Violence Against Women Act VS Women Need Guns Because… Violence

Filed in National by on January 31, 2013

I’m having a hard time reconciling what Republicans are saying.  I know, shocking.

Yesterday, during the Gun Violence Hearing, you would have thought that Republicans would have overwhelming supported the Violence Against Women Act, given that women were trotted out as one of the main defenses of AR-15s and 30 round magazines.

Of course, they didn’t support the Violence Against Women Act, which is funny since one of their central arguments against gun laws was… well… violence against women.

Gayle Trotter, conservative activist, opposed the Violence Against Women Act.  Her reason? “The law would create the prospect of “false accusers” stealing taxpayer money by using shelters and legal aid.”

False accusers?  Oh, those lying women.  They lie about abuse.  They lie about rape to get their abortions.  They lie about rape because some girls rape easy.  They lie about the cost of birth control so they can have all the slut sex they want.  They lie when they wear a short skirt and then don’t put out – even though the guy at the bar bought them a glass of Chardonnay.

But Gayle Trotter painted a different picture yesterday.  Her point boiled down to: Women need guns because they need to defend themselves against violence.

“Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They’re light. They’re easy for women to hold. And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened, violent criminals. If we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting women at a great disadvantage, more so than men, because they do not have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to defend themselves.”

First, I thought that “scary looking guns” was a phrase gun enthusiasts used to mock gun control activists.  Now I’m hearing that their “scary” appearance is a selling factor.

Let’s look at Lindsey Graham’s “Moms need guns” comments at the hearing.

Senator Lindsey Graham, in arguing about limits on magazines, told a story about a woman hiding in a closet who managed to put five of the bullets in her six-shooter into the body of a criminal who nonetheless drove away: “There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of what we do here.”

Holy cow!  It sure sounds like they’re saying, If you’re a mom without a gun then you are endangering your child by not taking the necessary steps to protect your babies from all those dangerous male strangers coming to get you and yours.  Perhaps, only women should be allowed to own guns?

I can’t help but think that these guys/gals view gun scenarios the same way they view rape scenarios.  In the extreme.  I’ve linked to this statement before, but it can’t be repeated enough.

South Dakota Republican Bill Napoli:

“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

Anyone else get the feeling that Republicans don’t understand real life?  It’s always the stranger danger argument.  But the truth, when it comes to rape and guns, is that both are used, almost all of the time, by people you know.

And can we all agree that Wayne LaPierre is nuts.

Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s chief executive, arrived for his hearing on Capitol Hill in the organization’s trademark fashion: violently.

When he and his colleagues stepped off the elevator in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Wednesday morning and found TV cameras waiting in the hallway, LaPierre’s bodyguards swung into action. One of them, in blatant violation of congressional rules, bumped and body-checked journalists out of the way so they couldn’t film LaPierre or question him as he walked.

“You don’t have jurisdiction here!” a cameraman protested as an NRA goon pushed him against a wall. After the melee, congressional officials informed the NRA officials that, in the halls of Congress, they had to follow congressional procedures — which prohibit manhandling.

This must have come as a surprise to the gun lobbyists, whose swagger seems to suggest that they are, in fact, in control of Congress. In their world, nothing trumps the Second Amendment — not even the First Amendment.

He’s the poster child of who shouldn’t have a gun.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (61)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Bohemia Beach says:

    Great piece! Trotter, the NRA, etc. are fear mongerers! Her colorful testimony (“babies crying”) was compelling, but baloney. Did you see Lawrence O’Donnell last night — he shredded her.

  2. pandora says:

    Thanks! I didn’t see Lawrence O’Donnell. I’ll have to google it.

    I simply don’t understand the world these guys live in. Their fear is overwhelming and all consuming. They are afraid of everything. How can you function if you’re always worried about being attacked?

    I’m expecting to start seeing pink and blue guns at baby showers.

