The Huffington Poo released another column, which if taken seriously, may lead to mental retardation: suggesting guns keep women in abusive relationships. As you know, guns are inanimate objects. But okay. Feel free to add HuffPo's article to the growing list of word collections better left untyped (see HuffPo Shames Fit People, Promotes Bad Health in Latest Attempt to Blind You and Everything Wrong With HuffPo's Feminist Video Starring Kristen Bell...).

A new study published in the Journal of Women's Health by Susan B. Sorenson, a researched at the University of Pennsylvania, is now shedding light on the psychological impact of gun use in abusive relationships.

In the incidents during which an external physical weapon was used, one-third involved guns. When a gun was present, it was rarely fired, Sorenson said.

Pause. Rewind. Play. In other words, a fraction of domestic abuse cases involve physical weapons. Excuse me "external physical weapon." As opposed to "internal physical weapons." Like... mind control? You see why we can't take the Huffington Harpies seriously. Ahem. Out of the fraction of situations involving "external physical weapons," a fraction of those included the use of a gun. Out of that fraction, the majority of guns weren't even fired. I'm trying to think how HuffPoo would refer to those unfired guns. "Inverted bullet containers" maybe. The Huffington Post is referencing a fraction of a fraction of a fraction to make its argument.

But it gets worse...

Victims who had a gun used against them were less likely to have visible injuries compared to victims who reported the use of other weapons, like knives or bats...

So sharp objects are more likely to be making the ouchies here. If knives or bats (or the ole reliable fists) are far more common in domestic abuse cases... Why aren't they the subject of a long-winded leftist think scare piece? Ah, right. Because those statistics aren't convenient to the narrative...

[Guns are] far more likely to [cause] high levels of fear. That chronic fear can be extremely detrimental. A person living in constant fear is more likely to be controlled by it, and subsequently the abusive partner... Thus promoting chronic abuse. Sorenson's findings show the real need to remove guns from abusers. "I know how easy it is to obtain a gun legally and illegally," she said.

Aaaand here we have the anti-gun agenda. Surprise!

Guns are scary! Guns scare the ladies! MEN WITH GUNS MUST BE STOPPED! BAN ALL THE GUNS!

Here's the obvious point HuffPo chose to bury in its blindingly obvious agenda to take guns away from everyone: Guns have empowered women more than their paltry agenda-peddling ever will. Also, interestingly, more than modern feminism ever has or will. But that's a discussion for another time. Don't take my word for it though, take a gander at all the instances where a woman has used a gun to protect herself from a man (or men) who could otherwise overpower her.

Nobody's downplaying that abusers can do horrible things with any deadly weapon. But guns also level the playing field for women going up against these violent man-hulks. It's a detail oft overlooked by anti-gun advocates, and completely ignored in this piece. Becuase as usual, gun-hating feminists don't care about protecting women. They care about disarming America. #Equality Except women without guns still aren't as strong as men. Sooooo strength advantage goes back to me. Thanks, harpies.

What this piece should have done? Told women who are being abused to GET A GUN. Learn self-defense, ladies. Arm up. If his gun is scaring you, then get your own gun. How is this hard?

In short? It's more anti-gun propaganda. Not that we'd expect much else...

NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THE PODCAST? FIX THAT! IT’S COMPLETELY FREE ON BOTH ITUNES HERE AND SOUNDCLOUD HERE.