A Plan to Prioritize Arming Girls

Let me concede four facts my opponent brought up in their initial argument. First, "Women are biologically weaker"" I was dreading arguing with the type of person who would deny this. Second, based on 2012 statistics NeatFreak stated, "As you can see men are more responsible for violent crimes than women, end of story." I am not trying to diminish the scourge that fraud is, but they are not related to women being able to defend themselves. Third, my opponent also cited an article from 1983 from which we learn, "Females are more verbally aggressive than males but males are physical (sic) more aggressive." Again, I fully agree with my opponent on this point. If my opponent has had their feelings hurt, they need to know that their pain is valid; it is OK to cry. Recent advances in medicine have reduced fatalities from hurt feeling all the way to zero. I would suggest that higher language skills reduce the need for physical aggression, thus more and younger women having access to guns will not increase incidents of hurt feelings or massive hemorrhaging from gunshot wounds. The fourth fact I agree with my opponent on is that most victims of assault, including rape, are men. That the majority of victims are men does not diminish the disparity of strength when a man attacks a woman. Male on male violence is more likely to pair two closely matched individuals who both seek to prove that they are stronger. Very weak or strong men need neither prove nor defend their status. Thus, the ability to inflict and receive damage are similar. All of this goes out the window if one or both are armed, the decision and ability to use violence is no longer effected by relative strength. It comes down to aggression, impulsivity, maturity, cultural norms and alternative means of resolution. Males 18, 19 and 20 years of age are more likely to resort to violence due to increased aggression, impulsivity and cultural norms due to having lower levels of maturity and fewer alternatives. Females 18, 19 and 20 are more likely to use a gun defensively than aggressively. Near the end of their first argument, my opponent made a statement regarding increased violence in women"s households. Please provide a source, preferably more current than 1983, and clarify if you mean there is a higher rate of violence, more total incidents or something else. ""Most physical aggression among women are found against their spouse, children or siblings ". in their household," when I read it translates to, women don"t punch strangers or acquaintances. This may be true but says nothing about the frequency, severity or predictability of such assaults, nor how they compare with male initiated violence. Now let us look at where my opponent and I disagree. They "don"t believe that women or trans-women are specifically targeted at all." If just one mugger or bad-guy committing violent crime is rational, than we would expect them to choose the weakest victim possible. My opponent recognizes that women are weaker, thus the absolute statement that they are not targeted AT ALL, is false. Let us look at another crime. More men than women are raped every year. This is a surprising statistic to many because most people don"t give much thought to the realities of prison. If prisons are excluded then women are the most frequent victim. A female rape survivor reports being assaulted by a male 98% of the time, male rape survivors report 93% of their attackers were male. (http://www.oneinfourusa.org...) The rapist in prison has few opportunities to choose between raping a man or a woman. Outside of prison they have more options. If women weren"t targeted then rapes outside of prison would be similar between genders. This sight cites statistics that 90% of rape victims are women, https://www.rainn.org.... You can either believe that rapist are perpetuating a truly bizarre statistical anomaly, or that women are the target of choice. The sight also provides evidence that trans-women are disproportionately victims of sexual violence. Maybe my opponent subscribes to the feminist answer that woman facing a potential rapist should urinate in her pants. I think that the option to produce a handgun and make the rapist piss himself is a better solution. My opponent also threw SJWs and Antifa into this debate, which is revealing. Not all Antifa and SJWs are women, not all women are SJWs and Antifa. When the closing line of argument is, "P.S (sic) who wants are (sic) feminist with a gun in her hand vote for the other person(sic)" it starts to smell a little misogynistic. My opponent may or may not be misogynistic but they are certainly transphobic. They are welcome to their opinions but not their own facts. Here is a New York Times article that details that transwomen are the most likely victims of a hate crime and that the frequency is increasing, https://www.nytimes.com.... More transwomen have been murdered this year than any year previous, here is an article from 2017 https://www.nytimes.com.... My opponent thinks trans-people should see a psychologist; with an official diagnosis would they support a trans-woman being able to get a handgun at the age of 18, 19, or 20? Lastly, because states and localities have different standards for purchasing a handgun this proposal is limited to the federal requirements. Purchasers have to be 21 regardless of gender. For example, in Washington, DC they may also have to be a beatified saint, in Illinois they may have to pay absurd taxes, elsewhere they may have to take hours of classes or get permission from local authorities. Where I live in the United States you can buy all the pistols you want once you are 21 as long as you go through an FFL and pass the FBI"s instant background check. I look forward to my opponents response.