In honor of Sabrina “Gun Girl Bree” MacHaffie, whose inaugural article posted at Bearing Arms on February 11, I thought it fitting to provide an updated article I posted last summer at my home website. Welcome Bree!
I like women. I know; what red-blooded American male doesn’t? Actually, quite a few, I suspect. It’s one thing to observe that you love your wife, but how many guys really like their wife, I mean like her so much they would rather spend time with her any day than spend time with the guys? How many guys appreciate women for their unique qualities of intuition and intellect? How many guys like women because they’re, well, women, and while they expect them to be strong and capable, don’t expect them to be curvy men? I do, and that appreciation of women inspires me to write about their protection, for I know that as strongly as I feel a need to protect women, I also know I can’t be around all the time, not even for my wife. Ultimately, all women need to ask: “who really cares about women?” The answer might surprise some.
First, however, might I take a moment to dispel a common fallacy? I speak of the idea that progressives are the champions of women and their defenders against evil conservatives and their “war on women.” 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 [Democrat] 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, not only do I deal in the identification of actual threats, but in the effective removal of same, as does my wife, also an educator and firearm instructor. I find Mr. Salazar’s comments anything but supportive of the intellects, bodies, and welfare of women. But let’s return to 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 that Mr. Salazar, the woman-defending “civil rights attorney,” does not retract or disavow his comments, he’s just sorry you 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 notes approved anti-Second Amendment methods of pseudo 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 you’re only women, but don’t some of these suggestions seem to be contradictory, ineffective, even a bit…stupid?
And don’t they seem to assume that you are supposed to be helpless victims and practice to remain that way?
Such is common with proponents of gun control. Notice that I am not indicting all progressives, Democrats, etc. There is no question that a growing number of people, regardless of gender, that might once have reflexively supported gun control policies are coming to understand the wisdom, indeed, the necessity, of taking responsibility for the safety of ourselves and those we love. They are, each and every one, to be welcomed and supported. But for gun control proponents—most whom, sadly, are Democrats—life is all about feelings, and “feeling safe” is all that matters, regardless if one is actually safe or not.