  3. cassandra_m says:

    Amy Davidson at The New Yorker wrote about yesterday’s hearings in a way that helped me to crystallize my own thinking on this entire business. The spinning up of this Damsel in Distress narrative by Senators, and Trotter is the core of fear that is the NRA enabled pitch for Every Home a Fortress. Just listen to the scenarios dreamed up — they are very cinematic and they convince these folks to be the star of their own Rambo movie. Or to be Sarah Connor in your own Terminator movie. And yet these are the people who continue to enable a fair bit of mayhem. Increasingly, I think that the people to be scared of are these folks with their apocalyptic fears more than common criminals.

  4. jaded cynic says:

    Why not just make it legal to kill abusive husbands/boyfriends?

  5. AGovernor says:

    Wow! Just Wow!

    Pandora I agree with your comment. How do these people get through the day even get out of bed the fear they live with must be overwhelming.

    The scenario described, though I do not doubt has and can happen, is so outrageous and rare that using it as a reason for allowing anyone to own “assault” weapons is false and misleading.

    I have difficulty comprehending the fear so many Americans live with.

  6. mike says:

    “I simply don’t understand the world these guys live in. Their fear is overwhelming and all consuming. They are afraid of everything. How can you function if you’re always worried about being attacked?”

    Who is more fearful? The woman who owns an AR-15 for defense of her home, knowing full well that the police are reactionary and she is her first line of defense, or the woman who is SO fearful of such a woman owning an AR-15 that she make it so no one can own one?

    I’ll go with the latter. If anyone is paranoid and fearful it is the anti-gunner You’re afraid of something and want to ban it even though it’s used in a shockingly tiny percentage of violent crimes every year. That’s fearful and paranoid.

  7. Jason330 says:

    …says the guy who has been here for years spinning outlandishly cinematic tales of mayhem that his guns will one day protect him from.

  8. AGovernor says:

    Mike, I don’t know if you are talking to me or Pandora, but I am not anti-gun.

    Grew up in a house with guns, I have even fired guns and killed me a bunny rabbit. My 73 year old dad still owns guns and so do 2 of my 3 brothers.Granted one is a cop. my nephew gunned down a few deer in the last few months. I love venison it is yummy.

    I am not anti gun, I am anti ridiculous guns and justifying ridiculous guns with specious scenarios of violent crime.

  9. Jason330 says:

    “Complete gun anarchy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    There. Fixed it. They ignore the beginning anyway, so we might as well update it to keep pace with the times.

  10. pandora says:

    In the medical world we have a term to describe people who always think bad things are going to happen to them. We consider it a mental disorder or a cry for attention.

    Notice also how the examples (most of them pure fantasy) given yesterday of women protecting themselves didn’t involve these types of weapons or magazines – and you know if an actual example existed these gun enthusiasts (including Mike) would be shouting it from the rafters. Go on, Mike. Give us an example of a women defending herself with one of the weapons/magazines discussed yesterday.

    The truth is, despite your spin, yesterday’s hearing wasn’t about banning all guns. It was about certain types of weapons and large capacity magazines.

    “Who is more fearful? The woman who owns an AR-15 for defense of her home, knowing full well that the police are reactionary and she is her first line of defense, or the woman who is SO fearful of such a woman owning an AR-15 that she make it so no one can own one?”

    That’s easy. The woman who feels the need for the AR-15 for defense. Know why accidental shootings of family members happen so often? It’s due to these people always expecting the worse. Ready. Fire. Aim. When a bird flies into the window, or your dog knocks something over downstairs, or your kid is sneaking into the house, and your first response is to grab your gun… you have a problem.

  11. AGovernor says:

    Tell it Pandora!

  12. pandora says:

    LOL, AGovernor!

    Another thing… If guns don’t kill people/people kill people, then there are no accidental shootings.

  13. Dave says:

    Throughout the current (and past) gun debate, I’ve had discussions with myself (yes, I’m usually sober during these discussions) on why I need a firearm for self defense.

