Women and Guns

So, a gun nut sent me this article about a gun-shop owner (gun shop-owner?) whose pictures of women and guns has drawn controversy in another Nashville. I had my eyes in mid-roll before I even clicked, sure that this was going to be some outrage over women in bikinis with guns. And believe me, you can pose in a bikini with a gun and you can put up posters of a girl in a bikini with a gun, but you cannot make me not roll my eyes at it. Yes, we all get it. If only you guys buy this gun, you can get a girl this hot. No you can’t! Girls that hot only want to date someone as cute as me. Stop bugging them.

But the “controversial” poster isn’t a picture of a scantily clad woman who wants to be my future girlfriend. It’s a woman in a camouflage tank top and a long skirt, looking not like “Ooo, buy this gun and I will think you’re a bad ass,” but “Buy this gun and be as big a bad ass as I am.” I know the gun shop owner makes noises like, of course, he’s trying to objectify women, god damn it! But I’m pretty convinced that’s not how the actual image is working.  I think that poster is directed at women, trying to make us imagine ourselves as buyers of (expensive) guns.

It’s kind of interesting, when you think about it, that the segment of the population who would most benefit from a tool that would give us an advantage in situations where we are at obvious disadvantage, is both not the main market for said tool and the part of the population most reluctant to use it.  I know women whose lives are directly threatened by abusive exes, who flat out refuse to even consider getting a gun, as if they don’t quite believe they have the right to meet a deadly threat with deadly force (or worse, maybe they think some other Prince Charming is going to come and rescue them). (And don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame anyone or think there’s anything wrong with considering a gun and then deciding “no.” I’m specifically talking about women whose lives are at risk who won’t even consider it.)

So, yes, speaking of domestic violence, the “controversy.”

“I don’t believe it’s appropriate, and it’s not an image that downtown Nashville should be portraying,” said Dawn White, a Nashville resident.

In an Oct. 12 email sent to Commissioner Danny Tyson, White stated her main concern was that the gun store is located across from a domestic violence shelter. She further stated that “… the gun shop and the bar in the downtown area are black eyes for the quaintness of the downtown area,” and that it should not belong downtown, regardless if the posters are up or not.

“Sure, the right to bear arms is an individual choice,” White said. “But that’s not a choice I’m willing to agree with.”

Did you catch that?  White says the gun story is located across from a domestic violence shelter. Now, I know, your first thought is “Oh my god, but couldn’t an abusive spouse get drunk, buy a gun, and shoot the abused spouse at the shelter?!” But take a step back from that just a second.

What kind of person reveals the location of a domestic violence shelter in order to “protect” women?

The locations of domestic violence shelters are usually kept off of most people’s radars. You don’t go around telling folks “Oh, hey, if you’re looking for your kids, who you beat regularly, your wife’s got them stashed in the house across from the gun shop. You know, the one with the pictures of women in the windows.”

The reason it’s called a “shelter” is because it’s supposed to shelter the abused from any more abuse. Telling abusers where to find them kind of defeats that purpose.

But even if White doesn’t have the brains god gave a turkey, I’m surprised that the newspaper would run what amounts essentially to directions to the shelter.

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “Women and Guns

  1. as if they don’t quite believe they have the right to meet a deadly threat with deadly force

    Or they are aware that they or their kids are the most likely people to be at the receiving end of that weapon, or they don’t think it’s appropriate, or they can’t afford it, or they have seen enough violence in their lives to even consider it. I’m rather alarmed that you’re straying into “blaming the victim” territory here.

  2. I think you’re seeing victim blaming where there is none. If we can’t talk about the ways that our own internalized beliefs about the value of women can hinder our own abilities to act in our own best interests for fear of victim blaming, then how can we ever get at those internalized beliefs?

    Please. I certainly don’t believe that women who don’t own guns somehow deserve the violence that comes to them.

    I don’t own a gun and I’m not sitting around thinking I deserve bad things.

    But we’re talking about circumstances in which there’s been no victim yet. If you think something is likely to happen, why wouldn’t you consider a wide variety of options? Why would some options just be beyond consideration?

  3. Why would some options just be beyond consideration?

    Why is it your right to judge those options for other people? You sound deeply dismissive of the idea that someone might value not having a gun in the house over your ideas about their safety or lack thereof. Your discussion of marketing weapons is interesting, it’s the part about “why won’t those silly women even *consider* owning a gun” that is bothering me; not to mention the fact that you can’t see inside their heads to see what they have or have not, over the course of their whole lives, considered.

