Every person I have met in person that had served in the Canadian Forces was a very decent person. They knew the meaning of personal responsibility, hard work, humility and compassion. The only one I ever knew to inflict violence outside of a battlefield did so only once, and only to himself. He is greatly missed.

Have you no decency?

Consider, for a moment, the distinction between the words “empower” and “enable”; the inclination towards the oppression of the weak is clearly something rooted in the psyche of a criminal or depraved mind. Viewed as such, it is almost inevitable that any time an opportunity – resulting from a power imbalance – to attack and molest the weak presents itself, these inclinations will indeed manifest themselves as acts of oppression that include torture and rape.

Considering that power imbalances can result from something as basic as an aggressor being physically taller or stronger than her/his victim, I would strongly caution against viewing any implement – including a firearm, in this context – as anything other than an “enabler”. As it is the unmitigated force mustered by the aggressor that enables the oppression to transpire, it is rather hollow to attribute or apportion blame to any inanimate implement – or physical strength, for that matter – that would serve as an enabler.

However, it behooves us to consider the notion of “empowerment” for a moment. Not unlike the above-mentioned inclination toward oppression, empowerment too is a matter that is very much tied to mindset. To be sure, it would be that selfsame notion of empowerment that would enable a victim (in the context of a war-torn country, or anywhere in the word, for that matter) to truly believe it is/was not her fault she was targeted to be raped. Moreover, it would most certainly have to be that notion of empowerment credited, were that same woman to herself obtain and utilize a firearm as a means of warding-off rape and molestation.

Were that to be the scenario, the firearm would again be no more than an enabler, albeit one that enables and permits preservation of life. Simply put, it would have been the woman’s own empowered state-of-mind that resulted in her seeking a means to enable defense of her person and life.

It would seem to perpetuate a myth of helpless women, when historically this is a bit fuzzier than Ms. Saywell would perhaps realize.

In the Balkans, in WWII, rape was also a weapon of war. One should then look at the example of women Partizan fighters through Jugoslavia, who were armed, who fought against Nazi terror, and who had quite a reputation for perpetuating nastiness against prisoners.

I would argue that in this instance, firearms were in fact a liberating tool that elevated the status of women from chattel to equal partner in the struggle against oppression, and that historically the disarming of a populus has led to the very systemic instances of rape that Ms. Saywell describes.