Get PJ Media on your Apple

Guns: The ‘Great Equalizer’ for Women

Two pro-gun women explain their love of shooting and the Second Amendment.

by
Patrick Richardson

Bio

April 29, 2013 - 12:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

In a March article (which PJ Media covered here), Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson claimed:

To target urban and suburban women, gunmakers have adopted a two-pronged marketing strategy. One: Feminizing the weapons by dressing them up in hot pink. Two: Marketing powerful guns to women as the only surefire protection against sexual and violent predators. Shooting Industry Magazine publishes a column called “Arms and the Woman,” which advises that “every gun store should have at least one pink gun on display.” This is a crowded field: Sig Sauer offers a ladies’ version of its conceal-carry “Mosquito” pistol with a “pink-coated polymer frame” that it calls “the ideal choice for hours of shooting fun.” In a similar vein, GunGoddess.com sells a kit to trick out an assault weapon with a pink hand guard, pistol grip and butt stock — transforming an AR-15 into something that looks like it belongs at a Hello Kitty convention.

The implication was that women are such fickle, emotional creatures that something as simple as a pink frame is all it takes to woo female shooters, and further, that anyone so easily manipulated should never own one. Had any conservative made such a statement, he — or she — would have been harshly denounced as a misogynist.

Fifteen-year-old Morrigan Sanders, who was pictured in the Rolling Stone article — she was never contacted by Dickinson — said:

The Second Amendment is a way to defend ourselves personally as well as against an oppressive government.

PJ Media contacted two other female shooters to discuss the issue: Gail Sanders, mother of Morrigan and wife of Baen author Michael Z. Williamson; and Regis Giles, owner and creator of Girls Just Wanna Have Guns, a blog devoted to the Second Amendment and women.

Sanders described gun rights as being central to freedom:

The Second Amendment represents our ability to protect ourselves from our government. I’m not personally worried about foreign invaders because other countries know that Americans are armed.

Giles:

In short, the Second Amendment is important because it serves as a reminder for the government. All government officials know that if they have an armed society to deal with, those are people not easily controlled.

During the recent debates in Colorado regarding magazine and “assault weapons” bans, state legislator Evie Hudak (D) told a rape victim that because she was overpowered by her attacker and was unable to defend herself with her martial arts skills, the attacker would have likely taken her gun from her if she had one (watch video here). The victim, Amanda Collins, noted she was there and Hudak was not — and said she was absolutely sure she could have defended herself with a concealed weapon.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (23)
All Comments   (23)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
When politicians start thinking the only people that should be allowed access to deadly force are gubmint employees then freedom and liberty are in grave danger.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think the pink guns came about more or less as a joke. Making fun of the Evil looking assault weapons meme pushed by the gun control crowd. I'm sure they know it too. I mean who could ever be afraid of a silly looking pink gun? Toy cap guns now have to have a red ring around the end of the barrel so that idiots can tell them from the real thing but people still get shot for pointing cell phones in the wrong direction at the wrong time. I think it was in New York a man was shot because he had his wallet out digging for his ID and the cops thought it was a weapon.

As to having to use a weapon to defend against an out of control government, I really doubt it could be nationwide and I can't see it coming down to citizens having to fight the Army. They are called citizen soldiers for a reason. Only a small percentage of our military are what you would call professional soldiers and even they are citizens first. Sure, someone could point out such things as Kent State but you have to remember the National Guard involved were being pelted with rocks and bottles and there were reports of shots fired before the National Guard opened fire.

That said, if through some strange twist of fate it ever did come down to fighting against the Army, our hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns would be used first to take out as many individual soldiers as possible to get to their weapons. From there to their heavy support weapons and so on. We have enough military veterans in this country to quickly form the people up and soon make it a fair fight. That could be why the gun grabbers are not only after our guns but are now trying to list returning veterans as suspected terrorists.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I get that a pink gun may be more attractive to a woman than a black, silver or chrome one. But is a gun's ability to match a woman's hair/nails/purse/shoes REALLY anywhere near as important as what the gun does? Will women really decline to buy a gun because it ISN'T a color that coordinates with her hair/nails/purse/shoes? If so, maybe she doesn't really want a gun to protect herself and her loved ones but simply because it is a trendy fashion accessory.