    I don’t live in a gun-owning culture (though I live in a farming area, so people are relatively well-armed for Australians) so maybe there’s something I’m missing here, but it certainly sounds like victim-blaming (or, as you say, not-yet-a-victim-blaming) to me.

  4. if somebody were to deliberately refuse to stand up and walk, even though there’s no medical reason they couldn’t, just because they put some sort of great value on not-walking-or-standing, would it be “victim blaming” for somebody else to point out they were denying themselves an important and powerful option?

    deliberately refusing yourself a possible — and potentially useful — option is akin to deliberately handicapping yourself. i’ll admit that it’s a choice some people might want to make, at times; i’ll even admit it might be a valid choice, in certain circumstances. but to flatly refuse to even consider not choosing the deliberate handicap is quite odd, to say the least. as is taking offense at being (politely) asked to reconsider, in my opinion.

    firearms, when it gets right down to it, are empowering in the simplest and most literal sense of the word; they bestow a manner of power on their wielders. it’s not always a useful or productive kind of power, but in and of itself it’s a morally neutral one; you don’t have to use it for havoc and evil. so why not at least think about whether or not you want to pick it up? why instinctively refuse yourself the possession of a kind of power? why not at least consider standing up and walking, if your legs and feet are otherwise perfectly functional?

  5. Nomen, are you seriously comparing standing and walking — basic physical behaviors — with owning/using a gun — learned cultural behavior? That’s bad logic. I’m not taking a position on whether women should or should not own guns, since I think women should do what we damn well please, but that’s no argument.

  6. I dunno. Maybe some of these women are leery of a criminal ‘justice’ system that hasn’t been known to either crack down on abusers or give the benefit of the doubt to women who shoot their abusers. Maybe they don’t want to risk personally escalating the violence and further endangering themselves and their children. Maybe some of them are even clinging to the silly notion that we as a society are going to get together and act on our fundamental intolerance of domestic violence. I understand this isn’t a point you were aiming at, B., but I also understand why lilacsigil’s alarm bells went off. You’ve talked about this before, I think. It’s nice to think that we could teach and encourage all women to defend themselves (with lethal force, if necessary) against their abusers, but we know the current facts on the ground make that effectively a pipe dream (and a potentially deadly one). Buying into it as even a viable option will at best put a few more dollars in a gun dealer’s pocket*, but I sincerely doubt it’s going to improve any woman’s situation.

    I’m 100% with you on the outing of the shelter, though. WTF was someone thinking?

    * because really, how many abused women will have access to the money to buy a gun and the time to get trained in how to use it without their abuser finding out? Maybe the NRA has a program for arming, training, and organizing abused women. If they expand it and publicize it, I’m sure they won’t suffer any backlash from the majority of their male members.

  7. nm, no, i was trying to find a good analogy for refusing to even consider choosing to wield a power / use an ability one easily could wield/use. i was trying to highlight the oddity of shying away from empowering oneself, to the point of not even admitting that doing so is a reasonable option.

    i realized (at least sort of) that the physical-handicap analogy was not the greatest one i’ve ever used, but it’s still early and my brain’s not firing on all neurons even now. do you have a better simile, perchance?

  8. Lilacsigal, I think you’re a step ahead of me, here. You seem to be talking about women who have considered owning a gun and decided, for whatever reason, that it’s not something they want to do.

    I believe this is a completely legitimate position to have. I said so in the post. It is the position I hold, myself, since I don’t own a gun.

    I am not talking about the women you are angry about me talking about. I am talking about the women a step before that.

    Or let’s come at this from the direction Sam’s comment suggests. We live in a patriarchal society that runs, in part, on forcing women into the role of the weak person who depends on a strong person for protection (not to mention the bizarro roles it forces men into).

    If we are indeed constantly groomed, from the time we are born, to be weaker and less dangerous, how do we evaluate whether our communal aversion to guns is wholly based on what’s best for us and not based, at least in part, on cultural mores that insist upon women presenting as vulnerable?

    How do you make a decision about a dangerous thing when you are culturally conditioned to not be dangerous?

