Houston Gun Group Fights The ‘War On Women’ By Handing Out Free Shotguns

Written by Rebecca Leber

The Armed Citizen Project recently began handing out free shotguns to 50 residents of a Houston, Texas neighborhood. Like the name suggests, the group wants a maximum number of armed residents in cities with higher crime rates, once applicants complete a firearms course and background check. Founder Kyle Coplen’s goal is to spread to 15 cities, although a gun giveaway is already underway in Tucson, Arizona — the site of a mass shooting two years ago.

Beyond encouraging residents with minimal training to fight crime themselves, Coplen wants to provide guns specifically for “vulnerable women.” The Armed Citizen Project website says this is, “Fighting the war on women, one free shotgun at a time.”

Women are an increasingly important consumer base to gun manufacturers and the NRA, a trend visible in the rise of typically exploitive, sexist marketing. But the real effect guns have on women’s security is exactly the reverse. A gun in the home often risks accidental deaths or suicide attempts, while it is also invariably more dangerousto women in abusive relationships. Women are not safer with guns, despite the NRA and allies’ insistence that gun violence prevention is anti-feminist.

Coplen hopes to eventually use his initiative as a type of field experiment that proves that guns have a “deterrent effect” on crime. However, the best research out there shows that the number of guns and gun deaths go hand-in-hand.

This post was originally published at ThinkProgress


Photo from Thinkstock


Jim Ven
Jim Ven10 months ago

thanks for the article.

Ernie Miller
william Miller3 years ago

all guns do is kill things so lets get more guns out there so more things can be killed. what a rational.

V Madonna Schizoid
Past Member 3 years ago

*insert disgusted face here*

Robert Hardy
Robert Hardy3 years ago

Yep, more unnecessary deaths on the way.

Cyan Dickirs
Cyan Dickirs3 years ago

John, I will not have in my home such items. Pesticides are poisons and I am allergic to them. Guns are insurance and my 2nd amendment right.
One poster said self defense classes would be more useful and effective. I have taken years of such classes; hence my response about how they work for me and why they don't.

John Hablinski
John Hablinski3 years ago

Cyan, Not all liberals are anti-gun; we are individuals too and we don’t have to pass a test on our beliefs to qualify. My take on this article is very much the same as my stand on abortion; they are both decisions which belong to the woman alone. As far as I’m concerned freedom of choice is the American way. I want to add an item to your cache of armaments. Everyone ought to consider a few cans of wasp & hornet spray; the products are among the least expensive of the aerosol pesticides. They have a range of between 15 to 20 feet. A blast to the eyes of assailants will render them sightless and they will require medical attention to restore their sight. I think it likely even small women with diminished physicality might render an attacker defenseless long enough to escape or get help.

Anna Undebeck
Anna Undebeck3 years ago


Sue Brewer
Sue Brewer3 years ago


Mary B.
Mary B3 years ago

Cyan and Wanda.....I think you both know what I'm talking about.....
Wanda.....Kool aide???? Now that's an old one from previous threads...

Everyone is entitled to read all posts on all threads and come to their own conclusions.....Patti T has apparently done just that.....it is the first time I have seen a post from her......

Casey Loufek
Casey Loufek3 years ago

Patti, what facts did Merry actually site? I can't find any. The people you are complaining about are the only ones actually giving data and sources while Merry complains about foreigners.

I listed this one:
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

Hint: Journal of Quantitative Criminology is not Faux.

I also actually read the only study linked to directly by this article and discovered the following:

"Addition of the relationship variables resulted in victims’ sole access to a firearm no longer being statistically significant and substantially reduced the effects of abuser’s drug use."
They added data as they went and the gun data only went in one round before it became insignificant. Also having a college education as opposed to a high school one had about 68% of the risk factor for that round. They are the two smallest significant risk factors in that round. Are you going to advise women not to go to college with 68% of the zeal with which you oppose their owning guns? Or maybe neither of these are really significant risk factors, as the final results of that study show.

Sigh. At least you came up with a number. Can you give a source for that?