When Sandy Hook happened this past December, it broke the nation's heart, it kick started a movement to actually get something of significance done on gun safety for the first time in over a decade, and it also brought out all of the fervent gun rights advocates, those with legitimate rights and concerns as well as the crazies who are just convinced that a gun will solve every problem and/or Obama is imminently planning on personally busting down their doors to take their arsenals.
I'm not even going to try and touch on the latter group of crazies, because, as was so eloquently pointed out on MSNBC the other day, it's just inane circular logic wherein these people feel the need to amass huge amounts of guns to stop Obama or the liberals or whoever from taking their guns and they think those people will take away their guns because they have these huge arsenals to protect themselves from the liberal takeover and so they buy lots of guns to stop said takeover...and on and on the crazy merri-go-round spins.
But I've been wanting to write a blog post to/about that other group of crazies, the ones who think a gun will solve every problem, for a long time now. See, a few months back, I idiotically got into this Twitter argument with a bunch of trolls who were convinced that if every woman just owned and constantly carried a gun, rapes and sexual assaults would somehow cease to exist. In their mind, every situation of attempted and completed rape, assault, or abuse is cut and dry, the woman can totally see it coming, and will have the time and wherewithal to get to her gun and take out her attacker.
And, sure, in some situations, that could probably work. The stereotypical story of the creepy trench coat dude jumping out of the bushes in front of the woman could maybe be halted by a well-armed and well-trained woman. But even in that situation (which is actually fairly rare as most sexual assaults are perpetrated by acquaintances), if the woman successfully takes out the guy, the cops would show up, and what would they find? A woman with a concealed-carry weapon, evidence that she's just fired it, the bullet having killed her attacker. Depending on how early in the attack she fired, the woman may not even have the slightest scratch on her. So instead of the oh-so-common 'he said, she said' situation, all the cops will see is 'she said, he's dead.' And while, in some cases, the cops might believe the woman or she might be able to successfully be acquitted because the jury believes she acted in self-defense, in all likelihood, there would be far too many cases where the woman would end up in jail. It's hard enough for women to convince a cop, a judge, or a jury that she was attacked when the guy is alive and well and there is at least some evidence that an assault occurred. But when all that you have is a woman, alive and well, and a dead body, chances are that the woman would end up in jail more often than not.
And that's just the fairly unrealistic, cut-and-dry, relatively uncommon stranger rape situation. What about the far too frequent situations where the woman knows her attacker? Whether it's a current or former paramour, a father, a grandfather, a pimp, or a 'john.'
And I personally know someone who has been in every one of the situations that I've just listed.
And I can promise you, a gun would not have helped. In fact, it would've made it far, far worse.
One of my family members was in a domestic violence relationship for years. And the statistics are clear: you put a firearm in the middle of a domestic violence situation and the mortality rate of the woman (not the man) skyrockets. But even putting that aside, say my family member had just had enough one day, obtained a gun somehow, and put an end to the whole thing. In this situation, up until the very end, there was no documentation to back up the violent nature of the relationship. No hospital records, no police reports. The only thing that is on this guy's record even today, multiple years after my family member got out of the situation, is a record of verbal and emotional abuse. So, no, a gun would not have helped. Sure, if my family member had been able to obtain and use a gun on this guy, the situation would have ended. But, more than likely she would have just ended up in jail.
Another family member was abused for years by her adopted father. After years of bouncing back and forth between bad foster homes and an even worse home with her birth mom, she had finally found safety and security in a adopted family. Or so she thought. Her adopted father started abusing her when she was just 11 years old. And she knew where his gun was. But all she felt was shame and disgust and worthlessness. Not towards him. Towards herself. So if she had ever gotten and used that gun, it wouldn't have been on him. It would have been on herself. And I'm not just guessing here. Those are her words, not mine.
Another friend was raped by her ex-boyfriend. She cared for him. But then he got drunk. And he got violent. What girl takes a gun to a party with an ex (who was still her friend at this point)? How on earth could a gun have helped? Very few people can use a gun on someone that they know and care about, no matter the self-defense justifications.
And then there's my friend who went on a trip with her grandfather to visit an aunt on the west coast. He was her grandfather. And he assaulted her. Again, very few, if any people would be able to pull a gun on their own grandfather, especially if, up to that point, they had a decent relationship. Never mind the logistics of this friend actually feeling the need to have a gun with her while on a family vacation! So, again, I ask, how could a gun have helped?
And what about the friend who was forced into the sex trade and had a gun shoved in her mouth by one of her 'johns'? Would her having her own gun have helped her? No. It wouldn't. She would've just killed herself. Again, her words, not mine.
I'm not saying all of these things to try and argue that no woman can or should own or carry a gun. Or even that no woman should use a gun against an attacker should the situation arise in such a way that it's even possible. Women have every right to own a gun to feel safer and even to use it to defend themselves.
But the truth of the matter is that, in most situations, you mix a gun in with an attempted or completed sexual assault and either the girl will end up dead, whether by her own hands or her abuser's, or the guy will end up dead and she'll end up in jail.
So, no, guns don't answer the problem of sexual assault.
And there's a broader problem at issue here: the notion that women should have to carry weapons to stop sexual assaults once again puts the onus completely on women to stop the assault. I'm just so sick and tired of people thinking that if women just carried a gun, screamed, whistled, peed on themselves during an assault (yes, that's a real suggestion often given), didn't wear skimpy clothing, didn't walk alone at night, didn't drink, didn't have sex (like, ever), didn't go anywhere alone with male friends, didn't go to parties, didn't do this, didn't do that...didn't...exist.
Rape culture is everywhere. And it's sickening to me, but beyond that, it forces us to continually fight and argue our way through and out of these idiotic 'rules' that are thrown at us before we can ever get to the actual issue, the actual problem, the true cause of sexual assaults.
Do you want to know how to stop rapes? It's actually pretty simple: get rapists to STOP RAPING PEOPLE!!!
Ok, so getting that to actually happen isn't simple. I know that. But my point remains: we have got to stop putting all of the onus on women to magically get men to stop raping them and instead place the blame, the shame, and the rules on the rapists!
Rapes don't happen because women walk home alone, drink too much, have sexual histories, don't carry or use guns, don't pee themselves during an assault, or any of the other idiotic things that are shouted at us on a nearly daily basis to get rapes to stop happening.
Rapes happen because rapists rape. And rapes happen because this culture says it's ok.
No, people don't come right out and say it, but every time one of those idiotic rules is repeated, whether it's by teachers, parents, friends, the media, police officers or anyone else at all, it tells rapists and potential rapists that it's not their fault. If they see a woman doing any of those things that she's not "supposed" to do, it's ok. Go ahead. It's not your fault. You can rape her. We won't shame or blame you. We'll shame and blame her.
Yeah, I know, culture still puts blame on rapists. But that's usually only once they're actually accused and convicted. And only a relatively small portion of accused rapists are actually convicted. And only a tiny fraction of rapists are even accused.
And part of that is because the judicial system in this country is rigorous, has numerous road blocks and hurdles, and I get that. Hell, I'm insanely grateful for it, even though I know it'll make my life hell as a sex crimes prosecutor.
But that's not why so few rapists are ever brought to justice. It's because we, as a culture, place the onus on women to stop rapes from happening and puts the majority of the shame and blame on survivors once the rape has happened.
And that brings me back to why the notion of all women carrying guns to stop rapes is so freaking idiotic: if the culture already places so much shame and blame and rules on women, why would that same culture ever believe that a woman who's in a car, a hotel room, a house, or even in a dark alley next to a scary bush when she says that she had to kill the guy because he was going to rape her.
She said.
He's dead.