    We live in societies where guns carry a lot of symbolic weight. There’s good reason why–even though it annoys the gun nuts–that we equate guns with penises. They do symbolize a lot of patriarchal power.

    When you have an object that symbolically loaded and you have women saying, “Oh I could never…” and when you say “Why?” they shrug and say, “It just doesn’t seem right,” I think it’s completely legitimate to wonder if the symbolism and what that object triggers in us (jeez, the puns in this paragraph!) have something to do with that decision.

    I’m not concerned about women, nor talking about women, who have reasons. I’m wondering why the aversion in women who don’t have reasons, and whether that’s because of cultural conditioning, which we already know puts us at a disadvantage.

  9. Disclosing the location of a women’s shelter is just despicable. Is it even legal? Clearly abused women are just pawns in this person’s argument.

    As for the image of the armed woman, when I was training for my carry license, the gun shop/shooting gallery/training center (it was a large place) displayed a number of weapons magazine including Women and Guns. This magazine was not aimed at male readers, but at female gun owners, and non-sexualized covers and inside photos of women gun owners were standard for it. The carry license training also required everyone regardless of sex to purchase and read a book about guns as self defense for women.

  10. ‘Or they are aware that they or their kids are the most likely people to be at the receiving end of that weapon,’

    That’s a fabrication.

  11. Maybe the NRA has a program for arming, training, and organizing abused women. If they expand it and publicize it, I’m sure they won’t suffer any backlash from the majority of their male members.

    http://www.nrahq.org/women/

    Don’t know much about the NRA, do ya?

  12. Pingback: SayUncle » Women and guns

  13. Pingback: Battered Women’s Shelters Are Confidential For A Reason – Newscoma

  14. Nomen, I can’t come up with a simile that’s going to have the shocking impact of willed helplessness that yours does. Because choosing not to carry a gun is not willing oneself to helplessness. It may be deciding not to use one out of a selection of potential tools, but it doesn’t leave a person defenseless or without any tools at all. I am speaking here as someone who, without a gun, prevented a would-be rapist from raping me. So don’t tell me that I was making myself helpless — I’ll only laugh.

  15. Or they are aware that they or their kids are the most likely people to be at the receiving end of that weapon,

    That’s a fabrication.

    Not entirely. The stats on people who carry for defense and then have their weapons taken away and used by their attackers are pretty clear. A gun in the hands of someone who is unable to make the decision to pull the trigger in self-defense can be more dangerous than not having the gun there, as it escalates the situation and potentially arms the attacker with a more deadly weapon.

    Now, that being said..I do agree with AuntB… Since transition it’s been made even more clear to me. Our culture dis empowers women when it comes to physical confrontation. We absorb the idea over and over again that women can’t be “real” badasses, and martial arts for women is considered an oddity or “isn’t that so cute” rather than the serious pursuit that is for men.

  16. No, I don’t know much about the NRA. That’s why I said “Maybe…”
    Thanks for the link, Exador, but it doesn’t really address the issues being discussed here. Besides, the introductory video doesn’t say much about guns. It focuses on prevention and awareness. More to the point, it’s one thing to protect yourself against the remote prospect of random violence by Stranger Danger, but we’re talking about a qualitatively different dynamic. That’s why I specified abused women, and not gated-community-dwelling suburbanites worried about getting carjacked while picking up their 2.3 children from soccer practice.

    Perhaps this is more to the point (again, it says nothing about guns. Sorry):
    Chicago Police Department: Domestic Violence

  17. The Pink Pistols like to say “Armed gays don’t get bashed.”

    Maybe the shop owner should put up a sign – “Armed women don’t get battered.”

    No. He shouldn’t. Because it’s not true, it’s victim blaming, and it’s hugely dismissive of spousal abuse victims.

  18. Thanks, Polerin, I was just coming here to post that. It’s not true.

    That’s part of the problem about trying to have a real discussion about women and guns–someone’s always going to be “Well, if women had guns, they wouldn’t get raped (or beaten or killed or whatever).”

    But these things happen, even to women who have guns. And it’s dishonest to tell women that having a gun will magically solve all our problems. It won’t.

    That argument–“Hell, yes, and now I’m indestructible” seems to me to be the other side of the same coin of “Oh, I haven’t even considered it.”

    Guns don’t have super powers, so they’re not too dangerous for women to operate AND they’re not the solution to every problem women have.

