More on British vs American rape rates via Instapundit. This is worse than speaking about rape, this is forcing women to be defenseless to it. War on women, indeed.
- In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
- In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
- Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
- As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
- Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
I'm a mother. I'm 125 pounds. While I've taken several disciplines of defensive techniques, if a large man was to break into my home with the intent to turn me and my children into a statistic, I'd have little chance fighting back without a firearm. I don't live in the fantasy land of Hollywood where every woman is G.I. Jane or Lara Croft. If women have the right to defend their country in battle, they have the right to defend themselves and their family at home. In their home, they are their own first responders. Progressive policy on guns has been to "protect" victims by moving to make more of them. Why the bloodlust? Why the desire to render law-abiding Americans helpless? Dianne Feinstein proposes to dry up 150 firearms, even those cited as legal in Miller, which is the very definition of disarmament. One lawmaker said during her press conference that those needing help could simply "call 9-1-1." As I've said previously, if you want to gamble your life and the life of your family during the average 10 minutes (nationally) it will take for the authorities to arrive, make that choice for you. Don't make it for my family. I don't believe that criminals will stop in their tracks and decide to wait until the cops arrive and it's an even playing field. I don't believe in preaching against firearms while depending upon people who possess them to show up and save me when I dial 9-1-1. That's the other part of the problem with progressive logic: the cops have zero obligation to protect your life. Castle Rock vs Gonzalez. Progressives say this: Barrett would rather women gamble with their lives, defenselessly, until police arrive? Democrats would rather this woman be a statistic? Should this woman have rendered herself without defense and made a statistic? Should this mother have allowed herself to be savaged? Should this child have been defenseless? Is that what the left prefers? Should this woman have just dialed 9-1-1 and crossed her fingers? This woman did dial 9-1-1. She waited and hoped the intruder wouldn't bust into her home and try to kill her. He did try, while she was there waiting, on the phone with 9-1-1. If she had followed the Barrett and Democrats' logic, she'd be dead. According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals. There is a war on women, and it's coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):