My other concern is safety. If a gun is painted a non-standard color - ANY non-standard color, not just pink - isn't it likely to be treated with diminished respect? It seems to me that some people may think it is not "real". It's not hard to imagine a child finding a pink gun in mommy's purse and thinking it is a toy. The consequences of pointing and maybe firing this "toy" at a friend or family member are pretty horrible.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It's not hard to imagine a child finding a pink gun in mommy's purse and thinking it is a toy."

Fortunately you don't have to imagine it. They've been marketing these weapons for years now, more than enough time for some data to accumulate. If you have some evidence that people owning colorful guns are more careless or accident-prone I'm willing to look at it.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have no statistics and I didn't know that there were significant numbers of these guns around. I was just "worrying out loud" about the implications. I would be delighted to find that this is not a cause for concern.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Perhaps. In my childhood, from the time I was a toddler, I knew where every gun was kept in our house. My father made sure we knew and then explained in terms that could not be mistaken what dire punishment would ensue if we even got near one of the places where a gun or ammo was kept. I got a few spankings just because I paused near a gun for a few seconds when I was little. It might seem harsh, but I avoided those things like the plague. It did matter what I was doing, just getting near one guaranteed a spanking without warning or recourse. Worked better than child locks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Please cite to a list of these "non-standard colors"? Some legal definition or industry-association agreement?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Are cars in "non-standard colors" "treated with diminished respect"?

P.S. There are lots of "toy guns" in "standard colors" of black, brown, nickel/chrome, camo. Do they cause guns in "standard colors" to be "treated with diminished respect"?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There was a guy with the last name of Gay that used to race on a circle track in San Diego. Painted his car pink. Had his own fancy concrete slab for his car to sit on and in general played up on the entire 'his name is Gay' thing.

Pink cars. Not manly.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Non-standard colors" is just a phrase I made up as a shorthand for guns that aren't the regular colors, like black, silver or chrome.

Look, I may be wrong and if I am, I apologize. I was just expressing concern that guns that look like toys might be mistaken for toys. That seems like a reasonable concern to me; maybe it's not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Waco happened 100 miles from my house. That group of people had lived in peace among the "bitter clingers"- clinging to their Bible at Baylor, and their guns- among fundamentalist Baptists for over half a century. The Branch Davidians had lived at peace amongst the fundamentalists. It took, what, two years with a hard-left Democrat in charge, to have the government burning down their compound, killing all of their children?

One gun won't stop an Army tank. It will stop a criminal. It will also force me to think about responsible citizenship- including, say, pointing out criminal politicians, and criminally bad ideas circulating among some groups of politicians.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A further note about the article: the mosquito is a .22 caliber. Labeling as a concealed carry weapon is near laughable. At best it is a plinker and handy for small pests.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Would I rather have a .45 than a .22? Hell yes. But would I rather have a .22 than nothing? Hell yes. And for a 5'2", 95lb. woman carring something in a major caliber may not be practical.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I own a Mosquito. It is a fine pistol for plinking. However, even for the 5'5" 90lb woman, I would recommend something else. A J frame S&W, Kahr, one of the smaller glocks, or something comparable. In the same weight and physical footprint, there are options south better ballistics that would better serve for a concealed on person carry weapon.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A knife might be better.

