It's a funny point. Risk is a part of life, and the State trying to make you "better" for your own good is tyrannical.
But that link came from a French Canadian who is verymuch in support of gun control. Meaning he thinks "abstinence only" is perfectly valid with guns.
Abstinence only Sex Ed: Insane.
Absoinance only Water Safety: A funny joke.
Abstinence only Self Defense: Progressive.
Replace drowning with "gun deaths", and you see the same nonsense: the gun will be taken away from you, having a gun in the house makes it more likely that you'll get shot, if you carry a gun you must be inviting trouble.
The whole "Nobody should have guns" sounds awfully familiar don't it?
Here you have a person that demands a woman should be able to abort a fetus conceived when she was raped. A gruesome situation, but fair enough. You want to be compassionate to the woman that was raped. Even to the cost of the potential citizen of the fetus, but just focus on the woman.
Because, the same person then demands that this woman be forbidden from carrying a gun....
Something that could have prevented said rape.
Yes, if you fight back you might not win. That doesn't mean it was your fault that you were attacked, but not fighting back drops the odds of winning down to zero. Don't depend on the kindness and self-restraint of someone willing to break the most fundamental parts of the social compact.
And the right tools really help improve your odds. Especially if your attacker is a foot taller and fifty pounds heavier. At the very least a gun in the right hands would have put the attacker and the potential victim on an equal footing force wise.
Or is killing rapists and having the risk of more guns in the hands of regular people too... "socially upsetting"?
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have more dead rapists than more rape victims.
Here's the saddest part. Canada does have Conceal Carry on the books. And one of the provisions for their Authorization to Carry licence is to enable women that have been victimized to be able to carry guns for self defense.
A permit has never been issued on those grounds.
I'll repeat that. Despite there being a Canadian Carry Permit, despite it having a provision to enable victimized women to defend themselves. A permit has never been issued on those grounds.
Apparently that's how it works in Canada:
In Canada, unless you're an armed car guard or a trapper, to gain an "Authorization to Carry" you would have to make a strong case that your life or that of a loved one was in imminent danger from one or more other individuals, that police protection was not sufficient in the circumstances, and that your possession of the firearm could reasonably be justified for protecting you or your loved ones from death or grievous bodily harm.
So burley he-men like trappers and security gaurds can carry but women cannot?
No war-on-women there.
If Akin is so evil for not wanting rape victims to get abortions, how evil are all the gun control people that don't want rape victims to carry guns? Or potential rape victims, or regular people who don't want to be victimized?
Or is that not "legitimate self defense"?
Is suck it up, tough it out, and think of England only a compassionate stance when talking about the rape itself? Does it only only become barbaric when telling the woman to suffer though the ensuing pregnancy?
Carry your damn guns.