[PapaNew]

The law takes into account one’s ability to defend oneself. Whereas a man’s physical strength may be enough to counter the threat, a woman, generally physically weaker than a man, might need added protection.

[stansblugrassgrl]

Also, there was a child involved. Thank God she had an equalizer.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

The law takes into account one’s ability to defend oneself. Whereas a man’s physical strength may be enough to counter the threat, a woman, generally physically weaker than a man, might need added protection.

That's a very outdated standard. There are many women who are stronger than the average man, and strength isn't the only factor in a fight anyway. Besides, if a man fails to block a blow at a certain target, his strength advantage will be severely reduced if not neutralized.

To look at it another way, if a woman knew martial arts, the law would never consider that as a reason to forbid her to pull a gun based on this standard, especially since she may have no idea what else that guy might do. So, why apply that standard to a man?

[GreatMan]

I am an old and frail man these days. I need .357 to protect myself, do you think the law would take this into account?

[Secret Agent Man]

same goes if the man is older, smaller, has physical problems, or is outnumbered.

it is called ‘disparity of force’.