Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why women should carry in Arlington

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    , ,

    Post imported post

    ARLINGTON, Va. -- Arlington County Police believe a series of attempted abductions may be related.
    The latest attack occurred May 10 when a woman was walking in the 4000 block of Washington Boulevard around 2:38 a.m. and heard someone running up behind her, police say.
    Before the woman could turn around, a man tried to put a plastic bag over her head. The woman pushed the bag away and the man fled.
    On April 16, a woman was walking to her car in the 1400 block of N. Nash Street in Rosslyn around 11:30 p.m. when a man attacked her from behind and placed a plastic bag over her head, police say.
    The man ran away after the woman turned around, screamed, and struck him with her purse.
    A third incident occurred March 5 in the 1500 block of N. Key Boulevard in Rosslyn around 9:45 p.m. when a man approached a woman from behind and groped her, police say.
    The suspect is described as a black man, 20 to 30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feet tall, with a medium build and light to medium complexion.
    Police are advising women to avoid walking alone, especially after dark, and to stay in well-lit areas and be aware of their surroundings.
    Anyone with information about these cases, or about similar attacks that might be related, should contact Detective D.R. Cupka at 703-228-4193.
    (Copyright 2007 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

  2. #2
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Invisible Mode

    Post imported post

    Women should carry everywhere, not just Arlington. I honestly don't grok why many more women do not carry a firearm for self-defense.

    I'm reminded of a 1999 article that I just happened to be listening to a few days ago:

    "Annie's Got Her Gun"

    by Ann Coulter, from George Magazine

    About a year ago, a mugger just waltzed right up to me on a bridge here in
    Washington, D.C. It was early evening, and I was a stone's throw from my
    apartment in what is considered a nice neighborhood, as neighborhoods go in
    the Murder Capital -- the richly deserved nickname for the nation's capital.

    I won't belabor my cunning and completely fortuitous escape, except to say
    that for the few minutes I was standing there waiting to be mugged, I was
    fuming. I knew he knew that I didn't have a gun.

    It's illegal to carry a handgun here in the Murder Capital. Not merely
    illegal but a felony that carries up to a five-year maximum sentence.

    Just as I could look at my prospective mugger and see that he was not the
    kind of fellow who would be a fanatic about property rights and bodily
    integrity, he could see from 50 yards that I was not the type to be
    committing felonies.

    I wanted a gun, but more than that I wanted him to think I might possibly
    have a gun. I wanted him to at least accord me the respect I get from
    criminals in other cities, where they have to exercise a little creativity,
    lying in wait, sneaking up from behind, hiding in bushes and dark alleyways
    -- that sort of thing. No, in D.C. muggers just walk right up to you on a
    brightly lit street. As an apparently law-abiding citizen, I am
    ostentatiously defenseless.

    But let's forget about completely defenseless me on the bridge for a moment.

    The framers' primary reason for including the right to bear arms in the
    Bill of Rights was to allow people to protect themselves from tyrannical
    government -- just like the vastly overrated First Amendment. As Alexander
    Hamilton observed cheerily in Federalist 29, if the government were to
    "form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the
    liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if
    at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready
    to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."

    Some may be willing to rely on withering editorials in the New York Times
    to preserve their liberty. I'm counting on a sleek and tasteful SIG-Sauer.
    If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they
    interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.

    Interestingly, the Supreme Court is incessantly having to remind Americans
    of their First Amendment rights, issuing more than 100 decisions in the
    past half century alone. The Court has ruled on the Second Amendment in
    only a handful of cases, the last time in 1939.

    But still, about half the citizenry deeply, passionately believe that they
    have a right to bear arms. Give the First Amendment no support from the
    courts for over half a century and see if anyone remembers why we're
    supposed to let Nazis march in Skokie.

    But the half of the country that intuitively assumes the right to bear arms
    doesn't live in my neighborhood. That's why I'm getting exasperated with
    the constitutional argument. Too few people -- girl people in particular
    -- appreciate the central point: Guns are our friends.

