Every human being, by virtue of being born a human being, has a God-given, unalienable right to preserve their life. Life is, in fact, God’s greatest gift. To fail, or worse, to refuse to protect it is a sin. Surely, some think terms like “sin” to be quaint and old-fashioned, but they remain useful because morality and equally old-fashioned terms like “honor” and “personal responsibility” remain useful, and hopefully, always will. Whether one believes the right is bestowed by the Creator, or simply by virtue of being born human, if there is no unalienable right to life and to defend that life, what other right matters? So, my advice to women . . .
Buy an appropriate firearm–perhaps two. Get training. Gain situational awareness. Women not prevented by ideology and/or cult of personality politician worship from engaging in rational thought, should consider the sole, truly effective means of self defense: firearms.
This concept is so fundamental, so important, that the Second Amendment to the Constitution acknowledges and affirms it. The Second Amendment does not establish a right to self-defense and the means to affect it; no law or government can do that. If the Second Amendment did not exist, the unalienable right to self-defense would still exist; government cannot take it away, at least not legitimately.
Every woman is valuable to their family, their spouse, their children. They are certainly more valuable to society than any thuggish predator cruel enough to beat and rape them or take their life. But above all remember this: you and only you are ultimately responsible for protecting and preserving your life.
Even if you are not interested in evil, evil is interested in you. For some, evil is only an abstraction, a debating topic, a means of making fun of the supposedly less-sophisticated and enlightened who aren’t capable of the nuanced thinking that can so blithely deny evil’s existence. In nearly two decades of police service, I have seen evil. I’ve chased it down dark alleys, fought it hand to hand, held it at gunpoint and verbally battled it across tables in interviewing rooms.
There are more sociopaths out there than most are capable of imagining. They walk among us every day. You have stood behind them in checkout lines and waiting for movies. They have passed you on sidewalks. You’ve been lucky so far. The survivors of the Malaysian flight shot down over Ukraine, and the villagers deluged with falling bodies, now have no doubt about the existence of evil. Nor do the thousands murdered by terrorists around the globe. Nor do the survivors of school shootings and random criminal attacks of all kinds.
Living a virtuous life, thinking politically correct thoughts, donating time and money to politically correct causes is no protection against evil. In fact, it is only encouraged by such ineffectual gestures. However, evil can be deterred, and when it attacks, beaten, but it will never be deterred or beaten by those who deny its existence.
One may spend a lifetime without being directly confronted by evil, but there is nothing preventing such a confrontation with anyone at any time or place. Evil is always waiting its chance. It is always prepared. Are you?
WOMEN ARE THE WEAKER SEX
Physically, that is. Women are generally smaller, shorter and substantially weaker in upper body strength and overall strength than men. In amateur and professional competitions, 150 pound men do not fight 170 pound men because the difference in weight and size is so great as to render the outcome a foregone conclusion. Size, weight and strength matter, as the average woman quickly discovers in unarmed combat with the average man. The difference is shocking, paralyzing and potentially deadly.
In pursuits where absolute size and strength aren’t disqualifying—such as flying fighter aircraft–women can compete with men on equal footing. Go here for one such stirring example. But in any unarmed encounter, women are virtually always at a substantial and usually deadly physical disadvantage.
Fortunately, in terms of intellect, determination, courage, strength of character and perseverance, women can counter, even best men. While it is surely true that women tend, for genetic and cultural reasons, not to be as aggressive as men, they can learn how to successfully channel aggression and how to focus their anger into effective attack or defense.
WOMEN ARE UNIQUELY VULNERABLE
Because women are not naturally as aggressive as men, because they are generally smaller and weaker than men, and because few women think tactically to the extent that they have reasonable situational awareness, predators tend to target women more than men. They reasonably assume that women—even women in groups—will be easy targets. As unpleasant as thinking about this might be, refusing to think about it only plays into the hands of predators.
NON-LETHAL WEAPONS ARE DANGEROUS–TO WOMEN
Predators find things like whistles, “safe zones,” “gun free zones,” pepper spray, air horns, Tasers, and a variety of other similar items hilarious. Not only are such things ineffective, they do not in any way intimidate predators, and even if used as intended, will generally only annoy or anger predators—at best. People who are so enraged, deranged, drugged, or simply determined to harm others are commonly impervious to such weapons.
If these weapons and related toys don’t work–and one may be reasonably assured they will not–anyone employing them has just convinced their attacker they are out of options and therefore, helpless. And, of course, they have likely enraged the brute they have just sprayed with pepper spray who will proceed to beat and rape them with abandon while sniffling and sneezing a bit.
There is no doubt: any woman being attacked, particularly by a stranger, must assume they are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Believing “if I give him what he wants, he’ll leave me unharmed,” is a foolish and potentially deadly gamble. Anyone making that assumption is actually betting their life. It’s a sucker’s bet (take the next link to see exactly what I mean. The woman in that deadly battle had the skill to win, but ultimately lacked the aggression).
MARTIAL ARTS AREN’T THE ANSWER
There is nothing wrong with studying a martial art such as karate–the martial arts provide many physical and psychological benefits–but the simple fact is that even if one attains a very high level of proficiency, size and weight still matter very much and in most circumstances, will overwhelm any advantage in skill. Studying a martial art may help one to radiate confidence and perhaps even situational awareness, which can cause some of the more wary predators to avoid them, but this cannot be counted upon.
Hand to hand fighting is brutal, dirty, brief, bloody and ugly and consists of breaking the will and body of an opponent to whatever ends the winner desires. Both fighters usually end up on the ground. The kind of “fighting” one sees on TV and in the movies is choreography, not fighting. There are no rules other than that there are no rules, and only winning by any means necessary matters.
There may be a handful of women in the world so highly skilled in martial arts as to be capable of defeating a larger and stronger man. A handful. One–not more–men. And of course, if a predator is armed with a knife or gun, as they often are…
THE POLICE ARE NOT AN OPTION
Not only are the police not able to protect you, they have no legal obligation to protect you, as I noted in “Self Defense and the Realities of Police Response Times” on July 16th. In any attack by a predator, two factors matter greatly (the overwhelming factor of difference in size, weight and strength is always present): time and distance. Given sufficient time and distance, one might be able to run or even make a cell phone call, but predators do their best to leave their victims no space and no time.
Even if a woman under attack were able to call and connect with 911, it would certainly take many minutes for the police to respond, even if they knew exactly where she was. Remember that at Newtown, Connecticut, despite the fact that the police were responding to an easy to find school building, it took nearly 15 minutes for the first officer to enter the school. The killer murdered everyone he intended to kill, and killed himself, nearly five minutes earlier. Even if it took the police only five minutes to respond to your call for help, would you still be alive by the time they arrived?
Anyone depending upon the police to protect their lives simply doesn’t understand the reality of policing, the law and the physics of time and distance. Consider too that police forces around the nation, under serious budget crunches like never before, are laying off, or not replacing, officers and are cutting back on even emergency call response. Some of the more honest public safety officials are actually advising the public to arm and train themselves. It would be wise to listen to them.
MY BOYFRIEND/HUSBAND WILL PROTECT ME
Perhaps, if he is tactically trained, armed and brave. Biology is on your side–at least in some men. Men are programmed, by biology and culture, to want to protect women because they are smaller, weaker and less aggressive, or at least an older generation of men were so programmed. I wouldn’t bet on the current generation of metrosexuals and video game warriors.
While I would give my life to protect my wife, or any woman, I would do everything possible to make those trying to harm them pay dearly first, and I have the training, weaponry, and mindset necessary to act on that resolve. Even so, I cannot be with her every minute of every day. We are often apart, so she is also trained, armed and capable. When we are together, we are able to deal with threats as a team, which greatly increases our odds of success.