A .22 pocket pistol is a concealed carry weapon. it is a toss-up whether it or a .25 Auto is the worst gun to carry. Having said that, if all you are wearing is a bathing suit and the attacker is not so stoned that he realizes it will hurt really bad to get shot by either one, they are options. There have been successful defenses made with both calibers. A last choice, but still a choice.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
My wife is one of this new wave of female concealed carry permit holders. I have had a carry permit for many years, but my wife had never shown any interest in firearms. In the past year, entirely on her own, she decided that it was time to take training and be able to protect herself. I sleep easier knowing that, when I cannot be there to watch over her, she is armed and ready to take care of herself.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Every tyrannical government on Earth has this in common, a disarmed citizenry. No exceptions folks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have to say that while I'm completely anti-gun control, I'm also not convinced that private possession of firearms allows the citizenry much defense against the government, should it ever turn against us. The army has artillery, tanks, helicopters, planes, if it comes to that nukes. The citizens have semi-auto "assault weapons." If it ever does come down to that sort of confrontation it won't be pretty, but it'll be quick.

However, I am firmly convinced that self-defense is an issue here. The various Democrat arguments against this idea--that self-defense with a firearm is possible--are so silly as to defy belief. if you're never going to be able to defend yourself with a gun, then why do off-duty cops carry them? The argument defies belief; it's even harder to believe that intelligent people make the argument. Either they think we're very stupid, or they're not so bright themselves.

Democratic politics have devolved to the point that now, the argument is over whether the government should do *everything* for you. It should provide you with health care, personal security, a job, and soon I imagine food, clothing and shelter. Those favored few who are close to politicians and truly rich people (the 1% the Dems hate, and then solicit campaign contributions from) will be safe, have good healthcare, and of course wear elegant clothes, live in big houses, etc. The rest of us will be equally bad off, and it will all be the fault of some nameless faceless "other", e.g. the Koch brothers, so that the Dems and their billionaire friends can live in peace.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You don't go up against tanks with only rifles. You use the rifle to obtain anti-tank weapons, attack the supply convoys (tanks don't do much without fuel, parts or ammo), attack the support troops and their trucks, etc.

The term of art is "asymmetric warfare". See Iraq/Afghanistan/Viet Nam, etc. And note that we now have many thousands (perhaps millions) of people in the Civilian population with graduate-level empirical knowledge of these tactics.....
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In February 1986, in the Philippines, they sent grandmothers and grandchildren against the tanks. If they sent men, there would have been a bloodbath. The unarmed grandmothers disarmed the soldiers without any injuries. The government toppled. Superior firepower does not guarantee victory.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You make the assumption that all the military and police would align against the citizenry. Not likely. There would be enough dissent within the ranks to make things dicey for the government. Wouldn't be long before many of those weapons systems you named would be turned around and used in support of the citizenry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And what professional knowledge of the subject are you basing this on? What makes you think the government can defeat the citizenry? Please describe the process, in detail, with cites. Your homework will be graded.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If I were ever to consider standing against the government, I wouldn't be some crazy lone wolf mailing packages, attacking mailmen or federal buildings. Such people disgust me. It's just stupid and accomplishes nothing but suicide or imprisonment. For something to get me thinking of rebelling, I would want a fairly big portion of the citizenry, including governors, legislators, mayors, sheriffs, policeman, military officers and such to be on my side. Private possession of firearms is a check on government, but won't accomplish anything on its own without wide support. The American Revolution was possible because whole towns and counties and colonies favored the revolt. Popular rebellions work. A few hotheads just annoy people, fail to interest anyone in their cause and end up in prison or dead.

Defense against threats foreign and domestic does not mean just defending against the French and Spanish and American Natives that the original colonial militias were formed to protect against. It also means being able to defends one's home and family and property. If you use a gun for protection, know well the laws of your state, or you the victim will be the one in jail. Politicians and the extremely rich don't have any real need for a gun to protect themselves. They live in gated communities, work in guarded buildings and have security guards and body guards. That's fine, but they shouldn't be telling everyone else they don't need guns either.

As for hunting, that's just a sport for the majority of people. I know a few people who live far from any stores who get their meat by hunting, but they are a rare few.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All