David Codrea writes [via ammoland.com]:
Didn’t Col. Colt and John Moses Browning take care of this over a century ago?” Glenn Reynolds asks in a Sunday Instapundit post. He’s referring to an ongoing XPrize contest to “design a wearable solution that can keep women safe.”
“The Anu & Naveen Jain Women’s Safety XPRIZE is a $1 million global competition that challenges teams to leverage technology to empower communities with a transformative solution that ensures women’s safety,” the competition overview explains.
“Armed with innovative safety nets, communities everywhere can rapidly respond to threats against any of its members, ensuring that help is always available when needed. The winning team’s solution will autonomously and inconspicuously trigger an emergency alert while transmitting information to a network of community responders, all within 90 seconds and at an annual cost of $40 or less.”
In other words, they’re not armed with arms. And the alert won’t even go out until after an attack has had considerable time to progress. Yet the contest sponsors present that “solution” as “transformative,” and actually have either the gall — or the ignorance — to assert that set of conditions “ensures women’s safety.”
90 seconds to activate the network and how long until a capable intervention arrives on scene…? And will they bring chalk and a body bag to save having to make a second call?
For such smart people, the folks behind the prize sure are proposing idiocy if the purpose is for women to survive unharmed. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen ridiculous “solutions offered by those who recommend a woman do anything except defend herself with a gun.
How “escape proof” is this, assuming an enraged rapist won’t mind mutilating the wearer to escape?
Several years back, such minds were placing great hopes on the Rapex, “a product worn internally by women. The hollow inside is lined with rows of razor-sharp hooks, which are designed to latch on to a rapist’s penis during penetration. They can only be removed by a doctor.”
Its main drawback – you had to actually be raped for it to “work.” And let some maniac pervert with who-knows-what diseases bleed inside you. And be at his mercy, assuming he couldn’t just cut his way out of you.
A few years later, a team of engineering students from India came up with electric shock-dispensing anti-rape underwear:
“The underwear, called Society Harnessing Equipment (SHE), deploys a 3,800kV charge to anyone touching the outside of the underwear while protecting the wearer with a polymer lining. It can shock an attacker up to 82 times [and] the bra of this underwear set is equipped with GPS tracking device that can notify cops and family members in real-time in the event of an attack.”
As ridiculously dangerous to and victimizing of women as both of these “solutions” are, they still beat advice given until recently by the Illinois State Police:
It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you [sic] throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.) Use your imagination and you can think of others.
And most “importantly”:
If you must fight Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.
This is still the message women are being subjected to by Michael Bloomberg, with his armed bodyguards (even where most police aren’t armed), and Shannon Watts, with hers. It’s all part of a conflation effort to make it seem like no one can (who’s not a cop or a bodyguard) be trusted with a gun.
Here are a couple quick fixes for the arguments they raise and the media parrots: If you don’t want a gun in the home to be a greater danger than not having one, don’t live and associate with people engaged in criminal activities.
And if you don’t want a gun taken away from you and used against you, get a bit of training. I’ve been waiting 12 years for this nitwit to put his money where his mouth is.
Talk about a sexist attitude, making that assumption and applying it to all women. And why should we expect any different from Opposite Day “progressive feminists”?
The Defender of Virginity
The January 1994 issue of Women & Guns magazine quoted (still in office) District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of 25 women in Congress who sent a letter to the National Rifle Association protesting its then-new “Refuse to be a Victim” program.
“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”
Even if it means rapists and killers can have their way with them.
The undeniable takeaway is that people discouraging self-defense with a firearm would rather see a woman dead than armed. Or a man. One thing you can say about “progressives” – when it comes to denying rights to those they would control, they’re all about equal opportunity.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2017/02/xprize-contest-highlights-ludicrous-steps-anti-gunners-will-take-deny-reality/#ixzz4ZzzhrrR7
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook