After a woman in Spartanburg, South Carolina was victim of an attempted rape and abduction, the town sheriff told women that the best way to ensure their own safety was to carry a concealed weapon. Is it?
The crime itself follows a familiar disappointing arc— a woman out walking her dog was kidnapped by a man with more than 20 convictions since the early 80's. When Sheriff Chuck Wright announced they'd caught the perpetrator at a news conference, the lawman ended up flying off into a Rumpelstiltskin fit and blamed liberals and gun control for the fact that the perpetrator was out of prison, conjecturing that old fashioned justice would have been led to a tall oak tree with a short rope. Don't carry mace, he told the town's women, carry a gun.
Protecting yourself is great, but really? Guns are the way to go? Guns seem so shooty, and they're heavy and difficult to tote around. Plus, the risk of Plaxico Burressing your ladyparts seems unjustifiable. Contrary to the NRA's wet dream, we don't all suddenly turn into Bruce Willis circa Die Hard when we get our hands on a gun, and even though many people own guns responsibly, there's always a risk that a less-proficient gun owner, when accosted by a criminal, may have their own weapon used against them for the very crime the gun was intended to prevent.
Then again, America loves both explosions and justice, so if everyone has guns (awesome) and uses them for justice (yes), it's sort of like no one has guns (omg shootouts), and that's what we want, right? Constant mutually assured destruction (fucking yes) as a method of crime prevention?
Maybe it would make more sense for the sheriff to just tell women to get bigger dogs. Dogs don't accidentally shoot you in the face.
Image via Stephanie Frey/Shutterstock