    For me it comes back to what I learned worrying about security in the DoD – Threat and Vulnerability. We are all vulnerable in many ways to things like natural disasters, vehicle accidents, disease, ad nauseum. But rather than trying to mitigate those vulnerabilities, we make judgments regarding the threat. If the threat is virtually non-existent (or even quantifiable) expending effort and resources to mitigate the threat is uneconomical.

    Vulnerability when operating a motor vehicle is high. The threat (risk) of being involved in an accident is high, so we (at least the intelligent onces) wear seatbelts, among other measures to mitigate the risk.

    Similarily the threat (risk) of someone invading my home is low. Possessing a firearm (including maintenance, training, etc.), while not outrageously expensive does not seem prudent to counter a low probability event. Moreover, I have a monitored alarm system with signs, that deceases the probability of invasion even further. Finally, when I am out, I rarely (never?) find myself in a place where I wish I had a gun.

    In summary, perhaps I am too ignorant to be afraid, but I just don’t live my life in fear of things that necessitates a firearm as a countermeasure. And I think that those who do carry or possess often become over confident in their ability to prevail in situations (fight or flight reflex – “I have a gun, I’ll fight”) and even escalate (unintentionally perhaps) situations because they do have a gun.

  14. anon says:

    A weekend host on WGMD played a 911 call of a woman who was home alone when a man broke into her house, raped and beat her. The police didn’t make it on time. The moral of the story: It was her fault for not having a gun in her home.

    Another caller said, “the wrong Brady was shot” in reference to Sarah Brady.

  15. X Stryker says:

    NRA = Tiny Penis Compensator Association.

  16. Tom McKenney says:

    All this arming for self defense in the home is nonsense. How often is someone in that situation?

    If I was attacked I would much rather have a shotgun with buckshot than an AR-15

  17. Jason330 says:

    According to the statistics, the point of arming for self defense is to have a gun handy when the time comes to murder your spouse.

  18. puck says:

    If your gun is accessible enough for emergency defense, it is too loosely secured to be kept at home.

  19. Jason330 says:

    Since murdering of the spouse is the primary use of home defense fire arms, they only need be secure enough to keep the spouse from getting to it first.

  20. puck says:

    Solution: His and Her’s firearms.

  21. mike says:

    You avoided the question pandora. What are you so afraid of that you have this need to tell gun owners what’s acceptable for them to use for home defense? What are your qualifications to do so? Do you know what an “assault weapon” is? I’ll bet you are completely ignorant on the subject. Have you ever fired one?

    The Dept. of Homeland Security seems to think select fire M16′s with 30 round mags are quite suitable as “personal defense weapons.” If M16′s that are actually capable of full auto are great personal defense weapons then why does the same not apply to semi-auto AR-15′s with standard capacity magazines?

    http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/01/25/suitable-for-personal-defense/

    An AR-15 is a perfectly suitable weapon for that purpose for a whole host of logical reasons. Please, why don’t you tell us what makes AR’s and other “assault weapons” so dangerous, unsuitable for self-defense etc. etc.

    Lets look at your point about “accidental shootings.” What does that have to do with her choice of an AR-15? An accidental shooting is an accidental shooting regardless of the firearm involved, and i suspect you really mean negligent not accidental.

    Dave – Do you have a fire extinguisher as a countermeasure to fire, or is that just “living in fear” too. I’ve never been in a car accident where a seatbelt would have saved my life, yet I put one on every time I get in a car. Am I living in fear of dying in an accident?

  22. mike says:

    “All this arming for self defense in the home is nonsense. How often is someone in that situation?

    If I was attacked I would much rather have a shotgun with buckshot than an AR-15.”

    Holy contradiction! If arming for self-defense in the home is “nonsense” then why would you want a shotgun with buckshot? Why want a gun at all, if it’s indeed “nonsense?”

