This Friday, the organizers of the massive Women’s march (which took place the day after the Presidential Inauguration in January) are holding a protest against the National Rifle Association in Washington D.C.
In this story from popsugar.com, Tamika Mallory, the march’s founder, says all women should be concerned about gun control, because, “I think that young women need to know that gun violence is not, in any way, isolated to men. It can happen to you — and it has. We’ve seen domestic violence incidents over the years where people who are mentally troubled are allowed access to guns and have taken the lives of young women and children, families. This is an issue that concerns us all.”
Mallory has stated that the NRA was chosen for demonstrations because of a video by NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch, which Mallory called “irresponsible and dangerous propaganda (that) suggests armed violence against communities of color, progressives, and anyone who does not agree with this Administration’s policies.”
But this story from wymt.com says the issue is far more complicated than Mallory’s anti-gun stance would suggest.
The story says an NRA report shows there is an increase in women purchasing firearms, a continuation of a steadily growing trend in the United States.
In this ope-ed on FoxNews.com, John R. Lott, economist, gun expert, and author, takes on the assertions of the Women’s March organizers and addresses some of the recently released data from Pew Research about U.S. gun owners.
His analysis shows that women are extremely divided on the idea of using firearms for self-defense, but that an ever increasing number are choosing to be armed.
“Research, such as mine, has consistently shown that women benefit much more from having guns for protection than men. The reason is simple: when a male criminal attacks a female victim there is a much larger strength differential than when a male attacks another male,” Lott writes. “The presence of a gun represents a much bigger difference in a woman’s ability to defend herself than it does for a man.”
“Too often when women are faced with the threat of violence the advice is to move, change jobs, or hide. The National Crime Victimization Survey shows that using mace or other methods of protection are simply not as successful as using a gun,” he writes.
He goes on to criticize anti-gun groups and media outlets for “systematic efforts to scare women in particular by exaggerating the risks of having guns in the home.”
“For example, the march makes direct references to the risks of guns in the home, but, in 2015, with around 50 percent of married couples owning guns, there were just 48 accidental gun deaths for the 61 million children under age 15,” Lott writes. “And around half of those are caused by adult males with criminal backgrounds accidentally firing their guns. While one accidental death is one too many, there are other much greater risks in the home that these marchers might want to concentrate on.”
Lott points out that recent attempts to protest the NRA haven’t gone so well. In April, Everytown, the lobbying group created by billionaire and prominent anti-gun activist Michael Bloomberg, drew about 75-100 people to a protest of the NRA’s Annual Meetings in Atlanta, which drew about 80,000 participants.
“People can protest anything they want. But calling a demonstration by both women and men a ‘women’s march,’ especially when women are quite divided on the issue, seems just a bit of an overreach,” Lott writes. “As Dana Loesch says, they might want to rename the march as the ‘Some Women’s March.'”