably more supportive than men.

Despite narratives of women being as strong as men, and not needing men, the reality is that most of us end up in heterosexual relationships. It's been the norm for millenia that, if there's a violent threat to the household, the adult male in the relationship is going to be the one to confront the threat.

That's how it should be.

The man should put his body in front of the women and children if there's somebody (usually a man) trying to kill his family.

There are biological reasons for this. There are psychological reasons for that. It's not "just a social construct."

So, think about what it means if you go full Marge Simpson in regard to having guns in the house.

I mean, yeah, if you're married to Homer, you have a legitimate concern.

Still, I've seen more than my share of interviews and articles coming from women who don't want guns in the house, and seem to think that the men in their lives should be able to handle a home invasion with their fists, a baseball bat, or a knife.

Forget the fact that criminals are like wolves, and tend hunt in groups, and you're asking your man to face a group with his fists or a blunt object. Forget the fact that, if you want a longterm relationship with a man, he's gonna get older -- eventually, the home invaders are likely gonna be younger and stronger. Forget the fact that a lot of home invaders are armed themselves, and you don't know what they're armed with.

Even if we were living in a world in which we could be certain that a home invasion would always just be one dude, and that one dude were not particularly strong, and that one dude were only ever armed with a melee weapon -- which is a world that we're not living in -- you're asking your guy to bludgeon that dude with a blunt object because you think that it's somehow "less violent."

Eli Dicken was probably the most justified and most heroic man in recent history in regard to his use of deadly force.

He was at a mall, lawfully carrying. Some manic happened to pull out a rifle and start shooting people. Dicken managed to kill the dickless incel with some well-placed shots with a glock from forty yards away. All the while, he told his girlfriend to get down. He told would-be victims to get behind him.

Still, it's apparent that he's not relishing in his hero status.

Every moral man is troubled by killing another human being, even if it were in the most justifiable -- heroic -- context possible.

If I'm your guy, and somebody breaks in who is ready to cause serious violence to us, it's gonna require years of therapy if I need to stop him by shooting him.

If you're telling me that you'll only be with me if I get rid of the guns, and, if I'm in that situation, I need to beat the guy with a bat, or stab him, or take him out with my bare hands -- I'm out.

Even if I weren't pushing forty, I don't think that I have it in me to harm another person, no matter how justified, with a blunt object or my bare fists, without severe psychological damage.

If you've got a good guy in your life, he shouldn't be somebody who thinks that a baseball bat is a good self-defense tool.

If the guy in your life thinks that a baseball bat is a good self-defense tool, he's either delusional in regard to what home invasions often look like, or he's a dude who's cool with beating a person to death with a blunt object.

Either way -- not a good dude.