GUNS ARE DANGEROUS
Yes they are: to predators. Supposed supporters of women constantly engage in fear mongering, telling women that guns in the home kill children and those who live there and that any woman carrying a gun will either shoot herself, those she loves, innocent bystanders, or will have the gun taken away by a predator and used against her.
The best research clearly reveals exactly the opposite of the dangerous lies those who supposedly care for the rights of women espouse. Dr. John Lott notes:
“The probability of serious injury from a criminal confrontation is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for those resisting with a gun.
Men also benefit, but the benefit is smaller because there is, on average, a smaller difference in strength between violent criminals, who are almost always men, and male victims than for female victims. For men, passive behavior is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.
In my own research, I examine county crime rates for the entire United States from 1977 to 1998. Murder rates decline when either sex carries a concealed handgun, but the effect is particularly pronounced for women.
An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by three to four times more than an additional armed man reduces the murder rate for men.”
My police experience supports Lott’s research I have, on many occasions, investigated cases where predators, unexpectedly confronted by the smallest women with guns and the obvious will to use them, ran the fastest, most panicky sprints in their lives to get away. I also investigated cases where predators didn’t run. In those cases, it was the predators who were carried away in ambulances or boxes while the woman they hoped to harm or kill lived to make life that much better for us all.
Anyone that wants to make women “feel safe” is not their friend and does not care about women, except in the abstract. They care about policy, not persons, not individual women. One need not be paranoid and see danger behind every tree. Not only is that unnecessary, it’s psychologically debilitating.
Every woman should learn to be aware of her surroundings, to avoid trouble if possible. And every woman should, if trouble is unavoidable, in the home or on the street, be able to protect her life and the lives of those she loves.
Shooting is not only a worthy physical and mental discipline, it is a great deal of fun. The women I’ve had the pleasure to teach have, uniformly, found it not only satisfying, but relaxing, even liberating. And thanks, in no small part to Mr. Obama, the greatest firearm salesman in American history, women, in enormous numbers, are arming themselves and learning not only to shoot, but to develop real situational awareness.
Still, it’s not as simple as merely buying a gun or taking a few trips to a range. Competent training is available everywhere, through the NRA, and via the ubiquitous Google. The beginning, however, remains always the same. As the venerable saying goes: “God made man and woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal.”
Who is really warring against women? Those that want them to feel safe, to think others will care for all their needs, or those that want to help them take responsibility for themselves, those that want them to be safe?
Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
When you get right down to it the same things that make women vulnerable are some of the same things that make everyone vulnerable. The real distinction here being we have a cultural bias against the idea that women need to take care of themselves.
I find it grimly ironic that the loudest people that claim to support the rights of women are the often the same people that protest the ability for anyone to be armed. Which straight up puts women at a disadvantage when they eventually encounter a violent individual.
Well said! Biden gave women the worst “advice” of all. Get your first gun girls, then get another one!
Amen to that! As a child I was raised around guns and my father often took us out to practice for fun, but taught us great skills in the process. I just bought my first gun – S&W MP 9mm and hope that in learning to use it, I won’t become a statistic. Getting a CCL soon. Wish more women would take the sound advice given here.
Damn fine post. I’m slowly convincing my wife that purse-carry is no good. Part of the problem is her clothing doesn’t do much to conceal. So, I guess I need to work on convincing her that looser shirts are okay to wear. A lot of carry options targeted at women seems so gimmicky and impractical, like the Flash Bang and concealment purses. She refuses to consider a Sneaky Pete “because it’s hideous.” Oy vey, what should I do?
You might consider an NAA mini revolver in 22 magnum. I’ve carried one for years. They are really very small, and can be hid nearly anywhere.
Don’t let anybody fool you, one or two shots from a 22 magnum “Critical Defense” round is going to put a lot of hurt on any attacker. Sure, something like a 380 has more punch, but the mini revolver is a lot smaller.
If I were you. I’d call around and try and locate one in a gun store, and then take her there to check it out.
Forgot to mention,
The NAA revolver in magnum calibers, usually have available for them, a 22 long rifle cylinders. When you can find 22 LR, it makes for more economical shooting for practice, with less recoil.
It is best to order the gun with both cylinders, than to purchase the gun, and then the cylinder later, as you must send the gun in for the cylinder to be fitted.
Have her google: Can Can Concealment. They have a lot of good holsters for on-body carry that take women’s curves into consideration and allow a woman to continue dressing like a woman. You can also youtube search their videos that show women concealing in very normal “woman clothing”. She doesn’t have to dress like a guy. And I also second the suggestion of mini-revolver. Those things are concealable anywhere so there is really no excuse not to have SOMETHING for on-body carry.
Have her watch any and all youtube firearm related videos by faliaphotography. She does a good job going over various holster/carry options with different kinds of outfits.
Also, get her to check out http://www.corneredcat.com/
Another excellent resource.
I’ll repeat a favorite story. I’d gone to lunch with my department chair. In the parking lot we were accosted by a aggressive and very determined homeless guy demanding money. Thinking she was behind me, I turned around . . . only to find her standing in the middle of the parking lot facing down the homeless guy. Turned out she carried a Glock 19 in a false compartment in her purse. She was prepared to shoot that guy. Don’t underestimate the power of the purse. (Sorry, couldn’t resist that.)
My wife used to play the “somebody will save me!” card whenever her carrying came up.
One night out late near a university our car was locked up in a university garage that should not have been locked. We couldnt get to it. So I pressed the “HELP!” button on one of those stupid emergency kiosk things.
Nobody responded. I pressed again. Nobody responded. I waited ten minutes and pressed it wildly and screamed thinking maybe it was set to only register hysteria. Nobody responded.
Since that night she has given up all of this police, security, national guard, me, whoever will come and save her nonsense and knows the only person who is going to save her is her.
Take your reluctant GF or wife out for a walk and press one of these things. I’m convinced they arent connected to anything and she’ll learn real fast what the reality is.
If the garage exit is just blocked by one of those arms that goes up and down, those things break off easily by hand.
Don’t ask me how I know that.
Good stuff here! 2 thumbs up!
This is the best piece I’ve seen on TTAG in weeks. It’s now bookmarked for future reference, the next time I meet a woman who needs a dose of reality.
Keep up the good work, Mike!
This is a really strong article that deserves a wide distribution. Too bad that gunhating soccer moms won’t read it.
You know, There’s got to be at least one MDA mommie that at some time or the other, was in a predicament, where she wished she had a gun! The problem is getting her to admit it.
I was thinking of the Mommies demanding some action while reading this article as well. MDA actually is a really bad group for women.
I live in Johannesburg, and have done for over two decades. I’ve been through my share of encounters with individuals who have shot at me, drawn knives on me, and wanted to implement a policy of redistribution of assets upon me 🙂 I encourage the women I know in a gentle fashion, to accompany me to the range and learn about firearms and have fun in a safe manner. Internally, I want to empower them as much as I can in this regard without appearing to be what some would call me, namely a ‘gun-nut’. Interesting times here in South Africa… I enjoyed this article very much and have forwarded the URL to quite a few people.
The meat of this excellent article is in the final words, and they apply to everyone, and not just women.
Who is more concerned with others welfare, those who (they say) wish to make them FEEL safe, or those that wish for others to BE safe?
I know my answer…
There was a horrible trailside murder of a woman in Georgia a few years back. A single assailant overpowered her. Everything she brought to bear that the antigunners suggest women use as alternatives to guns – martial arts, attempting to run away (she was younger and athletic), a dog – all of it neutralized by an older attacker who was simply stronger and utterly ruthless. She died alone with no witnesses; even a “popular” park or trail at times has an ebb and flow of visitors. Crimes can easily be conducted and concealed in these places.
