Consider if just 10 percent of the women in Cologne had been armed on New Year’s Eve the dramatic effect it would likely have had on the rape, robbery and assault performed by their new guests.
Accurate statistics even properly cited don’t seem to be your strong suit Mirah.
Adam Wieneiski
1

How dare you try to capitalize on violence against women to make your racist, pro-gun argument?

There is no reason to believe that if women were armed there would be fewer rapes. Putting aside for a moment the fact that the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, carrying a gun actually makes an assault victim 4.5 times more likely to be shot than not carrying a gun. And in domestic violence, women are 5 times more likely to be killed if their abusers have guns.

When you say that rapes and assaults wouldn’t have happened if the women had been armed, you are not only saying something patently false, but implying that the victims are at fault for not carrying guns to protect themselves. As if there is not enough victim-blaming on a regular basis.

And of course, when women actually do use guns for protection against violent men, they get arrested and prosecuted for it. So much for protecting women with guns.

It also does not escape me that your chosen example is the attacks in Cologne, where white women were victimized by black and brown men. Of course, that is your ultimate nightmare, isn’t it? Black men as rapists has always been the rallying cry of racists and lynch mobs — remember Dylann Roof saying, “you’re raping our women” to the black people he murdered? At least you’re in good company.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.