NOT THE SHARPEST KNIVES IN THE DRAWER: No Bang For The Buck
Dutch jewelry designer Ted Noten has created a series of handgun-shaped compacts called “Seven Necessities” that are “produced on a 3-D printer, then retrofitted with hand-tooled 18-karat gold details and loaded with all the ammunition a woman needs to survive the war between the sexes,” The New York Times Style Magazine reports:
Each faux firearm is devoted to a different cosmetic giant, Dior and Chanel among them. … There’s a lip gloss in the muzzle, various pills (including Viagra) in the loading chamber, 100 grams of certified silver bullion in the Dior gun clip (50 grams of 24-karat gold in the Chanel), a toothpick and, in some models, a hairpin and a small vial of perfume. The guns also conceal a 4GB thumb drive for snapshots, personal data and corporate secrets.
The white Dior gun will set a girl back 8,000 euros, or about $11,500. The black Chanel gun, however, costs over $17,000, so a person might want to hold up a bank first.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, the lede of the Times’ article states that “According to F.B.I. statistics, handguns comprised 70.5 percent of all firearms used in murders and non-negligent manslaughters in 2009.” Never mind that the rate of gun ownership increased in 2009, while the rate of violent crime decreased; or that the majority of handgun-related deaths are suicides; and that the majority of handguns used in murders are unlicensed or illegally-obtained weapons wielded by one gangbanger or criminal against another.
As if The Times’ reporting on an obscenely expensive and utterly useless item – for far less money, a woman could arm herself and every female member of her family, and pay for group gun safety and marksmanship lessons – isn’t dopey enough, the writer couldn’t resist trotting out the hoary liberal admonishment (third item) that a woman who owns one of the faux firearms “is also advised to exercise caution around female impersonators, lest her weapon be wrested away and used against her” (emphasis, The Stiletto).
To put guns in perspective you also have to include all the times a gun has been used to save a life. The NRA runs a column called "Armed Citizen" monthly that details people who saved themselves by having a gun. And often you do not have to use the gun, just show it. http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/
Nor is it necessarily true that someone with a gun will have it taken away from them and used on them. There has been actual research done and victims are more likely to take guns away from attackers than vice versa. Now you do want to be competent with any weapon you carry - why I don't carry a gun is because I am not willing to put the time in - otherwise the weapon is useless to you. But it is an option you can resort to. For anyone who does not know, I have been held up seven times and sexually assaulted twice. I got along without a gun - I survived; not everyone does. But there were times when a gun would have come in handy.
Reply to this