I think that’s the one referenced in the article. She was apparently pretty much able to fight him to a draw, til he convinced her he only wanted her atm card and would not hurt her if she just let him tie her hands and take the card. It’s like some were saying about that videotaped robbery on one of the recent threads–once they try to “just take you to the back”, or “just tie your hands”, it’s time to pull out the stops and fight for your life with everything you can bring to bear, preferably a firearm.
I’m confused about why her dog wasn’t trying to protect her? Supposedly it was a big dog. Did somebody knock the dog unconscious first? They are often strong defenders of their owners. That’s the part that makes me go “huh?” I’m not that shocked that even with high level martial arts training she couldn’t win, but the dog thing has me scratching my head.
Not all dog breeds are equally protective. Supposedly a husky will just run away if the owner is attacked where a Cane Corso will take the attacker down without eating him and Rottie will rip the guy’s face off.
I have two coonhounds. I pretty sure the big bear hunting Plott will cower or run away whereas my little girl redtick will chow down on him. You just don’t really know what will happen.
Good to know! That was driving me crazy trying to figure out what that dog was doing.
That’s an excellent point, tdi. People tend to assume that most dogs are protective of their owners, whether by barking or attacking, but that’s not accurate. People often assume it’s even more typical of larger dogs, when that’s even less accurate.
The factors that matter are breed, individual dog temperament, and its training (specifically, protective training, not simply game playing and general obedience.) Animal Planet’s website, among others, includes ordinal ratings of dog breeds’ protective abilities, which is an interesting guide, but remember it’s no guarantee and that other factors matter, too.
Now, big dogs with bad ass reputations may intimidate some would-be attackers and deter an attack, and that does have value, but people certainly should not overplay their hand in that regard and rely on such. If you don’t know for a fact how your dog will respond to a threat, then you should either take steps to know for a fact that it will defend you, or else don’t count on the dog as a serious element of your defense.
Dogs are highly hierarchical animals who will submit to whichever is the baddest dog in the pack. Women do not GET that dogs will never see them as an “Alpha” if some obviously larger, stronger male is in the vicinity. A lot of dogs will also refuse to admit their female owners’ supremacy, as they feel they themselves are more powerful. Training as a puppy is essential to avoid this problem.
AnotherRobert: I re-read the article and it lines up with the story I described above. Never saw that degree of detail about it – an already disturbing story, and now it really breaks my heart that she came so close to totally dominating him and leaving largely unscathed. Never let predatory people tie you up or take you to a secondary location…
Similar story in Chapel Hill, NC from early 90’s. There was a rash of attacks on women that was highly publicized.
Local “experts” were all over the news advising women not to carry guns, that pepper spray was a MUCH better option.
One the next attacks (may have been the next), the girl a pepper spray was murdered.
No one was on the news after that admitting just how full of sh1t they were, and how giving life and death advice was just heady game to them, but very, very real to those listening. No nervous laugh, “Hehe, yeah, I guess we were wrong.”
Over 20 years later, and I am STILL angry about it…
Made me mad just reading it.
Imagine what relatives of the victims must think–if they’ve connected the dots.
Mirrors almost exactly the conversations my wife and I had before she decided to get her CCP.
“metrosexuals and video game warriors” Sad, but true
Not completely true. I’m a “video game warrior” and I’d protect my loved ones.
What a shock, a new generation does something the older doesn’t like and the older attaches negativity to it. Like you know, since the beginning of mankind. Both my son and I have played video games a long time, guess we are just a meterosexual lifestyle away from throwing down our arms and leaving my wife standing defenseless in a violent encounter. Except that wouldn’t happen because she is armed as well as trained. She also plays those detrimental cowardice inspiring video games. With the other two of us fleeing she would have to contemplate whether her video game playing was going cause her to be too much of a coward to defend her life or not. I understand that there is a lot of video game hate (read ignorance and inexperience, like MO of the enemies of gun rights) in the old timer gun community as well as those that are in anti-gun camp. Even the NRA uses video games as another “thing” to blame. Not great company.
I really think he just meant that a lot of people are couch-Rambos and think their fantasy-life inspired by an action film or their video game playing makes them some kind of tactical expert, when really they’ve never held a gun in their life. It doesn’t mean someone can’t be well-armed and well-trained and ALSO play video games. Just that the current generation of men are sort of being pussified by the left and the only outlet that seems socially acceptable still to some is video games. Still, they all think they’re Rambo, even if the only thing they know how to do is press the A and B button together really fast.
I got that but it is far too broad a brush to paint. My situation is quite far from unique just from the many I know and train with that do do the same. Sounded cute and applied to a lot of people, I have no problem with that part.
I hear ya, J. It was funny to me because of the way it was worded, but I can see how it’s a broad brush. At the same time I knew EXACTLY the type of folks he was referring to. And I mean, My husband and I play video games as well, so definitely I don’t think being able to shoot real guns and play video games are mutually exclusive.
Believe me I have to deal with the types that were attempted to be described enough to know they are exist. They are real and plentiful but use of playing of video games as derogatory is nonsense. There are studies that show FPS games give real world benefits in multiple ways for shooters, mainly the ability to notice and track multiple objects at once with much greater success than the average person that never plays.
On the flip sight my high school son can explain Constitutional law better than most adults (not saying much). I didn’t have to tell him what well regulated meant in the 2A at a pretty young age when trying to determine some things about his school. I am almost positive he learned it outside of our home before I got around to explaining it as well as other truths he has been able to determine through his own efforts. As bad as it seems at least some people are still raising children to think for themselves and research from reliable sources. Some that actually understand the BoR and fully believe in the correctly interpreted 2A.
J, I see what you’re saying. That’s also a good point about the skills one can pick up that add to other training. Obviously “just” playing video games doesn’t make you some expert shooter, but if you are a shooter, definitely there could be some side simulation-like benefits you could get from certain tactical-type games. It’s like how I think women who hunt have an extra self-defense advantage because they learn how predators think, and because they hunt, in a sense they “are” a predator and so “may” be eliminated during a predator’s “prey selection process” since the predatory drive is most often instigated by prey behavior.
Ya no shit. That is what I was thinking. How many active duty military members play the shit out of some CS, Day of Defeat, COD, among many other games? Well over a couple thousand. Also assuming how some dress and behave is a terrible way to assume is a standard to determine if they are potentially brave, dangerous, or weak.
What a shock, a new generation does something the older doesn’t like and the older attaches negativity to it.
-J from Texas
Exactly my reaction J. Exactly mine.
admittedly it was video games that got me started on firearms in the first place, now I enjoy spending more of my time in the yard and at the range than in front of the tv
Me, too. The year was 1984. Ahhh………”Duck Hunt”…..
My wife is terrified of guns.
I’ve tried everything from taking her to look at them, to watching documentaries about guns, to showing her that even children can shoot guns safely, et cetera. Doesn’t make a damned bit of difference.
If she sees a gun out, she’d rather leave the room. Long gun. Short gun. Doesn’t matter. She’s going into the other room.
I once took her to the shooting range with me. Ten seconds later I look behind me, after I inserted the magazine into my pistol. She was no longer in the booth OR in the range. She was outside in the car waiting patiently.
She is completely fine and well with guns in the household (stored SAFELY in the household, of course), and doesn’t mind when I take the kids shooting, either, but she won’t even pick one up or touch it. Even if its unloaded.
I am genuinely concerned for her safety when I am not with her. We live in an upscale area outside of one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.
Even worse, I find myself incredibly attracted to (cute, mind you) women that DO like to shoot, and I find her phobia kind of pathetic, which sounds harsh, I know- but just being honest.
