Self-Defense “Expert” Speaks Out Against Self-Defense

You ever read something so stupid, it makes your eyes bleed? I’ve been wanting to blog about this all weekend, but with no computer and only iPhone access to the Internet, this wasn’t going to work. The blog post would have looked like it was written by a slow child.

But now that I have a computer, the urge to address the utter dumbassery coming from the ignorant maw of alleged “self-defense expert” Mary Anne Franks is strong. In a recent debate about whether or not to allow concealed carry of personal firearms on Florida campuses, Franks testified in the Florida legislature against restoring the right of trained, law-abiding Floridians to defend themselves while studying in the state’s universities.

“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.

Franks’ ridiculous claim would come as a surprise to anyone who is actually capable of reading comprehension.

Why, just in the past few days, the media has reported on a concealed carry license holder who stopped an armed robbery in a Chicago neighborhood store, a pizza delivery guy in Florida, who used a gun to defend himself against an armed thug,  an armed Oklahoma man who successfully defended himself against an assailant in his own driveway, an armed father who protected his daughter from an armed thug who held a gun to her head, an armed Michigan homeowner who held off eight… that’s right EIGHT thugs until police arrived, and a California gun owner who ended a hammer rampage. That’s right, hammer rampage.

So maybe Franks just doesn’t have access to the Internet. Maybe she doesn’t make enough money as a “self-defense expert” to purchase a newspaper. Or maybe she’s just too stupid to read. Whatever the reason for the hoplophobic ridiculosity that she spewed, she’s obviously wrong. Very wrong.

Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.

A study that examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police and civilians revealed that armed civilians successfully stopped criminals 83 percent of the time, compared 68 percent of police. Additionally, only 2 percent of shootings by civilians resulted in an innocent being shot, compared to 11 percent of shootings by police who mistook an innocent person for a criminal.

So what does this mean? Apparently, armed civilians are much more effective at actually preventing crimes than police. This is not to impugn police officers. Many of them are dedicated, skilled professionals. But fact is they can’t be there all the time, and when seconds count, they’re still minutes away. Additionally, while police do have training requirements, many gun owners I know impose much stricter requirements on themselves. They enjoy the training. They practice longer and harder – not because they have to, but because they want to.

And yes, as a member of the U.S. Army, my training was extensive – in basic training. After initial entry training was over, we were lucky if we got the opportunity to qualify once per year.

Again, I don’t say this to impugn our military, but given our jobs, and especially on deployment, it’s not like we could go out and plink whenever we wanted.

Franks then doubles or triples (I’m having trouble keeping up with this much dumbshittery) down on the stupid.

“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.

Is that why 92 percent of defensive gun uses result in no injuries and no shots fired?

And then comes the real doozy from a woman who obviously has never experienced sexual assault, but whose goal is to ensure that everyone else is unable to prevent it should the situation arise. She noted that most assault victims know their attackers.

“Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Franks then went from full retard to full turnip when she inexcusably squawked that “it’s an illusion to think crime victims will exhibit the calm, objective demeanor of a movie hero in defending themselves.”

“Studies done by many, many professional have shown that it is really, really unlikely for anyone to use a gun effectively in self defense, especially in cases of sexual assault,” said Franks.

What’s disgusting is that this is a woman who actually is testifying in a legislative proceeding that women are too incompetent to use a gun in self defense! What’s appalling is that she wants to keep women defenseless, because most sexual assaults are committed by those known to the victim.

While it’s true that 82 percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by a “non-stranger,” Franks thinks (if you can call her twisted logic that) the other 18 percent don’t deserve the opportunity to defend themselves against someone they don’t know. Additionally, she assumes that every sexual assault happens on a “date” and that a woman shouldn’t carry a self defense tool in those instances.

Franks is like many other hoplophobes who believe that if the odds are against you successfully defending yourself, you shouldn’t even try. Much like the sniffly gun grabbers who point out that the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings were unsuccessful in stopping the slaughter of Jews, and therefore, why even bother, Franks assumes that since a rapist will likely be someone whom the victim knows, she is less likely to be successful at fending off a sexual assault, so why try?

anti-rapeThat’s how little this “self-defense expert” cares about the lives of women! Why bother, ladies? Just lie back and enjoy it. Or piss yourself, because rape isn’t about power and control, but about getting one’s rocks off!


