The Left’s Continuing War on Women


The New York Times caused a sensation with its kazillion-word, March 17 article by Michael Luo on the failures of state courts to get guns out of the hands of men in domestic violence situations.

The main purpose of the article was to tweak America’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association, for opposing some of the more rash anti-gun proposals being considered by state legislatures, such as allowing courts to take away a person’s firearms on the basis of a temporary restraining order.

It’s a new position for liberals to oppose the rights of the accused. Usually the Times is demanding that even convicted criminals be given voting rights, light sentences, sex-change operations and vegan meals in prison.

Another recent Times article about communities trying to keep sex offenders out of their neighborhoods quoted a liberal saying: “It’s counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life.”

But that was about convicted child molesters. This is about guns, so all new rules apply.

As is usually the case when liberals start proposing gun restrictions, they assume only men will be disarmed by laws taking guns from those subjected to temporary restraining orders. But such orders aren’t particularly difficult to get. It doesn’t occur to liberals that an abusive man could also get one against his wife, whether his accusations are true or not.

Rather than helping victims of domestic abuse, this — and other Times’ proposals on guns — only ensures that more women will get killed. A gun in the hand of an abused woman changes the power dynamic far more than keeping a gun out of the hands of her abuser, who generally can murder his wife in any number of ways.

The vast majority of rapists, for example, don’t even bother using a gun because — as renowned criminologist Gary Kleck notes — they typically have a “substantial power advantage over the victim,” making the use of a weapon redundant.

As the Times eventually admits around paragraph 400: “In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order (taking guns from the accused wife abuser) would have prevented the deaths.”

No kidding. In one case the Times cites, Robert Wigg ripped a door off its hinges and heaved it at his wife, Deborah, after having thrown her to the floor by her hair.

Deborah Wigg moved out, got a protective order and filed for divorce. But doors were not an impediment to Robert Wigg. He showed up at her new house and, in short order, broke down the door and murdered her.

He happened to have used a gun, but he might as well have used his fists. Or an illegal gun, had the court taken away his legal guns. Or another door.

As her husband was breaking in, Deborah called her parents and 911. Her neighbors called 911, too. But the police didn’t arrive in time. Even her parents got to the house before the cops did, only to find their daughter murdered.

The protective order didn’t help Deborah Wigg; the police couldn’t help; her neighbors and parents couldn’t help. Only if she’d had a gun and knew how to use it — after carefully disregarding everything Joe Biden has said on the subject — might she have been able to save her own life.

Numerous studies, including one by the National Institute of Justice, show that crime victims who resist a criminal with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who do not resist at all or who resist without a gun. That’s true even when the assailant is armed.

Liberals’ advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times’ advice is: Get a protective order. The NRA’s advice is: Blow the dirtbag’s head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack.

Apparently a lot of abused women prefer not to lie back and take it. Looking at data from Detroit, Houston and Miami, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly found that the vast majority of wives who killed their husbands were not even indicted, much less convicted, because it was found they were acting in self-defense.

But the Times doesn’t want abused women to have a fighting chance. Instead, it keeps pushing gun control policies that not only won’t stop violent men from murdering their wives, but will disarm their intended victims.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Mary Sue

    Yup, this is the real war on women. But it's not just the soft bigotry of lowered expectations (assuming that women are too soft-hearted and easily reduced to blubbering masses of catatonia to be able to use a gun effectively), there's an inherent sexist assumption that only men use guns and only in an offensive way (not defensive).

    • tagalog

      On average, women are more accurate shooters than men are.

      I haven't noticed any significant difference between men and women when they engage in combat shooting, moving from point to point and firing at human-shaped targets. So I doubt that woman shooters have any conceptual problem with the idea of shooting at people any more than men do.

    • http://twitter.com/Lead_Dog @Lead_Dog

      Mary Sue, I'm a man and I also noted the sexist assumption. Good going.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Apart from the sexism, though, you can see the Left's usual M.O.: (1) Trying to control the gun instead of the criminal; (2) Try to take as many guns away from the law-abiding as possible.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The left opines about women's rights, but nothing can be more divorced from reality. If they had their druthers, women would be dependent on nothing more than their hairbrushes and screams for their safety, if even that.

    This is precisely why Conservative women are marginalized and tarred/feathered, as they have the audacity to fight back. The left has gone postal, and for anyone in their right mind – no pun intended – to listen to them, well, then they really are asking for it – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/03/leftists-go-p

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • kafir4life

    I wonder if Mary Jo Kopechne would still be alive had she just "taken it" from Senator Teddy (Lion of the Senate) Kennedy. He murdered her after he had his way with her, and the other democrats from his party circled the wagons (it took a LOT of wagons) to protect him. Ever since then, any Kennedy male has been given a complete pass. It's now a crime to implicate a Kennedy in any crime against women, and Teddy had the first confirmed kill in the Senate.

  • Rifleman

    If women don't want to "Lie back and enjoy it," the left's next advice is, "You might want to put some ice on that."

