Wendy Cukier’s dangerous fallacy that women can’t defend themselves

"Windy Wendy" Cukier

Women like Wendy Cukier are dangerous.

Wendy Cukier of Canada's Coalition for Gun Control is one of those individuals who believe the entire world should be run to fit her personal desire, and that’s a very dangerous thing. Yes, to guys like me who happen to like guns, to be sure, but she is far more dangerous to woman than she will ever be to me or any other man and our guns.

While I don’t agree with Susan B. Anthony on a number of subjects, on the subject of self-defense she is definitely right on target.

I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.

A person is not protected by rendering them defenseless.

The paradox of Cukier’s position on “gun control” is that she actually achieves the exact opposite of what she claims she wants: women to be protected from violence.

In saying that self-defense is not a legitimate use of firearms, Wendy Cukier disempowers women the world over.

Instead of hating inanimate objects (firearms) perhaps Ms. Cukier ought to instead hate the human behavior that would subjugate women.  Instead of hating “violence against women” no matter how worthy that may appear on the surface, perhaps she ought to work on actually empowering women to defend themselves appropriately in the face of an abusive man.

Instead of stripping women of the very firearms they can handle effectively, short-barreled handguns that are now effectively banned in Canada thanks to Cukier’s efforts, she ought to be leading gun safety classes at the local shooting range.

The fallacy that we will ever disarm violent criminals and other evildoers is just that: a fallacy… a pipe dream… a false hope that can never, ever be realized.

Bad people will ALWAYS get guns if that’s what they want.  And who do the good people call when they’re confronted with some violent person with a gun?

Another person with a gun.  We call these people “police”.

True to the words of Susan B. Anthony above, Alice Macpherson and the Women Educating in Self-Defense Training Society of BC have developed a program for empowering women and teaching them the skills to defend themselves.

From their booklet “Reduce the Risk: Practical Strategies for Enhancing Personal Safety and Avoiding Assault”  Alice Macpherson opens the booklet with the following:

While this booklet is specifically directed towards adult women and their children, it contains advice that is useful for anyone. We believe “Safer for Women” means “Safer for Everyone”.

As women, we have been told what not to do since we were babies. Even if it were possible to follow all this advice, these “Don’ts” will not stop a determined assaulter. In addition, if you feel that you are not doing the “right thing” and are somehow “wrong” this may inhibit or stop you from trying to escape or doing anything active to defend yourself. If you want to know what you are doing wrong, most people will be glad to share their opinion and tell you.

What is critical for each of us is to identify what we do RIGHT. If we are alive, we know that we are doing lots of things right. It is genuinely important to discover the things that you CAN DO, and to apply them to your own life in a positive way. The following tips give a brief look at some areas of concern, and at how we can reduce our risks and enhance our personal safety.

ACCESS
Your own strengths and abilities

ACKNOWLEDGE
The assault is really happening to you

learn and apply

AWARENESS
Who the attacker really is, Why they attack, & What really happens in attacks

ASSESSMENT
Your decision about what you will say and do

AVOIDANCE
Ways to make your environment as safe as possible

ASSERTIVENESS
Act and speak positively to state what you want

ACTION
What you CAN do to release holds & fend off physical attacks

You choose to change and act as you believe is necessary
TO DEAL WITH ASSAULTS

The reality, whether the likes of Wendy Cukier like it or not, is that the only real defense against a person with a gun is another gun.  We must meet force with force, for that is the only language violent criminals understand.

Despite the protestations of Wendy Cukier and her ilk to the contrary, the vast majority of men do not want to hurt women or see them hurt.  Our natural inclination is to protect the women in our lives.  It’s simply how we’re built.  But the reality is that we cannot be with the women in our lives every minute of every day, which is why responsible husbands and fathers teach their wives and daughters how to defend themselves.

At the end of the day, violent assaults don’t happen when a woman is with someone else.  They happen when a predator can corner his or her victim alone and preferably defenseless.

And when a woman is alone and cornered by someone wishing to do her harm, she better know how to get herself out of that predicament and have the tools necessary to help her accomplish that task, don’t you think?

