1
India is on the other side now of a very public case of a woman being gang raped. In reply a gun manufacturer has designed a gun for women to defend themselves against a potential rapist.
I'm still trying to get my mind around an apparent attitude that views allowing a woman to be armed, as worse than actually being raped.
Shouldn't women be allowed all options to protect themselves from this violence?
How can someone claim to be pro-women, but then favor a policy that views a woman being raped as less severe than letting a woman carry a gun to actually protect herself from being raped?
Policy seems to be based more on emotions, than what makes sense. If policy is being made mostly on emotions, then it's truly sad that people have MORE emotional outrage over an armed woman, than they do over a woman being raped. Please, someone, tell me, how is that pro-woman?
If a woman can prove she can handle a gun responsibly, and prove she has the mental senses to own, carry, use, then who in their right mind would deny a woman this self-defense option?
Yes I get it, a woman carrying a gun doesn't make one feel all nice. But you know what, a woman being raped should make you feel worse than the prospects of a capable woman owning a gun to protect herself.
So what's it going to be folks?
Are we going to deny capable women a self defense option, simply because it makes us feel bad? Are we going to passively enable their rapist, simply because we have a stigma, and phobia over guns? Or are we going to say no to rapists, and yes to women, and enable capable women another option to protect themselves?
India's Women-Friendly Gun Renews Debate Over Self-Defense Against Rape
I'm still trying to get my mind around an apparent attitude that views allowing a woman to be armed, as worse than actually being raped.
Shouldn't women be allowed all options to protect themselves from this violence?
How can someone claim to be pro-women, but then favor a policy that views a woman being raped as less severe than letting a woman carry a gun to actually protect herself from being raped?
Policy seems to be based more on emotions, than what makes sense. If policy is being made mostly on emotions, then it's truly sad that people have MORE emotional outrage over an armed woman, than they do over a woman being raped. Please, someone, tell me, how is that pro-woman?
If a woman can prove she can handle a gun responsibly, and prove she has the mental senses to own, carry, use, then who in their right mind would deny a woman this self-defense option?
Yes I get it, a woman carrying a gun doesn't make one feel all nice. But you know what, a woman being raped should make you feel worse than the prospects of a capable woman owning a gun to protect herself.
So what's it going to be folks?
Are we going to deny capable women a self defense option, simply because it makes us feel bad? Are we going to passively enable their rapist, simply because we have a stigma, and phobia over guns? Or are we going to say no to rapists, and yes to women, and enable capable women another option to protect themselves?
India's Women-Friendly Gun Renews Debate Over Self-Defense Against Rape