Don’t worry ladies, if you think you’re about to be raped just use your whistle, a call box, or a safe zone. You shouldn’t be permitted to carry a gun because you don’t know if you’re about to be a victim of a legitimate rape.
Hey, remember when the media and the political Left went nuts when the term “legitimate rape” came out of a Republican’s mouth? Well, one Colorado Legislator thinks college women shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun because they might end up shooting an innocent man Wild West style.
I’ve dealt with people who truly believe that all women on college campuses are walking rape targets for every man (who are all potential rapists), and claim that nearly half of all college women are or will be the victims of a sexual assault during their college career because of rape culture. But that’s not the point. Republicans were skewered in the media and by the Left for insinuating there were degrees of rape, or that some rapes aren’t legitimate. Now we have a Democrat State Legislator saying that college women shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves with more than a whistle because they’re prone to overreaction and acting before thinking. Sounds kinda sexist if you ask me. Well, it would be if a Republican said it.
Here are ten tips on how to avoid being raped without the need for a gun in addition to the current suggestions of telling the rapist you’re on your period and vomit or soil yourself .
Sifting Reality 
Oh lord… Here this goes again
Ahh yes, old and tired when its a democrat, news for months when its a republican
Ahh I’m no doubt not a fan of the double standard we have here, but I admit that the dems say some pretty absurd things often. I just think that this type of coverage only exacerbates the problems for females
It’s the coverage that exacerbates the problem? Really? Not the fact that this idiot somehow convinced a majority of people to elect him, then spouted his idiocy in a public forum?
Yep. Because when you’re being raped, there’s no better weapon than a whistle and call-box…
People like him don’t even deserve to be in office. They don’t even qualify, intellectually speaking. An IQ of at least 4 should be the qualifying standard.
I agree. A gun is the best way to not been raped, beeing shot instead.
Isu, you’re right. A gun is the best way for a woman to protect herself from a rapist. It doesn’t necessarily mean she has to shoot him. Statistics show that the mere presence of a gun can deter a criminal. Personally, the more rapists that get shot by their victims, the better.
As I think more about this, urinating or vomiting on yourself, or trying to scream might cause the rapist to panic or become enraged and either beat or kill the victim.
This only further convinces me that women need access to lethal force.
Craig,
A gun is not the best way for a woman to protect herself from a rapist. You are an awful tactician.
You forget that the potential attacker (whom is also allowed to conceal a gun) may also have one. A mere introduction of the gun from defender’s part can make the attacker shot in order to avoid being injuried or killed.
A gun is only effective from medium to long range with an opponent who doesn’t have a gun, having the defender time to draw the weapon.
But a rapist will start the attack at close range and will prevent the defender from using the gun. Even the most dumb tactician must know that the attacker has the initiative.
The best way for a woman to protect herself is warning other people before contact. That can make the attaker fear the potential reinforcements and abort the attack.
In case it doesn’t work knowing martial arts is a good option. A critical blow when the rapist guard is low can be effective.
I’m for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a gun.
There. That should do it.
Isu,
Your comment doesn’t seem to make much sense.
A gun seems like a fine way to equalize the difference between a female and her attacker. I’m not sure what my abilities as a tactician have to do with any of this.
Actually an attacker who conceals a gun is already breaking the law. However this has no bearing on the use of a gun to defend against an attack. The fact that you can imagine a series of hypotheticals that seem to support your point, means nothing in the face of the documented fact that the mere presence of a gun is often enough to deter crime.
I’m unsure what ballistics data you have that suggests that a gun is ineffective at short range. The muzzle velocity of the .38 special (130 grain FMJ, a common defense round) is 810 feet/second with energy of 189 ft-lb. This is quite sufficient to slow or stop a potential assailant at close range. Also, closer range would tend to increase accuracy in most weapons used for self defense. Quite the opposite of your assertion, most defense cartridges are more effective at closer ranges than longer. In the real world real people engage attackers, both armed and unarmed at various ranges effectively. Obviously training helps. Thankfully we live in a place where there are numerous sources for training.
Any attacker who is subject to the laws of physics must start at a longer distance from his victim, before he gets close. Even one who knows very little about the should realize that the introduction of ANY defensive weapon (gun, knife, mace, car keys, pepper spray, baton, mag lite, etc.) changes the situation and affects the initiative possessed by the attacker. Again, preparedness, mind set and training are critical in being prepared to repel any attack. Further, only an incredibly stupid tactician, would fail to be aware of their surroundings and prepared for any possible eventuality.