    Neither argument gets us towards what’s niggling at me.

  19. Shooting is something I can no longer do comfortably. For that reason I do not have a gun. Because as much as I know about guns I know that if I can’t shoot it then the person who is attacking me has a ready-made weapon to use against me.

    But prior to that I was a big fan of guns. I learned to shoot a hunting rifle when I was eight. I learned gun safety and gun handling from professionals and never advocate guns for anyone who hasn’t been properly trained in their use. Just as I wouldn’t hand car keys to any person who had a desire to “go someplace else” and had never had a driving lesson.

    All that being said, I don’t know that the ad in the original question objectifies women. I think the ad speaks to women like me. Women who know guns, what guns can do. Women who like to buy guns. Women who would rather go to a shooting range than a bowling alley. And frankly, for me, that’s how I look at shooting and target shooting.

    Sure, I could kill someone with a gun. But I like the sport of it…practicing the skill and learning the control. Just as you could bash someone’s head in with a bowling ball but would rather use the ball in a fun environment to score points. Or the way you could kill someone with a golf club but would rather use that club on the course as a sport. Etc.

    Because people who have not had a great deal of experience within gun culture don’t always see the sporting side of it. To those folks “gun” seems to always equal “killing”. It’d be like if the anti-car people made such hay out of all the folks who have died in car accidents (exponentially more than those killed by guns, btw) that everyone only saw cars as Death Machines and had great fits about how owning a car meant you were likely to kill your child in a head-on collision, etc.

    There is so much misunderstanding and mockery about the gun culture. That troubles me. Because it shows a remarkable lack of tolerance, a remarkable level of judgmentalism. I’m a woman. I love guns. I’ve never killed another human being and by the grace of God may I never have to. But all this talk about how a gun is the ultimate evil really kind of upsets me.

  20. Very interesting discussion! I agree with Aunt B & Polerin, if a woman is unwilling to meet violence with violence, a gun is little more than a nasty paperweight to her.

    I remember my wife taking a basic self-defense course, and throughout the class, the instructor was constantly reminding the women to yell & scream and hit back as hard as they could. I don’t know if it is cultural or biological or a bit of both, but it seems that many women have a hard time with hurting someone, even if it is to protect themselves.

  21. you could bash someone’s head in with a bowling ball but would rather use the ball in a fun environment to score points. Or the way you could kill someone with a golf club but would rather use that club on the course as a sport. Etc.

    This is sort of the flip side of my point. There are a lot of ways to defend oneself, too; a lot of tools to use (including screaming, which made my attacker nervous enough that I could fight him off), of which a gun is only one.

  22. I remember my wife taking a basic self-defense course, and throughout the class, the instructor was constantly reminding the women to yell & scream and hit back as hard as they could. I don’t know if it is cultural or biological or a bit of both, but it seems that many women have a hard time with hurting someone, even if it is to protect themselves.

    It’s cultural. Little bit of background here, I realize that some may not understand where my prior post comes from. I speak as both a martial artist and a trans woman… I’ve been on both sides of the divide on gender violence. Women are trained, socially disciplined, and shamed into being passive and believing they are weak. While we may be physically weaker (I’ve lost easily 1/3 of my strength if not more) that does not make us defenseless.

    What does is the inability to fully commit to a course of action that involves causing damage. Boys are taught over and over and over how to be agressive and fully commit, girls are taught to be passive and sit back. Since transitioning, these messages and methods of discipline have been turned on me, and even knowing full well what’s going on it’s rough to not buy in at times.

  23. Nm, I agree. I see the weakness in nomen’s argument, but I still understand where nomen was going in that I think a gun is a good tool if you are in the market for a weapon and anti-gun fervour born out of stereotype and misinformation shouldn’t make that choice for a person.

    At the same time I’m also aware that virtually anything can be repurposed into weaponry should the need arise. And although a gun might be the most direct and efficient choice it is by no means the only option.

  24. Coble : I want an ASP. Noise is scary, I know how to use weapons of that length, and I can defend myself at a variety of levels of force. Tactical decisions as well, I just don’t fight, and any situation where I’d be likely to draw a gun, it’d not be useful as the target would likely have already drawn down on me.

    I just.. I’m sad that I very rarely can have this discussion with women, how to defend themselves, and it is so much because of the social pressure AuntB is talking about.

