“Karen represents a common dilemma for gun control — as a woman in the city, in a particularly crime-filled area, she owns a gun because she feels unsafe. This isn’t an uncommon dilemma for women. In a society that is outright violent towards women in sexual, emotional, and physical ways, many women would rather compromise on their opinion of guns than end up another news headline.” – Tomi Nabach in What THE PUNISHER Teaches Us About Gun Control [via comicverse.com]
” many women would rather compromise on their opinion of guns than end up another news headline.”
…but many of them are still comfortable proclaiming one thing to be right (take guns away from honest citizens) while doing the opposite (insisting on protecting themselves and their children with effective weapons).
The gist I took from the quoted article is gun “privileges” can be justified on a needs-only basis, redounding primarily (or exclusively) to women, minorities, and other oppressed and/or victimized groups. Conversely, the individual right to keep and bear arms by ordinary (white male) citizens is seen as the primary cause of gun violence, especially mass-murders, which means you-know-what. Sound vaguely familiar?
Like so much else in the liberal/leftist ideology, it’s “rights for me, but not for thee.”
you would think the party that supposed to be for “minorities” would be far bigger fans of the 14th amendment
Did we read the same quote? You’re doing some crazy English 400 level deep reading to get some of these hidden meanings about the left and gun rights.
Perhaps the quote is just telling us how a person from a comic book, who’d otherwise not have a gun, would come to be armed. And how the character shows many who wouldn’t understand, a common reasoning that leads to a woman arming herself.
We read the same quote, K42INSEA, but unlike you, I delved into the quoted article, as noted. My comments, for good or ill, were based on the larger context, not merely the quote. My advice to you is devote more time to reading comprehension before posting.
Looks to me like it’s not a compromise then! If you are truly anti-gun you won’t own one right! Guess the gun is not such a bad think then is it?
So rather than being supportive of the women who have acknowledged reality, this author prefers to call them out as hypocrites.
…only the ones who exercise reality in private and demand fantasy in government.
Don’t disagree. Didn’t much like the series because it felt like a ham handed attempt to graft an anti-gun message into a very pro-gun character.
“In a society that is outright violent towards women in sexual, emotional, and physical ways”
I’m tired of this outright bull crap where so called progressives make this country seem like it’s Somalia or something. I commit no “outright violence” of any sort against women – at all – and resent them painting the rest of us as if we’re part of the badly behaving “elite”.
You touched (sorry) on the first thing that came to my mind: that we all (read: men) are committing violence on women just by being alive. Um, not hardly.
When you make the guidelines so broad that any can be included, then the guidelines are meaningless.
Heavens! Your male privilege is showing!
The idea of gun control has always baffled me—well, the average citizen supporting it, anyway. I understand the desire of a government to disarm the populace. A disarmed populace is easier to control.
But an average person? What gives? I think these people are laboring under the confused belief that people who are commit acts of violence will be dissuaded from doing so by removing firearms. As Britain shows us, that’s a fallacy. But if someone is a truly dangerous person, someone who is comfortable with fighting, or is a large man capable of physically dominating most opponents, I understand not wanting to rely on a firearm. I doubt Wladimir Klitscho worries about being mugged.
But a woman? Someone who has to worry about being raped and murdered every time she walks across a parking lot? They seem mentally ill not to want to take control of their own safety.
Hell, nobody is going to kidnap and rape ME, and I don’t leave the house without a pistol.
I think these people are also laboring under the misguided belief that those committing violence in general and violence with firearms specifically represent a significant percentage of the gun owning population. This is, I believe, where they come up with the notion that reducing the availability of some firearms would have a notable impact on violence – this is simply not the case. There are hundreds of *millions* of firearms and gun owners and tens to hundreds of thousands of violent acts committed with firearms – three orders of magnitude of separation.
I think that these people believe that if you halved the number of guns in the country you would halve the number of gun-related crimes. It just does not work that way. If you halve the number of guns, there is still three orders of magnitude between the number of guns and the number of gun crimes.
Among the reasons people choose a gun for self defense is that they have – whether consciously or not – performed a simple calculus:
Having a gun can provide me with a tool to help prevent an individual act of violence against myself.
My having a gun to protect myself does not contribute to violence in general.
My having a gun to protect myself does not present a notable risk to me.
Therefore, I’ll get a gun to protect myself.
The gun controllers regularly try to attack each of these points.
They claim that having a gun won’t help protect you – i.e. The bad guy will just take it and use it against you.