  23. mike says:

    Jason – More people buying guns, more CCW, AR-15′s as some of the most popular guns in the country, roughly 100 million gun owners who own at least 270 million guns, yet murder and violent crime are at lows not seen in decades.

    Mass shootings occurring in places where guns are prohibited….

    Boy. Sure sounds like gun anarchy to me.

  24. pandora says:

    “What are you so afraid of that you have this need to tell gun owners what’s acceptable for them to use for home defense?”

    You.

    Several years ago you wrote on your blog how you didn’t tell your parents, whose house you were living in at the time, about your guns. That level of immaturity and irresponsibility disqualifies you as a responsible gun owner.

  25. anon says:

    You.

    BINGO!

  26. cassandra_m says:

    Co-signing that BINGO.

  27. Dave says:

    @mike “Dave – Do you have a fire extinguisher as a countermeasure to fire, or is that just “living in fear” too. ”

    Statistical probability Mike, statistical probability. I have two fire extinguishers. One in kitchen pantry and one right outside the garage door. Neither are right next to stove so that in event of a medium probability of a stove fire I am not prevented from getting to them.

    You see Mike, it’s risk analysis. A car accident is a statistically probable event. The cost of having a seat belt and wearing one is negligible. When the risk mitigation strategy outweighs the consequence of no migitation smart people make smart decisions.

    Possessing a firearm increases the risk to the owner (or to the owners family). The consequence is high, yet the risk that you are mitigating with a gun (self defense necessity) is low. It’s simple economics Mike.

  28. mike says:

    Well, I appreciate your honesty Pandora, but at least we now know how deep your fear and paranoia goes.

    I could just as easily say that your level of abject ignorance disqualifies you as a responsible gun owner, or for that matter your trust issues but I won’t. I am not like you. I’m not a leftist. I don’t have a need to control others, and I respect your rights even as you fail to respect mine.

    I chose not to inform one of the people in that household of the presence of my firearm and I kept it locked up when not under my control because I did not feel he or she was capable of being safe and responsible around a gun. My guns are my responsibility. That was my choice, and I still feel it was the correct one to make.

  29. Jason330 says:

    While it is fine for murdering a spouse, the AR15 isn’t optimal for the second most popular use of home protection firearm – suicide.

  30. mike says:

    “You see Mike, it’s risk analysis.”

    Bingo. That’s exactly why pro-gun folks are pro-freedom, pro choice. If Pandora, Cass or anyone else decide not to own a gun, or not to carry one because THEY engaged in their own risk analysis and determined it was not the correct course of action, that’s fine. The problem arises in the fact that they, the anti-gun folks, wish to force their choice upon everyone else.

  31. Dave says:

    By the way, did anyone watch the Anderson Cooper hour on CNN last night? Excellent show. Had victims, sheriff from Illionis, NRA board member, Chief of Police, Philadelphia, etc. Might want to catch it on the web.

  32. puck says:

    “the AR15 isn’t optimal for the second most popular use of home protection firearm – suicide.”

    It is if you plan to kill a bunch of other people first. Otherwise the high-capacity magazine is kind of wasted.

  33. mike says:

    I think Pandora’s statement gets to the heart of the issue. The problem with anti-gunners like her boils down to one central issue.

    Trust. She does not trust her fellow citizens with their rights, projects her own fears and inadequacies upon them, and then seeks to control them.

    I on the other hand believe that her rights are important and deserve my respect and protection even if I don’t happen respect or trust her. Her Constitutioanl rights are not predicated upon whether not I, or any of you, trust her to exercise them.

    http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2004/01/trust-recent-brouhaha-over-concealed.html

  34. Jason330 says:

    Puck, True that. When considering a firearm for home protection you need to have a clear idea of in what order you are going to murder people.

  35. cassandra_m says:

    The fear and paranoia cabal do not have an arsenal at their homes. By definition.

