Claims that Disarmament Benefits Women Leave Out Relevant Facts

Which group of women do you think would be better equipped to demonstrate “common sense gun safety”? (Moms Demand Action / NRA Women Facebook)

U.S.A. – -( on leave of absence last week, I missed out on an event the gun-grabbers consider important: #WEARORANGE 2018. Even so, by culturally appropriating (which “progressives” generally condemn) the outerwear of real gun safety practitioners, it gets confusing trying to also keep up with useful idiots, the political criminals that exploit them, foreign enemies, and unarmed victims of murderous maniacs.

One outlet that didn’t miss out on an opportunity to use the Bloomberg Orange Day as an opportunity to subvert the right to keep and bear arms is, unsurprisingly, The Huffington Post, which deemed it the perfect time to post a claim of “11 Statistics That Remind Us Gun Violence Is A Women’s Issue.”

Keep in mind the truism that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, and the desperation of “women’s rights advocates” to keep “the weaker sex” defenseless becomes perfectly clear.

“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton advocated when protesting NRA’s “Refuse to be a Victim” program. “It should stay that way.”

Besides, who needs guns when no less an authority than the Illinois State Police advised vomiting, plus women have the option of inserting a tube with razor-sharp hooks underneath their electrified underwear?

Ladies, these people really don’t want you armed.  And there’s no shortage of shrill, ignorant women who agree.

Also keep in mind the “lies, damned lies and statistics” adage when looking at the HuffPo numbers. I’ve repeated their claims below, along with questions and challenges they have intentionally have not admitted, let alone addressed:

41 – The number of states that don’t require those prohibited from purchasing a firearm due to domestic violence charges to relinquish the firearms they already own.

“Charges”? Not “convictions”? So “guilty until proven innocent” and ignoring due process are considered “progressive” values?

760 – The number of people killed by firearms annually in the U.S. by intimate partners.

“By firearms”? Not “with”? How many killings were justifiable? How many were mainly attributable to poor judgment in partner selection? How many of the women engaged in criminbal activity themselves? How many killers were already “prohibited by law” from owning a gun?

80 – 80 percent of people killed by firearms annually in the U.S. by intimate partners are women.

Same questions and concerns apply, along with the reality that an enraged male generally does not need a gun to kill a weaker female.

53 – The percentage of intimate partner murders that involve a fatal gunshot.

Same questions and concerns already stated apply.

5 – Domestic violence victims are 5 times more likely to be killed if her partner owns a gun.

“Owns” or “possesses”?  There's a significant difference, you know, that ties directly in to previously stated quesitons and concerns.

16 – A woman in the U.S. is fatally shot by her current or former intimate partner every 16 hours.

See above (again).

44 – The percentage of mass shootings in the years of 2008-2013 that involved intimate partners.

See above plus whose defintion of “mass shooting” is being used here?

11 – American women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm than women in any other developed nation.

Yeah, right, the old “developed” cherry-picked misinformation scam.

65 – The percent of Americans who support barring people from owning a firearm if they’ve been issued a restraining order or have been convicted of stalking.

Not that their numbers aren't fudged (see how real world Question 1 results refuted the “vast majority” claims), but even if they do work, show us the percent who actually understand the issue and the due process considerations.

1 in 3 – The number of women living in domestic violence shelters in California who were threatened or harmed with a firearm by their domestic partners.

See above yet again.

35 – Number of states without laws complementing federal prohibitions against those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence buying or using guns. That can make it harder for local officials to enforce those prohibitions, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

In other words, the number of states where gun-grabbers want to make something that's already illegal illegal?

As usual, the fraudulent indictment against guns deployed in moral private hands makes no mention of defensive gun use.  That's because the gun-grabbers would rather see women (and men) dead than armed, and preferaby shot so they'd have more blood to dance in.

Here's a “statistic” I'd like to see the gun-grabbers tackle:

The number of “guncrimes” (they like to add that qualifier and coin new Orwellian words) committed by the 5 million or so members of the National Rifle Association, arguably the most heavily-armed civilian population on the planet. If guns really are the issue, you'd think turnover due to membership bloodbaths would make daily headlines, and the Annual Meetings would make the Red Wedding look like a little girl's tea party.

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense that the most fanatically enthusiastic enemies of women defending themselves are Opposite Day “progressive feminists.”