So, when confronted by a larger attacker in an empty parking garage your solutions is “…warning other people before contact.”. Who pray tell would be being warned in the empty garage? Should the victim post a status on Facebook? Are you seriously suggesting that a verbal reaction will deter an attacker but a weapon won’t? Or failing that your solution is to let the attacker (who may know martial arts also) get close enough to touch. Physiologically that seems problematic. A large number of men are both physically stronger, larger, and have a longer reach that most women. Seems like one would want to employ defensive measures before the attacker can touch the victim, not after.
I guess I’m glad I’m not one of the women in your life. Hell, even Biden knows that a firearm is the best option for a woman.
Craig,
Once again you prove to be an awful tactician (unless you are a gun merchant :-P).
A gun doesn’t equalize the difference of a female of her attacker. Usually, the gun unbalances it or makes no practical difference. For example, if my sister would try to draw a gun at melee range I could catch her and disable her gun since I am much more stronger. But if she could draw from the distance I would be at disadvantage.
An unknown attacker concealing a gun is not breaking the law if you allow everyone to carry one. The mere concealing of a gun doesn’t deter a rapist, you have to draw it first. At close range the attacker could prevent the victim from introducing the weapon. Your comment about close range effectiveness is only true when you have already the gun in the hand ready to shot and you can fire without been touched.
An attacker doesn’t need to start from long distance to attack. He can be concealed or he can approach without attacking, a rapist don’t come running from the distance. As you said, an introduction of a defensive weapon can change the initiative, so an intelligent attacker would try to prevent that and since he has the initiative it is easier for him. Don’t forget than an attacker can also have an attacking weapon. I agree that preparedness, mind set and training are critical to repel an attack.
An empty garage is not a good place for warning, but a gun won’t help neither. There are several places to hide and attack. The woman could be attacked when opening the car, for example. Even if the attacker is confident he could pass as an garage user and attack at melee range if the woman doesn´t introduce the gun.
My mother and my sister don’t have guns and they don’t yearn for them. My sister would be more likely to shot herself accidentally . Anyway, it is likely that another woman in my life would think that you are gun-crazy.
Craig said:
Well, there’s a f***ing surprise…
Isu seems to dwell in a perpetual state of cluelessness. Studies have shown that violent crime rates go down when more people are armed. Why? Because most people are not criminals, and logic dictates that when good people can fight back, their chances of entering victimhood reduce exponentially.
Guns & Self-Defense: Interactive Map Showing Effectiveness of Armed “Good” People in Stopping Crime.
And that map isn’t comprehensive. There are many more cases. I know of a couple in my area, for instances, that are not on the map.
Woman Shoots, Kills Rapist.
Then there’s this one:
Isu is a liberal tool. Facts get in the way.
Isu,
I could go through and address your “points” one by one as I have done before. The problem with that is your “points” have no evidence to back them up. We talk about data that demonstrates that the presence of a weapon can deter crime. You respond with hypothetical situations. I mention training, mindset, and SA, and you come back with hypotheticals. I don’t care what your mother and sister can or can’t do, it is completely irrelevant. Who are you to limit what a woman can choose in order to protect herself. Your “solution” is yell for help. Oh, except that won’t work. So you suggest let the guy grab you and bust out your ninja martial arts skills. Frankly if a woman is going to invest the time into taking classes then a class in armed self defense would make more sense. It’s not like anyone can just bust out some fancy wax on wax off karate moves and take down a rapist.
I do have to address the specific foolishness about distance. Whether the attacker is hidden or not the attacker and victim start out further away, then get closer. If the potential victim maintains SA and has the proper training they have a significant advantage in any situation. This is something that can be learned.
I love how you try to take shots at me as if that is an actual argument. For the record, I’m a pretty fair tactician, and am not by any definition a gun nut. I am informed about the situation in the country where I live and support the constitutional right of Americans (men and women) to legally arm themselves as they choose in order to protect themselves as they see fit. I work in a job where I constantly teach all sorts of women how to safely operate dangerous tools. I believe that any American woman can be taught to safely carry, use, and defend herself with any number of weapons including guns. It’s too bad you have such a low opinion of your mother and sister.
When you are ready to join the rest of us in the real world, not hypothetical world, that’s great. But until then…
There seems to be an urge to dismiss evidence with anecdotal possibilities. What should be kept in mind is that the move to arm citizens, women in this case, does not mean that anyone who is armed is perfectly protected against all manner of attack. What it does is change the odds more in favor of the potential victim. That’s all that anyone can expect of any legislation, but concealed carry does it better than removing the right to bear arms. We have evidence for each argument that shows concealed carry to be the superior choice between the two.