  36. puck says:

    I miss the halcyon days of my youth when gun control was about Saturday Night Specials.

  37. pandora says:

    Yes, Mike, it’s all about my fear and inadequacies, and not the fact that you hid guns in your parents’ home (parents who you described as not gun people) like a 12 year old hiding a Victoria Secret catalogue under your pillow.

  38. Jason330 says:

    Same boner effect.

  39. anon says:

    “What are you so afraid of that you have this need to tell gun owners what’s acceptable for them to use for home defense?”

    Because according to the meme of you gun nuts, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

  40. geezer says:

    “She does not trust her fellow citizens with their rights, projects her own fears and inadequacies upon them, and then seeks to control them.”

    Nor do you, or you wouldn’t feel the need to own guns. Just admit it, Mike — you, and all others who own guns for “self-defense,” are just a bunch of quivering pants-wetters who feel vulnerable without your guns. Wimp.

  41. Dave says:

    “The problem arises in the fact that they, the anti-gun folks, wish to force their choice upon everyone else.”

    No the problem arises when you folks like you possess guns because you feel at risk. That’s the part you don’t get. Think about it. You feel at risk – fear where there is little to fear (probability remember?). What do you call people who fear essentially nonexistent threats? Yep, first word that popped into your head. Now, doesn’t that make you wonder if they are all there? Sure it does. And does society want people who are not all there possessing firearms? No it doesn’t.

    The fact that you and others feel such fear, should automatically exclude you from those who can be trusted with firearms. You’re afraid and want a gun because of that fear. But because you are afraid, you must be nuts and of course if you are nuts you can’t have a gun. I know it sounds straight out of Catch-22 but I don’t trust people who think they need a gun. I would, however, trust someone who doesn’t want one but decides that it is the best course of action for themselves and their family.

    In sum, self proclaimed “gun nuts” are a risk to society.

  42. geezer says:

    Cassandra: Excellent link. Thanks much.

  43. AGovernor says:

    Once again I will say I am not anti-gun, but I don’t see why anyone needs a gun for personal defense.

    Regulating guns is no different than regulating many other useful things that in some way can harm us, such as cars, some aren’t “street legal”, speed is regulated for safety of everyone on the road.

    Fire is nice. People like to look at it and warm themselves around it, but where you can have a fire and what you can burn is regulated for the commonweal.

  44. Jason330 says:

    “I don’t see why anyone needs a gun for personal defense.” The personal defense gun is to murder the spouse with. The data makes that pretty clear. If you don’t have a spouse in need of murdering though, you are right – you don’t have a very good argument for having a home defense weapon.

  45. AGovernor says:

    Looking back I don’t know how I missed the reason. I have a spouse but if I murder him I won’t be able to collect the insurance so what is the point of murdering him?

    Guess I am back to I have no reason to own a gun for “personal defense”. The only legit reason I might have is to own a gun for shooting skeets. But guns are noisy, so I am going to hone my marksmanship with a bow and arrow.

  46. Jason330 says:

    VAWA just passed the Senate. Now it is on to the house the Republicans will try to add a “She was asking for it…just look at the dress she is wearing” amendment.

  47. SussexAnon says:

    Some people have a good reason. Retired law enforcement, celebrities, uber-wealthy business executives all have a pretty compelling reason to have a gun for personal defense. They have enemies.

    Even with those reasons, the chances of gun related accidents, murders, suicides, etc. increase considerably.

  48. X Stryker says:

    Primary reason for owning an AR-15 is having a tiny penis and being delusionally afraid of brown people. Secondary reason is for roleplaying murder fantasies in your backyard. Third reason is carrying them out.

  49. Venus says:

    Yo, just keep a fake gun for cry’in out loud. They make them look so real anymore, do you think an intruder would want to take a chance? Not looking down my barrel. And my pretend aim.

