This is also the same company that makes the best tool available for women to defend themselves against attack. Maybe it makes a lot of sense that the same company that prevents the rape of countless women would also be concerned with protecting those same women from breast cancer.
Your analogy is flawed as well. Guns do not cause breast cancer,unlike the relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer.
Making a classic false comparison between cigarettes (an inherently unhealthy and dangerous product where there is no possible way that it might be used safely) and firearms (a generally health neutral product which only causes injury when it is misused in a criminal manner or operated in a negligent fashion) is classic straw man argument technique and a common error in logic. There is no possible way to safely use tobacco. Firearms are used safely literally millions of times per day in this country. Interesting that one would make a moral judgment and look down on a company trying to help and do the right thing from atop a mountain of arrogance and self-righteousness. Merely because one does not personally "like" firearms or that firearms are sometimes misused by criminals doesn't devalue the contribution of one who likes them and uses them properly. They are completely unrelated. The hubris and condescention of such an attitude is astounding and its apparent that one would rather allow cancer run rampant than take a heartfelt contribution from someone who engages in an activity (which is legal, as well as morally and ethically neutral) that some disapprove of. I suggest that someone with this attitude expand their horizons a little and become more inclusive. Literally millions of Americans, all law abiding, honest and hardworking use firearms. Is it really in the interests of those fighting cancer to eschew their contributions to the fight?
In addition, I question the factual basis of the point concerning 29% of violent deaths of women being attributable to firearms. Where did this figure come from and how was it arrived at? Even if for the purposes of argument you accept the figure as accurate, the logic in using it is unsound. It fails to distinguish between the criminal and patently illegal use of an otherwise legal product and the non-criminal use of the same product, while making a invalid comparison between the non-criminal and safe use of one product, (firearms), and the use of another (tobacco) which is inherently unsafe and unhealthy and can in no way be made safe. No firearm was ever responsible for the violent death of a single woman, rather it was the person operating it in an unlawful manner.
Julie (Goloski) Golub is more than a mere "sharpshooter" and the director of marketing for a firearms company. She is a well known competitive shooter, arguably the best female pistol shooter in America, perhaps the world, one of a small group of "Annie Oakleys" of the day. A military veteran she has never operated a firearm in such a manner. Her company, Smith and Wesson, is one of the oldest firearms manufacturing companies in America, founded in 1852. Neither Julie nor Smith and Wesson endorse anything but the lawful, safe and responsible use of firearms. Merely because some individuals criminally misuse an otherwise safe and lawful product does not make an illogical comparison any more logical or factually sound.
A correct analogy to the position taken by a previous commentator would be to turn down donations to the fight against cancer by automobile manufacturers merely because one of the leading causes of death in America are automobile crashes due to DUI as well as negligent operation of vehicles. I would bet next month's mortgage payment that the number of women killed either by criminal misuse of vehicles, such as DUI, as well as negligent operation of vehicles, far outnumber those killed violently with firearms, yet I don't see anyone advocating against the acceptance of donations in the fight against cancer by Ford, Chrysler or General Motors because they get some kind of good PR publicity. That would be generally regarded as ridiculous. Similarly, turning one's nose up against a donation from a person (and her employer) who has long been involved in the fight against cancer (I recall reading that Julie donated much of her long hair several years back to "Locks for Love") merely because one doens't happen to "like" their profession or industry is an example of cutting one's nose off to spite their face, political correctness run amuck and contrary to common sense, and equally absurd.
The point is, the product the company manufactures is not responsible for a single death (man or women) in this or any other country. The person responsible for the deaths when a firearm is used as a tool is the person pulling the trigger. This is the same as choosing to smoke. The person responsible for the repercussions of smoking is the person who, knowing the possible consequences, lights up. Smith and Wesson is a great company that makes a great product, that is used for good every day. Many women (and men) have used their products to fend off attackers, and to preserve their life and the lives of their loved ones. Many law enforcement officers use their products to preserve the peace and protect the good people of this country. It is strange, you only see the product being used to hurt women, but where are your percentages describing the number of women who are going out and purchasing (and using when necessary) their product to defend their right to life and liberty? I say, by giving women the ability (with proper training) to defend themselves from any attacker, and to choose not to be a victim, the products Smith and Wesson provides actually empowers women. I (might) feel bad for anybody who decides to accost Julie in a dark ally (or anywhere else). I commend S&W and Julie for donating their hard earned money to a cause as worthy as the fight against breast cancer. So should you.
The leading causes of death for women are heart disease, cancer and then stroke. Not guns. In fact, guns are not a "cause" of death in women at all. Homicide is a CAUSE of death.
Did you mean to say that guns are used in the majority of homicides of which women are the victim? Ok then, that's true. But why stop with gun manufacturers? Since in the overwhelming majority of homicides in which women are the victim, the perpetrator is a man, you should probably just reject any donations or support by men for the breast cancer cause as cynical nonsense. After all, men are the leading killers of women—regardless of method—so how could they possibly have an interest in supporting breast cancer research and treatment? That is literally how silly your "point" is.
And men are the majority of homicide victims, not women, and most of those men are killed with guns. If a gun maker donated money to testicular or prostate cancer research, nobody would be making the same ridiculous criticism you're making here. They would appreciate the donation.
"This is ... roughly the equivalent of a cigarette maker selling a special pink cigarette for women, and then donating a tiny percentage of the profits from it to a women's lung cancer fund."
No, it's not even remotely equivalent. That analogy would only make sense if guns caused breast cancer.
