Pinkwashing Turns on Itself with Breast Cancer Awareness Gun

Submitted by Anne Landman on

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.

Main Source: 
GunBroker.com, November 3, 2009
Topics: 
Corporate Campaigns
Ethics
Health

Comments

Christopher Burg replied on

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.

Guav replied on

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.

John Taylor replied on

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.

Eupraxsopher replied on

"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.”

Eupraxsopher replied on

"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.”

Barry Bean replied on

Julie Goloski is a veteran, a mother, and an outstanding example of a woman working hard to promote other women in a male dominated sport and industry. She and S&W should be applauded for using the M&P to promote breast cancer awareness and raise funds for breast cancer research.

I note that the article doesn't mention how many women's lives are saved by guns, or cite how many women across the country have obtained training and permits to use a gun for self defense. Whether its self examination to fight cancer or self defense to fight violent crime, you'd think they would support women who defend themselves or opt to excel in sports!

Thanks, Julie. Sorry PRWatch.org opted to have such a short sighted and unfounded reaction to your good efforts.

BBB

Mikee replied on

You write, "...firearms are the second most common cause of violent deaths of women..."

I don't believe "firearms" can act on their own to kill anyone. Generally, firearms must be loaded with cartridges and then used by a human to shoot another human.

I think a more correct statement might be something like, "Killers of women used firearms in 22% of their murders." Or even, "Firearms were the second most common means used to kill women by their murderers."

Demonizing an entire class of inanimate objects is taking Alinksy's Rules for Radicals a little far beyond its applicable field.

I suggest we demonize the murderers of women, not the tools by which they are killed.

Nonce replied on

All of us liberal gun nuts like us members of the Blue Steel Democrats (an official caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon) are just compensating for something, misogynistic blatantly using weapons and black helicopters against the wimmins, because we don't really want to help with cancer.

Oh wait, Julie is a woman, trying to help other women. And women never own firearms in order to protect themselves.

Oh...And what does your qualification of "violent deaths" have to do with cancer? And since we're on that topic anyway, how many times per year do women in this country use firearms to defend themselves?

You're not doing yourselves a services with this knee jerk partisanship here.

Luvlee replied on

Perhaps if more women had guns LEGALLY and knew how to use them through regular practice on a professional range, they would not be the victims of violence.

Welder replied on

Geez, Julie's a class act just trying to do a bit of good in the world, as is S&W.

Quit being such hoplophobic jackasses.

Pages