Let’s talk about the War on Women. No, not the infamous, often-abused Democrat claim about Republican policies (or vice versa, as has happened a time or two.) Instead, let’s talk about the War on Women being conducted by gun-ban advocates.
“Wait, what?” you ask. Well, have a read of these two articles, both from the Bullets First blog:
The gun is the equalizer that can protect the 100lb girl from the monsters in the night. From those who would rob innocence and shatter dreams. The gun levels a playing field for the small and the weak so that we are not a society run by thugs and roving gangs of strong arms.
The Brady Campaign would deny the right of the small to defend themselves against the large. They would promote reasoning with rabid animals and the moral authority of being raped over killing your rapist.
I would say to use every method possible that would stop one of the most heinous acts from being perpetrated against you. If you think that the Yale study and the ISP advice is sound I won’t advise against it, it might work. But I KNOW that 3 shots to the chest with a .45 will work. If I were a woman I would prefer to have to deal with the fact that I put down a rabid animal than I would dealing with the fact that that animal raped me.
And that, True Believers, is the whole point.
As a CCW permit holder who carries regularly as I go about my daily business, I am on occasion drawn into the conversation about the merits of carrying a concealed handgun, and the likelihood of it one day saving my or someone else’s life. Two common comments arise:
Reply: “That’s true – but it will protect me in many situations, and if I don’t have one, it won’t protect me in any situation.”
Comment: “I’d be afraid someone would get my gun away from me and kill me with it.”
Reply: “If I’m ever killed with my own gun, they’ll have to beat me to death with it, because it will sure as hell be empty.”
My own dear Mrs Animal – a small, middle-aged, visibly disabled woman who always has a firearm and usually a blade of some kind concealed about her person – is even more adamant about it, agreeing strongly with the statement above that “3 shots to the chest with a .45,” or in her case, a .380 or a .40 S&W, will sure as hell stop an attacker.
It’s baffling why anyone could make the case for a policy that denies women the choice to defend themselves with the only completely effective tool for the job – the only one that will enable a small, disabled, middle-aged woman to defend herself against a six-foot, twenty year old, male attacker.
Do they truly, as BulletsFirst observes, believe a woman that attempts to foil a rapist with urine, defecation or vomit – or a woman who just submits – is morally superior than a woman who effectively and decisively defends herself with deadly force?
It’s hard to draw any other conclusion. Fortunately, every year more and more women are calling “bullshit!”