Wasn’t sure if this got posted, but, Ann is one of my favorites.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter051600.asp

For womb the bell tolls

http://www.jewishworldreview.com — THE
LAST TIME liberal women got the idea to use
their wombs as an argument for gun control,
Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.,
Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., and Rosa DeLauro,
D-Conn., were uttering such prattle as “women
find they have a maternal instinct” for gun
control. A reporter for The New York Times
observed at the time that the congresswomen
“seem(ed) to miss the irony that the same
political party that claimed ownership of the
position that women could be more than
mothers is, in this instance, casting them
primarily in that role.”

The Million Mom March (which infected the
nation’s capital on Sunday) was poised to set
women’s workplace gains back about 100
years. (The Moms’ Web page adorably notes
that the time for planning this event was nine
months — and “(a)s a mother, I know what can
be created in this amount of time.”)

I’m all for motherhood, but as Bill Maher, host
of “Politically Incorrect,” is forever pointing out,
it’s not that hard to become a parent. (In fact, it
is because having children can be accomplished
by the weak-minded and incompetent that
Maher is constantly lobbying for a licensing
requirement for parenthood.) But somehow,
merely the status of being a “mom” is supposed
to trump facts and linear thinking. That was the
theme of the Million Mom March: I don’t need a
brain — I’ve got a womb.

The Moms’ Web page idiotically explains:
“While we acknowledge that guns may be
necessary for hunting, law enforcement and
national security, the proliferation of firearms
intended for one purpose only — killing another
human being — has become untenable.”

It’s sporting of them to allow the military and
cops to have guns and all, but — how does one
put this? — the reason the military and police
have guns is precisely because their guns are
intended for “killing another human being.”
That’s why cops and soldiers carry guns, rather
than, say, daisies. (And just for the record, a
gun that can kill a deer can surely kill a human,
too.)

The fact that guns can kill another human being is the whole point. That’s
why they’re so darn good at deterring violent criminals. By analyzing 18
years of data for more than 3,000 counties, the inestimable professor
John Lott found that violent crime drops significantly when citizens are
permitted to carry concealed guns. The greatest beneficiaries of
concealed carry laws — whether they personally choose to carry — are
women and the elderly.

Economist David Friedman explained the economic
theory supporting the statistics in his book “Hidden
Order: The Economics of Everyday Life.” (Of course,
Friedman is not a “mom,” only an economist, so take
his crazy linear thinking with a grain of salt.)

Friedman begins by accepting the hysterical,
counterfactual claims of the anti-gun crowd that 90
percent of the time criminals will wrest guns from
law-abiding citizens (which, for the record, is false).
“Suppose,” he says, “one little old lady in 10 carries a
gun. Suppose that one in 10 of those, if attacked by a mugger, succeeds
in killing the mugger instead of being killed by him — or shooting herself in
the foot.”

Even though the mugger will come out better on average than the little old
lady, Friedman notes that “also on average, every hundred muggings
produce one dead mugger.” Mugging becomes an unprofitable profession
because “not many little old ladies carry enough money to justify one
chance in a hundred of being killed.” Thus, even on implausible anti-gun
assumptions, muggings will decline because muggers will have “rationally
sought safer professions.”

Indeed, without a gun, crime victims may as well take the advice of Peter
Shields, former head of Handgun Control Inc., who recommends that
women faced with a rapist or robber “give them what they want.” Maybe
it’s my womb talking, but I’m tempted to say, I don’t care what the
statistics are; I’m not sitting back and taking it.

As luck would have it, the statistics do not support passivity in the face of
a criminal assault. As John Lott has pointed out, studies purporting to
show that women are more likely to be injured in a crime if they resist do
so only by lumping all forms of “resistance” together, from bare-knuckled
fighting to brandishing a gun.

The most dangerous action a woman can take when faced with a criminal
is to resist with her fists: That tends to annoy violent criminals, and the
woman will very likely be seriously injured. But a woman who takes the
advice of Handgun Control Inc. and passively submits is 2.5 times more
likely to be injured than a woman who resists with a gun. So if you don’t
want to lie back and enjoy it, get a gun. Otherwise you may never
become a mom.