What to do, what to do… ?
Have you tried impressing upon her that she’s been conditioned to live in this kind of fear by people with an agenda? If she was aware of how many on the far left (including men who either are unaware of how vulnerable they are making her or don’t care), maybe it would make her mad enough to protect herself.
Also, I don’t know if she’d admit it to you or not, but most women live with a sort of “low level rabbit prey animal fear” everywhere we go. I think if she understood that with a gun, training, and situational awareness, she would never have to feel that vulnerable again, it might change her mind. Maybe she’s a rare woman so naive to the dangers of the world around her that she doesn’t live a day in fear, but that fear response to a gun in a room doesn’t impress upon me confidence that she isn’t a fearful person in general.
Maybe also inform her that guns can’t “accidentally discharge”. Triggers don’t press themselves, and while there can be a mechanical malfunction, it can’t make a gun “go off”. (more likely it will keep it from going off in that situation.)
Good luck! Women have just been socialized so hard against this. If marching for their reproductive choices is enough to rile them up, I have no idea why they wouldn’t equalize their power to men. Why be a victim if you don’t have to?
Sounds like a bit of melodramatics on her part…. My wife was the same way, and peer to peer activities between women can bring out some otherwise unknown qualities. My wife rides a motorcycle, and hated the idea of changing her own oil, so she would fork out the bucks and have a shop do it.. Lo and behold, one of her girlfriend, coworkers also rode, and suggested they have an oil changing get together..Now, my wife not only changes her own oil, but also wrenches on her own bike when need be..
sometimes to motivate a woman, takes another woman..
Yep; I was going to suggest getting a female shooter, preferably also a trusted friend, to take her shooting.
If her ‘concern’ is that strong, though, there likely won’t be an easy fix. If it took years to build up that response, it may take quite some time and persistence to break it down.
Patience will also likely be called for…
^ This might be a good suggestion.
I would try and locate a gun wise female to talk with and hopefully take her shooting sometime. Not at an indoor range, but out where she can bust a few tin cans with a 22.
This way she will be conversing with someone on her own level.
Thank You everyone for the responses.
I will continue to fight the good fight, and your help is greatly appreciated.
Josh, I had no interest in handguns – & only learned to shoot a long gun because it would put meat on the table; organic, “free-range” meat. I learned to be “aware” of my surroundings & had escaped a couple dangerous encounters. I had no interest in handguns & no feeling I needed them. BUT – my husband loves guns. And after our youngest left the nest I got a handgun so we could shoot together. Understand, this was ONLY to have “something to do” together! I took the CCP class & learned the basics & qualified… and after I got my permit in the mail, I was AMAZED at the level of calm that I suddenly felt. I had simply never realized how much tension I lived with. I was truly astounded. After a year or so of carrying, I got a back-up gun, for “just in case”. My level of calm went up another notch! I literally had not had any idea I even retained any tension about life in general, people in general, etc. So – your wife may be simply so used to being nervous, she believes it is a part of her. She might actually need counseling to even approach handling a gun.Please subscribe to the USCCA & ask her to give you her opinion of articles there written by or for women (she’ll have to read them). Ask her to check out the Cornered Cat and the Well-Armed Woman. And….. I can’t tell if your comment about “attracted to cute women who like to shoot” was a joke, maybe it was – but to me, that’s a red flag. You need to work on this issue. …maybe try & see if her parent(s) raised her hearing that a man won’t “like” a woman who doesn’t need him? or maybe that femininity involves being vulnerable? or some such nonsense??? I was fortunate to be raised by parents that were honest & unprejudiced about most things, including race and firearms. Are there any relatives or friends who could support your case?… Another thought is see if she’d like some hearing protectors that allow spoken voices but muffle the sounds of gunshots. For me they make training go from a chore to sheer fun, instantly. Good luck!! she’s a very lucky woman to have such a husband who cares for her safety and is so patient. 🙂
You could point her at Mike’s article for a start.
I agree with the vast majority of this article except for:
“Predators find things like whistles, “safe zones,” “gun free zones,” pepper spray, air horns, Tasers, and a variety of other similar items hilarious. Not only are such things ineffective, they do not in any way intimidate predators, and even if used as intended, will generally only annoy or anger predators—at best. People who are so enraged, deranged, drugged, or simply determined to harm others are commonly impervious to such weapons.”
I see what you mean, and less lethal weapons CAN fail, I think you discounted pepper spray and tasers a little too much, they can be effective if employed properly, especially as a one two punch. Whistles and GFZs are pathetic talismen against evil but not necessarily good OC and taser, maybe backed up w/ a knife. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think most rapists and serial killers are going for an easy mark. Just my .02.
That’s a nonstarter, IMO.
Tasers, you only get “one shot” to deploy the weapon. It can be stopped by bulky clothing and if you miss, you’re screwed. But you’re pretty much screwed anyway, because what’s on the market, even if it works in that one shot will only take your assailant down for 30 seconds. So you better be a damn fast runner and most women just are NOT that fast.
As for pepper spray, a lot of what’s on the market isn’t powerful enough, but even if it is, wind direction can mean the victim gets sprayed instead of the assailant. And some criminals are so mentally screwed up that they spray THEMSELVES with it so they can handle it if a woman whips it out. I’ve never heard of a man who allowed himself to get shot with a gun a bunch of times so he can take being shot while he’s trying to rape someone.
re: knife… as a backup weapon to a gun, maybe, but I definitely wouldn’t want to let someone that close to me to begin with.
cowgirlup did a fine job covering all the points. I would further add that pepper spray just plain doesn’t affect a determined attacker. I have seen video of attackers who received a healthy dose of pepper spray and continued their attack unphased.
As the author of the article stated, time and distance are your allies when you are under attack. In order to use pepper spray or a knife, you HAVE to give up time and distance. It is never a good idea to let an attacker get close, as cowgirlup stated.
Thanks! Also, I hear getting shot is a real boner killer. Just saying. 😛 Probably hard to keep it up while you’re bleeding internally.
Heck, part of the training for at least some cops, some of whom rise to chief and recommend that women carry spray instead of guns, is to take a faceful of pepper spray and then run an obstacle course. I watched them doing it at the local junior college that also offers police academy classes.
Police are also trained not to use non-lethal methods of force/defense unless they have armed back up. So it’s hypocritical for them to suggest women do something even THEY won’t do without armed backup (even while they ALSO have a gun on their hip and in their car.)
So you think it might be harder to keep it up when your bleeding internally? To tell you the truth (no one ever lies on TTAG) I don’t think it would take near as much as being shot, for my “man” parts to go to “limp city”. Probably just having gun pointed at me by a determined adversary would do the trick.
That seems to be the common theme. I forget what the actual statistic is, but I *think* it was something like 90% of defensive gun uses are just pulling out the gun, not even having to fire it. Given the extra cowardice involved in a man who would predate on a woman to rape her, given her extra physical vulnerability compared to a man, I would guess that there are a LOT of rapists who see a gun and run. And since a big part of the psychopathology of rapists is that they literally get off on dominating the weak sexually, I can definitely see how they’d lose wood at just the sight of a gun. To that, I say: Good. (Insert Grumpy Cat photo here.)
Rapists and killers may not go for the easy mark, but the problem with counting on that is that the attack is already underway (in some fashion) by the time a concealed weapon of any type is deployed.
It therefore needs to be as decisive as possible. Remove as much of the “hope it works” as possible. No other weapon is as effective at force neutralization as a firearm.
The other problem is multiple attackers, which, unfortunately happens alarmingly too often. There are numerous recent (last couple of years) stories of women being attacked by multiple attackers at gas stations, for example…brutal attacks that should galvanize the ‘women’s rights” community into action but somehow goes unremarked upon.
