They don't get enough opportunities to show how awful gun-owners (and their masters, the NRA) are, so they need to recycle the stories that they find 'elsewhere'.
I wrote about this last Thursday, in response to an article from "Elite Daily";
check for yourself to see if THIS article has anything new to say:
NRA Ad Tells Women to Shoot Rapists, Abusers -- The Cut:
PART 1: "EMPOWERMENT"
The ad ("NRA Ad" ... see the reference above) —which is less a message aimed at abusers and more a bulletin encouraging women to purchase firearms— goes on to say that "real empowerment" looks like millions of women buying guns to protect themselves and their families from any potential threat. In doing so, it not only transfers blame for assault from the assailant to the victim, but it seriously mischaracterizes both sexual assault and domestic abuse.Yep ... the "Empowerment" message is there.
PART 2: "EDUCATE THE MALE"
Instead of educating men on the nature of sexual assault — and instead of cultivating a society in which rape and abuse of women is absolutely unacceptable, rather than an offense that's met with leniency — the NRA suggests we arm every single woman.Yes, the suggestion (and I still can't believe I'm reading this) is that abused women should:
"[educate] men on the nature of sexual assault" .. rather than take positive steps to defend themselves, their family, and their homes.
The image of a woman who is being beaten by her estranged husband *who is under a domestic violence restraining order* explaining that "sexual assault is a no-no" absolutely boggles the mind. Apparently, the people who write this crap have no concept of what the word "domestic abuse" means.
And it gets better .. or worse.
PART 3: NRA THINKS ABUSERS ARE ONLY STRANGERS!
The ad also fundamentally mischaracterizes rape and sexual assault. Rape is almost never, as the NRA seems to suggest here, committed by a stranger in a dark alleyway — ... most victims of sexual violence ... are attacked by someone they know... a spouse, a relative, or a family friend...NO idea how the authors got that impression. In the NRA video I saw, it was fairly obvious that the 'intruder' was an (ex) partner who was violating a restraining order.
PART 4: YOU CAN BE KILLED BY YOUR OWN GUN!
"The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent," and, "more than half of women murdered with guns are killed by family members or intimate partners."This is a two-fer:
(A) 'if there is a gun in they house you are five times more likely to be murdered' is a meme which was originally published in the report of a study by a man named "Kellerman", who cherry picked his community (he only reported on homes in which a homicide had occurred and "... a firearm was present in the house..." whether or not it was involved in the murder); which study has been widely debunked as statistically fallable. Which means, he made it all up. Actually, this 'quote' undermines Kellerman's theme, which suggests that ' you are SEVEN times more likely to be killed if you have a gun in your home'. Never mind whether it was a gun owned by the resident, or was brought into the home by the intruder, it all adds to Kellerman's pre-determined conclusion.
(B) "More than half of women murdered with guns are killed by family members or intimate partners".
Which presupposes husbands or co-habitating partners, The supposition that this NRA video might apply negatively to a woman who defended herself against a stranger ("home invasion") assault seems to be intuitively obvious: anyone has the right to defend herself against an intruder. Why this is even suggested to be a 'negative' message from the NRA is beyond me. However, Kellerman (and the Liberal Press) conclusions make the victim appear to be the author of her own demise.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Oh, hell. Thanks to "The Gun Mart", we have this direct comparison between a woman at risk, and a woman who is prepared to defend herself, her family and her home.
Have a nice day.