    • ltcdmward

      If all this wasn't so serious, I would just lie back and howl with laughter at the Left. Seems for decades they have advocated for women to get all the bennies that guys get in every arena. Of late is advocacy regarding "gun carrying and shooting" positions in the military's combat arms. Yet, little from the left it seems about civilian women taking responsibility for one's own life as they promote getting more from an increased stream of career and gubmint bennies. As with gubmint controlled health care where it looks like there will be a lot of "coverage" (with questionable access and effective treatment), same with personal defense. "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." (Police) "coverage" but no effective treatment thanks to the Left putting handcuffs in advance on the law abiding who may want and need to take personal responsibility for their own lives. Remember: "You've come a long way baby!" Well then, why not go all the way? Naturally, the Left ultimately says, "Uh…not THAT."

  • tagalog

    Gun control laws, except laws imposing greater penalties on people convicted of crimes where they used a gun (which are scrupulously written with an eye to constitutionality), are more often than not written so vaguely that, in addition to being likely to be unconstitutionallly vague, are just as likely to hurt the law-abiding more than they hurt the criminal.

  • Ar'nun

    " This is about guns, so all new rules apply."

    As is the case with all irrational Progressive arguments. The Left is bipolar, they celebrate Mexicans coming to America illegally and claim it is to give their families a better life. But when Jews immigrated to Israel, that was an invasion/occupation. Church is bad, Mosque is good. Republicans deny women birth control and abortions, Muslims deny women the right to breath. Gays should be allowed to marry in America, and are ok with them being stoned to death in the Middle East. War is evil, unless Obama is dropping bombs for al Qaeda. Foreign aid should be stopped to Israel, tanks jets and billions of dollars is a noble cause for Islamist nations. Green Energy is good, clean natural gas that actually works is evil. Soros is great, the Kochs are evil.

    And this list of Progressive split personalities is an endless one. Liberalism is really a mental disorder.

    • http://twitter.com/Lead_Dog @Lead_Dog

      I wonder how many of the Progressives actually realize their hypocritical stances on issues. Any?

      • ltcdmward

        Prog leaders: Masters of compartmentalization (self deception), deception, and idolatry to money and power. As Micke Savage said and Ar'nun alludes to above: Sick. Very sick.

    • tagalog

      And yet, libbies come up with psychological study after psychological study showing that it's conservatives who are mentally ill.

      Could it be the psychological mechanism of projection at work? Nah, libbies don't have that much insight. Must be plain and simple paranoid delusion at work.

    • Michael Durham

      No, the "liberals" are just communists, straight up. I've been watching their turn-on-a-dime Leninist footwork for many years…it's how they weasel around a topic, and make it theirs.

      Joe McCarthy was 100% right, and we need 10,000 more of him.

  • Questions

    Many wives who claim "self-defense" in trying to kill their husbands, by the way, are lying. Ann Coulter unknowingly pushes the gender feminist "no bad woman" argument in justifying a woman's use of firearms against a spouse. Yes, there are plenty of abusive husbands. There are also abusive wives who claim to be abused. Any honest divorce lawyer will tell you stories of women who tried to knock off a husband to cash in on his corpse. Stuff like this happens.

    Every case of spousal abuse has to be examined on its own merits. Coulter takes it on faith that women who claim to be a victim need a gun.

    • HoR_Emperor

      Irrelevant distraction-post. Coulter was responding to the NYT's fallacious arguments, as you know perfectly well.

      • Questions

        I'm pointing to Ann Coulter's fallacious arguments as well. The "war on women" is of a piece with "liberal racism," where conservatives, rather than actually criticize anything about women, prefers to launch barbs and taunts at the Left for allegedly attacking them. The accusations, of course, bounce off the Left like teflon. Their shock troops, in turn, will launch equally ludicrous barbs and taunts at our side.

        Is this any way to conduct political debate? I don't think so.

    • tagalog

      Any law-abiding sane person, man or woman, abuse victim or not abuse victim, has the right to own a gun. If my law-abiding mentally healthy wife (or I myself) decides that she's under threat and buys a gun for self-defense from fantasized domestic violence, she has a perfect right to do so.

      Just as I have the complete and uncompromised right to buy a gun because of some fantasy I might have about unacceptable government intrusion into our lives, or a fantasy I have about being accosted by armed thugs in some darkened parking lot somewhere.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    Ann Coulter's is why we got Romney.

    Collectively the GOP brain trust should NOT be TRUSTED to Karl Rove, or Ann Coulter.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    "The Left’s Continuing War on Women"

    Karl Rove & Ms. Coulter's Continuing War on The RIGHT!

    • JacksonPearson

      The old right is on their knees, and dying. But die-hards Rove and Coulter still think it can win major elections. They won't accept any new life, or ideas.

  • jmz

    this is why we cannot let the left take our guns, no matter what laws they pass. look at them, listen to them. does anyone in their right mind think that we wouls not be open targets if this happens. their laws are unjust, un natural, and unconstitutional. do not negotiate. do not compromise, do not copitulate and then 'eait til the next election…DO NOT OBEY THEM PERIOD! or suffer the consequences

  • Ghostwriter

    "The NRA's advice,'Blow the dirtbag's head off." That's one heck of a line Ms. Coulter wrote.