About David Codrea: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.

  • 18 thoughts on “Claims that Disarmament Benefits Women Leave Out Relevant Facts

    1. The Bill of Rights is non negotiable. These rights are given by God, not man. Women are generally less physically strong than determined criminals. Guns help level the playing field. Anyone who denies women God given rights is against humanity and God. Think before you support evil policies.

    2. Good article. For years I have been telling people that the biggest proponents of gun control and gun confiscation, that is women and the weak, will also be the most victimized by it. Should confiscation come to pass the saying that “God created man, Sam Colt made them equal” will finally be etched into the psyche of those too weak of vision and slight of knowledge of history or the human condition, to comprehend it now – too late, but none the less, finally realized. If you fear the night now, just wait until you are known to be defenseless.

      1. Anyone knowing what organised crime “stand-over men” are alike protection systems will understand that the AKA “weak” as you call it are as much as “male physically fit general laborers” after firearms control !
        It is also the system monarchy and any elitist sovereignty uses while leaving the bulk of population defenseless (with a valueless civil status) and solving all crimes after they occur never moving before occurrence.

    3. So David, Did you format this article with all of the red type links? What an idiotic choice. It makes it near impossible to read.
      But, of late you have taken on a more tabloid journalism and twitter style of writing. Just collect a bunch of tweets and post them as an article. So disjointed.

        1. My eyes can focus fine. David tends to get a bit full of himself sometimes. He could have put the links at the bottom as footnotes. Plenty of people struggle to see black when a bold color like red is blaring at you. His twitter style writing does not go with his ‘award winning journalism.’

          1. I think that we are all here because we are concerned about our Second Amendment Civil Rights, our Civil Rights in general, gun fun, and enjoy good conversation. I don’t know is twitter style really important?

          2. How about checking with your Medicare plan on your jitter bug for a checkup instead of going on a tirade against the best 2A writer and reporter around? Links in red should not be causing you to throw a tantrum and saying that it is impossible to read – the problem is your eyes and your bad attitude. Considering how much good codrea has done, including breaking and keeping alive Fast and Furious, I would say he is far too humble and is not as full of himself as he should be.

            1. Cordrea is not a good writer. He is a prolific writer. He does not organize his columns with any form of subject development.
              He just compiles a bunch of thoughts or tweets and calls them an article or a column. He writes with too much ‘in the know’ information left unstated.
              But then, those who are ignorant to recognizing quality subject development would be hard pressed to understand visual processing in the brain.
              Some of us have been taught proper communication in the political realm. There is little value in writing/preaching to the choir. They are already believers. The writer should be writing so those he is trying to inform and even change can understand what he is saying.
              Many think his writing is good because they agree with his comments or already know the information he is passing on so they do not have to try to sort through the incomplete or convoluted information he presents.
              Maybe the Ammoland readers need to experience some good writing. Unfortunately, there is not much online. The standards for online writers appears to be based on whether a writer can write a captivating headline so the ads get views when the link is clicked.

            2. You are incorrect about a number of things, as usual. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be accomplished politically without first solidifying like minded types – aka the base. The last one hundred years of history shows this to be the case over and over again. This is even more true today than ever with the power of the mainstream media.

              You remind me of the pearl clutching neo cons who said the same thing about trump and how he had no chance to win by appealing to the base on issues like immigration. Hint: those people are the majority, just like with gun rights, despite manipulated media coverage to the contrary. Sites like and preached to the choir, and in the process gave talking points and into for trump to defeat the Clinton machine. Without those two sites providing direct lines of attack and info – not to mention an entire election strategy – trump does not win.

              Besides, how do you expect info to be spread or get out past media gatekeepers if there is not a large number of pro gun people armed with the correct info? What exactly do you think codrea should be doing? Besides just your usual whining, give some actual examples of what you would do to address people who can be converted by your magical writing skills. Tell us what sites, what you would say, and exactly how you would say it. No more complaining without specifics other than the color of the text hurting your eyes!

              Please advise us as to who you feel is a good writer. I can’t wait to see this!

            3. @Idadho, If you don’t like this author, don’t read his writings. This portion of the choir enjoys the author, and the inside information that I don’t get from other sources.
              There a hell of a lot of worse writers around, many on the S.Ct.

