The reality, of course, is that a gun is merely a tool, with limited effectiveness. Sometimes all the use of a weapon in self defense can do is to get you killed. After all, look how well their guns protected the Davidians at Waco.
If overwhelming military force is controlled by your enemies, all fighting back will get you is dead. A case can certainly be made that it is better to die as a free man (or woman) than to live as a slave. But those making such a choice should be under no illusions that this is exactly the choice they are making.
I remember this argument, and it is a good one. But in THIS situation I think that, were the majority of women given weapons there would be a completely different scenario over there. It would not be a group holed up in a compound fighting against a powerful government with huge, advanced, militarized agencies at their disposal.
In some situations I agree completely with your point, but not in all.
I am wasting my time. But more, I think, because there is so little chance of what this article proposes happening.
You are correct. However, I would like to add my two cents worth. The issue is balance of power. I believe that sufficient fireams seeded in a free society, along with sufficiently trained people, act as sort of an "immune system" against terror and tyrany. When the number of privately owned firearms fall below a certain threshold, the chances of this balance being shifted increases and those remaining gun owners face the dilemma you described. When the number of privately owned firearms is above that threshold, the chances of anyone having to use them "politically" is greatly reduced. I believe this has been the case in the United States.
Thus, providing an infusion of firearms into a society -- particularly into the hands of women whose agenda tends to be personal and family protection, and not political -- might have a stabilizing effect.