Primarily this is about the Atlanta chapter of the Pink Pistols. But would I find particularily interesting is that the writer included the point of view of a group that is opposed to the Pink Pistols. This group says:
“…we say no to the use of weapons — we are anti-violence,” she said. “If someone from the Pink Pistols feels they have to arm themselves to be safe … we can’t agree. Most often, we find, their weapons are used against them.”
Maybe it’s just my bias but my reading of it is the statements of this anti-violence group are so weak it actually makes the Pink Pistol’s position stronger.
Anecdotally, it seems to me that the “it’ll be used against you” talking point is extremely effective.
When you think about it, that’s because people visualize themselves with a gun in their hand facing down a violent criminal. What they visualize is that if he just reaches out and takes it, he can do that. They have an overwhelming sense of helplessness.
AFAIK, that’s actually a valid point, for people too timid and psychologically beaten to actually pull the trigger. That lady shouldn’t have a gun. Her problem is that she projects her timidity and submissiveness on the rest of us.
If people like her insist on believing that morbid timidity and respect for the law are the same thing, they’re lost to all decency and common sense. But if they are able to imagine a non-aggressive person defending himself, you can probably communicate with them in a sensible way. They may even get the idea that they personally don’t have to be helpless if they don’t want to be.
My counter would be to ask for the data on instances when a gun has been taken away from a potential victim and used against them. Cops, yes. That happens. But they are in very different situations that potential victims. I suspect the instances of a victim having a gun taken away happen more often on TV and the movies than in real life.