Previous Post
Next Post

Stop domestic violence now! (courtesy Chip K for The Truth About Guns)

TTAG reader Chip K saw Moms Demand Disarmament’s anti-gun agit-prop and thought, well, that makes sense. On some level. This level.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Brilliant! As we all know, only you can protect yourself, and firearms are the best available means to do so, and this poster illustrates that fact.

  2. They do demand action, after all, and their original poster doesn’t really say what that action is. Thanks for clarifying Chip K. Women arming themselves would show excellent “gun sense”

    • And if you think you are in danger from an “intimate partner” do not, for God’s sake, go wandering unarmed down some forest or park path!

  3. The best way to avoid domestic violence is to stay away from violent losers. But failing that, or if you’ve already dumped him and he can’t take no for an answer, then for God’s sake arm up. These people who want women to remain helpless are evil.

  4. Despite a stunning drop in homicides in the District — from a peak of 482 in 1991 to 108 last year — murder remains a stubborn crime to solve and prosecute in the nation’s capital.

    A Washington Post review of nearly 2,300 slayings in the city between 2000 and 2011 found that less than a third have led to a conviction for murder or manslaughter, although the numbers have improved in the past few years. More than 1,000 cases remain unsolved.

  5. I’m sorry how is concealed carry going to help her? Isn’t that image a rifle scope image pointed at the back of her head?

    • Nah; it’s generic “I’m gonna getcha.” I imagine most of those shootings don’t happen along forest paths.

      Some would still occur, but fewer.

  6. Ban Starbucks and Staples and where ever else these clueless ignoramuses hang out.I believe Gun Owners should unite and show these businesses how much revenue they are losing by taking ‘I WANT TO BE A VICTIM,SOCCER MOM”S side.

  7. To get serious here for a moment:

    While I’m certainly an advocate of armed self-defense, domestic violence is often a situation in which a gun isn’t going to help much. Sure being armed is helpful if the woman has left her abuser and perhaps has a restraining order, but most of the time she’s still living with her abuser. If you have a gun in the house, your abuser has access to it too. Having a gun doesn’t do much good for a woman who still lives with her abuser, and he decides to kill her during an argument or just ambushes her in their home while she’s not paying attention.

    That happened to Pennsylvania Open-Carry advocate Melanie Hain, who received national attention when she open-carried to her children’s soccer game. Her parole officer husband ambushed her while she was using the computer.

    • I agree.

      The poster above was in response to the tasteless attempt from the Million Moms Who Can’t Count to use Domestic Violence as a rally point for civilian disarmament like somehow taking my guns away is going to prevent some other guy from shooting his wife.

      If you want to help make a difference in reducing Domestic Violence may I suggest the National Network to End Domestic Violence at And if you know of any Moms who are demanding Action you might want to point them to the same site. MDA might be able to actually make a difference if they focused on something that mattered.

    • It’s a cycle of violence. These women are often abused as kids and grow up to be violent and attracted to other violent people. 65% of all Domestic Violence cases are reciprocal violence between both partners. Women in these cases are often violent torwards their children repeating the cycle all over again.

      Sadly when it comes to Domestic Violence there is alot of gender bias in the reports and legal system even though studies have showed otherwise. So MDA not only spreads anti gun BS, but also anti male BS too. I just wish TTAG wasn’t spreading anti male BS too. Taking guns away from people won’t help anyone.

      • There may be an equal number of violent attacks committed by each sex, and I have no doubt that violence by female partners is under-reported, but the fact remains that men kill their wives/girlfriends a lot more often than women kill their husbands/boyfriends.

        • Look up cases like Nicole Ryan who made repeated attempts to hire a hit man for 7 months in 2008 to kill her husband. During the trial Nicole claimed to be a battered wife whose only option to escape abuse was to murder her ex-husband, who lived 200 km away from her. And the court accepted her story without any corroborating evidence, or testimony from her ex-husband. The fact that he wanted the divorce, and moved far away, should undermine any claim that he is a threat to her. But the court accused the RCMP of neglecting Nicole Ryan and set her free.

          The pressure to grant women immunity from punishment for crimes they commit is ever present in our culture. Somehow being killed or injured by a woman is not as bad as being killed or injured by a man. Even TTAG behaves this way.

          Although partner violence is committed by members of each sex, the legal system in the United States pretends that only women are victims, and only men are perpetrators. A Harvard Study conducted in 2007 indicated that in nonreciprocal partner violence, women comprised 70% of the offenders in a sample of 11,000 individual surveyed. In reciprocally violent relationships, the same study indicated women are more often the initiators of violence, 25% versus 11% for men.

          In spite of this, and similar research, the violence against women act in the United States fast tracks conviction for men in situations of domestic abuse, circumventing the due process required by legitimate criminal courts. This law exists despite the fact that men are more likely than women to be victims of violent crime –including rape. According to the United states Department of justice, bureau of justice statistics. In 2008 21.4 violent crimes were committed against men for every 1000 individuals, while 16.7 were commuted against women.

          While messages addressing the supposed epidemic of male-on-female violence permeate our media, creating a public perception sharply in contrast with research indicating that “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. As a man I am constantly told that because I am male, I’m a violent criminal, an abuser of women and children, and a rapist. I’ve also had drilled into me the knowledge that a simple accusation of rape, true or not, leveled against me by a woman will destroy my life, career, and family. I’ve seen the wreckage of other men’s lives following their destruction through false accusation.

          The MDA ad promotes sexism and sadly TTAG’s counter ad still promotes sexism.

        • While female on male abuse is seriously under reported and under recognized, I suspect that fewer men are victims of forcible rape.

  8. The woman and kid in that poster appear to be running away. Running away from… nah, too easy.

  9. Nice, inflammatory, un-PC graphic. Tsk, tsk. When will they ever learn? They’re SO violent.

    The question should be, “why aren’t these women tooling up?” Duh, some dude has promised to put you in the ground and you’re all emo and conflicted about what you need to do? When you get right down to it it’s a pretty simple equation. You’re the first and best line of defense. You are the first responder. You owe your assailant little or nothing and you owe yourself and your loved ones everything. It’s a hard place to be but you must come out the other side with your humanity, your dignity, your life and your soul intact. For all that you hold dear, never submit or succumb, not without the fight of your life. .

      • The original poster was libtard (democrat) gun-grabbing filth. Are you denying that the liberal democrats are trying to remove our gun rights? If by con, meaning conservative (I think), you do realize that they are not the ones who we have been desperately fighting since Newtown (and decades before). So, in that light, how could my statement be contarded (if that was indeed intended to be negative)?
        Am I to assume you don’t like the new (improved) poster? Say, you didn’t vote for Barry AGAIN, did you? If ya did, your the problem.

Comments are closed.