  25. Sorry, Sam. I didn’t mean that to come off as snappy. I used to be involved with the NRA a lot when I was shooting skeet and trap and hunting. They were always anxious to get more women involved.

    It’s not surprising that the nRa would focus more on guns than on other aspects of domestic violence prevention.

    I see your point, but also remember that sometimes domestic violence involves the stalker boyfriend,or other situations where a gun IS pretty handy.

  26. As a women I never accepted the idea that I am helpless. There are many ways to defend. Since in my state only the police can carry guns, alternate methods have to be used. But in my home I do have weapons and fully prepared and able to use them.

    These posters were designed by the wife and daughters of the shop owner . Nothing in bad taste just shows women as competent capable and able to handle long arms.

  27. The complainer stated in the article that she did not like to see pictures of women with guns. Why is that? Women are not capable of handling a rifle?. We just had a VP candidate that was very capable with a rifle.

    That is a very sexist attitude.

  28. Polerin

    I have to admit, you would have a very unique perspective on all this.

    BTW, I like my ASP. Easy to carry & conceal, doesn’t cause panic, and that noise it makes is almost as intimidating as the sound of a slide getting racked or a pump shotgun loading.

  29. Good post, and lots of material for discussion here. I do think it’s pretty obvious that if the posters in the shop were of men holding firearms, there would not be any uproar at all.

    Why is that? Is our society so afraid of a woman’s power that a simple picture of a woman wielding a tool designed to increase her power is threatening or emotionally disturbing to those who see it, so disturbing that they must seek a law to prevent seeing it again? What does this say about us, about our view of women, about our view of women’s place in the world?

  30. Guns don’t have super powers, so they’re not too dangerous for women to operate AND they’re not the solution to every problem women have.

    This is why I always seem to fall on the opposite side of the gun nuts on gun-related topics, even though I’m about as neutral on gun ownership as one can possibly be. It seems the gun nuts (see Nomen’s first response for an example in this thread) always approach these things with this idea that (a) If you only had a gun, you’d be safe, and (b) if you don’t have a gun, you aren’t safe (and in fact, you’re clearly a totally submissive and passive moron who is practically giving all your belongings, your body, and your life to the millions of criminals who are out to get you).

    It’s like PeTA. I may be sympathetic to the cause, but if you think you’re going to win me over with extremism, you’ll be disappointed.

  31. So, Dolphin, how about a more measured comment that a gun gives you a better chance in a dicey situation, but isn’t perfect?

  32. There are no guarantees. A gun may provide a better defense and equalize the power differential between men and women. But poeple die from violence even if they have a gun.

    I rather have gun than not in a deadly comfrontation. At least it gives me a chance.

    Some women may be unable to use a gun so it would not be the best defense for them. It depends on the person.

    However I like the idea that women are empowerd and can be as bad ass with a gun. This Dawn White seems to be offended that women can have guns. Personally her opinions have no weight.

  33. It seems the gun nuts (see Nomen’s first response for an example in this thread) always approach these things with this idea that (a) If you only had a gun, you’d be safe

    i’m getting flashbacks to any number of times i’ve been debating with feminists in the past; it’s that same feeling of “how could anybody possibly misread me that particular way?”

    i mean, misread me, sure — i’m not the world’s clearest writer, sad to say. but like that?! miscommunications are one thing, but this feels like i’m not communicating at all.

  34. Who’s this “we” and “us” you’re talking of, Pax? As far as the article says, there are at most two people upset about this poster, and they are both WOMEN.

  35. Nomen: generally it’s because you don’t easily see how what you say fits into the general context. It is far more powerful than you think. Well, that and people can just be touchy. ;p

  36. Nomen, possibly it’s the metaphors you use. Because in your first comment here you presented women who choose not to use guns as willing their own helplessness like someone who chooses not to stand up and walk; but the flip side of that is that (leaving out disabilities, which you do) all that’s necessary for safety/power/enablement/ability is having that gun, or standing up and walking. I accept that you didn’t think it through and didn’t mean it that way — but it’s what you wrote, and I don’t think you should be surprised that people who read it think you meant it.

  37. Exador,

    Do you mean to imply that women cannot possibly be affected by or even partly complicit in the ways we-as-a-society think about women’s “proper place” or role in our society? Because if so, that’s a surprising way to look at it.