Less lethal weapons are good for helping escape, but once an attack gets to or close to “hands on,” the phrase “quickness and violence of action” comes to mind. Pepper leaves him still with hands on and taser is useless for more than one assailant.
A victim in that type of situation needs to remove the attackers’ ability to fight, not seek willful compliance.
The “fun feminists” (give me my free birth control but screw actually empowering women yay!), have given us the helpful hints to throw up on our attackers, blow our rape whistles, soil ourselves, tell them we’re on our periods or have an STD or stab them with a pen or our keys which are apparently magical rape deterrents.
They get completely offended when a woman suggests real self defense methods because we should “teach rapists not to rape”. Great idea. Sociopaths are so trainable after all. /sarcasm.
I find their suggestions completely offensive to my dignity. No one suggests a man carry a mugger whistle. I’m tired of these types of women defining what “feminism” is. It’s my opinion that this is why so many men don’t like “feminists”. I don’t like them either, but they are NOT feminists. They don’t respect women’s dignity and right to life and self defense and integrity enough.
You mean you don’t think stuff like Rape Free Zones and this list of 9 SUREFIRE ways to prevent rape are effective?
By the way, Chapel Hill has done this Rape Free Zone thing at least four times since about 1992 or so. It is completely, totally and utterly ridiculous. It is not “doing” anything at all. The one in ’92 was in response to a series of violent rapes over a period of about two weeks, and it amounted to nothing more than putting cardboard signs around the campus that said “Rape Free Zone.”
And, predictably, the rapes continued…
LOL I hate that list. I don’t think there is anything more UNfeminist than telling a woman she should depend on a man to protect her all the time. And pretty much that “teaching men not to rape” list, suggests just that, that we are helpless, defenseless beings who cannot POSSIBLY be expected to protect our own selves.
Yet I’m sure these women lock their doors and have smoke detectors in their homes. Somehow, determining NOT to be anyone’s victim and taking steps to ensure it is horrible “victim blaming”. I wouldn’t blame a woman for not having a gun. I blame the society who taught her to be so helpless and dependent and that “guns were bad”. That doesn’t stop the fact that I’d tell her to cowgirlup, since getting raped one time doesn’t make you impervious to being a victim in the future.
I do know what stops rapes, at least temporarily. Armed defense. I forget where I read it, but there were some statistics that were showing in communities where the news reported women using armed self defense to prevent rape, rapes in that area went down by about 90% for about 6 months. If rapists thought there was a real danger they might get shot if they tried to rape a woman, they might consider the wisdom of just masturbating at home.
You might appreciate this then…
I ran across Larry Correia’s take on the Miss Nevada interview last night, and it just seems fitting for this discussion:
“Rape is an evil crime. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum we can all agree that rape is bad. Everybody who isn’t a scumbag criminal would like to see it end. The difference is that conservatives live in reality where human nature and history demonstrate that wishful thinking is useless, and libprogs live in a fantasy wonderland where the idea of fighting back against rapists is somehow bad and the real problem is that somebody just needed to teach rapists not to rape. […] Now for the absurd accusations that advocating personal responsibility is blaming the victim. Taking some responsibility and learning to defend yourself isn’t a guarantee of perfect safety, no more than wearing a seatbelt ensures you’ll survive a car accident, but both help your odds. […] If you truly believe in empowering women, then you shouldn’t stand in the way of the ones who choose to defend themselves.”
@Robert she makes some good points, but her delivery was a little annoying. But judging from my comment here and my rant a little lower about the girls and guns documentary, probably I’m a little judgmental lol. We all have our flaws, I guess.
@Kat the idealism of the far left makes me feel like they are small children wearing adult suits. The world isn’t unicorn farts and gummy bears. I wish it was. I wish we could just “teach people” not to be terrible. I wish people would stop trying to control each other on even the most basic levels, but it’s clear that’s not the programming language for human beings. I do believe in teaching moments, though. I call a man trying to attack a woman, and a woman pulling out her gun, “feminist re-education”. Too bad most so-called feminists would screech about my teaching methods.
@ cowgirl– Yes, she’s kind of an acquired taste, nothing “judgmental” about that. And she’s waaaay more libertarian than I am on a lot of things–but I agree with her on a lot of things too, and she’s most definitely pro-gun.
@Robert, I’d probably like her if she’s libertarian. At least her views. Not sure I’ll ever get past her delivery, but that’s my issue, not hers!
More articles like this please!!
Excellent on all counts.
Many years ago, before the Internet, I remember reading an article about how women will dismiss their intuitive instincts about threats and imminent danger. The Spider-sense that tells them to be alert, is often perceived, and then dismissed as unsupported paranoia. The article related numerous violent assaults on women; many in broad daylight, were the women all had a sense that something bad or evil was near…. before they were assaulted. That black man in the business suit walking toward you in the parking garage isn’t going to assault and rape you….in broad daylight, right? Wrong. Predators can buy business suits. Unfortunately, so many women are not in tune with their intuitive gift of premonition. Many will dismiss it out-of-hand as just a silly, irrational fear, or because they have simply convinced themselves that their intuitive premonition skills don’t even exist. Or perhaps a normalcy bias?
Situational awareness, a discipline that can be taught, combined with natural intuition….look out! Imagine being alerted to a danger, and then being prepared for the danger, 2 minutes before it arrives? Since men don’t normally have that “natural intuition,” we went and developed situational awareness.
Gavin DeBecker wrote a fantastic book called “The Gift of Fear” that talks about this very subject. It’s an excellent book for women IMO.
Years ago, a tough gal I knew, told me that if a woman couldn’t run faster with her dress “UP” than a man with his pants “DOWN”, then she deserved to be raped.
I always thought this was was a bit odd coming from a lady, but it doesn’t matter much now since woman for the most part (not all) have given dresses, the old heave ho!
Wow. It’s things like this that helped me realize that it isn’t one gender or the other that is “bad” or “worse”. There are some fantastic human beings and some terrible ones and many in between. They come in both genders, but this woman… wow … what an Uncle Tom to the sisterhood.
You have probably seen movies, TV shows and actual news events where a woman was involved in helping her boy friend do the “Nasty” with some unwilling female.
And, if you think that’s bad, Do you suppose the only thing they use a broom handle for, in a woman’s prison is sweeping floors?
Sorry to be that graphic, but we do live in “graphic” world!
That’s okay. It’s very true. It’s sad but women shouldn’t be too trusting of random women, either.
Agreed. I have the book, (“the gift of fear”); it is EXCELLENT. Hard to read — I had to read it in installments – but excellent.
Self-defense with a firearm in Connecticut!
Very good article. Yeah I know it may be preaching to the choir it presents the many options for protection. May I suggest watching the documentary “A Girl and a Gun”. I just saw it on Streampix. You won’t regret it.
Just watched this documentary because I kept hearing about it. Overall, pretty disappointing IMO. It was just all over the map and didn’t seem to have any kind of unified message. The overall idea seemed to be that women were paranoid if they had guns, except when they weren’t.
All the black women involved were either anti-gun, had been shot in a drive-by, or were in prison for getting a gun initially for home defense then using it on someone else. (Really not sure what message they’re trying to send, but I don’t see how this could possibly make a woman skittish about guns want to take up arms.)
Then there were the Brady Campaign people in the video who were talking about how people say to them: “I’m sorry for your loss… BUT…” (as if BUT my second amendment rights are still my rights isn’t a valid argument. It is. I don’t suddenly lose the right to self defense because someone you know got shot from irresponsible firearm use or by a criminal. That’s like making pools illegal because some kids drown in them or making driving illegal because of the morons who lock their kids in hot cars. Other people’s irresponsible behaviors with dangerous things are not my liability.)
