She’s exactly right. Want to bet she doesn’t know why?

Rita Smith, that is:

Suspects in Topeka domestic violence cases are leaving jail without being charged, and advocates for abuse survivors say victims are growing more scared amid a public squabble over who should pay to prosecute the crimes.

The mayor and council of Kansas’ capital city made a dramatic move Tuesday night in their ongoing clash with county officials by voting to repeal the city’s ordinance against domestic violence….

“I absolutely do not understand it,” Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said after the vote. “It’s really outrageous that they’re playing with family safety to see who blinks first. People could die while they’re waiting to straighten this out.”

Why is Rita Smith right? Because her organization and others like it don’t do a damn thing to actually help women. From their mission statement:

“NCADV protects and empowers battered women and children through vigilance and sponsorship of national public policy initiatives and federal legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act. ”

Sponsorship of federal legislation. In other words, they talk up yet more laws that domestic abusers don’t give a shit about breaking — yet more laws that the police aren’t going to get there in time to stop domestic abusers from breaking.

To paraphrase the ‘Dog: In a just and sane world, women would be raised to the point where, when their abusers step up, they get to the point really quickly at which they get their firearm of choice and, well, punch back. As the old saying goes, you can’t beat a woman who shoots. And as another old saying goes, nothing says, “Please don’t beat me” like multiple jacketed hollow-points to the chest.

But if you read the rest of the NCADV’s mission statement, you’ll see that they blame “easy access to guns,” and they cite studies from those paragons of integrity at the Violence Policy Center. In other words, they’re about as useless as a screen door on a submarine.

Or, for that matter, a protective order.

Advertisements

Tags:

3 Responses to “She’s exactly right. Want to bet she doesn’t know why?”

  1. Sabra Morse Onstott Says:

    If abuse started out physical, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. As it stands, most abused women are first broken down psychologically, alienated from family & friends, and made economically & emotionally dependent upon the abuser. A gun will help none of that. A gun will stop immediate physical violence, but failing to fix the rest of it leaves the woman easy prey for the next abuser. One hopes that is where Rita Smith & her group come in.

  2. Will Brown Says:

    I’m not familiar with Rita Smith and her group either, but I am familiar with the psychological effects gun usage (ie: regular practice with and carry of a gun) has on men and women both. There is a distinct difference in reaction to threat or abusive behavior from someone who knows as a matter of practical experience that s/he has the means to defeat the attack in their personal possession from those who are dependent upon others (the police, family, friends, social custom, etc) for same. It isn’t a matter of threatening counter violence so much as a fundamental unwillingness to accept such that the certainty you can reject the situation gives one. A sense of self-reliance more than confidence, I think.

    A gun likely won’t instill any of that in someone already beat down, but I believe ownership of one will impart such capability if obtained before it happens.

  3. southtexaspistolero Says:

    most abused women are first broken down psychologically, alienated from family & friends, and made economically & emotionally dependent upon the abuser. A gun will help none of that.

    All true, of course; but upon further reflection, I would think the “raising women not to fear firearms” thing would instill in women that sense of self-confidence beforehand; in other words…

    There is a distinct difference in reaction to threat or abusive behavior from someone who knows as a matter of practical experience that s/he has the means to defeat the attack in their personal possession from those who are dependent upon others (the police, family, friends, social custom, etc) for same. It isn’t a matter of threatening counter violence so much as a fundamental unwillingness to accept such that the certainty you can reject the situation gives one. A sense of self-reliance more than confidence, I think.

    A gun likely won’t instill any of that in someone already beat down, but I believe ownership of one will impart such capability if obtained before it happens.

    This. A thousand times this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: