Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

The Cowardly One

I should start by pointing out that I have not seen "The Brave One," the newly released Jody Foster movie, and I am therefore not trying to claim that it's a good movie--I simply don't know whether it is, or not. Actually, I seriously doubt I will, given Foster's avowed support for civilian disarmament. I do, however, have little patience (OK--I'll come clean--no patience) with Sandra Kobrin's objection to it--that it's a bad movie because it portrays a woman who uses a gun to fight back against the thugs who shattered her life. Kobrin apparently believes that the only acceptable movie portrayal of the relationship between women and guns is one of victim and destroyer, respectively.

The article is titled "'Brave One' Puts Wrong Weapon in Women's Hands," leading me, at first, to wonder if the author is a revolver aficionado (in the previews I've seen, Foster had some type of semi-automatic). There are, after all, valid reasons to choose a revolver over a semi-auto, in some cases. Alas, that was not Sandra's objection. No--the "wrong weapon," apparently, is any kind of gun (would a sword have made her happy?).

I'm disappointed that Foster--who won an Oscar for her intelligent and poignant performance as a rape survivor in "The Accused"--has chosen to portray a woman who buys a gun and turns into an almost cartoon-like shooting machine.
Interesting--she would evidently prefer seeing women portrayed as rape victims than as strong, armed survivors. That would not be a surprising sentiment in, say, a rapist, but I have trouble reconciling such a view expressed by a commentator for Women's eNews.

Even Foster's statement in an interview that her character "hates what she becomes" is not enough to mollify Sandra.
But the movie is nonetheless a bloody shooting fest and I'm not inclined to be too nuanced, subtle or ironic about this blast of big-budget violent entertainment as long as I'm living in the United States, the most heavily armed society in the world.

The 2007 Small Arms Survey by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies finds that the United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens. U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, and about 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States.
Ninety per one hundred, eh? Not bad, but we can do better--if just one person in ten gets another gun, we can have one (each) for everybody.

She goes on to claim that women sustain more gunshot injuries than they inflict--a claim that is no doubt quite true. There is, however, no law of nature stating that this is how things must be. Men are generally larger and physically stronger than women, thus putting women at a distinct disadvantage if forced to defend themselves (unarmed) from a violent man, but, in contrast, are no less capable of defending themselves with lifesaving firepower than men are. There are, after all, no cases I know of in which a man fired a gun by pulling the trigger with a specifically male portion of his anatomy (if there is such a man, remind me not to mess with him!).

She then comes up with a couple movie ideas of her own (I don't have much use for Hollywood, but I suppose I should be thankful that she isn't a producer).
How about a flick that shows formidable women using their brains, power and sex appeal to take the guns away from the guys without using physical force? Maybe Foster can play someone like, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer Diane Feinstein, or Hillary Clinton; intelligent, powerful women who have consistently voted for gun control, getting them an F rating by gun lobbyists.
Wait a second--first she complains about what she clearly believes to be the inordinate number of guns in America, and now she's claiming that Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein and Clinton have used their brains, power, and sex appeal (?) to disarm us. Which is it, Sandra?

The world can indeed be a dangerous place for women. Keeping women disarmed might be the most effective way to sustain that unfortunate state of affairs. Whose side is Sandra on?

5 comments:

straightarrow said...

Peculiar don't you think that at least three of the women she touts as using their brains, power and sex appeal are armed?

Also, now I could be wrong about this but wouldn't a woman using her sex appeal to thwart a rapist be counterintutive?

This broad is definitely just a broad.

45superman said...

Good points, as usual, SA.

Yuri Orlov said...

Welcome back, missed you!

She definitely seems to come from the crowd who considers a woman, brutally raped and killed by her attacker as morally superior to the one explaining to the police how the, now dead, attempted rapist got the bullet holes in his chest.

the pistolero said...

I would have guessed she was a 1911 aficionado and Foster's character used a Block...er, Glock. ;-) But Sandra Kobrin is a blithering idiot.

Peculiar don't you think that at least three of the women she touts as using their brains, power and sex appeal are armed?
I would have guessed they all had other men with guns protecting them. But of course, that wouldn't fit with the pseudo-intellectual feminist narrative she was trying to spin.

straightarrow said...

Pistolero, they do have men with guns protecting them, and they are still armed. If fact, I know two of them have been certified U.S. Marshalls so they may carry on airlines.

I suspect they all are armed and all have been granted the power to carry on commercial flights, but I only stated what I know for fact.