And then that self-defense class, holy crap. Here we have an effeminate metrosexual (at the very least) guy telling these women that basically these REAL weapons, like guns are pretty much pointless and telling them to use their voice.
Everything at the self defense class was completely offensive because none of what they were doing would have ANY effect in a real life confrontation except to get them killed. Women should not be going “hand-to-hand” with violent male assailants. I watched one woman pretty much “bitch slap” her “attacker” and that just gives women a false sense of security.
I almost felt like, despite the occasional positive stuff that this film was mostly anti-gun for women because there was an unrealistic idea of how effective non-gun self defense can be, while giving all these scary/mixed-message stories about women and firearms and interspersing a bunch of personal tragedy with guns. The whole film seemed manipulative to me.
Also, “being assertive” is not a “learned behavior” in women… NOT being assertive is a learned behavior and the way women are socialized, then they have to unlearn it to protect themselves.
It wasn’t really clear to me that this woman in the self-defense class was going to keep using a firearm as self defense. After the class she seemed “empowered” by yelling (not that she actually did any actual yelling). So I’m really not sure what to make of the message here but hope this isn’t going to be suggested as some kind of intro to guns for women because if I wasn’t already on board with guns, this might have turned me the opposite direction.
And my comments aren’t aimed at anyone who recommended the film. It’s purely my visceral DOES. NOT. WANT. reaction to this film.
You’re entitled to your opinion. That being said I’m an OFWG married to a beautiful black woman for 25 years and SHE sure didn’t get the your reaction. It was especially poignant seeing the poor young woman with the baby AND the middleaged lady from Massachusetts. And yeah your kid being shot in NO WAY precludes my armed self defense. I don’t know how anyone could miss that.
I’m ok with muzzle energy as girl power. Rock it out, sisters!
A lot to go through here. The fact is that 90% of people will never have a crime happen in their lives, and none of their friends or coworkers will endure the agony of rape or murder. There has been a happy tradition of living in safe communities, with danger only happening in the past with pioneer life, or in wartime which is always safely overseas.
This unfortunately leads to a kind of smug assumption that because I feel safe today, it will always be safe, and therefore to even consider being armed for self protection is to revert to a medieval, even caveman mindset, which denotes an inferior level of intelligence and social development.
Also, the pious church going types will have been reassured by their pastors that the Bible says it is a sin to kill.
Jews have the advantage here, because in ancient Hebrew, the 6th Commandment actually says “You shall not murder”. It is NOT a sin to kill a person who tries to kill you. It IS a sin to fail to defend your own life, which God gave you.
Unfortunately, in my country, New Zealand, it is illegal to provide for your own delf defense using firearms. You are very lucky in most of America.
It is not always possible to avoid the situations which attract the attention of felons. We live in an age where 24 hour a day work patterns ruin lives and enrich greedy employers. Women are forced to run the gauntlet of ill lit car parks and public transportation. Employers assume no responsibility for injury or death to female staff if they succumb to crime in the effort to reach their workplace, or are stalked and attacked in their own home.
Bearing in mind that women do deal with a level of everyday anxiety alien to most males (simply due to being surrounded by stronger males in the real world), having the ability to defend themselves with a suitable firearm is desirable.
No other form of protection is even close to effective. Especially a “Protection Order” from an alienated spouse, which even Police seldom recommend.
Criminal males are predatory and not easily dissuaded. The use of a .45ACP “Rape Whistle” will generally work.
The training and practise needed to achieve proficiency in arms will add to overall confidence and happiness in life.
It’s a pity the anti gunners living in wealthy gated communities don’t understand or appreciate the dangers that ordinary people face and especially women. If they had to look at crime victim photos I’m sure their certainty in their rectitute would waver. Especially if it was their own daughter or wife on the slab.
One more thing. I sometimes look outside the bus window when travelling around our capital city ( I won’t drive in that craziness). Invariably, all the young (under 40) pedestrians on the pavement are leaning forward staring into the screens of their smartphones, usually with earphones blocking out any possible chance of acknowledging the real world outside their very limited view. (This stance also leads to a hunched back…)
As many of these zombies are extremely attractive young women, I can only describe the situation as a rapist’s paradise. So many willing victims unaware of their surroundings. NB Do they block out the real world because they are frightened of what might be happening out there, or are they genuinely ignorant of the compounding dangers they are exposing themselves to by their behaviour?
Also apparently there is a culture of young girls going out on the town blitzed out of their skulls via preloading at home, and carousing until 3 or 4am. There are also news items showing these girls passed out on the pavement all over town. Could the lack of rape complaints be due to these girls being unaware of any rapes that occur, or simply unable to remember them? I can’t believe that this situation hasn’t been noticed by ill intended young or even older men (shudder).
I no longer understand the young.
Just a general comment with regard to the original article. I just read the link that was included and how it was talking about resource predators vs process predators and if someone is just trying to steal your money you don’t have the legal right to shoot them. I seriously get the sense that that article was geared more toward male self defense than female. And it baffles me how that advice could even be given when in the same article it was stated that that female victim ended up a victim mainly because she believed the criminal when he said he just wanted her ATM card. I’m sorry but I won’t take that risk. It’s not worth it.
The reality is that violent criminal altercations happen FAST and a woman is so outgunned in general just by BEING a woman that any wrong move or judgment will leave her raped or dead or possibly both. I’m sorry but it’s not my responsibility to do an amateur psych evaluation on a violent criminal. (You have to have a lot of schooling to be a shrink, so obviously in other circumstances you aren’t allowed to act as a shrink, so I’m not sure why that burden would be placed upon me in this situation to be legally allowed to defend myself).
The bottom line is… I don’t care if you SAY you just want my purse, if you’re coming at me with violence in your eyes, I pull my gun, and you don’t run, then you have just chosen to be shot. I didn’t choose to be targeted, attacked, or any of the situations except to defend myself in this situation. Women cannot afford the same level of leeway here that a man can.
I just think that advice in that linked article is really foolish, particularly for women. And I think we’ve already seen plenty of proof that “just give them what they want” doesn’t work enough to be worth rape or death. Maybe some criminals just take your money and run, but no law-abiding citizen should be “expected” to work out some on-the-spot psych evaluation of a violent criminal aggressing against them.
I don’t care if they are homeless or a meth addict or what their issue is… if they’re choosing violence with me, I have the right to self defense.
Decent article but it’s important to point out that this applies to your average woman the same way that it applies to your average smaller man or a man that works an office job. There are a good number of women that are quite proficient in thai boxing, mma, and jiujitsu. A larger stronger man will pose quite a difficulty for either sex as long as the larger and stronger man knows how to fight. But, I’ll take a smaller (within reason) and skillful female (or male) against a larger, stronger but untrained man any day of the week. Add in 3 or 4 male attackers, which is all to often the norm today and anyone is going to have difficulty.
This is where carrying a firearm really shines. But as above, I’ll take someone trained in the use of a firearm in a gunfight over someone untrained. Carrying alone isn’t a magic answer, you actually have to know how to use the thing and be proficient.
Fantastic write up! No tip toeing, just straight presentation; I like it.
1st off pepper spray works to some degree when properly used. 2nd Knives are also useful for self defense, even flailing with a knife can severely injure an opponent. 3rd in sports men are separated by weight. In UFC and mist martial arts they are not. I have seen some of the first ultimate fights when a normal sized man beat up a sumo wrestler. A woman can physically harm or kill a larger male if properly trained, conditioned and motivated.
All that aside women should be armed as should other citizens. Your odds of surviving a fight increase greatly if you have a gun.
