Don’t get me wrong, someone like Amanda Nunes would kick my butt up and down the sidewalk, I’m sure, but most women aren’t in the running for greatest women’s UFC fighter of all time. Even if they know a little martial arts, they might have some difficulties, to say the least.

Which is where the gun can come into play. It’s an equalizer.

However, Kamala Harris seeks to undermine that. She’s flat-out dangerous for women.

In her first campaign address following President Joe Biden’s (D) decision to exit the 2024 race, Vice President Kamala Harris (D) emphasized her support for new gun bans and restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Harris said, “[W]e will work to pass universal background checks, red-flag laws and an assault-weapons ban.” She is also opposed to constitutional-carry laws, national reciprocity legislation to allow lawfully armed citizens to carry their freedom with them and gun ownership in general.

Indeed, the official 2024 platform of the Democratic National Committee lists, among many other policy goals: “Democrats will establish universal background checks … . We will once again ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We will require safe storage for guns. Democrats will end the gun industry’s immunity from liability … . We will pass a national red flag law … .”

For many women across the country, blaming law-abiding armed citizens for the actions of criminals is the absolute antithesis of empowering women.

“Let’s face it, without a gun, most women would never be able to defend themselves when up against a man who wishes to harm them. We just don’t have the physical strength,” said Erinn O’Donnell, a 57-year-old from Pennsylvania, who purchased her first firearm in 2012 when she was a single mother living in an apartment above her business. “I felt vulnerable, and I wanted to protect myself. I did not want to be a sitting duck.”

From O’Donnell’s point of view, the notion of disarming good, law-abiding citizens only makes women more susceptible to becoming victims.

“Criminals will always have guns,” she said. “How does taking guns away from good people help?”

Which is a question that no one has really been able to answer.

They’ve tried, mind you, but it almost always involves platitudes, pie-in-the-sky thinking, and willful self-delusion.

The reason they haven’t actually answered it is that there is no answer other than an honest, “I dunno.”

I find it funny that the party that seems so concerned about things like violence against women seems to believe that women benefit from gun control. Yet an abusive husband or boyfriend is just as capable of murdering their partner without a gun while the poor woman is less likely to defend herself.

Then we couple that with stranger-initiated attacks, where someone decides to rob, rape, or murder a woman. How is she supposed to deal with that in a world without guns?

But Kamala Harris wants to make all of that harder for women. Men too, obviously, but the odds of me meeting someone bigger, stronger, and faster than me in every way are less than for my wife, and that’s not because I’m just some physical specimen or anything. No, it’s simply because I’m a man and my baseline is much higher, reducing the odds of me meeting a physically superior attacker. It’s still plenty possible, but there’s also a chance that the guy coming after me is slower and weaker than me.

With the average woman, those odds are so greatly reduced as to be non-existent.

And Harris wants to blame the guns. She’s advocated for taking the best defensive firearms from people, thus putting women are more risk of being faced with a threat they can’t defend themselves from.

Kamala Harris is bad for women, which is funny considering she’s campaigning as being the opposite.