back when i was foolish enough to be registered in facebook I caught an exchange between a friend's girlfirend and her mates. they were reacting to the video below (warning contains nudity etc not safe for work etc)


Pants prank - Watch MoreFunny Videos

One of the girls commented that as a result of viewing such assaults she wanted to get a pistol. Which is the whole point of weaponry - defensive advantage. The women cannot Chase their male attackers as they are physiologically too slow and you can see the moment that each of them realise they are incapable of doing anything even if they could catch their assailants.
Even stateless legal systems, private streets and private security forces will not be perfectly able to prevent or deter 100% of such problems. (obviously they would be many times more effective than statist attempts).
This is where the final resort is the autonomy of the individual. You can always outsource duties such as food and security but no matter how good your local takeaway it would be irresponsible not to be able to cook just incase the taj Mahal was shut. Equally it would be irresponsible to be completely reliant on 3rd party protection. Freedom and responsibility - two sides of the same coin. A free individual should have at least some small degree of defensive autonomy.
As with the food example, it would be irrational to expect one to prepare food without the necessary tools or to take advantage of the most developed means available if they wished to do so. Who cooks with nothing but their bare hands? One can laboriously chop vegetables the same way humans have done for thousands of years or you could make a much finer salsa or sofrito with much less time and effort by using a blender.
This logic can, should and must be applied to self defense.
Rights are nothing if they cannot be acted upon. The right to self defense is nothing if one cannot act upon it and do so with the tools for the job.
I am talking of course about guns. Simply tools for the job of defense and nothing more. Like a chainsaw, a chisel or a cheese knife they can be abused as offensive weapons - this is no justification for coercively limiting their use, manufacture, sale, distribution or possession. If it were then logically such coercions should be applied to cutlery.
If we return to the video how would such situations be different if the victims had not been disarmed? Would such acts of aggression even be likely to occur? The opportunity costs for these pranksters/criminals are next to nothing under the state. Zero police presence and coercively disarmed victims. The opportunity costs of assault in an armed society rocket to the value the assailant places on his own life. Much less attractive odds.
Women should be the keenest advocates for effective defensive equipment (guns not aerosols of close range seasoning!). Power tools remove crude physical advantage. A tractor driver no longer must suffer the ardour of his scythe wielding forebears. Likewise a diminutive female with an effective mechanised range weapon is on an equal footing with a male cage fighter.
Watch the awesome libertarian film 'The Blindside'. In it you can see tiny Sandra bullock scare a whole gang of aggressive males into submission with the mere suggestion she is armed. I cannot find a clip of the scene anywhere but there follows a transcript of. the gang leader is threatening Bullock's newly adopted son and she doesnt take any shit:

Gangster - Tell him, sleep with one eye open. You hear me, bitch?


Bullock - No, you hear me, bitch! You threaten my son you threaten me. You so much as cross downtown you will be sorry. I'm in a prayer group with the D.A.,
I'm a member of the NRA and I'm always packing.


Gangster - What you got in there, a .22? A Saturday Night Special?


Bullock - And it shoots just fine
all the other days, too!



Now that is fucking feminism!