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.
Also, there was a child involved. Thank God she had an equalizer.
That's a very outdated standard.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?
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?
same goes if the man is older, smaller, has physical problems, or is outnumbered.
it is called ‘disparity of force’.