Colorado Senator Evie Hudak is catching a lot of flack for dismissing Amanda Collins' testimony out of hand. Collins, you see, testified that she was raped in a "gun-free zone" and that, had she been allowed to carry her gun, she would have been able to prevent the attack. Hudak's reply was rather heartless.
I just want to say that actually statistics are not on your side. For every one woman who used a handgun in self defense, 83 were murdered.... You said that you were a martial arts student and yet because this individual was so large he was able to overcome you even with your skills. And chances are that if you had had a gun then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.
God made men, it has been said, but Sam Colt made them equal. Guns are the great equalizer. Women are at a disadvantage when in a physical confrontation with men. Men are, generally, bigger and stronger. Even women who have been train in hand-to-hand combat, as Collins was, cannot always overcome it. However, a women, no matter how small, can fire a gun and stop an attacker. Eileen goes into this more at People's Press Collective.
Hudak tacitly admitted one truth that women face when dealing with ill-intentioned men. They are just bigger and stronger than we are. Guns level the playing field and give a victim a real chance. But Evie doesn’t see it that way. To follow her line of thought, because men already have the advantage of speed and brute strength, we should just cede dominance and not do anything that might antagonize them further.
In this formulation, rape is an unalterable reality for women and our options for avoiding it are limited to pleading with an attacker, vomiting on demand, and offering passive resistance. I don’t even know what this last one means. Am I to make it abundantly clear that I’m not enjoying being raped? What sort of victory do I score by declining to ‘get into it’?
Hudak also went in for perverse circular reasoning: because women are already at a real disadvantage against a man who wants to hurt them, it’s proper to accept that as both the norm and the good and to preserve it.
A lot more digital ink is being spilled about this around the Internet and I'd be content to leave it at that but there was a related tweet that caught my eye.
Testifying about my rape was not the worst part yesterday. Watching dems vote against me was. I thought they were pro victim #coleg— Not Kim (@notkimco) March 5, 2013
You are absolutely right, Not Kim. Democrats are "pro victim" but not in the way you're thinking. You see, Democrats are in favor of victims. The entire Democrat progressive/socialist agenda is based on there being lots and lots of victims. The Poor are victims of The Rich therefore wealth must be confiscated from The Rich. Minorities are victims of Whites therefore affirmative action programs and reparations are needed. Women are victims of Men therefore we must have publicly-funded abortions and more affirmative action programs. There's more, of course, but you get the point. To the extent that their programs depend on the existence of victims, Democrats are pro victim.
In the context of this discussion, Democrats would rather see women raped and children murdered than to see freemen using guns to defend themselves and others. An armed citizenry does not lend itself to being ruled by tyrants and Democratic policies are tyrannical. It is in their best interest to build up the victims of mass shootings in order to ban guns while completely ignoring the vast numbers of people killed in gang violence or, in Collins' and Not Kim's cases, rape.
In short, Democrats care nothing for helping their victims or preventing their victimhood. They want to keep as many people as victims as possible to further their agenda. After all, victims don't need government saviors to help them.