TerranceRAH
I’m discussing the rape case, so I won’t enter a gun general use discussion.
Craig
Once again you demonstrate to be a bad tacticians dismissing the hypotheticals. A good tactician plans on several circumstances for attacking and defensive tactics. You are stuck on the dogma that a gun is a panacea and illusory restraining the rape situation to a woman always aiming the weapon at the attacker before he gets close. Your can train a woman to be the best shooter in the world, but it will be useless for her if the attacker is the best melee fighter and can catch her at melee range before she draw her weapon, and it will be also useless for her if the attacker is already aiming his own gun at her.
The attacker can get close without being detected by concealing or even by direct approaching. People don’t have the word “Rapist” written in the forehead.
For example, a woman crosses an underground narrow pass and a man comes from the other way. What is she going to do? Draw the gun from the distance and aim at an innocent passerby?
As I said a close combat training is more useful for this case.
Saying that you are a pretty fair tactician don’t make you to be so, nor gun support by itself, nor teaching to operate safely dangerous tools. More over, 680 accidental shooting deaths and more than 15,500 shooting injuries show that someones aren’t performing that work too well. I’m realistic about my sister and my mother since I know them better than you, your dogmatized overestimation without basis is the bad thing.
I don’t want to join you illusory world.
John,
“As I think more about this, urinating or vomiting on yourself, or trying to scream might cause the rapist to panic or become enraged and either beat or kill the victim.”
That’s the point, a rapist can panic and flee.
But if the woman tries to draw a gun and he is close, he won’t flee to be shot in the back. He is more likely to enrage and either beat or kill the victim to defend himself.
“This only further convinces me that women need access to lethal force.”
A lethal force that can be misused and innocent people get killed.
Matthew 26:52.
Isu
No one is dismissing or avoiding the hypotheticals, what is being dismissed is the notion that the hypotheticals are what should drive the legislation rather than the real world actual examples and statistics.
Statistically an attacker will stop his attack when confronted with a gun.
Something else to keep in mind too is that a whistle or screams is only effective if 1) someone is around to hear it, and 2) that person or persons is willing to act and place themselves in danger for a stranger.
Isu,
Yes. And it’s clear from the link and video I posted that at least two women would have been sexually assaulted if not for their firearm. There are literally dozens more cases I could cite as evidence of the claim.
We know for certain, however, that in at least two situations, despite all your hypotheticals, women were saved by a gun. Without the gun, they would have been raped, perhaps raped and murdered.
I think most people would put their hands up and surrender, What person would attack someone pointing a gun at them? It doesn’t make a lot of sense, but neither does most anything else you say.
If you’re saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun, then what do you say to the two women in my examples who were saved by a gun? Too bad? They have to sacrifice their body, and perhaps life, for the greater good?
That’s the problem with you liberals. You only feign compassion when it’s convenient.
It’s simple logic. You have to decide, based on logic, what is the best weapon for women to use in defending themselves?
A whistle, like Joe Salzaar suggested, may signal your need for help. But that depends on someone being around to hear it. It also depends on the rapists intentions. Will he punch the girl out, throw her in a car, and take her somewhere else, thus rendering the signal all but meaningless?
Is it to soil on themselves? What if they’re unable to produce? And what if, like John said, that merely enrages the would-be rapist and decides to kill her?
Is it self-defense classes? For women who can afford them, they’ll definitely give her a leg up. You may think, “Well, if she can’t afford a self-defense class, how can she afford a gun?” Well, I have a gun that didn’t cost me anything. It was passed down to me from my grandfather. It’s a little .22. Besides, you can find used guns very cheap.
And what if the woman has some medical issue that prevents her from physically defending herself well enough? Maybe she has a bad back, a bum knee, or something else that hinders her ability to get into a physical confrontation and win. Maybe she is in the beginning stages of MS.
Or, maybe she just isn’t that good at physical self-defense. Maybe she’s slightly overweight. Who knows?
What does that person do? The one that can’t physically defend themselves?
And you argue that women won’t have time to pull a gun if they’re being assaulted, but as my two examples show, that’s not always the case. There are probably a thousand hypothetical situations I could invent where the woman somehow manages to pull her gun. Maybe the rapist falls down. Maybe he pushes her over a table, giving her a few seconds to pull it before he reaches her again. Maybe he’s a stupid rapist, knocks her down, then decides to go and lock the door behind him, having forgotten to do it on his way in.
