categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

quote of the day – weer’d beard

Why do "gun control" extremists hate women? Hold that question – we will come back to it.

I have to admit, the color pink does nothing for me. This is not some sexist statement; the color just has no particular attraction for me, and its extreme overuse by Hollywood socialites has all but soured me on the entire concept.

Furthermore, Better Half and I are both somewhat disheartened by firearm and firearm accessory companies painting/dying things pink and then claiming that they are marketed towards / targeted at women. Not all women like pink; it is rather demeaning to imply that women would not like something if it were not pink; and just changing a firearm’s color does nothing to alter whether or not it is easy to use for people generally or shorter stature and lower upper body strength.

That said, if someone wants to silver-plate their firearm, paint its grips pink, and stick diamonds all over it, more power to them and I hope they enjoy it. Lord knows the all-black motif of current firearm design needs a little variety.

In a similar vein, I cannot say as though I am a huge fan of the Walther P-22 pistol. Walther missed a chance by not making it a direct parallel to one of their pre-existing full-sized or compact pistols, and the construction (specifically the MIM parts) leaves something significant to be desired (I hardly see a post any more about those pistols without the word "failure" appearing at least once). And, finally, while the .22LR is great for plinking, I would argue there are better platforms for it available, and there are definitely better calibers for self-defense applications.

That said, I know of at least one woman who carries a P22 for self-defense, and while I would still encourage her to seek out stouter alternatives, I cannot say as though I specifically disagree with her reasons for doing so (aside from the assassin bit, but that is another matter for another time). In the end, a .22LR beats a pointy stick, and if that is what a person feels comfortable carrying and if that is what a person can reliably hit a target with, then more power to them.

Alright, so where the hell is Linoge going with all of this? Apparently Discount Gun Sales (which is a middlingly-large chain in the PacNorWest) is now offering the Walther P-22 Hope Edition, with a portion of each sale being donated to the Susan B. Komen Foundation in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Shiny (no, actually, the gun really is kind of shiny with that Duracoat finish on the slide). I am not exactly a huge fan of the Komen for the Cure folks at the moment, but so long as some of the funds get through to some honest-to-God research on breast cancer, I will deal with whatever objections I have about the color / firearm / foundation.

Apparently this makes me about an order of magnitude more accepting and tolerant than your average anti-rights cultist. On the one hand, we have this tweet from Joan Peterson, blood-dancer extraordinaire, deranged eugenicist, and Brady Campaign Board Member:

joanpetersonkomenwalther@ProtestEasyGuns – outrageous to see Komen Foundation pushing sale of pink handguns for Breast Cancer Awareness Month

And on the other hand, we have this tweet from Ladd Everitt, cyberstalker, bully, copyright violator, and "Communications Director" for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (despite getting their Twitter account shut down for weeks and forgetting to pay their hosting bill):

laddeverittkomenwalther#Komen Foundation offering pink Glock handgun in "recognition" of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Disgusting. #p2 http://fb.me/13BUtsZpc

(Note: surprisingly enough, the link goes to the actual listing for the firearm, not another of Ladd’s unhinged, frothing-at-the-mouth screeds.)

Let me get this straight… Selling a rather mundane, if arguably nattily attired, inanimate object in a quest to provide people a product that they want AND, simultaneously, raise money for an unquestionably good cause (Save the boobies! Sorry, someone had to…) is both "outrageous" and "disgusting"? So selling people – and, in this case, arguably specifically women – a tool with which they can drive back a larger, stronger attacker is "outrageous"? So supporting research into and prevention of the primary contributor to the second-most leading cause of death in women is "disgusting"?

… Huh?

I swear to God, I will never understand the mentality of your average "gun control" whackjob. Which brings us to today’s quote of the day, proffered up by none other than Weer’d Beard:

Gun control, the groups that would prefer women get cancer AND raped!

Classy people!