 

 

7 thoughts on “Wendy Cukier’s dangerous fallacy that women can’t defend themselves

  1. The irony and paradox of this , the perfect embodiment of Orwellian newspeak, is that “self-defense is not a legitimate use of firearms”.

    Of course it is, it’s what most firearms were designed to do in the first place no matter if the animal you are protecting yourself from walks on two legs or four. It’s the antis who have inserted this nonsense into the public mind then claim it to be a self evident truth but it’s pure, unadulterated bullshit and there is no other word in the English language so perfectly suited to describe it.

    Police Chiefs are the worst of the lot in that regard. Every officer under their command carries one for that exact reason…..self-defense. Yet virtually all will claim a civilian has no right to use one to defend themselves.

  2. i agree with both posts above mine and with chris 100% on this one. i dont know this “cukier” chick, but she is obviously a whole lot “cukier” than any sane woman !!

    it baffles me how egalitarian womens libbers will also side with the concept of stripping women of the only reasonable way for them to defend themselves against violent men and to equalize them in any real way physically speaking in a combat way.

    it would seem that common sense would dictate that those that would want to empower women in the workforce would also want to help them stay alive long enough to get to work !!

    however, such is apparently not the case. go figure.

    i wonder how long that the supposedly sane people among us will keep trying to reason with these “cukier” people, since it is beyond a reasonable doubt that theyre not interested in reasoning unless it somehow is accidentally attached to some warm and fuzzy emotion that no one on earth can explain based on any set of relevant facts.

    how on earth do we really expect that we can run a nation, like the united states, as a free republic when we undermine the very building blocks of its creation and sustenance ?? how can ANY nation be expected to advance itself in any meaningful field if it chains itself into functions and methods that defy reality ??

    will we next have airports filled with really cute fat pink airplanes that look like something from star wars, but that dont fly ?? with REALLY big guns on them that dont shoot, but that we will hope will scare off tyrants and invading armies by their appearance ??

    after all, such would scare some women and most children, so why not just make the presumption that it would be nice if they would scare off the stalins of the world too ?? after all, these same fools are pretending that criminals will defer from harming women because the law doesnt allow criminals to be violent or to have guns !!

    pure lunacy !!

    however, i must ask if WE are any less “cukier” for believing that we can reason with these people over the short or long term in order to fix our individual countries, or are we EVERY BIT AS MUCH “CUKIER” than a sane person as these people are when we expect to be able to convert a grown up emotional thinker into a “jefferson” of objectivity, just because somebody can prove that some “exception” was converted to objectivity in some country in some particular year…at least one time…

    no, i think its time to realize and to acknowledge that we are not capable of this particular “change” on any meaningful scale, and that it is time to simply think about what path we can take that would separate these type of people from those of us that live in reality. that is what the first white guys did that came to america… they LEFT great britain because it wasnt so “great” and they couldnt “wake up” the people who lived there, a people that sam adams later derided as “a nation of shop-keepers.”

    so i am asking if it might not be better to just let these left-brain thinkers have their cute pink airplanes that dont fly and their unarmed populations for as long as they can manage to keep them in a chunk of the west that we can LIBERALLY donate to them for their country as long as they ALL must go there; and we’ll keep our airports filled with big ugly airplanes that actually fly and we’ll keep our guns and our well armed militia(regular population of armed citizens) for as long as we can keep them… something tells me that our country will outlast theirs !! lol !!

    really guys, i wish we could change these left-brain thinkers into objectively sane people, but i see no evidence for such on a large scale. its akin to believing that we can bring up the 100% failing black nations of the world by feeding their populations and giving them medical care so that they all reach breeding age and then they procreate and the problem gets bigger instead of smaller !! when something aint working, we need to remember that it is WE that are supposed to be the objective leadership for the world, and not waste all of our time trying to “educate” with the hope of success on that platform alone. we must also demand truth on every front and combat all nonsense in a real way and with a PLAN to change the status quo which is failing us and our future children miserably. facts must dictate, and not feeling, no matter how “good” that something “feels”.

    so dont let them catch you left-braining either !! lol !! gotta go !! greetings to all !!

