Kim Kardashian-West joined the #WearOrange campaign to make people aware that people use guns to hurt other people. Somehow wearing orange is equivalent to presenting policy changes. Awareness campaigns such as these do nothing for those who either already use guns for self-defense or hire people to use gun so others don’t have to, just like Kim Kardashian-West.
Celebrities can spend upward of $800,000 a year on armed bodyguards. Most Americans cannot afford that, and it is much more practical for an individual to legally carry a $500 firearm.
During Paris Fashion week last fall, it was widely reported that Kim Kardashian-West was robbed at gun point in her private rental. Five men forced entry into her apartment, threatened her, and bound her in ducktape.
Someone who has come in direct contact with an assailant – let alone five, who are far more threatening when armed – should find that having a personal firearm allows for a better chance to defend one’s self.
But, Kim’s press release states (CAPS are hers… trust me):
Such limitations on access to the purchase of firearms already exist. Her five assailants would have been any less guilty of robbery and ill-intent without guns.
She continues:
Almost anything can become a deadly weapon. The only people who should be wearing orange are those who defy state and constructional gun laws.
Kim Kardashian-West may want to decrease violence that incidentally involves firearms, but the #WearOrange campaign will be completely ineffective. Simple wearing an inanimate object, a shirt, will do nothing to stop someone else from using another inanimate object, a gun.