Indeed. The small amount of funds generated by this little exercise probably will not make the difference between treating breast cancer or not (but you never know), but in the name of keeping all people, including women, defenseless and potential victims, "gun control" extremists would cut off that trickle of funding all the same. It is no wonder anti-rights cultists have no shame – if they did, they could hardly live with themselves.

(And, if I do say so myself, this would be a perfect opportunity to employ a page from the "gun control" playbook against those who wrote it with very high efficacy.)

10 comments to quote of the day – weer’d beard

  • Pyrotek85

    It’s ‘outrageous’ when you actually believe BS like ‘the gun is more likely to kill the woman than her attacker’. That, or they’re just a bunch of liars and alarmists.

    It must really sting that gun ownership is becoming mainstream again huh? They can’t stand that people, and even some media outlets, don’t automatically buy into their ridiculous claims anymore.

  • ‘the gun is more likely to kill the woman than her attacker’

    Hold it the other way.

  • Pyrotek85

    North wrote:

    ‘the gun is more likely to kill the woman than her attacker’

    Hold it the other way.

    lol

    No, for some reason potential attackers are always able to disarm people with guns, and then the attacker is even more likely to kill you than they were before, so you shouldn’t resist at all, so goes their reasoning anyways…

    Then there’s the myth that bad guys are all perfect shots but gun owners will invariably miss (despite the fact they practice more often than criminals) and hit innocent bystanders. There’s no end to the crazy theories.

  • SGB

    The anti-freedom crowd will stoop to any level to try and become legitimate again.

  • Braden Lynch

    Let’s not forget that many gun owners practice, practice, practice with their firearms and they may also be gun enthusiasts and know the manual of arms for several of them. So, if they grab a firearm from a criminal, they are more likely to be able to use it.

    Meanwhile, the criminals are not likely to have taken any gun training classes and very likely will be using a stolen firearm if they brought one or taken it in a struggle and will not know how to use it well.

    Firearm skills are perishable and criminals are just not that likely to burn through a thousand rounds at the range to get those skills.

    Finally, note that the Komen Foundation has caved and will once again support Planned Parenthood. So, I will NEVER contribute to them again (abortion kills a lot more women than breast cancer screening could ever save).

  • My beloved aunt fought breast cancer for 8 years. The Komen Foundation, whatever their current failings (and as I read it, I actually understand and agree with the principle of their rule that’s affecting Planned Parenthood), has done some excellent work with regards to new treatments, and particularly easing suffering.

    This same aunt was also a crack shot with most anything, but particularly her .22WMR revolver. I pity any fool who tried to kick in her door.

    But Ladd and Joan would rather see a woman in failing health be left wide open to be assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered.

    Screw them. With something sharp and on fire.

  • @ Pyrotek85: Oh, I know they find it “outrageous”, and I know exactly why they find it “outrageous”, I just want to phrase the debate – and the revelation – in a fashion that shows them for what they are.

    And I think this all comes back to their inability to control the signal any more, as you say. With the advent of the Internet, they cannot keep the American people in the dark about the laws, legalities, statistics, and realities surrounding firearm ownership, and they are absolutely frantic to discover any chink they can exploit.

    Sadly (for them), to date, they have pretty much failed.

    @ North: Or swing harder.

    @ SGB: Even if it means attacking an otherwise good and worthy cause, in this particular case.

    @ Braden Lynch: Like I said, I generally am not a huge fan of Komen for a variety of their practices and decisions, but, in this particular case, more power to them.

    @ Lokidude: I have been saying for quite some time now that we need to find/create a word that adequately describes the “forcing someone else to be an unwilling victim” concept. “Victimize” does not quite have the right meaning, because that means person X is preying on person Y, not that person X is leaving person Y open to attack from person Z. Seems such a ter mwould be useful for us…

  • I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, whath I tell anyone I meet who is anti gun.

    I am neither socially or morally obligated to be a victim. Brigid

  • SGB

    @ Brigid:

    I shall use that in the future! Brilliant.

  • @ Brigid: I dare say that sums it up nicely.