“God Created Man…

… but Samuel Colt made them equal.”

Ravenwood tipped me off to this one. Women need to be armed. (Of course, I think that men need to be armed too, but stay with me here.) The Independent Women’s Forum agrees. The Police have no duty to protect you. None. It is great when it works out that way, but it not, tough titty said the kitty. Even if they did have a duty to protect you (rather than just cleaning up the mess once the deed had been done) that duty would mean less than shit if you were already dead. Dr. Frankenstein doesn’t work at the coroner’s office.

[T]he inadequacy of the 911 system (and also of the protective orders that many women seek against abusers) suggests that self-defense may be a better option for many women and other potential victims of crime.

On average, men are physically bigger and stronger than women are. Male batterers of women, for example, are on average forty-five pounds heavier and four to five inches taller than their female victims. With serious martial arts training, a woman can fight off an unarmed man in many cases, but she likely still faces a disadvantage if attacked by more than one man or an armed man.

A woman with a firearm, however, can credibly threaten and deter an attacker of any size, shape, or strength. Even though weaker and unskilled in the use of firearms, she can sometimes protect herself with a sidearm without firing a shot. In more than 92 percent of defensive gun uses, the defender succeeds by firing only a warning shot or never firing the gun at all.

A sidearm can “equalize” physical disparity between a woman and her attacker. For a battered woman, the equalization can make all the difference, because such a woman is likely to be prepared for an abuser’s attack. Typically the battered woman can sense cues of impending violence from her male partner (in the home) more quickly and accurately than a person who has not been abused. Because she can prepare, she can more effectively use the sidearm to deter and prevent a looming violent episode.

I take issue with one thing — even with martial arts training, a woman still stands a very good chance of being beaten to death if that is the man’s aim. Martial arts are designed to allow big beefy men to kill other big beefy men. Nothing is going to make it easy for a small woman to kill a big man. At best, they put her on equal footing, which means they both come out of the fight beaten all to hell.

Ditto with any other weapon. Knives? Take some strength, and you have to get real close to those fists of his. Clubs? You hit him a couple of times, and then he takes it away and kills you with it. Mace? He doesn’t have to see you to kill you. Police use Mace to make it easier to beat down a suspect, not to handle it for them. The only way for a woman to quickly subdue a male attacker is to use potentially lethal force. That means using a gun.

To decide whether to support or oppose private ownership of firearms, individualist feminists should consider the options for self-defense, particularly in the case of domestic violence. The data, logic, and human experience all show that potential crime victims who are in imminent danger of violence are better protected by individual self-defense options than by government laws and centralized police response. Individual women in peril quite frequently fare better when they develop skill and confidence in the carrying and using of defensive firearms. Victim disarmament (“gun control”) laws that discourage women from developing the skills and using defensive firearms actually heighten the risks of criminal violence that women face. Such laws place women at a disadvantage against violent men and run against the feminist goal of equal treatment under the law.

Comments are closed.