Yes, men are more likely to be the targets of violent crime or innocent bystanders in the commission of violent crimes disproportionately to women. But the statistical relevance of that is greatly diminished when accounting for the fact that it is other males committing these acts on top of the documented scientific studies that show the male gender is inherently disposed to dramatic displays and violent tendencies. I honestly don't think you want to get into the psychology of all this(regardless of my willingness to explore it) but suffice it to say men are violent for a variety of societal, psychological, and environmental reasons and unsurprisingly the recipients of this mélange of inner confliction tends to be other males. Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it's preposterously unfair, but nevertheless an unfairness self engineered by our gender in the form of certain cognitive precepts assigned to women by a historically patriarchal society. We defined their purpose and the capacity to which they could fulfill that purpose for so long that the resulting social/cultural zeitgeist quickly manifested this narrative that they were delicate, physically inferior but above all biologically essential members whose preservation was sacrosanct. The feminists, regardless of what you think of them, in the beginning contributed to the attempt to upturn those preconceptions. They ultimately failed in that respect( they succeeded in other areas) because those ideas could never be truly upturned in toto and the resulting failure induced an unfortunate side effect that mutated an initially laudable movement into a loosely organized grotesquerie of androphobic sentimentalism. Which is why I have always preferred the company of traditional feminists to that of the modern stratum. Unless the woman has a history of dubious choices in companionship, I tend to defer to the side of the mother in situations where a man is in dereliction of his fatherly duties by abandoning the family. I don't hold someone accountable for the character of the person/persons they choose to spend their life with because many people, men and women alike, oftentimes overlook flaws and red flags in the naïve straw grasping hope that the other person can be rehabilitated. Both sexes posses the innate capability to manipulate the other in ways that are in diametric opposition to their own self interests;(The real life "Succubus's" who exert their feminine wiles to ensnare the oversexed and unsuspecting male victim into her bed before slitting his throat, the Battered wife refusing to leave her abusive husband due to his silver tongued machinations and reassurances it will "Never happen again" etc....) Fault lies with the transgressor, not the transgressed. No arguments here. I agree It's not a right, but you know very well that's not the reason the socially conservative right are fighting tooth and nail to reduce access to it. The intrusion of dogmatic bigotry under the guise of reducing "Government overreach" while simultaneously proposing the same kind of broad legislation designed to criminalize personal choice is what sours my tongue the most about this issue. While I agree the government can overstep its bounds, it has in the past been a progressive check to an otherwise intractable country. Sometimes the government works faster, I mean fuck Alabama dragged its ass in the overturning of it's prohibition on interracial marriage for years. But good on ya bama, you did it!!! Black males, white females(and vice versa) can now marry eachother Circa..........2000.