    When it comes to the First Amendment, everyone gets warm patriotic
    feelings, tearing up over John Stuart Mill's marketplace of ideas. They
    think immediately of our right to engage in political speech, scientific
    research, avant-garde art, and to burn politicians in effigy (or maybe
    that's just me). Speech on the fringe, like Aryan Nation propaganda or
    Hustler magazine is understood to be an unpleasant, if inevitable,
    by-product of a freedom we cherish.

    But with the Second Amendment, it's all Hustler magazine. No upside, just
    school shootings and all those apocryphal "gun accidents." (In 1945, for
    every million Americans there were 350,000 firearms and 18 fatal gun
    accidents. By 1995, there were 850,000 firearms per million, and fatal gun
    accidents had fallen to six.)

    Guns are our friends, because in a world without guns I'm what is known as
    prey. Almost all females are. Any male -- even the sickliest 98-pound
    weakling -- could overpower me in a contest of brute force against brute
    force. For some reason, I'm always asked whether I wouldn't prefer a world
    without guns. No, I'd prefer a world in which everyone is armed, even the
    criminals who mean to cause me harm. Then I'd at least have a fighting

    What the arms-control faithful really want is a world without violence, not
    a world without weapons. These are the ideological descendants of the
    authors of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. But we
    can't have a world without violence, because the world is half male and
    testosterone causes homicide. A world with violence -- that is to say,
    with men -- but without weapons is the worst of all possible worlds for
    women. As the saying goes, God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them

    Prey like me use guns against predators about a million times a year.
    Fifteen different studies (including those sponsored by gun control
    advocates) have arrived at the following estimates: at the low end, several
    hundred thousand times per year; at the high end, several million.

    I especially want potential assailants to have to worry that I might be
    carrying. In numerous surveys, criminals have confirmed the blindingly
    obvious point that they are disinclined to attack a victim who might be
    armed. Countries with those fabulously low crime rates and fabulously
    fascistic gun control laws -- such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Britain
    --- have more burglaries of occupied homes per capita than we do. Canada's
    burglary rate of occupied homes is more than three times that of the
    armed-to-the-teeth U.S. Although the murder rate is lower in Britain,
    rape, robbery, burglary, and assault are all substantially higher there
    than in the U.S.

    It must be said, the framers were not insensate to the crime-prevention
    qualities of firearms. In the late eighteenth century, standing armies had
    become nothing more than roving bands of criminals. The Second Amendment
    was, in part, a response to those early cases of police brutality. (Why is
    it that the same people who have the least confidence in the police and the
    military are the most willing to allow only the police and the military to
    have guns?)

    Thomas Jefferson, for example, copied into his book of favorite quotes an
    observation by Cesare Beccaria, the founder of the science of criminology:
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are
    neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . . Such laws make
    things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve
    rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
    attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

    That night in Washington, by the way, I was rescued by a man. I'm all for
    men; I like to have them around all the time. But sometimes they can't be.
    Sometimes they have to go buy things for us. More pertinently, sometimes
    they're ex-husbands coming after us with machetes. We live in a world in
    which men are supposed to freeze when we say no, our bodily integrity is
    sacrosanct, we are autonomous beings, I am woman, hear me roar -- but we're
    not allowed to defend ourselves from a physical attack with the only
    effective means possible. Just stand waiting on the bridge and hope for a
    nice man to come along.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Near Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

    Post imported post

    ...and the people said, "Amen".

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Near Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

    Post imported post

    Whoops! Hit the "Send" button twice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    beaver, Pennsylvania, USA

    Post imported post

    Wow i got a new screen saver

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA

    Post imported post

    HankT - Why does it not surprise me that you would read "Strange Politics?"

    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  7. #7
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Invisible Mode

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    HankT - Why does it not surprise me that you would read "Strange Politics?"

    Nah, I don't read it. I just snagged the closest pic of her in the shooting shot.

    Here's another one of the lovely andbrainy Ms. Coulter:

    Can you tell where she has her "sleek and tasteful SIG-Sauer?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts