In the midst of all the anti-gun rhetoric being spewed from Capitol Hill, it is surprising to me that the person leading the anti-gun charge is a woman.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), as many of you know, has been vehemently pushing for a resurrection of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban in yet another governmental attempt to lobotomize personal behavior, destroy property rights, disarm our citizenry and broaden gun control.

Usually, the pro-gun, anti-government, Tea Party-esque arguments are aligned with the far right, libertarians or market anarchists who are pigeonholed as Ron Paul-loving, Gadsden flag-flying types. But I think it’s time that women, especially women who identify themselves as feminists, jump on the pro-gun bandwagon.

According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, one out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.

Compare those numbers to the 3 percent of men who fall victim to sexual assault, and it becomes apparent who is committing sexual violence and who the victims are.

Now, the reason why being anti-gun is equivalent to being anti-women is that disarming society, or even suggesting an increase of impediments when purchasing a firearm (waiting periods, increased background checks) is that, at worst, these measures disarm women and, at best, make it harder for women to arm themselves.

Because women fall prey to sexual violence much more often than men, it can be argued that women, more than any other demographic, need access to the use of lethal force and self-defense. Although hypothetical — and hopefully only momentarily hypothetical at that — imagine how disincentivizing rape and sexual assault would be if more women had access to and were encouraged to carry — or at least own — firearms.

If feminists, and women in general, are serious about the rape epidemic, anti-woman politicians, such as Feinstein, should be abandoned by said constituencies.

Thomas Ryan is a political science major at Sante Fe College. You can contact him via [email protected].

(14) comments

atticraw

Thomas, I'm sad that you are a political science major. Please stay away from politics and find a career that is less destructive; we have enough weasels already.

ames780

How about you columnists do a little research before sharing your "opinions" with the public? Why don't you try looking up some facts about domestic violence, and how many women are killed with guns by their partners each year. Just yesterday there were stats published that in states that require background checks, women were 38% less likely to be shot by their partners. Your theory about arming women to protect them against a slew of anonymous attackers just does not conform to reality.

Victrolla
Victrolla

I don't think you get it. Feminism includes the idea that I shouldn't have to tote a lethal weapon to keep people from attacking me and forcibly penetrating or groping me. Do some research before publishing this stuff.

Romulan

A friend of mine was raped (at least attacked; I'm not sure of all the details.) She went out and got a .40 cal Glock and a concealed carry permit. She now enjoys going to the shooting range from time to time. I'm sure she's not the only one, no matter how naive some of you may be. She is single, by the way. There are PLENTY of single women who would be better protected if they were better armed. And yes there are plenty of would-be assailants out there. That's reality.

ames780

Sorry Romulan, but one example of a woman you know who has a concealed carry and enjoys going to the gun range is not evidence that "women would be better protected if they were better armed". I'm happy that your friend has found a way to take control and recover after an attack, but that does not mean that arming more women will automatically mean less rapes, especially because statistics show that most rapes and assaults are perpetrated by people the victim knows. There is also no evidence to show that women with concealed carry permits are more likely to protect themselves against random attackers. There certainly isn't enough evidence to prove that women would be safer if we don't institute any gun control measures. Don't forget, no matter how many times gun nuts repeat it, there are currently no moves in the government to ban all weapons or permanently disarm the public. We are talking about sane measures that would help prevent proven criminals from easily getting ahold of really powerful, deadly weapons. But why examine facts and research when you can fight against a strawman (or woman as the case may be)?

Romulan

>> Don't forget, no matter how many times gun nuts repeat it, there are currently no moves in the government to ban all weapons or permanently disarm the public.

The Sandy Hook Hoax is evidence to the contrary. Search YouTube for Sandy Hook Hoax and check out some of the videos. It was all faked. One has to wonder why.

eviebat
eviebat

FINALLY a man who knows just what I should do/believe/think/say! Yay!

ames780

And you've officially outed yourself as a complete moron. I'm sorry I wasted time on a thoughtful, rational response to your original post.

TRyan
TRyan

I thought feminism was the idea that women should be treated equally before the law and have equal opportunity in life... And if people do try to grope and rape women more often than they do men, would I not be arguing to secure your pursuit of a fair and equal life by saying you have the right to arm and defend yourself against would be attackers? Idk.. Just a thought... And I suppose this article would hold more water if a woman wrote it, right?

Romulan

What about all the 'evidence' in those YouTube videos, ames? Did you actually watch any of them? Obviously you only choose to see 'facts' that support your narrative. In any case, evidence is subjective and mostly in the eye of the beholder. My point is merely to point out that evidence is no proof of anything. A girl who gets raped and goes out and gets a gun... that's concrete proof. Forget "evidence" lol.

MummysCurse

Romulan, I enjoy your posts and your point of view. But I have an extremely hard time believing the Sandy Hook shooting was faked. (Admitedly, I have not watched the videos you mentioned).

There was a lot of sloppy, hurried reporting, but are there people who honestly believe the victims weren't killed, and instead were shuttled off somewhere in seclusion? The number of people who'd have to be collaborating/deceived is mind-boggling.

Romulan

MummysCurse, I too enjoy your posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZ9HnMLKXg

That is nearly three hours long, but it would leave you much better informed about the 'questions.' I suggest you try to watch it since I assume you would want to know if indeed there might be reason to be concerned that the story might not be true. It contains other useful info.

MummysCurse

I can't promise to watch it all, but I'll give it a try.

Gopblin

(sorry for report but I think this point is relevant here as well)
It's been correctly pointed out that "stranger jumping from bushes" are the minority of attacks around here. Have you wondered why that is? That isn't necessarily true in other countries.

For example, in the UK or Canada a person like you is much more likely to be a victim of a violent attack, not to mention places like Mexico, Russia or most of Africa.

The chief benefit of firearms isn't killing, it's deterrence.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.