Linked from Dana Loesch Radio: I encourage you to listen to the whole thing and read Dana's post.
“I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and 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 …”
Ms. Hudak goes on to stumble her way through a citation of statistics, saying
"The Colorado Coalition against Gun Violence said, 'for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them.'"
I could not find a direct link to the "Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence" or any publications by them, but I was able to track down the source of the "one to 83" statistic. The Violence Policy Center in a post entitled A Deadly Myth Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense reviews a series of FBI statistics from 1998, with the thrust being a comparison between the number of times a woman used a gun to kill an assailant and the number of times an assailant killed a woman. When all assailants were considered the relationship was one assailant killed by a woman for every 302 women killed by an assailant.
When the assailant was an "intimate acquaintance" of the woman (boyfriend, husband, ex-), there was one assailant killed for every 83 women killed. So, what does this so-called statistic tell us about the effectiveness of a woman carrying a firearm for self defense? In isolation it tells us absolutely nothing, because there is nothing to compare to.
I have two observations:
- If 83 women are killed for every one assailant, shouldn't we be arming MORE women, not FEWER? I suspect that if we made that ratio more like, oh say, one to one, there would be a lot fewer assaults on women in general. I say, "Give women a fighting chance."
- The cited statistic says nothing about how many times a woman successfully used a firearm to scare off an attacker or hold him at bay until help arrived. Therefore, this statistic is meaningless when applied to an assessment of whether having a firearm is an effective self-defense strategy for a woman.
Why do we put the responsibility for passing sensible gun legislation in the hands of people who have no demonstrable understanding of 1) guns, 2) self-defense, 3) statistics or 4) the Constitution? (rhetorical question)
It sounds like Colorado Democrat Senator Evie Hudak would rather that victims of violent crime subject themselves to the depradations of their assailant rather than stand up to them. So ladies and gentlemen, I ask you- are you going to throw yourself on the mercy of a murderer, mugger, rapist? Or are you going to stand up to them and say, "Not only no, but HELL NO!" (and by 'them', I mean rapists, murderers AND legislators who seek to disarm law-abiding citizens preferentially over criminals.)
SHAME ON YOU MS. HUDAK.
UPDATE (3/07/2013) from The Denver Post "Colorado Sen. Evie Hudak's concealed carry stats don't apply in case" by Ryan Parker (3/6/13- 05:43:30 MST)