An LA Times contributor decides to finally take responsibility for her own protection. I already know what the reactions will be:
“This sure is sad. What a world we live in, that such a peaceful woman is forced to buy a gun so she can feel safe again.”
“Kudos! This woman has taken her first step into the larger world of empowerment and self-reliance.”
I noticed something interesting though:
Still, I wrestled with the idea of whether I could become someone else, someone capable of violence. Was I really prepared to kill someone who threatened my property or my life?
However, she earlier wrote:
But things change. Our children left home. Our ability to slug it out with a baseball bat diminished.
I often find this curious belief among anti-gun people. They believe first of all that they could successfully use a baseball bat—and it always is a baseball bat—to defend their home against intruders, and second of all, that their potentially doing so wouldn’t really be an act of lethal violence.
You can see it here. This woman first says she’s willing to beat someone’s brains out with a louisville slugger, but then later worries about her ability to inflict violence in self-defense.
I blame hollywood. People get beaten up with baseball bats and limp away with minor bruises, while guns blow their targets backwards 20 feet. But the truth is that being hit with a baseball bat will easily kill a man. In capable hands, a baseball bat is no less lethal a weapon than a firearm, perceptions to the contrary.
In actuality, this woman has always been prepared to do violence in defense of life and limb, she just didn’t know it because she was able to rationalize away the embodied violence in her previous choice of weapon. But the gun confronts her front and center with the possibility that she was able to avoid when she looked at the baseball bat.