  3. The sanctimonious Marxist morons at the United Nations have dictated to the 193 member nations that their respective governments outlaw the right to self-defense in the name of “public safety”, which is, in and of itself, an oxymoron.

    Since self-defense is a natural, God-given instinct, it would be committing blasphemy against the Almighty should humans not at least make a feeble attempt to defend themselves when facing danger, regardless of how the goofy, grafted, politically-correct, activist judges interpret the bible of the bench known as the Criminal Code.

    We’re talking something much more Supreme: we’re talking Torah; we’re talking Bible; we’re talking real-deal Law from the Master–not some gobbledygook diktat mouthed from a bunch of corrupt global masters who concluded long ago that only One-World Government law enforcement agents, military personnel and criminals will “be allowed” to carry guns.

    As Las Vegas Review Journal columnist and author Vin Suprynowicz likes to ask: “just exactly who’s doing the allowing?”

    The best way to defend oneself when confronted with a gun is, of course, to equalize the circumstances with a gun that hopefully has a faster trigger with fatter bullets zipping out of the business end of that barrel than the opponent’s.

    However, that might not be possible any longer for responsible citizens since gun laws are becoming more cumbersome and complex with each UN policy that affects politically–not judiciary–decisions handed down in our court cases.

    Although the Marxists’ “public safety” agenda to outlaw every serf’s firearm is not going to be easy, I daresay it will be a whole bunch easier than abolishing people’s natural, God-given instincts.

    So, the looming question is how do people who no longer own a gun or who are prohibited from carrying open or concealed on their person supposed to protect themselves? Ask politicians, judges, police or those UN goons and they will reply with scorn that ‘you’re not supposed to protect yourself’.

    I was fortuitously listening to the August 7th Talkin’ to America podcast in which Adam Taxin, Interim Communication Manager at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), was interviewing Charles Heller, an Arizona-based civil rights activist associated with JPFO and has a long list of credentials.
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/talkamerica.htm

    Their discussion centered around the Sikh Temple shooting a couple of days before and how such circumstances might be guarded against, either to prevent or minimize such occurrences.

    Mr. Heller’s advice when guns, batons, mace, baseball bats and other weapons of self-defense are prohibited, carry a cane.

    Of course! A cane!

    I can see how a cane might have been very effective in cracking the skulls or dislodging the guns from the assailants’ hands at the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre and Tucson, Arizona shooting sprees as well as useful against the alleged box-cutter-wielding 9-11 skyjackers.

    A cane isn’t prohibited and can be carried on an airline, Mr. Heller noted.

    Additionally, it also can accompany you on streets, in shopping malls, schools and other public places and is always at the ready in your home, office or treehouse.

    A short time before hearing Mr. Heller’s suggestions, admirers of my shoulder-high, diamond-willow walking staff had already advised me of the cane’s attributes other than for hiking the hills or along the streets.

    One lady, who studies wildlife to incorporate into her stylized artwork, gave me a short demo in the otherwise tedious driver’s license lineup of her rendition of how to hold and maneuver the pole to ward off charging grizzlies and moose.

    I’d never considered that concept, but said with all sincerity, “I hope I never have to test your theory.”

    Another admirer told me about classes she’d heard of that teach self-defense against two-legged predators using a walking staff as a tool. Something like Avatar, The Last Airbender who wants the master to teach him the powers of his magical staff to manipulate the four natural elements.
    http://www.ask.com/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender

    Without realizing it, I have been “open-carrying” a personalized self-defense weapon for several years and, except to admire it, nobody–not even security guards–have tried to seize it or charge me.

    Now all I need to do is practice my skills on a couple of undesirables who head my Marxist moron list until I am as proficient as Avatar.

    Should I fail, I hope I can fall back on the sage advice a mechanic once proffered: “Always carry an adequate amount of tools in your vehicle; you might not know how to use them all but somebody will come along who does.”

  4. You know, the worst part about this wonderful website, is that it only preaches to the choir. I thoroughly enjoy this site, however, I truly feel frustrated because the people who need to hear and see this information are not exposed to it, and if they are, they generally have a closed mind. I wish the media was as well informed and actually promoted responsible firearms ownership as something beneficial to society rather than a detractor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

*