CNN Expert Argues Female Teachers Can’t Carry Guns Because They Wear Dresses

Over the past couple of weeks, the gun debate has been quite heated. But I don’t think I’ve heard of a more stupid argument as to why teachers shouldn’t carry guns. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that it was someone from the Crappiest Name in News that delivered the idiotic argument.
 
Tom Fuentes, CNN’s senior law enforcement analyst, said: “A lot of these schools – Sandy Hook had an all-female faculty, from principals to teachers. For a woman, where are you going to hide that gun during the day? You can’t put it in your desk drawer; somebody might steal it, and you can’t get to it. You’re not going to have it in a safe in the principal’s office; you can’t get to it.”
 
So far, these arguments aren’t invalid. Those are good points. Putting a gun in your desk drawer is dangerous because someone might steal it. Putting it in a safe in the principal’s office is ineffective because you can’t get to it and defeats the entire purpose of having it.
 
Then we get to the dumb, and frankly sexist comment: “If you wear a dress; if you wear a skirt, are you going to have to wear a jacket every day with a belt and a holster, the way a detective on duty would do? It’s not a real practical solution for a variety of reasons.” How so? If a detective on duty does it, why is it not a practical solution?
 
Not to mention that not every single female teacher wears a dress or a skirt. When I went to high school, almost all of the female teachers would wear pants. Granted, this was in Portland, Oregon, but even during the spring and summer time during school they would wear pants. And at that, I went to high school in Oregon for my last three years. When I was a freshman, I attended a school in Miami and the female teachers there also largely wore pants.
 
So this “argument” operates under the assumption that all female teachers exclusively wear a dress or a skirt. So that’s where the sexist part comes in. It’s not too sexist, for sure, but considering this is someone on CNN, you’d think they would go bananas over such a comment. But since it helps (not really) to push back against Trump’s proposal to arm teachers, they’ll let it be. It’s not like this is the first time they’ve been hypocrites and it certainly won’t be the last.
 
But returning to the argument, a large part of the reason it’s stupid is not just because plenty of female teachers wear pants, but also because even if a female teacher wears a skirt or a dress, they can still conceal it on their body.
 
Gun accessory manufacturers have made it very easy for women to protect themselves with their products. A simple Google search on “gun holsters for women” (which is one of the top search results) will direct you to such products. Just searching the first site, GunGoddess.com, it shows me tons of options for women who want to protect themselves.
 
Options include: Inside and Outside-the-waistband holsters, ankle holsters, conceal-carry jackets, concealment carry corsets, conceal-carry waist pack, concealment leggings, concealment shorts, concealment tank-tops, concealed bra holsters, garter belt holsters and thigh holsters.
 
That’s eleven different types of holsters and I didn’t even mention every single one the site offers. So there’re a lot of options for female teachers to carry concealed weapons. Wearing a dress or a skirt doesn’t matter.
 
So that only makes his comment all the more dumb. I truly don’t understand the Left’s obsession with keeping women from protecting themselves. If more women armed themselves, we’d have a lot less “#MeToo” victims. Why? Because as it’s been established in the past, rape and sexual assault is usually never about sex. It’s usually about power. The power of a man over a woman. Any power the man has (though women can be sexual assaulters and rapists too) immediately goes away when the woman has a gun. She immediately takes away any of the power he thought he had.
 
If the Left truly wanted an end to “#MeToo” stories, why discourage women from arming themselves? Just arming oneself gives one a greater sense of power. But also knowing how to wield one and being very adept at it gives you even more power.
 
But aside from sexual assault, a gun protects women in other factors. It protects them from abusers (either a spouse or someone else), it protects them from muggers (though unless your life is threatened, it’s just better to hand over whatever it is the mugger wants. No need to risk your life if the mugger doesn’t immediately want to take it), it protects them from home invaders and, in this particular case, can protect them from an evil sicko shooting up a school.
 
Guns can protect female teachers just as well as it can protect male teachers. It can protect women as well as it can protect men. Guns are the great equalizer. The Left might disagree that men are naturally stronger than women, but it’s a fact of life. And a gun is just as effective in the hands of a woman as it is in the hands of a man (with the same level of skill, that is).
 
It doesn’t take more strength to wield a handgun, and any gun is effective at doing its job: protecting the wielder. A 5’5”, 110 lbs. woman with a gun can be just as powerful as a 6’9”, 200 lbs. man with a gun. And that’s why a gun is the great equalizer.
 
So for this guy to say something like that honestly shows just how inept he is in his field and how inept CNN is for hiring this guy.
 
2 Thessalonians 3:3
“But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen you and protect you from the evil one.”