  38. I’m saying that you are implying that society, as a whole, has some problem with these posters, when in fact two women have a problem with them.

    Maybe they’re just kooks.

  39. Exador,

    It wasn’t just two women. Sure, two women’s complaints started the ball rolling, but did you read the article?

    1) It was written by a journalist apparently sympathetic to the complaints (note the word choices throughout, and the types of questions that were apparently asked during the interviews to solicit the quotes the writer used).

    2) The owner was visited by at least three different elected officials — some from the town, some from the county — all of whom were scrutinizing the business to see if the complaints could be substantiated, or if any zoning or sign laws had been violated.

    3) One of those elected officials asked the owner to “cooperate” by taking down the posters. (When is it acceptable for a bureaucrat to try to limit the exercise of free speech among citizens — and in what circumstances would a journalist not be bothered by such an action?)

    4) That official actually tried another bit of strong-arm tactics against the business owner, by “remind[ing] Nielsen during their conversation that he rents from the county…” In other words, citizen, exercise your right to free speech by keeping those posters, and we’ll find a way to run you out of town and bankrupt your business — all because we are bothered by the image of “a woman brandishing a gun.”

    So yes, I think the appearance of an article like this does say something about us as a society and the way we look at women. It is a sure bet that if the posters were of men with firearms, not a bit of notice would have been taken — and we wouldn’t be discussing it at Aunt B’s digs, either.

  40. “Is our society so afraid of a woman’s power that a simple picture of a woman wielding a tool designed to increase her power is threatening or emotionally disturbing to those who see it, so disturbing that they must seek a law to prevent seeing it again?”–pax

    I would say yes, pax. The patriarchal culture is not adjusting well to norms changing, as the general nastiness women in politics suffer underlines.

  41. 1) Journalists will flame controversy any chance they get.

    2) Politicians are wusses, who walk on eggshells out of fear they will be branded in conflict with “family values”. They were all there as a result of the single woman’s complaint.

    “Facing two documented complaints”. Actually, the second complaint, by Dawn White, was for the gun store as a whole, without specifying the posters. She also doesn’t like the bar downtown.

    “Anytime (commissioners) get a complaint of any kind, we want to see if there is any truth to it,” Davis said. “But there’s nothing more we will do at this point in time.”

    Two kooks do not a society make.

  42. So, Dolphin, how about a more measured comment that a gun gives you a better chance in a dicey situation, but isn’t perfect?

    I think I’d be more comfortable with a comment along the lines of a gun being an option that, like most options, has it’s pros and cons in any situation. There are dicey situations in which a gun would improve your odds and dicey situations in which a gun would be detrimental.

    I’m wary of statements that limit people’s options. Another example is tasha’s statement, “I rather have gun than not in a deadly comfrontation. At least it gives me a chance.” The implication is that without a gun, she would not have a chance, so I wonder if she were in a deadly confrontation would she just give up and take whatever came to her. I hope she would not, but that is exactly what her words are advocating.

    So ultimately what I’m saying is, I’d take gun nuts more seriously if they approached the discussion from the perspective that having a gun adds one more to the many options that people already have at their disposal in dangerous situations. I’d take them even more seriously if they’d acknowledge that, like all other options, a gun isn’t always the best option depending on the situation, but for now I’d just settle for them acknowledging that there are in fact other options available.

  43. In response to the first commenter,

    You can’t “blame the victim” if she/he isn’t a victim in the first place. It is all of us individually that make that choice. You may choose to live disarmed, in fear of anyone bigger, stronger, or better trained. I will not. I think every adult should take as much responsibility for her/his own empowerment as possible.

    To the author,

    In your opening line you called us all “gun nuts”. That’s a pejorative term, like so many others we both could think of. It discounts our Constitutionally protected status at the very least. You might at least refer to us as “The People of the Gun”. http://peopleofthegun.com/
    Like so many other groups that self identify, we like to choose our own name, not be named by those who hate us.

  44. So, you just wander around the internet looking for things to be self-righteous about or what? “Gun nuts” is not a pejorative “like so many others we both could think of.” It’s a joking insult shared among friends. Which you would know, if you read here regularly, or took a second before leaping onto your high-horse. For a person determined not to live like a victim, this is a very strange opening move.

Comments are closed.