  50. Tom McKenney says:

    @Mike my point was if you have to arm yourself, a shotgun is more effective than a AR-15 It also is a legitimate hunting weapon compared to what in effect is a military weapon

  51. TeleMan says:

    Guns, gated communities, giant SUV’s, big bloatburger McMansions sited in an exurb way off the interstate. I’m beginning to see a pattern of behavior. Pass the antiseptic hand gel, will ya?

  52. Roland D. Lebay says:

    I have a problem w/ VAWA & other laws against “hate” crimes.

    Read the 14th Amendment. “Equal Protection” cannot be guaranteed to ANYONE when specific classes/groups of people are given special protection and/or consideration under the law.

  53. Aoine says:

    Look at it kinda like EEO law. For hundreds of years….and still now , women did NOT have equal protection under the law

    Spousal rape 30 years ago was not reported, he’ll it didn’t EXIST in the lexicon….where was ur equal protection then?

    HAVE U READ VAWA. Based on what u said……I doubt it….strongly.

    All it does is provide services thru grants to assist in the special needs of those s facing domestic battery, rape and sexual assault- both MEN AND WOMEN without distinction.

    The assistance in place is not different for the genders and male or female both have EQUAL ACCESS to these services. The only criteria ? Being a victim.

    Like I said. If you KNEW VAWA you would never have made that stupid and uneducated a remark.

  54. Roland D. Lebay says:

    Spousal rape 30 years ago was not reported, he’ll it didn’t EXIST in the lexicon….where was ur equal protection then?

    Are you sure about that?

    2013-1977 = 36 years. Yet in your mind, I am uneducated and stupid. Oh well…I’ve been called worse, both online and in person.

    Peace.

  55. Roland D. Lebay says:

    Spousal rape 30 years ago was not reported, he’ll it didn’t EXIST in the lexicon….where was ur equal protection then?

    That would be great if it were true, but it’s not.

    Francine Hughes killed her abusive/rapey husband in March, 1977…nearly 36 years ago.

    From wikipedia:

    After trial in Lansing, Hughes was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.[2]
    Hughes’ story was made into a book and a subsequent film in 1984 titled The Burning Bed starring Farrah Fawcett.[3] Folk singer Lyn Hardy also created a song about these events entitled “The Ballad of Francine Hughes”.

  56. mike says:

    I’m surprised it took this long for one of you intellectual lightweights to trot out the “gun = penis substitute” line.

    Tom – Like plenty of other rifles, an AR-15 is perfectly fine for hunting, and in fact many people use them for just that purpose.

    And an AR-15 is a “military weapon” in the same way a Pontiac Fiero done up to look like a Ferrari is an actual Ferrari.

  57. Jason330 says:

    Perhaps, but there is a lot of research confirming the fact that an gun is preferable when it comes time to murder a spouse.

  58. SussexAnon says:

    A .50 caliber machine gun could be “perfectly fine” for hunting, too.

    As long as you don’t expect much meat from the kill.

    Just sayin’

    And the AR-15 is, in fact, a military weapon.

  59. Geezer says:

    “I’m surprised it took this long for one of you intellectual lightweights to trot out the “gun = penis substitute” line.”

    I’m not at all surprised that you didn’t address any of the other criticisms.

    Why do you own guns for self-defense? Why are you so scared about your potential for being attacked?

  60. Dave says:

    “Why are you so scared about your potential for being attacked?”

    @Geezer, I think that fear is a big part of their psyche. Fear of the direction the country is going. Fear about the loss of the good ol days. Fear of being in the minority. Fear of government. Fear of George Soros. Fear of One World Government. Agenda 21. United Nations. And on and on and on. It’s not the bogey man – the intruder per se. It is life in generally that they fear. They wake up to the fear and go to bed with the fear. Having a gun, worthless though it may be to mitigate any of those fears, gives them the confidence to get out of bed every day and face the world.

    It would be interesting to understand why they became so afraid of life, but the emotion definitely is fear.

Switch to our mobile site