This repugnant invertebrate is an insult to feminism and an affront to all women!

The fact that she considers women too incompetent and emotional to successfully use firearms to prevent assault flies directly in the face of logic and empowerment, as well as actual research.

A 2005 study revealed that resistance does reduce the chances of the rape being carried through to completion. What will armed resistance do? An article by Dave Kopel in the Washington Post this year quotes this study to show that armed self-defense does, indeed, stop an assailant.

The Colorado Sheriffs’ support for defensive arms carrying is confirmed by national data. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of those 26 cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon.

That’s right. Women who admitted to have used firearms in self-defense to prevent a rape were successful in doing so.

Franks’ contention that women are incapable of rationally defending themselves is offensive to its core. It’s cowardly. It’s false. It’s insulting to strong, independent women.

Those who think the right is waging some kind of “war on women,” because goddammit, every woman should be able to buy condoms at taxpayer expense, and if you don’t think so… SHUT UP MISOGYNIST! are apparently not appalled at this barely coherent snatch impugning the ability, good sense, skill, and judgment of fellow women. They’re apparently not disgusted at Franks’ lack of respect for her females and their lives and dignity. They don’t care that she advocates rendering women helpless – unable to use the most effective self-defense tool on the market today – apparently as long as she supports taxpayer funded condoms and abortions!

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that this progtard would advocate disarmament of women, given her publication history in such notably leftist publications as the Huffing-glue Post and the Atlantic.

We also shouldn’t be shocked that her political agenda trumps all, including common sense, women’s dignity, and safety on campus.


31 responses

  1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    It’s probably “hateful” to ask but what are her credentials for calling herself a “self-defense expert”? [Evil Grin]


    1. She knows Krav Maga, hater! 😉


      1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        Does Krav Maga mean talking your enemy to death? [Very Big Kidding Grin]

        Seriously, I did look up Krav Maga but I find it hard to believe she really knows it. [Smile]

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hey, I wonder if we need to check her creds.


  2. I am willing to grant her the Krav Maga skills. What does that do for the thousands of people out there who either don’t have the time, nor the money to pursue the skillset for that discipline? Not to mention the physical ability to go through such a demanding self defense sport.
    I am no longer as spry as I wish I were. Ok, I am wearing out, at 55, I am surprised I lived to be this old and I would have taken better care of myself when I was younger if I had only known.
    However, I recognize that I can no longer figure that I can kick the ass of 2 or 3 thugs at once. Even without some martial art, it was a mindset, and I used to have it, but now I am a little more realistic, and that is why I carry a gun. And why I feel everyone should have that option. Realistically, no matter what kind of training you can’t rely on being able to fight your way out of an attack, especially as a smaller female. Simply put a 125 pound woman trying to fight a 200 pound man is unlikely to prevail no matter what kind of training, unless she is very lucky and experienced.
    As everyone knows, some chance is better than no chance. But this woman is not about taking guns from women, and I think it is apparent. She is just another anti-freedom gun hater who wants to control people and ultimately wants all guns banned, except of course, for cops, military, and criminals. But not military on base. They can’t be trusted. Their guns might go off by themselves or something, you know, because guns do that, just like cars spontaneously start themselves all the time.


    1. I almost forgot.
      EX=has been
      SPURT=drip under pressure


  3. Well, gee, it’s a shame she doesn’t live in Illinois, because the 911 system is going to run out of money before too long. Yes, folks, in Illinois, where Dan Madigan rules the state legislature despite the fact that he’s NOT the governor, the budget for emergency funding is being held hostage because he has his head up his own ass so far he may not see daylight again in this millenium.

    Not having 911 emergency response, means that you have to have the Po-Po number on speed dial… but what if you’re in some other county or town and you don’t know the 10-digit number for the local precinct? Oh, noes!!

