How important is physical strength in violent confrontations? I’ve heard women say that a man’s superior brute strength is not such a big deal, that it’s useful mainly for opening jars. Among primitive humans, those who could not open jars would starve to death, leaving only those who could open jars to reproduce.
But on a more serious note, few would seriously argue that physical strength is not a major factor in determining the victor in a confrontation. Few would argue this, but some, such as Colonel Ellen Haring, do make this argument. The Washington Times reports:
An Army officer writing in a prestigious journal says the services should not overemphasize physical strength when deciding whether a woman qualifies for direct ground combat.
Col. Ellen Haring, on the staff of the U.S. Army War College, says commanders need to downplay obstacle courses and judge a service member’s ability to stay calm and think quickly.
Liberals, if they had the ability to think rationally, would find themselves in a bind when it comes to military service. On the one hand, they cannot demand academic/intellectual standards because this would disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics. On the other hand, they cannot emphasize physical strength standards because this would exclude a majority of women. For the bulk of liberals, the answer (as usual) is to stick their heads in the sand and make believe that women will be held to the same standards as men. If they were, there would be very few women in the military, police forces or fire departments – and this simply will not do. So Colonel Haring takes a different approach. She wants to emphasize other skills:
In focusing only on physical strength in violent situations, she said: “We diminish the importance of what are probably more important traits in soldiers: the ability to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking in times of extreme duress. These are the traits that we should be measuring as we assess soldiers for combat specialties.
Yes, it’s true that these are important traits, but who’s to say that these traits, and physical strength, are mutually exclusive? We’ve got well over three hundred million people in this country. Surely we can find enough volunteers, who possess all of the above, to stock our military. Haring seems to be implying that men are less likely to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking than women. I have no idea which reality she’s been living in, but in mine, men seem to have the advantage there too.
A little off topic, but I’ll point out that traditional societies sacrifice their men, and not their women, in war; they’re expendable. As long as there are enough women of child-bearing age left in the population, the nation can recover. But the United States is no longer a nation; it’s just a place on the map that is subject to a particular government, which claims a monopoly on the use of force within those borders. The official stance is that an “American” soldier can just as easily be replaced with a Bantu or a Mongol – as long as he has the proper papers. Once we’ve established that an “American” is interchangeable with anybody on Earth, women have also become expendable. If all W.A.S.P. women, of child-bearing age, disappear from the U.S. tomorrow, it wouldn’t be considered a problem; more can be imported from Congo or Afghanistan – and they’ll be just as “American.” This is why the acceptance of women into combat roles goes hand in hand with the destruction of the ethno-state.
But back to the point, since physical strength does matter, guns are all the more necessary for weaker people to protect themselves. By most accounts, most victims of spousal beatings are women. The reason for this should be obvious: Women are weaker than men, just as children are weaker than adults. Erica Ritz writes, in The Blaze:
The average woman is not as strong as the average man. In a hand-to-hand struggle, even if she goes to the gym five times a week, the woman is probably going to lose.
Unless she has a gun, and knows how to use it.
“There’s a famous quote…[that] goes, ‘God made men, but Sam Colt made [them] equal,’” Jason Hanson, a former CIA Officer and the author of “The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry,” told TheBlaze. “A great example of this is when a few months back, [an] 18-year girl in Oklahoma used a shotgun to stop a home intruder who had a knife. The bottom line is, a gun is without a doubt the best way for a woman to defend herself in a worst-case scenario.”
I would like to add that the same principle applies to smaller/weaker men. Men such as George Zimmerman. If we google “unarmed black”, we get an astounding 21,400,000 results. In many of those search results, if not most of them, the implication is that the “unarmed blacks” were helpless. In the case of Trayvon Martin, he was an “unarmed black kid” because he had not yet reached his 18th birthday. In a few months, he would have been an “unarmed black man.” Whether he had reached his 18th birthday or not was irrelevant to Zimmerman. Martin was 6′ 2″ and much stronger than Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s gun was his equalizer.
Those who oppose the private ownership of guns are actually advocating for the rule of the jungle, where brute strength the main determining factor in a confrontation. The very term “unarmed” is misleading. After all, Martin did have arms, and he could have used them to kill Zimmerman.
It would be interesting to hear Colonel Haring’s take on the private ownership of guns.
Actual footage of High-Diversity-Lipids (HDLs) attacking Zimmerman’s racist arteries