Without guns, you either have to spend years training in martial arts or lifting weights to stand a chance against the guy lifting weights in prison for 5 years trying to steal your wallet and life…
Knives can be useful but shouldn’t be a first choice.
Pepper spray also can be useful but you shouldn’t trust your life on it.
This is an excellent post, and you present many fine points. I must disagree however with the desire to label a refusal to protect one’s own life (the implication being that by doing so you will harm or even kill another person) as a sin (and thereby something that can be defined by a limited portion of society as immoral, and be legislated against, dangerous as it may be to try and legislate something as personally subjective as morality). Everyone should have as much opportunity and capability afforded to them as possible the right to protect themselves from harm, but at the same time, nobody should be required by society, at any level, to endanger or take the life of any other. For some, life is cheap, and a renewable resource at that. For others, all life is sacred, even the lives of those who would take yours. Everybody should be free to make their own decisions about this, without peer pressure to adhere to somebody else’s morality. Until one causes or actively threatens harm, nobody else should have the right to impose their values on the other. (pro-tip: Eww, gross! is not causing harm, and being offended is not the same as being assaulted)
The belief that allowing your own life to be taken is a sin is a Jewish belief (It may not be exclusively Jewish, but it is Jewish.) It’s important to understand the context. This is a people who has been constantly either oppressed by others or at war. Apparently them believing themselves to be a “chosen people of God” is just “too much” for other people to cope with. I have no problem with the Jewish people. They don’t seek to convert others and they don’t believe non-Jews go to Hell, only that they have a special/specific relationship with their God. Okay. I respect that.
Saying that not protecting your own life is a sin is meant to galvanize people to not just lay down and allow themselves and others to be terrorized. Saying might doesn’t make right is a large part of basic ethics, but if no one resists that “might” then what we think privately doesn’t matter. Because that sort of thing doesn’t just stop with you. When violent thugs (whether they have the supposed law on their side or are common criminals) are allowed to continue being violent thugs other people after you die, too. Not just you.
When you have the courage to stand and fight, knowing you are an innocent who has done nothing wrong, others see it and it gives them similar courage.
I do think we should have a moral imperative to protect our own life, because having that as a strong moral imperative would cut off tyranny at the ankles and is the only way for large groups of people to live free. Not aggressing against others for no reason is wise and noble, but total pacifism allows the tyrants to oppress and torture everyone. You can’t allow immoral sadists to control nations or we all suffer beyond imagining. And it’s happened so many times in recorded history that it’s shocking to me that anybody “doesn’t get it.”
If you don’t protect your own life, obviously there is nobody who can prosecute you for it, even if it were some kind of law instead of a moral/philosophical principle. It’s something you’ll have to take up with your God.
You overlooked the racist part of that “we have a special relationship with G-d” statement.
The problem with it is, if a group believes that they are somehow “annointed” as “special” to some diety, then it is a very short step from there to “and we are BETTER”. And once that thought developes it is obvious that those will think that, since they are better, the oust all be worse, ad therefore enferior, and therefore to be used however the “superior” ones see fit. Obviously a racist philosophy. So it is little wonder why the Talmud contains words like;
“Just the Jews are humans, the Non-Jews are not humans, but cattle.”-(Kerithuth 6b page 78, Jebammoth 61ª)
“Jews always have to try to deceive Non-Jews.” -(Zohar I, 168ª).
And since they have made this a religious duty for centuries, it is unsurprising that they are so very good at deceiving the non-jews….
I don’t think it’s racist. I have a special relationship with my dad. Doesn’t mean my brother doesn’t have a different kind of special relationship with him. What difference does it make if one spiritual group believes themselves to have a special relationship with their deity of choice if they aren’t hurting anyone else over it and aren’t trying to convert people? People who aren’t born into Jewish families actually CAN convert, so it’s really not racist. (Maybe you could argue for elitist but not really racist or they would keep it “pure”.) If I wanted to be a Jew bad enough, I could convert but they only want very serious converts because it’s just not necessary in their opinion to go to Heaven.
With regards to what the Talmud says… I personally don’t care what a bunch of goat herders said thousands of years ago about the nature of reality, and I extend that to the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran. If it were up to me, the Abrahamic religions (all three of them) wouldn’t exist because all three have all kinds of violent and aggressive BS in them. It’s clear that all three philosophies have created great harm. However, on balance it seems to me (and I could well be wrong since I’m not all-knowing), but it seems to me that the Jewish people have had more than their fair of nastiness aimed toward them. Did they do some aiming themselves? Sure, but the Christians historically have done more, and the Muslims even more than that. All three need to have a little sit down and try to think about how logic works and why fairy tales aren’t real life and how utterly vile and moronic it is to try to hurt other people for not believing in your unprovable fairy tales that you only believe because you’ve heard them since you were three and adults kept telling you they were real.
I’m sure I will have offended someone with this but to me all three faiths are problematic to a kind and just society, but at this time the Jewish people are not trying to convert people, not killing or oppressing non-Jews, and generally seem to be fairly decent people. If I was going to have an issue with them I’d have to have an issue with everybody in an Abrahamic religion, and that covers a lot of ground. All three have a lot of blood and BS on their hands. Just saying.
There are good and bad people of all nationalities, religion, and genders. Good people are going to be good people whether they have a gun in their hand or a holy book. And bad people will use those things for massive destruction.
If you cannot even bring yourself to care about the written desires of a people who think they are chosen by their diety to own and enslave you, and are doing their level best to bring that about each day, then what good can any of your opinions be on anything? They must be just as uninformed, or worse. That being the case. I can see no reason to waste any more facts or time on you.
Good day, Sir.
Though, I think we got way off topic in general. In my original response I should have just kept the point on target to why I think it would be a good thing if we taught people it was wrong not to defend one’s own life, because as it stands so many people seem to hesitate/think it’s wrong to defend their own life against someone who has willfully chosen to violently attack them. I think that’s just wrong.
So from my perspective, it seems like good sense to teach the opposite to try to balance that out. I don’t care if people call it a sin or how they frame it. I just remembered something about it being a Jewish thing (though maybe not exclusively Jewish, like I said). But I’m sorry I helped derail us. What was really important to me was the messages we unconsciously absorb about our rights and the morality of defending our lives and the rammifications when we don’t and the criminal goes on to harm others because nobody stopped them.
But like I said, I got us off target and then we devolved into other things, so apologies for that.
I’m a woman. Not a “sir”. Not sure how or why you thought cowGIRLup was a guy, but whatever.
You may not be aware of this but NOBODY is right about anything. If I am wrong about this, it doesn’t make “all my views uninformed and a waste of your time.” That’s ignorant. Though you are free to ignore anything and everything that disagrees with any of your pet theories. If the requirement for having something worthwhile to say was EVERYTHING you said being correct, well then none of us, including you, should be speaking on any subject.
I personally don’t think the Jewish people as a group are out to “own and enslave me” (which is repetitive by the way). That sounds paranoid to me and unless you can provide legitimate PROOF that is is going on and that this is a “Jewish thing” and not a few crazy people thing, I’m going to have to ignore you. (Or point out groups like the Christian Dominionists who don’t represent all Christians but absolutely want to force everybody to live A Handmaid’s Tale, basically, or we all know about the Muslim extremists and their goals by now.) You can’t paint all the people of any religion with the same brush because all people are different and not everybody believes all the insano hatred in any holy book. (And there is insano hatred in the holy books of all three Abrahamic religions. Members of all three add up to a LOT of people. I guess haters are gonna hate, but dude, that’s just a LOT of hate if you’re going to hate on everybody. But you seem to have a very specific hate on for Jews, while flat out ignoring Christians and Muslims. So um… wow. Yeah.)