    4. Tere is one hole in their rhetoric wide enough to sail a Supertanker through….

      NOWHERE do they define the term “intimate partner”. Does it include a barfly who drinks a few too many with some craxy horny dude, then lets him follow her home for a cozy sleep=in? Does in include apair of college kids at a frat party, finding a corner together? Co-workers who slip into a casual hookup? An old crazy “girlfriend” from fifteen years ago? How about a female renting a room in a house happening to be owned by a male, with no sexual component to the “relationship” which is purely commercial? ALL of these could fall within some definitions of “intimate partner”, and most fall into the “acceptible” categories for “reporters” in the new Red Flag laws. Could even include a grandmother and her violent grandson, who do not evel live in the same home. they are “family members” ad thus could be IP’s under some forms of the term.

      Cast the net widely enough we could ALL be “intimate partners” with someone….

      Funny thing, though.. these same uptight upright Mad Mamas never seem to supoort programmes that teach young women to live by anything even remotely related to biblical moral standards. If THOSE standards were to be upheld, the casual hookups and co-dependency “relationships” tht tnd toward the violence they (rightly) abhor would all but cease. But they wonder why, when “Friends” and “City” are allowed to define proper conduct then real people play those same bedroom games, confusion, rejection, hurt feelings, and villence ensue…. all of which they blame on the piece of hardware used to perpetrate the )abhorrent) violence that is part and parcel of such “relationships”. Have these Mad Mamas thought to examine the statistics of “intimate partner murders” in other nations where guns are all but prohibited (e.g. England, Australia, South Africa, Germany) and where other “tools” are used to acheive the same end….
      Probably, just like they never compare Canada’s gross suicide rate to that of the US< only the "gun suicide" rates.. never mid Canadians are all but prohibited handguns so they use other "tools"…….

      I learned in a college class in statistics that the science can be used to prove nearly anything…. both sides of the same issue can be proven with the same raw numbers. But these dimwit femayles are too emotional to realise they are mere puppets on strings, being played for all they're worth, just like the jerk on the sitcom plays on her emotions to get the new "her" into the sack every week.

    5. Good point about NRA members and crime. How many NRA members are involved in any type of crime, and what is the comparison with the remainder of the population? We already know some of the info for CCW holders. Sadly while knowing the data would be informative it would not matter much in terms of the polarization of the anti-gun folks. Facts are not a persuasive argument for those ruled by emotion, fear, and the elite who “know better.”

      1. Great points, but next time add this one in the category of “motivating factors”:

        your final line:
        Facts are not a persuasive argument for those ruled by emotion, fear, and the elite who “know better.”

        one additional factor of great signficance: the MONEY dangled in front of them by the progressive professioinal disarmament operatives like Soros and Bloomie. MONEY can be a powerful motivator. What’s why we’ve got a busload of silly kids and their handlers travelling the country right now (targetting 75 cities across the natioin) playing their tear-jerk charade to disarm us all. NONE have considered what reality would look like when no one but government are lawfully armed (I qualify that because I KNOW they will never find and collect all 400,000,000 plus guns in private hands. Not enough paid agents and time to accomplish that.

    6. Personal protection is last on the liberals list of necessary things. Their first concern is getting the guns out of our hands so they can make subjects out of we citizens. If criminals kill a few in the process, oh well.

    7. Missouri Born… Really? You are actually blaming women for this? So, in your world fathers have no responsibility in raising their children? There are good and bad people from good families, and good and bad people from bad families. Imagine a court system where every criminal just said, “It was my mother’s fault.” Your logic is extremely off. Please read some books on logic, generalization, common sense, etc. When you do that, you will be embarrassed at your post.

    8. Bad people do bad things and sometimes with a gun but who raised these people…..Women…they had a chance of molding that person to be a upright honest caring person who knows the difference between right and wrong.
      Not the guns fault if it was used badly it was the woman teacher to blame.

    9. An elderly female relative of mine stopped a home invasion attempt by a drugged out man half her age only by pointing a handgun at him. It took 20 mins for the police to finally arrive despite her calling as soon as the man started trying to kick in her door. She would probably be dead now if not for a firearm, and I will guarantee this stat was not recorded by the feds or anyone else as a defensive gun use. Are the female loud mouths who take Bloomberg and Soros money saying they would prefer she be disarmed and murdered so they can virtue signal to fellow yuppie left wing hipsters?

    Leave a Comment 18 Comments