They claim that gun owners having guns contributes to violence in general – i.e. The NRA is a terrorist organization, or, crime is driven by the ‘ready availability’ of guns.
They claim owning a gun presents a significant risk to the owner – i.e You’re more likely to harm yourself or a family member than protect them or yourself if you have a gun.
Their entire objective with these types of statements is to undermine the individual gun owner’s confidence in the calculus they have performed and to prevent potential gun owners from engaging in that calculus at all.
Those of us in the solidly pro-civil rights camp have probably forgotten that there are several rational steps to getting here:
Who is responsible for YOUR safety? It takes a bit of explaining to a low-level gun bigot to help them realise that the one responsible is not the government – but themselves. And yet another moment to explain WHY it cannot be the government in any case.
If you are responsible for your own safety, how will you do it? What is your plan? This requires still more explaining and maybe even a bit of hands-on training to demonstrate that not only is that bigot-in-transition in need of the proper tools to defend herself, but she is quite competent to do so once equiped.
It can be a long, tough process to get a bigot onto our side, one that requires a patient instructor and a bit of financial resources (guns and good education ain’t free) as well as the determination to expend those resources on learning about a subject they are uncomfortable with.
It’s not easy for the erstwhile bigot to start down that path, we should do whatever we can to make it as easy and pleasant a lesson as possible.
🤠
The left is so good at euphemisms. Now hypocrisy is a ‘compromise’.
…as a woman in the city, in a particularly crime-filled area, she owns a gun because she feels unsafe.
Typically those “Crime Filled Areas” of which they speak are occupied by cultures that don’t have the same regard for females as Western Civilization.
Want to end a vast majority of “gun violence”, and keep women safe? Stop letting 3rd worlders into the West and repatriate the ones that are here.
“Wilson [eta: the young angry vet] is a way for THE PUNISHER to examine how pro-gun sentiments grab people who don’t need gun rights. Why “pro-gun” has become associated with the entitlement of white men or inherent violence, to the point that it sweeps away the history of black people fighting for guns to protect their own livelihoods, the desire of women to defend against abusers or rapists, and even the need of poor people to have the capability to hunt.”
Maybe the author should spend a bit less time doing an in-depth review on a TV series and more time doing even a cursory review of the differences between “rights” and “needs”.
“ ___ represents a common dilemma for gun control — as a ___ in the city, in a particularly crime-filled area, he/she owns a gun because he/she feels unsafe. This isn’t an uncommon dilemma for ___. In a society that is outright violent towards ___ in many questionable ways.”
FIFY
Why is it only women? Why is it a compromise? Why can’t it be prudent thinking?
This really is a dilemma for the leftist. If they say that men are pigs then they must acknowledge the existence of evil. If you acknowledge the existence of evil, then it follows that people have a right to protect themselves from it.
And in a violent encounter where the use of deadly force is justified to defend life, there is no better tool for self-defense than a firearm.
Actually they won’t always come to that conclusion some, like the example below, will come to the conclusion that the best tool for the job will be the one that requires much more physicality and they will justify it with any amount of mental gymnastics they can bring to bear. Later, I met the cop in question and asked him what in the hell was he thinking suggesting a pregnant woman try to take on an attacker with a knife and his answer was something to the effect of at that distance there is no difference between a knife and a gun, the knife won’t over penetrate, and it doesn’t take as much skill with a knife as it does with a shotgun. Seriously… that was his argument for why a pregnant woman should try to rush and stab or slash an attacker rather than pump a couple rounds into his worthless carcass.
A couple years back when I was still renting a house and before my daughter was born, an unknown asshole tried to rip our front door down while I was at work. MRS.ATFAgentBob being the woman of action she is immediately retrieved the Mossberg 500 from our gun closet, posted up in the hallway covering the front door and dialed the local police. She gave him a quick sitrep saying she was armed he was trying to get inside and she needed a police presence. Well the police arrived 30 minutes later after said asshole had gotten tired of rattling the door and left, and told my very visibly pregnant wife (bout 6 months along at that point) that should that occur again she should eschew the shotty, pistol, or rifle options and instead grab a good long knife. Thankfully she ignored that advice and began to home carry either a Ruger LC9s, SCCY CPX2, or RIA M1911A1. I can only imagine what would’ve happened should she have taken that advice he gave to heart and had to defend the homestead with a knife while in the later terms of pregnancy.
Meanwhile the copper probably also carries a knife as a last ditch weapon…
Knives have a place. The situation you described sure as hell isn’t one of them.
