This marks the first time I’ve unfriended a libertarian, and that would be the frequent LP candidate Jeff Daiell. Yesterday he posted a more than inflammatory image accusing the California legislature of planning to disarm women specifically so they would be easier to rape.
After several pages of round and round, I could tell there was no point arguing. It wasn’t until I had deleted all my comments in the thread in question and then unfriended him that I realized I should have queried him as to what percentages of rapes are foiled by women who happen to be carrying an AR-15, since that is the only class of weapon subject to the ban voted on by the California legislature. As usual with snappy comebacks, they don’t occur to me until long after their effective use has expired.
The truth is, all polemics aside, a woman is more likely to be killed with a gun than she is to protect herself with one. I’ve long held the opinion that all women should be trained as marksmen and issued weapons as soon as they can prove their proficiency with them, that women more than men should be encouraged to arm themselves for their own defense. Given the statistics of the matter though, I can understand their hesitancy to do so.
Postscript
As the title says, this is when I started to notice a gap between me and my fellow libertarians. That gap widened until I simply couldn’t call myself libertarian anymore.
