I was moderately offended by Ashley Herzog's latest column; Women can ensure own safety with guns
in which she proposes gun ownership as a solution to violence against women.
Herzog must think the average Ohio University student has the intelligence of a 4-year-old if she honestly thought her argument could withstand reader scrutiny. She tries to make her point by presenting the reader with false dilemmas and twisting the women's liberation movement to tug at the reader's emotions.
Herzog commits the common fallacy of the false dilemma by trying to persuade readers that it is all or nothing when it come to gun ownership and safety. Herzog says, If you are unarmed all you can do is scream and hope an equally strong man comes to your rescue. But if you happen to have a handgun in your purse you have the option of shooting at the would-be rapist. Herzog implies that there are only two choices when it comes to safety: carry a gun or get raped. That is absurd; there are plenty of alternatives to which women can appeal. Many non-lethal devices can deter attackers (i.e. mace), and many places, OU included, offer services like Safe-T-Patrol to help ensure people's safety.
Herzog tries to take advantage of her readers' sympathies to make her case. For example, statements like, There is a reason that guns have been called the 'great equalizer' ' they allow women to defend themselves against violent men who are physiologically bigger and stronger and I don't want to be completely dependent on other (male) people to protect me simply try to make the reader feel like Herzog's position is correct, but fail to provide substantive reasons.
Herzog seems to think that in order for women to share in equality and function independently of men they need to be armed. But this is yet again a carelessly crafted and fallacious argument. She tries to dupe the reader into accepting another false dichotomy that one must either be for women's rights, and consequently their right to carry firearms, or be a misogynist who wants women dependent on men for their basic needs. Further, Herzog fails to explain why guns are preferable to other forms of self-defense.
It might have behooved Herzog to rely more on common sense as opposed to sloppy logic and rhetorical tricks. Does she, or anyone for that matter, really think that uniting inebriated sorority girls with loaded firearms is actually going to make campus safer?
' Jim Coleman is a junior philosophy and economics major.
17
Archives
Letter to the Editor
