XPrize Contest Highlights Ludicrous Steps Anti-gunners will take to Deny Reality

By David Codrea

So the million dollar “solution” is some gizmo that will do nothing to prevent it and will call for help after an attack begins, when it may be too late to prevent irreparable trauma, injury or death?

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Didn’t Col. Colt and John Moses Browning take care of this over a century ago?” Glenn Reynolds asks in a Sunday Instapundit post. He’s referring to an ongoing XPrize contest to “design a wearable solution that can keep women safe.”

“The Anu & Naveen Jain Women’s Safety XPRIZE is a $1 million global competition that challenges teams to leverage technology to empower communities with a transformative solution that ensures women’s safety,” the competition overview explains. “Armed with innovative safety nets, communities everywhere can rapidly respond to threats against any of its members, ensuring that help is always available when needed. The winning team’s solution will autonomously and inconspicuously trigger an emergency alert while transmitting information to a network of community responders, all within 90 seconds and at an annual cost of $40 or less.”

In other words, they’re not armed with arms. And the alert won’t even go out until after an attack has had considerable time to progress. Yet the contest sponsors present that “solution” as “transformative,” and actually have either the gall — or the ignorance — to assert that set of conditions “ensures women’s safety.”

90 seconds to activate the network and how long until a capable intervention arrives on scene…? And will they bring chalk and a body bag to save having to make a second call?

For such smart people, the folks behind the prize sure are proposing idiocy if the purpose is for women to survive unharmed. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen ridiculous “solutions offered by those who recommend a woman do anything except defend herself with a gun.

How “escape proof” is this, assuming an enraged rapist won't mind mutilating the wearer to escape?

Several years back, such minds were placing great hopes on the Rapex, “a product worn internally by women. The hollow inside is lined with rows of razor-sharp hooks, which are designed to latch on to a rapist's penis during penetration. They can only be removed by a doctor.”

Its main drawback – you had to actually be raped for it to “work.” And let some maniac pervert with who-knows-what diseases bleed inside you. And be at his mercy, assuming he couldn't just cut his way out of you.

A few years later, a team of engineering students from India came up with electric shock-dispensing anti-rape underwear:

“The underwear, called Society Harnessing Equipment (SHE), deploys a 3,800kV charge to anyone touching the outside of the underwear while protecting the wearer with a polymer lining. It can shock an attacker up to 82 times [and] the bra of this underwear set is equipped with GPS tracking device that can notify cops and family members in real-time in the event of an attack.”

As ridiculously dangerous to and victimizing of women as both of these “solutions” are, they still beat advice given until recently by the Illinois State Police:

It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you [sic] throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.) Use your imagination and you can think of others.

And most “importantly”:

If you must fight Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.

This is still the message women are being subjected to by Michael Bloomberg, with his armed bodyguards (even where most police aren’t armed), and Shannon Watts, with hers.  It’s all part of a conflation effort to make it seem like no one can (who’s not a cop or a bodyguard) be trusted with a gun.

Here are a couple quick fixes for the arguments they raise and the media parrots: If you don’t want a gun in the home to be a greater danger than not having one, don’t live and associate with people engaged in criminal activities. And if you don’t want a gun taken away from you and used against you, get a bit of training. I've been waiting 12 years for this nitwit to put his money where his mouth is.

Talk about a sexist attitude, making that assumption and applying it to all women.  And why should we expect any different from Opposite Day “progressive feminists” ?

The Defender of Virginity

The January 1994 issue of Women & Guns magazine quoted (still in office) District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of 25 women in Congress who sent a letter to the National Rifle Association protesting its then-new “Refuse to be a Victim” program.

“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”

Even if it means rapists and killers can have their way with them.

The undeniable takeaway is that people discouraging self-defense with a firearm would rather see a woman dead than armed. Or a man. One thing you can say about “progressives” – when it comes to denying rights to those they would control, they’re all about equal opportunity.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 16 thoughts on “XPrize Contest Highlights Ludicrous Steps Anti-gunners will take to Deny Reality

    1. i want to meet all the beta testers …sheeesh who’s drinking this bong water who came up with this…. to buy into it you have to be a scientific anomaly ‘the first living brain donor”…any other explanation defies logic …i hope it’s comfy and has an ipod attachment to play rape themed music maybe jaws sound track

    2. Antis have a warped sense of reality. For some reason an unarmed woman who is raped and/or murdered is morally superior to a woman that takes her safety into her own hands and buys/uses a gun for protection. Using a gun to stop a rape is a crime against humanity to these idiots! Women’s advocate Paxton Quigley was an anti-gunner until she was brutally assaulted. That was when she realized it is better to be considered immoral and alive by the left than morally righteous and dead! I have four daughters and I worry about their safety constantly because none of them will take their own safety into their own hands. I pray constantly that they will be safe and hope to God they come to realize how important it is to be able to protect themselves.

    3. One manufacturer of an emergency alert device has a commercial that shows a woman using it in a parking lot to tell the operator that she thinks she’s being followed. The operator tells her that he’ll stay on the line with her. Why? So he can tell the cops where to pick up the body?

    4. these eedjits are just that.. eedjits.

      How many married women would subject themselves to the wearing of that infernal internal contraption, the one needing a doctor to remove it? What, whenever the couple want to do what married folks often do, she has to make an appointment wit her OB GYN to take the thing out, then another to put it back in? THese people inhabit a strange world.

      The Mssrs COlt, Smith, Ruger, Browning, have manufactured the perfect solution to the issue of rape. It is clear a growing mumber of women agree, as they are the fastest growing category of handgun owners.

      I think of that woman who was raped one night at U Nev Reno, just feet away from the cop shop which was closed, as the coppers aren’t about during the times when such things often happen. Her own handgun was locked into her car, also feet away, because Nevada law said it had to be. The response to her testimony in COlorado was frightening: pee on him, scream, stuff your fingers down your throat and barf on him. WHO will be able to DO that in a panic fear for your life scenario? I can’t even do it when I’m calm and trying to.

    5. Everyone is missing the point. It isn’t about protecting women, it is about sowing fear in them and then profiting from that fear. What is clever, is that they hold a contest and get new ideas for free.

    6. I wonder if a device attached to a firearm would be eligible for the prize. Say, for example, an accelerometer could detect recoil and “transmit information”. It could probably be incorporated into a rail mounted light or laser.

      If aligned with the barrel, it would still “transmit information” to the attacker even when the batteries fail. Granted, the muzzle would be transmitting most of the necessary information. However, with the right design, it could be scary enough to be banned in New Jersey and California.

      When the electronic device fails, the noise from the fired rounds would still “trigger an emergency alert”, notifying everyone in the immediate area that a first responder is dealing with an emergency situation.

      1. Speaking of stupid….that picture of Eleanor Holmes….THERE is stupid – and Hypocrisy at it’s peak. She is guarded by guns – but you, the ‘little people’ don’t get the same protection….Liberal Idiot. WHAT do they do for brains…..?/

        1. @BillyBob, from the picture I see Holmes doesn’t need to worry about any sexual advances on her person unless the perp. is blind and totally inept.

    7. Those high-tech devices aren’t designed to prevent a damn thing, but it will be easier to locate the dead bodies so that the victims’ friends and relatives may have “closure”. That’ll make everybody feel better.
      [W3]

    Leave a Comment 16 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *