In August of 2016 I posted an article titled: I Carry A Handgun Because… Considering that article since, I have felt the need to address an equally important issue: why women should carry handguns. I hope to speak more directly to the hearts of women than I did in that earlier article, people I value and admire more than I can easily say.
Let’s dispense with a common fallacy: the idea progressives are the champions of women and their defenders against evil conservatives and their “war on women.” If conservatives hate women so much, why do they want them to have the choice to be armed? Consider Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air, speaking of just such a progressive savior of the sisterhood:
“In arguing for the disarmament of college students in Colorado this week, state Rep. Joe Salazar suggested a novel method of self-defense for women on campus— just chill, ladies.
‘It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.’
Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment! I guess if you are raped, there’s this…safe zone.”
As a firearm instructor, I deal in the identification of actual threats, and their effective removal, as does my wife, also an educator and firearm instructor. Mr. Salazar’s comments are anything but supportive of the intellects, bodies and welfare of women. Ms. Ham:
“Salazar has apologized for revealing how incapable he believes women are. (Notice the framing of the story in local media is not about his comments, but about conservatives objecting to them.)
‘I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”
Notice Mr. Salazar, the woman-defending “civil rights attorney,” does not retract or disavow his comments, he’s just sorry excitable women are so silly as to doubt his sensitivity to the dangers women face. He’s so sensitive he doesn’t want to expose women to the most effective means to defend themselves from those dangers, which they can’t recognize anyway. And if they were allowed by the representatives of a benevolent government—such as sensitive Mr. Salazar—to carry guns, they’d just “pop” up the landscape. Besides, he didn’t intend to offend women by suggesting they’re too stupid to know when they’re in danger or about to be raped. He obviously still thinks that, he just didn’t intend it to offend anyone. Silly women; they’re so easily offended.
Ham helpfully provides approved progressive methods of self-defense:
“Charles Cooke notes the University of Colorado’s advice for women under attack. This would be the liberal-sanctioned method of self-defense if the Rep. Salazar method of hoping real hard doesn’t pan out. Passive resistance, bare feet, and your period:
Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.”
Hmm. I know they’re only women, but don’t some of these suggestions seem to be contradictory, even a bit…stupid? And don’t they seem to assume women are supposed to be helpless victims and do nothing to change that unfortunate state of affairs? Such is common with proponents of gun control, or as they’re now calling it “common sense gun safety.” For them, life is all about feelings, and “feeling safe” is what matters, not actual safety
Notice how Mr. Salazar, who is very sorry by the way–we know because he said so–and the University of Colorado–good Progressives all–make certain assumptions about women, particularly that they must be denied effective means of self-defense and allowed only such traditionally feminine methods as screaming, running, kicking off those kicky little high heels, yelling, biting, and even…peeing and puking? I’m sure they would also endorse such traditionally stereotypical female methods as purse whacking, pathetic pleading, tripping and falling down while running and screaming (preferably repeatedly) and every girl’s secret weapon: hysterical sobbing.
Any woman not prevented by ideology and/or cult of personality politician worship from engaging in rational thought, may wish to consider the sole, truly effective means of self defense, the means that truly equalizes the sexes: firearms.
Next Monday, I’ll present the second article in this series. I hope to see you then.