This is also the same company that makes the best tool available for women to defend themselves against attack. Maybe it makes a lot of sense that the same company that prevents the rape of countless women would also be concerned with protecting those same women from breast cancer.
Your analogy is flawed as well. Guns do not cause breast cancer,unlike the relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer.
Making a classic false comparison between cigarettes (an inherently unhealthy and dangerous product where there is no possible way that it might be used safely) and firearms (a generally health neutral product which only causes injury when it is misused in a criminal manner or operated in a negligent fashion) is classic straw man argument technique and a common error in logic. There is no possible way to safely use tobacco. Firearms are used safely literally millions of times per day in this country. Interesting that one would make a moral judgment and look down on a company trying to help and do the right thing from atop a mountain of arrogance and self-righteousness. Merely because one does not personally "like" firearms or that firearms are sometimes misused by criminals doesn't devalue the contribution of one who likes them and uses them properly. They are completely unrelated. The hubris and condescention of such an attitude is astounding and its apparent that one would rather allow cancer run rampant than take a heartfelt contribution from someone who engages in an activity (which is legal, as well as morally and ethically neutral) that some disapprove of. I suggest that someone with this attitude expand their horizons a little and become more inclusive. Literally millions of Americans, all law abiding, honest and hardworking use firearms. Is it really in the interests of those fighting cancer to eschew their contributions to the fight?
In addition, I question the factual basis of the point concerning 29% of violent deaths of women being attributable to firearms. Where did this figure come from and how was it arrived at? Even if for the purposes of argument you accept the figure as accurate, the logic in using it is unsound. It fails to distinguish between the criminal and patently illegal use of an otherwise legal product and the non-criminal use of the same product, while making a invalid comparison between the non-criminal and safe use of one product, (firearms), and the use of another (tobacco) which is inherently unsafe and unhealthy and can in no way be made safe. No firearm was ever responsible for the violent death of a single woman, rather it was the person operating it in an unlawful manner.
Julie (Goloski) Golub is more than a mere "sharpshooter" and the director of marketing for a firearms company. She is a well known competitive shooter, arguably the best female pistol shooter in America, perhaps the world, one of a small group of "Annie Oakleys" of the day. A military veteran she has never operated a firearm in such a manner. Her company, Smith and Wesson, is one of the oldest firearms manufacturing companies in America, founded in 1852. Neither Julie nor Smith and Wesson endorse anything but the lawful, safe and responsible use of firearms. Merely because some individuals criminally misuse an otherwise safe and lawful product does not make an illogical comparison any more logical or factually sound.
A correct analogy to the position taken by a previous commentator would be to turn down donations to the fight against cancer by automobile manufacturers merely because one of the leading causes of death in America are automobile crashes due to DUI as well as negligent operation of vehicles. I would bet next month's mortgage payment that the number of women killed either by criminal misuse of vehicles, such as DUI, as well as negligent operation of vehicles, far outnumber those killed violently with firearms, yet I don't see anyone advocating against the acceptance of donations in the fight against cancer by Ford, Chrysler or General Motors because they get some kind of good PR publicity. That would be generally regarded as ridiculous. Similarly, turning one's nose up against a donation from a person (and her employer) who has long been involved in the fight against cancer (I recall reading that Julie donated much of her long hair several years back to "Locks for Love") merely because one doens't happen to "like" their profession or industry is an example of cutting one's nose off to spite their face, political correctness run amuck and contrary to common sense, and equally absurd.
You mention that women are killed by people using guns but you don't mention that women also use guns every day to defend themselves.
Kind of a double standard don't you think?
The point is, the product the company manufactures is not responsible for a single death (man or women) in this or any other country. The person responsible for the deaths when a firearm is used as a tool is the person pulling the trigger. This is the same as choosing to smoke. The person responsible for the repercussions of smoking is the person who, knowing the possible consequences, lights up. Smith and Wesson is a great company that makes a great product, that is used for good every day. Many women (and men) have used their products to fend off attackers, and to preserve their life and the lives of their loved ones. Many law enforcement officers use their products to preserve the peace and protect the good people of this country. It is strange, you only see the product being used to hurt women, but where are your percentages describing the number of women who are going out and purchasing (and using when necessary) their product to defend their right to life and liberty? I say, by giving women the ability (with proper training) to defend themselves from any attacker, and to choose not to be a victim, the products Smith and Wesson provides actually empowers women. I (might) feel bad for anybody who decides to accost Julie in a dark ally (or anywhere else). I commend S&W and Julie for donating their hard earned money to a cause as worthy as the fight against breast cancer. So should you.
The leading causes of death for women are heart disease, cancer and then stroke. Not guns. In fact, guns are not a "cause" of death in women at all. Homicide is a CAUSE of death.
Did you mean to say that guns are used in the majority of homicides of which women are the victim? Ok then, that's true. But why stop with gun manufacturers? Since in the overwhelming majority of homicides in which women are the victim, the perpetrator is a man, you should probably just reject any donations or support by men for the breast cancer cause as cynical nonsense. After all, men are the leading killers of women—regardless of method—so how could they possibly have an interest in supporting breast cancer research and treatment? That is literally how silly your "point" is.
And men are the majority of homicide victims, not women, and most of those men are killed with guns. If a gun maker donated money to testicular or prostate cancer research, nobody would be making the same ridiculous criticism you're making here. They would appreciate the donation.
"This is ... roughly the equivalent of a cigarette maker selling a special pink cigarette for women, and then donating a tiny percentage of the profits from it to a women's lung cancer fund."
No, it's not even remotely equivalent. That analogy would only make sense if guns caused breast cancer.
Pages