Indeed, all men and women are created equal, but only insofar as they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, specifically life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In all other respects, there is no equality.
In terms of size, physical strength and brute force, men overwhelmingly overpower women. There are exceptions. But the odds are heavily against the average woman who is assaulted by the average man.
Unless the woman possesses the great equalizer: A firearm.
She has to be able and willing to use it, of course, to defend herself. If she is, then there is a good chance that she is not only equal to her attacker, but superior.
I find it perplexing that so-called liberals (leftists, really) would deprive a woman of the means to defend herself against a stronger aggressor. Yet somehow it is conservatives that are waging a "war on women".
Ban all guns? I suppose if you could effectively ban knives, clubs, bats, fists, feet, and any other weapon, tool or implement that could be used to perpetrate violence, then maybe a gun ban might have some effect.
The UK banned guns several decades ago, yet people in the UK are more than twice as likely to be murdered today than they were 40 years ago [ref]. Australia has a similar gun ban, and has seen a 40% increase in assaults, including a 20% increase in sexual assaults [ref]. In the U.S., studies and statistics constantly and consistently confirm that an armed citizenry is a safer citizenry [ref, ref, ref, ref].
For the last couple years I've been chronicling incidents where citizens have used firearms to defend themselves from violent crime and home invasions. Whenever I've come across such news I've posted an excerpt along with a link to the original news story on my Saved by the Gun page. I'm only scratching the surface, but I see news stories all the time where a woman is able to protect herself from harm with a firearm.
Recently, a 47-year-old Arizona widow heard someone breaking into her home, and she immediately called 911. She hid in her bathroom, talking to the 911 operator, who recorded the entire incident. Two and a half minutes into the call, a man broke into the bathroom and attacked her. Four minutes later the police arrived at her home. Fortunately for the woman, she was armed, and was able to shoot and stop the attacker. We'll never know what the outcome would have been if she didn't have a gun, but it wouldn't have been good. [ref]
In another incident, a woman in Georgia was at home with her 9-year-old twins, and talking on the phone with her husband who was at work, when a man started to break into her home with a crowbar. She and her children managed to hide in an attic crawlspace before the man broke in. Before the police could arrive, the man had found their hiding place. It took her five shots from a .38 to his face and neck to stop him. What would the man have done if his intended victim wasn't armed? God only knows, but the police wouldn't have made it in time to stop him.
Depend on the police for protection? No. That the police can protect us is a fallacy. In the vast majority of cases, by the time the police arrive, the crime is already committed.
There are countless other cases where the police have been nowhere near, and women have used firearms to stop home invaders or fend off attackers.
A Detroit grandma was approached by two men, one who shot her. She shot back and drove them away [ref]. A woman in Dallas shot and killed a man as he was stabbing her [ref]. An elderly Florida woman used her gun to frighten off men breaking into her home [ref]. Another Detroit woman shot an intruder that used a crowbar to break into her home [ref]. A woman in Alabama shot and killed a knife-wielding home invader [ref]. An armed Detroit mom thwarted three armed home invaders [ref]. A California woman used a shotgun to frighten away two men breaking into her home [ref]. A young pregnant woman frightened off two men who had broken into her home a few minutes after her husband left for work [ref]. A woman in Kansas City frightened away three armed men who were trying to break into her home [ref]. A 26-year old girl was attacked and stabbed while feeding her horse in her family’s barn, but was able to draw her gun and drive off her attacker [ref]. A grandmother held a home invader at gunpoint until police arrived to arrest him [ref]. A woman used a shotgun to drive a drunken intruder from her bedroom [ref].
Unfortunately, for every incident where a woman uses a gun to defend herself or her family from harm, there are dozens more where an unarmed woman falls victim — whether of robbery, assault, sexual assault, or murder — to a bigger, stronger, or better-armed male (or sometimes female) aggressor.
Suzanna Hupp was a gun owner who took her gun out of her purse and left it in her car because she was afraid to violate gun laws. She was in a restaurant, unarmed, enjoying a meal with her parents, when a crazed man shot up the restaurant, killing several people, including both her parents.
Suzanna Hupp was a victim, but not in the way leftists would have us think she was.
"I don't view myself as a victim of gun violence," Hupp declared before a Congressional panel. "I view myself as a victim of a maniac who happened to use a gun as a tool, and I view myself as a victim of the legislators at the time who left me defenseless." [ref]
If Hupp would have had her gun with her, it's very possible she could have halted the gunman early in his rampage.
Of course, guns aren't just an equalizer for women. They are also an equalizer for men who are faced with bigger, stronger, or more numerous assailants.
Cesare Beccaria, a leading Italian criminologist, jurist, philosopher and politician in the 18th century had this to say about gun control laws:
"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." [ref]
Let us also not forget that firearms, when possessed by a large portion of the populace, are also a great equalizer in the eternal high-stakes tug-of-war between liberty and slavery, between government control and the rights of the people.
As another commentator observed, "The one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians." [ref]
The bottom line is that anybody who professes to promote equality, but advocates and promotes gun control, is either a liar or self-deceived.
Only through the right to bear arms can the unalienable rights of life and liberty, and the dependent pursuit of happiness, be equally protected and properly guarded.
More Accounts of Equalization of Women Wielding Weapons...
Eleven-year-old shoots man who was stabbing her mom — (2014-09-24) "The Oklahoma City Police Department says an 11-year-old girl shot a man who got into a fight with the child's mom at a SE OKC mobile home Wednesday morning.... Five children were inside the home when the incident happened.... 25-year-old Leonard Demon Henry broke in through the glass door and began attacking his ex-girlfriend and stabbing her.... That's when police say the victim's young daughter shot him twice. Police say when they arrived, the found him running from the home with a gun shot wound." [A stupid question for gun banners: What would the outcome have been if the young girl didn't have a gun? Her mom would be dead, and there's a good chance that some or all of the children would be dead or injured. Ban guns? You're crazy.]