    This is a reality, not a fantasy. Frankly, i don’t think this bimbo knows any more about self-defense than a salt shaker does. And she’s wrong, anyway, so that’s all there is to it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Its odd that I never see gun stores robbed but stores that display signs indicating they are no gun zones seem to get robbed. A lot. Like to hear this expert explain why this happens. And i’D LOVE TO POST A GUN FREE ZONE SIGN ON HER HOME.


  5. What I want to know is who the progtard was that ASKED this moron to “testify” before the Texas legislature???

    Liked by 1 person

  6. There are plenty enough stories around of martial arts experts who got their asses kicked, or who got raped, when surprised out in the wilds of the streets or shopping mall parking lot too. One I remember reading about some years ago was a woman who had a black belt in something or other swinging her purse at an assailant old lady style (not that it can’t sometimes work too) instead of doing some awesome karate or whatever move (that one ended well though, if I remember right, there were other people nearby and he left, but she later told that as an example of how difficult it can be to react right in a surprise real situation when all your practice has been in a dojo 🙂 ).

    And among the good things about self defense with guns – they tend to be taken more seriously even when the person with one is small, old or otherwise not convincing looking if she takes a karate or whatever stance or even starts fighting well. And somebody who relies on her martial arts skills is far more likely to actually HAVE to fight than somebody who pulls out that gun is to shoot.


    1. “There are plenty enough stories around of martial arts experts who got their asses kicked, or who got raped, when surprised out in the wilds of the streets or shopping mall parking lot too.”

      To paraphrase a line my sister has repeated (from one of her AF instructors)
      “Ninja-sminja. You can’t karate chop a bullet.” usually followed by another line to the tone of “I can teach you all the karate in the world ladies, but the best defense you have is to put one (bullet) between his eyes.”


      1. Once again, let me reiterate my favorite comment on this issue. “WHEN did we reach the point where a woman lying raped and murdered in an alley is deemed somehow “morally superior” to another woman, standing in that same alley, explaining to the police how that rapist got a hole in his chest?”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I keep trying to find *that* on a T-shirt!


        2. I phrase that a little different.

          Life threatening aggression ends with the death of the aggressor at the hands of the intended victim.

          Maybe you could get that on a T shirt? 🙂


  7. “the media has reported on a concealed carry license holder who stopped an armed robbery ”

    NO! NO! The man was able to stop the armed robbery because he had a GUN and the guts to use it, not because he had a CC “license.” Why do so many people make the “license” the operative factor? Why do any of us even mention it?

    I don’t – and never have had any “license” or government permission slips to carry a gun… but I have already had to shoot a man to save my life. The GUN, and my willingness to use it were the reasons I prevailed. Read the story here:


    1. My idea in writing it that way was that if he had a CCW, he SURELY had a gun. It’s not the operative factor – nor was it intended as such. Plus, the story is about CCW on campus, so I thought it was relevant to show that a CC permit holder successfully stopped a crime.


      1. OK, I grok that… just get so damned tired of seeing the license as the central part of the phrase – in the “news,” but especially on “pro-gun” blogs and news feeds… and my first reaction is always something like… so, if he/she had not had the “permit,” they should just forget about it or die quietly? sigh

        Thank goodness for Wyoming (and a growing number of places for others…) where I don’t have to worry about permission slips. And that should apply to colleges and universities in Wyoming as well, of course. I, for one, refuse to even recognize any excuse for “permits” anywhere.


    2. I am one of those people who live in a State that issues CCW “permits” but refuse to get one. MY permit is the US Constitution…not some government bureaucrat’s concept of one. I carry when and where I think it’s prudent.


  8. […] But now that I have a computer, the urge to address the utter dumbassery coming from the ignorant maw of alleged “self-defense expert” Mary Anne Franks is strong. In a recent debate about whether or not to allow concealed … Article by self-defense – Google Blog Search. Read entire story here. […]


  9. I see this made The Gun Feed this morning. Good. We don’t mind sharing The Goodness That Is Nicki™ with others. Expletives and all. 🙂


  10. Come to think of it, Nicki, having a “permit” does not in the least mean that a person “surely has a gun.” Not by a damn sight. There are so many places where a gun is not “allowed” that they are left in cars or lockers or even just left at home. We never know how many times a person who owns a gun, and knows how to use it, is victimized or just stands by helplessly while others are attacked – permit or not.


