Sure, it doesn’t fit the image the media paints about gun owners: we’re all old, white, beer-bellied men, right? So a woman couldn’t possibly have a gun, much less know how to use it to protect herself. As often happens of course, the facts don’t follow with the narrative they want to write.
First, a word about the basis for their argument that we need more gun control to protect women. It starts with a hideously flawed logical argument connecting ownership of guns with fatal domestic violence. They either cannot recognize, or choose to ignore, the importance of correlation versus causality. Just because more domestic murderers may own guns, if does not mean guns cause domestic violence, or that stricter gun laws would reduce domestic violence. It means that some of the same people who fatally attack their partners are more violent to begin with, frequently criminals, who are more likely to have guns, frequently illegally purchased. The simplest corollary is this: Violent gang members are more likely to have guns. That does not mean guns make people into violent gang members. (Of course, most of those gang guns are illegal, so would not be impacted by ANY gun legislation.)
Bob Costas took a chance to interject his anti-gun viewpoint into the halftime of a Sunday night NFL game on Dec. 1, 2013. He remarked on the KC Chiefs player who killed his girlfriend and himself, asserting that, “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” Somewhere, the victims of OJ Simpson and Chris Benoit were refuting his argument from the afterlife.
Of course, they also miss the point that Federal law already restricts gun purchase for those with restraining orders and various similar restrictions against them. They miss the fact that the “system’s” failure to deal with individuals is the broken link to protect people. They somehow think when someone is perceived as dangerous by a victim that there is some way they are tagged and can be prevented from buying a gun. They also ignore that if they did implement such a system, which they have no practical suggestions for doing, for it to be effective, it would also have to open the door for any angry ex-spouse or girlfriend to strip away the rights of a law abiding individual with one false complaint. California has toyed with this type of proposal. Like many feel-good laws, it would endanger the rights of the innocent, without protecting anyone from truly violent offenders.
Most of all, the fact that NONE of these advocates have even a single concrete example to point to, to say, “Well, if THIS law had been in place, this man couldn’t have had a gun and this woman would be alive.” That proves they have no case. Of course, anecdotes aren’t grounds to strip rights even if they did have examples but they don’t even have that much.
Now, while they SAY they are protecting women, look at what they’re really doing. In gun control paradises like New York City and Washington D.C., a woman has almost no ability to carry a gun legally to defend herself, unless of course she’s rich and politically connected. That’s the most extreme example of how their “common sense” leaves women defenseless.
They’re also constantly trying to limit how many rounds you can have in a gun. If a woman is attacked by a group of men, and the one concealed pistol is all she has to defend herself, who are they to say she only needs 15, or 10, or 7 rounds? She deserves to have as many as she wants to protect herself.
They are trying to prevent where you can carry. As an example, when Arizona recently had a pending bill that logically provided that if the state couldn’t provide metal detectors and security in a building, they couldn’t legally prohibit licensed concealed carriers from having their own guns. Sensible, right? If a woman is vulnerable, or is being attacked or threatened, she doesn’t want to leave her gun home, or in the car, in a place with no security. Groups like MDA viciously fought that bill and gibbered in celebration when it was vetoed. So what’s the result? A woman must choose between committing a felony, or risk being helpless when her attacker ignores the cardboard “No Guns” sign, or attacks her in such a place with a knife or even with no weapons beyond his animal strength. Great way to celebrate leaving women defenseless.
Or, let’s look at another implementation of “common sense” gun laws. A single woman, duly licensed as a concealed carrier in one state, is now facing jail time because she dared take her instrument of self-defense across a state line. I suppose the MDA crowd wants her to throw her gun out the window at the state line and hope no one attacks her. Tell me again how this is protecting a vulnerable woman from a violent attacker.
At the recent Students for Concealed Carry conference, we have an unfortunately horrifying example of how the law does not protect women from violent stalkers, no matter how often they are told to let the law handle the problem. Instead, the law is only steadfast to ensure they cannot protect themselves in many places where they must live, work, and learn.
Whether it’s that story or any other similar one you have heard, the law doesn’t help. It doesn’t stop these people who are threatening. You’ve seen memes from us and others that say, “Teach your daughter to shoot, because a restraining order is just a piece of paper.” They can’t lock them up, no matter how many times the victim calls the police or reports it. And yet, they want to take the gun out of the woman’s hands, the most effective means of self defense. We can hear about pepper spray, keys held in a fist, gouging the throat or groin, or even more humiliating options like urinating on themselves. Yet a handgun, with the training to use it, is the most effective self defensive tool there is. No matter how mentally tough and strong you may be, it doesn’t stop a knife, or a bullet, or the arm of a person significantly stronger than you.
Additionally, a gun is even more important as a self-defense tool for a woman. It is called an equalizer for a reason. It crosses the gaps of disparity between the physical abilities of old and young, big and small, weak and strong, and male and female. Women generally have less gross physical strength and size than men. This means if they are attacked by a man, it’s far more likely there will be a disparity of force which may both necessitate and justify the use of deadly force, or at least the threat thereof. Unfortunately, because there exist twisted monsters among the male population, however aberrant they are, a woman is almost infinitely more likely to be raped than a man. So at the end of the day, for all the reasons a man might want a gun to defend himself, a woman has all the same reasons…and more. There is nothing in the operation of a handgun that cannot be done just as well by a woman.
Take note that no matter what, the anti-gun advocates are going in only one direction, to restrict gun rights. They’re not up there saying we need to keep guns out of the hands of stalkers, AND fund training and concealed carry programs for women to protect themselves. Funny how their common sense only runs one way, and that is less guns.
So here is where we get to the utmost paternalistic misogyny of the anti-gun movement, no matter how many “moms” are engaged in it. Why would a woman NOT want the ability to defend herself based on all of the above? A gun, with appropriate training, gives her an equalized level of security. Why would people supposedly trying to protect women not be encouraging this?
Because they present a subtle but constant inference. “You women can’t be trusted with a gun.” Oh, of course, it’s not said that way. “That gun is more likely to be used against you!”, is how they frame the argument. “It wouldn’t do you any good!” What does that mean? It means that you, poor little girl, would not be able to make the kind of serious life and death decisions about when to draw your gun and when to shoot it. You’ll probably faint or get the vapors and drop that scary ole gun! Does that sound silly? Yes! Demeaning? Absolutely! But THAT is the message that the gun control advocates want to plant in every woman’s subconscious. They love to mock the idea of a “good guy with a gun” as being absolutely ridiculous. (No matter how many times it’s proven true.) They’re trying to make the idea of a good woman with a gun even more laughable.
Meanwhile, what’s our message? Arm yourself. Get training. Practice. Be ready to defend yourself against the monsters that lurk in this world. Hopefully you’ll never need it, but you shouldn’t have to cower helplessly in fear. You deserve the right to look a threat down your sights and protect yourself. Now tell me, who’s waging a war on women?