I’ve been known to carry knives and there are defense knives (weird term but that closest I can come to describing their purpose in the home) in the house but when she has been taught to run everything I own and is more accurate with small pistols than me I see no problem with her placing 3-31 rounds of 9mm, 45ACP, 45 long, 12 gauge buck, 7.62×39, or 5.56 into a man sized target at ranges WELL under 4 yards… seriously that’s almost impossible to miss with anything I own. Knives though are only for last ditch all guns out of ammo or broken enemy close in type situations. Back when she was pregnant though I made sure she knew that should that have happened again she should grab the AK with a red dot, the little bandolier with 3 spare mags in it, AND a pistol just incase she really had to rain some hate. I just found it incredibly stupid that a cop would suggest such a thing to a pregnant woman and then legitimately try to defend it, the guy had to be a friggin moron and I’m sure both his wife and the coke whore he knocked up in the local trailer park have pistols with which to defend themselves should someone break in.
I’ll bet HIS wife has a gun and knows how to handle it…
I’m sure both his wife and the coke whore he knocked up in the local trailer park have pistols with which to defend themselves should someone break in.
Already covered that….
I liked the series, that being said, it did seem rather odd that they tried to throw in some anti gun stuff with the Senator ( super liberal anti gun), the “Vietnam vet” ( stolen valor and the kid eventually kills him), and Wilson (the kid with PTSD and issues readapting to civilian life) but over all I think it struck a pretty neutral tone and seems to go more along the line of don’t trust the government especially those shady CIA types. I did find the episode involving the senator and the reporter describing an attack made on them by Wilson to be very interesting and a little too true to be funny. The senator lies through his teeth trying to make himself appear to be the hero of the situation while the reporter actually engages Wilson before Frank makes his appearance. Also the female DHS agent is freaking hot! I rate her at roughly 6 elbows*.
Elbows rating system: How many times the wife will elbow me in the ribs while watching scenes involving said actress due to comments made by me or amount of drool puddled on the floor.
Chicks tend to have the same conflicted feelings over my junk! Ohhhh!
I can understand why anyone in a high crime area might have a problem with firearms. Seeing some of these wannabe tough guys playing around with firearms would turn most people off to them, so they don’t want them around.
These people should check out proper gun safety and then realize that these deadly playthings are really tools that can save your life as well as others lives. I think that gun stores should get with ranges and offer a free basic safety class with every purchase. This would train the buyer and introduce them to a range where they can continue to hone shooting skills.
Sadly, many of these high crime areas do not have a shooting range within the area, so the new gun owner will have to travel.
Man I’m happy I don’t have a “conflicted” gal. “A double-minded man(or woman!) is unstable in all his ways”. Picking up a handgun for my wife in a few hours. I’ve a leftard “gun for me but not for thee wife” …now she’s old and alone. The wonders of public FB.
Little Tomi says “society” is violent towards women. Does little Tomi need:
A) a dictionary?
B) some serious medication?
C) more than a third grade education?
D) all of the above?
Like much of the left Tomi wants to be as much of a victim as possible. Therefore whatever Tomi is “society” obviously marginalizes. She’s female, therefore society stomps all over females therefore Tomi has validation of self.
Whatever I am the other is against. This is an absolute truth. It has to be. Otherwise I am nothing.
There are “hetero/cis/white/males” on the left who feel “society” marginalizes them simply because they are on the left. If you’re not some sort of victim you’re not a lefty.
My wife’s conflictions are more expensive. Single or double stack, FN or H&K, .40 or .45.
If you’re looking to a Hollywood movie to teach you anything about anything, you’ve already missed the point.
You just hit the nail on the head and brought up a thought. When the hell did we start looking to movies and other works of FICTION as arbiters of the values and beliefs we should hold? When did these works written (ripped off) and filmed to make a profit start to become the preeminent teaching tools for values, beliefs, and morals?
I’m MORTIFIED!
You mean to say women are unwilling to be RAPED and MURDERED to further “the narrative”???
I’m shocked, I say, SHOCKED!!!
It’s sad we live in a society where a woman feels the need to be armed
There is always a need to be armed.
Indeed…
so, until society is all better, maybe put yr energy into fixing society, rather than stopping people from dealing themselves with what you can’t or won’t fix.
Living yr life “as if” society was some way it’s not is kinda like walking off a pier, “as if” … the pier kept going, there wasn’t water past the end of it, you were a fish.
Comments are closed.