    1. I dunno… I carry as much as I possibly can, ESPECIALLY if CCW is allowed. I would think that those who have a CCW and could carry on campus would do so, but I may be projecting. LOL


      1. Nicki, a lot of people MIGHT carry, but the point is that a permit doesn’t assure it by any means. I know a lot of gun owners here in Wyoming, where no permit is required, who do not carry at all. I teach armed self defense, including CC, and most of my students over the years do not carry… and can’t be bothered to come out to practice – but they all have their “permit” (mostly from when it was still required). I hold a shooting clinic weekly, and just ONE faithful former student comes most of the time. But she doesn’t carry much either. I think you can see where my skepticism is coming from.

        I don’t see college students being prepared to take on that awesome responsibility any more than those former students of mine. I’m glad if they are… So yes, I fully support the idea of college students carrying guns. I just don’t really expect many of them to do so, permit or otherwise. And maybe that would change once all the BS was removed. I don’t know. I don’t know why people with no such barriers choose not to be responsible for their own safety either.


        1. Again, I’m probably projecting, because I do carry, and would carry if I was a student. But I’m old…. :-O


  11. This is one of the newer tactics by the gun control cabal…..much like their rebranding from gun control to “gun safety” [ignoring for a moment that these groups do not provide, endorse, nor support actual firearms safety training]….they look specifically for trojan horses. People who, at least superficially, look to be knowledgeable on firearms.

    HuffPo’s Mike “the gun guy” Weisser is one of these charlatans. they usually give themselves away with claims of “common sense” and an unnatural reflex to use ‘NRA’ as the focus for what ails the gun debate.


  12. self-defense “expert” my butt. Ignorant Idiot , ABSOLUTELY!!!!


  13. RE: Self-Defense vs. Rape

    Franks adheres to….

    The insane theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to a cop how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

    Someone should take her on a ride and drop her, unarmed, in the worst part of Detroit. Dressed up like some jail-bait tart.


  14. If a conservative is anti-gun, she doesn’t buy one.
    If a liberal is anti-gun, she want’s to take your gun away!

    Liked by 1 person

  15. In around 50,000 cases a year, 137 times a day, or every 10 minutes people defend themselves. In cases of attempted rape the Vast Majority of cases where the victim was armed turned out as s successful Defense. On Campus the incidents of Rape are far worse 1 in 5 women, and 1 in 16 men are raped. Contrary to the claims by Evie Hudiak and others that if you use a gun it will be taken away from you. Here are 2 DOJ Studies one on Firearm Violence in General and the other on Attempted Rapes.

    DOJ Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

    In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table 11). This amounted to approximately 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations in the 5-year period. The percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations involving firearm use in self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011 (not shown in table). In 2007-11, about 44% of victims of nonfatal violent crime offered no resistance, 1% attacked or threatened the offender with another type of weapon, 22% attacked or threatened without a weapon (e.g., hit or kicked), and 26% used nonconfrontational methods (e.g., yelling, running, hiding, or arguing).


    DOJ Draft Final Technical Report: The Impact of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury

    Both forms of resistance with a gun -“attack with a gun” and “threat with a gun”- are also associated with lower risk compared to no SP (Self Protection), although the differences are not statistically significant. As with rape and sexual assault incidents, only “screaming” is associated with a significantly higher risk compared to nonresistance.

    The results contradict scholars who have concluded that forceful resistance is often dangerous because it provokes offender to inflict further injury, especially for female victims


    National Sexual Violence Resource Center

    Campus Sexual assault
    – One in 5 women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college (i).
    – More than 90% of sexual assault victims on college campuses do not report the assault (c)
    – 63.3% of men at one university who self-reported acts qualifying as rape or attempted rape admitted to committing repeat rapes (j)


    1. Yep. I linked to the same study. Thanks for posting a clear and concise summation.


%d bloggers like this: