Pinkwashing Turns on Itself with Breast Cancer Awareness Gun

Share/Save Share this

Smith & Wesson Breast Cancer Awareness PistolOctober was Breast Cancer Awareness month, and the group Breast Cancer Action seized on the opportunity to promote its Think Before you Pink campaign to raise awareness of how companies are increasingly exploiting breast cancer as a marketing device to sell products -- some of which are actually harmful to women's health. Pink ribbon campaigns are offering up some bizarre, albeit benign products like a breast cancer awareness toaster and a breast cancer awareness floating Beer Pong table. But the most bizarre item yet to have a pink ribbon slapped on it must be Smith & Wesson's Pink Breast Cancer Awareness 9 mm Pistol, promoted by a woman named Julie Goloski, Smith and Wesson's Consumer Program Manager and a sharpshooter herself. Goloski is promoting S&W's breast cancer awareness pistol on her Facebook page, saying "October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Breast Cancer Awareness M&P’s are shipping to dealers. I am thrilled to have my name associated with such a worthy cause and one of my favorite firearms." According to a 2008 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, firearms are the second most common cause of violent deaths of women, accounting for 29.2% of all violent deaths among females in the U.S. in 2008.

Comments

Lies and Statistics.

"firearms are the second most common cause of violent deaths of women"

And just how many ways would women die violently, anyhow?

From Julie's page:

“Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women after lung cancer and over two million women have been treated for it in the United States,” said Julie Goloski, Smith & Wesson Consumer Program Manager and Champion Shooter. “This is a tragic statistic, but one that can be changed. The money raised from this new pistol will help support research, increase education and promote early detection among both women and men.”

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

"firearms are the second most common cause of violent deaths of women"

And just how many ways would women die violently, anyhow?

From Julie's page:

“Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women after lung cancer and over two million women have been treated for it in the United States,” said Julie Goloski, Smith & Wesson Consumer Program Manager and Champion Shooter. “This is a tragic statistic, but one that can be changed. The money raised from this new pistol will help support research, increase education and promote early detection among both women and men.”

I am really disappointed with the last sentence.

Smith and Wesson and Julie Goloski have their hearts in the right place and you all should be ashamed of doubting them.

A woman with a firearm, trained on how to use it, has a greater chance of defending herself against a violent opponent much larger than herself. I feel much better knowing that my wife carries a firearm to defend herself against a criminal.

Self-defense

If a woman needs training in self-defense, I suggest martial arts training. That way she has something that can't be taken away and used against her, nor can it be stolen and used against someone else.

Anne Landman

Martial Arts?

Listen, Anne, what if statistics showed that 2% of women killed violently were killed by the use of martial arts? Would you still advocate training women in martial arts? What if a karate dojo that had trained someone who later used those skills to harm a woman were to attempt to hold a fundraising karate competition to raise money for breast cancer...and also showcase their dojo. Would you refuse to accept the donated funds?

Honestly, you live in an unrealistic world. I'm retired after almost 22 years in the military and now am involved in law enforcement as both a trainer and an officer. Your position is ridiculous and based on fantasy. Martial arts in the real world are not like Hollywood, where the small guy kicks the big guy's a** all the time with all sorts of fancy chop-chop nonsense. In the real world the single determiner of who wins such encounters is size. One of the earliest ads for one of Samuel Colt's revolvers in (I think it was) the 1830's touted the revolver as a tool that "makes the little man equal to the big man." No amount of self-defense, martial arts training is going to do that for either women or men. A firearm is the one tool which actually accomplishes that goal. Guns aren't for everyone and I wouldn't force someone to use one if they didn't want to, but why is it that you liberals always want to tell others how to live? I don't care if you use a gun or not, but stop telling others how to live their lives and get off your moralistic mountain and stop looking down on those who do. I thought such moral judgmentalism was supposed to be confined to conservatives? You're the first people to defend a woman's "right" to terminate the life of her baby and the "right" of gays to live their lives as they wish, but the first to attack actual rights that are found in the constitution but which you are either threatened by or which you wouldn't avail yourself of. I just don't understand the liberal mindset. Stop cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's counterproductive to a goal that I thought would be beyond politics, fighting hormonal cancers in men and women, but now am sadly informed is apparently not.

This is such an utterly ignorant reply

You suggest martial arts? Are you serious? Have you ever been attacked? Had to defend your life? Ever had a burglar break in while you were sleeping?

Martial Arts PROS:

1. Can't be taken away or stolen.

2. You always have it with you. Portable.

Martial Arts CONS:

1. Requires extensive training and several times a week practice over a long period of time to become proficient. Martial art training is effective at self preservation because it's practitioners spend so much time in class they have little time to be mugged :)

2. Although not absolutely necessary, martial arts is most effective when practiced by physically strong people. Not a very effective suggestion for the elderly, handicapped, or small, physically weak people.
82-year-old Man Kills Home Invader: http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/51269647.html
Man, 74, Shoots Carjacker, 18: http://www.click2houston.com/news/20153320/detail.html

3. The less lethal the defense, the more likely it is you'll have to use it. If martial arts is your sole defense, it REQUIRES that you physically engage in hand-to-hand combat with the aggressor. Much higher chance that you'll be injured during this process. The best self defense is one that deters the attacker before they get within three feet of you (when possible). Pepper spray is better than martial arts in this respect. A knife, when brandished, can also deter an attack. The best deterrent, however, is a gun. Very few attackers will continue an attack after it is made aware that their victim is armed with a firearm. That's why in the majority of defensive gun uses, the gun is never even fired.
L.I. Store Owner Takes Pity On Would-Be Robber: http://gothamist.com/2009/06/03/li_store_owner_takes_pity_on_would-.php

Or: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091028/NEWS01/91028011/Police++Dover+teen+fires+gun+to+stop+assault+on+mother

4. Very ineffective against multiple attackers. Unless you are a super ninja. But most people who casually learn a few things for self defense are ever going to have the time or inclination to devote their lives to becoming so proficient in martial arts that they can take on a group of attackers.
Recently here in Harlem, a 72-year old store owner was robbed by four men armed with a gun. After the assailants attacked one of his employees, he retrieved his own shotgun and shot all four of them, killing two. Martial arts wouldn't have helped him much. A gun equalized the situation.

5. Not very effective against an attacker with a gun.

6. One of the pros—that it can't be wielded by someone else—is also a con. Someone else can't use YOUR martial arts skills to defend themselves or defend you if you're incapacitated.
A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face: http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=10741492

You've been watching too many movies. The average person cannot just kung-fu themselves out of a life-threatening situation. They also necessarily just shoot their way out either, of course. But it's more likely, and far more common.

I think you're missing the

I think you're missing the point of self defense. If somebody is attacking me I want every advantage I can get to save my life. Martial arts are fine so long as the attacker is at point blank range and not armed.

What happens when the attacker has a gun? He can easily kill you from a distance where all the martial arts in the world won't count for anything. Having a gun gives you a fighting chance and there are classes that train you in weapon retention so somebody doesn't get your gun away from you.

Finally what if you're being attacked by some drugged out crazy person? You put PCP into somebody and they aren't going to care if you break both of their arms and their nose to boot. They can't feel anything. If you have a firearm you can at least shoot them and if nothing else (say their a square hit to their heart) they will bleed out.

You're effectively saying women should be disarmed which would give criminals the advantage.

Cant be taken away from her?

If a women’s attacker is armed, most martial arts are useless (unless she is trained way above an average level). Those skills have just been taken away from helping her. If she is surprised and is wounded in the leg, a high kick is not possible. The skills have just been taken away from her. Don’t get me wrong, martial arts training is great, but not in all situations. The point that the weapon can be stolen is not a valid one, as no person is not responsible for the actions of others. Prosecute to the fullest extent (meaning no time off for good behavior)every criminal found with a stolen firearm (a crime), or anybody who uses a firearm to harm another (a crime), but do not blame the victim of a crime (the women who’s weapon was stolen) because what was taken from her happened to be used against someone else.

IF a woman needs Self

IF a woman needs Self Defense Training Anne you are suggesting martial arts???? I am sorry Anne but it sounds like you are one of those people that are advocating that a woman lay back and take whatever comes! As a cancer survivor myself I take total offense at you telling me that AS A WOMAN I don't have a right to fight back whether it is against an attacker or cancer....gee I guess little ole me should have just laid down and died in your opinion. Thank goodness for S&W that not only taught me to shoot but donated funds to the cause that helped fight my disease. SHAME ON YOU what other rights do you want to take away from women? And for your violent death statement...um have never watched a suffer thru chemo then die from breast cancer? In MY opinion, that is a pretty violent death......

Self defense and PR ploys

Once again, your logic is flawed. Can a woman suffering through chemotherapy effectively defend herself using martial arts? How about someone physically disabled? Or a woman suffering with osteoperosis? Guns are the great equalizers. They allow all people to defend themselves against violent attackers no matter their physical traits.

And, by the way, responsible gun owners are trained in their use so that they can't be taken from them and used against them. Responsible gun owners also keep their guns locked when not in use so that they can't be stolen by criminals. Certainly you don't mean to imply that most women who choose to arm themselves for defensive purposes are irresponsible?

Anne, I think you need to take a look at your feedback. You are THE ONLY PERSON posting here who agrees with your stance. It makes one wonder who is really taking advantage of this issue for PR purposes. Smith and Wesson, or you?