I think you are just not at a point where you will be able to “get” what I am about at all. I bear no “hate”, nor even ill will, towards anyone. All that I posted about one particular faith was in their own words and from their own “holy” writings.
Would you say the same if I was to quote the “holy” bible? If I was to post, for example;
“For God so loved the world…” John 3:16
Would you just assume that I have a hate or love for that passage, book, or faith? Why, for I clearly have said nothing of the sort?
If I post “Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” Gen 22:2
Will you then assume that I said I hate God, That I hate Abraham, That I hate the Bible, or some other random thought? It might be good for you to meditate on where all this thought and talk of hatred originates and finds expression.
Just FYI: Posting facts IS NOT hate. Ridicule, vilification, accusations without substance, THESE are hateful. Information can never be hatful, if it is truth, No matter how much it might offend. Truth often offends, but that is NOT hate.
Good day to you Ma’am. (I just generically call everyone Sir, as in ManKIND, and not gender specific. The anonymous nature of this medium prevents that.)
“Nobody is right about anything” SHOULD have been “nobody is right about everything.” I thought I proofread better than that. Obviously not.
Since you are still posting you might still have some desire for truth, so check out this interveiw with billionaire Hugo Salinas Price. One rarely gets truth from sources that biased. but this is one. If you choose to read this, and end up offended by it, please post your arguments to king world news or Mr. Price(gender specific THIS time, for he is famous in finantial circles, and so not anonymous). It is Mr Price that said it and KWN that published it, remember. It is not my piece. I have no vested interest here. I merely read it and think that it comments on many of the things you stated you will not believe without proof.
Remember, there is NO such thing as PROOF. Anything can be midunderstood, ridiculed, or just plain ignored. Don’t worry about PROOF of a thing, just think and focus on the EVIDENCE, and its value, or lack thereof….
I can be quite a smartass but I think you’ll find I can be pretty reasonable if someone hangs with me through a convo until we find our common ground. I did construe what you said as just being a “hater”, because it seemed as though you were lumping all people who identify either culturally or religiously as Jews as “the bad guy”. (And I still have not been given any evidence that you’re not.) This seems a bit unfair to base on things in the Talmud simply because there is a lot of terrible crap in the bible and the Koran as well. Yet, for whatever reason, there are plenty of good-hearted people who claim membership in all three of those religions. I personally find it somewhat goofy and ignorant to be aligning oneself with a holy book that preaches nastiness and has been used for so much harm. Nevertheless, most normal people who claim one of those religions isn’t a psycho wishing to stone women or enslave people. That’s my point. I just don’t care what goat herders thousands of years said about the nature of reality because they were morons. They didn’t know crap about anything. Except for goats, obviously. And it seems to me that most reasonably intelligent religious people ignore about 70% of what is in their own holy books for the same reasons, even if they won’t openly admit it that they simply have enough decency and sense not to believe every word.
There have always been evil people in elite positions of money and power who have tried to keep other people down. My complaint is that you seemed to think this was a “Jewish specific” problem rather than a “people who are terrible people” problem. It was a broad brush you used. I know plenty of Jewish people who aren’t sitting around in their secret evil chambers twirling their mustaches and plotting my downfall. Likewise, I’ve met good Muslims and good Christians. (As in “decent people who have no intent to harm anyone no matter how wrong I feel some of their personal opinions about how the universe works are”.) And then there are the crazy people. And frankly, you can give crazy people any holy book and it’s going to end badly.
I actually posted very little. Only a “teaser”, or preview, if you will.It is not at all “Jews”, but a subsect of Judaism that this large group of (so called) “secret” societies (known collectively as Khazars, or Bilderbirgers, or Illuminati, etc. etc. They have many many names and titles.) choose to hide under.
This is all the cart way before the horse, ofc. First you would need to think about this info enough to even admit that such is possible. Until you can get to that point, all evidense is irrelevant, for it will be rejected by your amygdala before the info even reaches your higher brain. The elite take full advantage of that human tendency to discount that which they are unaware of as “ridiculous”, without thought, simply because it is so foreign to that which they are familiar. So I will not post any of the hundred of sources in my 20 year collection. I simply ask that you think about this:
“Is it hypothitically possible that some very rich families buy politicians(worldwide) for their own use and profit, and have been doing so for a great many years now?”
And then I go and forget to post the link to the Price interview! I’m a scatterbrain sometimes, as we all can be. Thanks be that we aren’t some of those grammarnazis.
Thanks for mansplaining my own mental processes to me and for assuming you know what I am ‘ready’ for and not ‘ready’ for, all while throwing out some conspiracy theory crap at me. I know you want to believe you have some secret special knowledge that the rest of us are just too blind to see, but the reality is that the human brain sees patterns where patterns don’t exist and like to contribute to malice and conspiracy that which is created by simple stupidity and fear. There are a LOT of people in power who want to control “the peasants”, that has always been the case, but I think, as you go through life, you’ll find that you don’t need grand conspiracies with “illuminati” or aliens or whatever. It’s really quite amazing the things the human brain will accept as logical and rational when it is anything but. Also, don’t assume that this is like the first time I’ve ever heard of the oh-so-spooky illuminati. I just think it’s largely BS. When someone looks at the same stuff you have and comes away with a different opinion of it, it doesn’t make them a moron or “not ready for the super high-level information your super superior brain can somehow accept”, it simply means they disagree with your conclusions.
The truth is this:
I offer information, and when it is met with ridicule and such, I simply go elsewhere, to (hopefully) more fertile ground.
Which I am doing now. Goodbye, and best of luck to you Ma’am..
No problem, Ken. I think that’s wise. But just so you know, I’m ridiculing conspiracy theories and illuminati in general not you personally. LOTS of people have weird unprovable beliefs and I’m sure I think some things that are goofy, too that will in the end prove not to be true, but I don’t debate conspiracy theorists, scientologists, far right religious nuts, far left liberals, etc. Anyone who thinks they have “the truth” and that anyone who disagrees with them is a fool or “not ready for the truth”, that sort of high-handed manipulation doesn’t work with me. And I’ve found that such people are only interested in “convincing others” rather than having an intellectually honest discussion. But I commend you for at least dropping it when someone isn’t receptive to your message.
If the Second Amendment did not exist, the unalienable right to self-defense would still exist; government cannot take it away, at least not legitimately.
but in the Land of Hope and Glory, they will send you on a paid vacation should you exercise the right to self defense and it results in undue bodily harm to your attacker.
Simply a great article! Excellent persuasive argument for all but the illiterate or close-minded.
Who is the woman in the picture? She looks familiar.
I like your article and thought it was laid out well and was easy to understand. However, the linked article about the female runner focused too much on “you don’t want to go to jail, so…” No one wants to go to jail, but I’m not going to wait until someone says “just let me tie you a little bit” before I present a weapon.
I’ve seen several news reports lately about people who get the crap beat out of them and then shoot their attacker. These were in home invasions where the potential victim had plenty of time to arm themselves, not sneak attacks. While that makes a pretty solid case for self defense, you’ll be lucky if you can still present your weapon after getting the crap beat out of you.
As for me, I’ll be issuing commands to the attacker from the other side of a weapon in hand. Then I’ll call 911 first so they don’t say I was threatening them with a gun. At least I hope that’s how it goes down. Hesitation in the face of a clear threat most likely gets you killed.
Thank you for this article about guns that holds much more “common sense” than the doctrine of the liberal anti gunners and their overlords. Guns will always exist but the globalists and liberals want them only in the hands of government. And we have seen how that works. Invite a friend to learn the truth about guns and to enjoy shooting firearms; if they make the wise decision to be a responsible gun owner, that becomes one more American on the side of liberty and freedom and one less person on the fence.