The reality is that a gun gives women the best chance of thwarting and surviving the rape. This is simple common sense. When you can use deadly force to stop someone from attacking you, you have a better chance of surviving that attack.
You may be able to create a hypothetical situation where the gun is of no use, but I have shown two real examples of a gun saving their life, and I could probably invent a dozen more.
A gun may not guarantee survival in a rape situation, but neither does a boat guarantee survival in the middle of a lake. But if given the choice, I’d take the damn boat. Wouldn’t you?
Isu,
Again, your personal shots at me are not an argument, nor do they move the discussion forward.
Perhaps if you had actually paid attention to my comments you might see that I have never suggested that ” You are stuck on the dogma that a gun is a panacea and illusory restraining the rape situation to a woman always aiming the weapon at the attacker before he gets close.”. You see that when you argue against something that I have not said it makes you look foolish. I have clearly stated on multiple occasions that there are a number of defense options beside a gun. I have also clearly stated that mindset, SA, and training are critical components of safety. Again, you can create hypothetical situations about shooters and melee fighters to your hearts content. Because you can always create a hypothetical that “makes your point”. As has been pointed out to you earlier, in the US we don’t make laws based on hypothetical worst case scenarios. We also live in a country where the SCOTUS has decided that owning a firearm for personal defense is a right. I find it fascinating that you seem to support “close combat training” yet would deprive women of an incredibly effective tool for their own defense. I have no idea what a “dogmatized overestimation without basis” is supposed to be, but I have no doubt that a reasonably competent instructor could (in a reasonably short period) train both your mother and sister to safely and effectively employ a firearm in a defensive situation. I further submit that if they spent a reasonable amount of time practicing that they could become proficient fairly quickly. The fact that you have such a low opinion of their abilities and potential, seems quite negative to me, but their your family.
As to your unattributed statistics I would say this. Granting that your numbers are right and current, there are about 3.5 million firearms in the US so it would seem that your point is that an accidental injury.death rate of less than 1/2 of 1%. Not to minimize the pain to those injured or killed, but that’s a pretty small number. Also, how many of those @16,000 incidents could have been prevented with even the most rudimentary safety training or some simple precautions.
It would seem as though you believe that my saying that I am a pretty fair tactician does not make it so. The sting of this is considerably mitigated, by the fact that you saying I’m a bad tactician also does not make it so. So, I’d like to be very clear and simple for a moment.
I fully support the right of women to choose whatever means they find most comfortable and effective to use for their constitutionally protected right to self defense.
Just as a point of fact there are as many guns in this country as there are people
And such a tiny percentage are involved in accidents.
Two points I want to make.
1. Isu is a typical anti-gunner who will grasp at any straw to take guns away from people. And he thinks he can apply laws in his country in our country, or mocks the laws in our country. It mainly proves that his country is full of lemmings who have turned themselves into pawns of the state. He’s not worth debating on any subject dealing with American law or culture.
2. John, the reason there are more guns than people, of course, is that most gun owners have multiple firearms of various sorts. I know people who have dozens of them because they like to collect various types, as well as for historical reasons. I personally own four fire arms – two pistols, a rifle, and a shotgun. So there are four weapons to one person – and I’m probably in the minority of gun owners.
Glenn
I think you are a typical gun paranoid who is the one who mocks the laws in your country based on your personal interpretation of the Constitution. I’m pretty sure that if there were a new constitutional ammendment restraining guns you would shit on it. You live in a constant state of fear and enclosed in a panaroia which doesn’t let you accept the fact that people who freely restrain the use of guns are free. For you freedom means despising the law when it isn’t convenient for your egocracy.
Isu,
Thanks for you toilet mouth. And for proving you know nothing about our Constitution or laws. Nothing I gave was a personal interpretation – it is the interpretation by SCOTUS and other judges for a couple hundred years.
You don’t know anything about me and yet you presume to make all sorts of judgments about me having a paranoia, and that freedom to me means despising the law. YOU ARE A BALD-FACED LIAR on both counts.
You have proven yourself once again to be a complete fool who knows nothing about which you spew your blather.
Glenn
That the interpretation by SCOTUS is coincidental with yours doesn’t make that you would accept it if their interpretation were otherwise.
On the other hand, as I have previously said, if you don’t agree with the law you can appeal to SC.
You are a patent hipocryte who dares to judge me and complaints the other way round.
Once again, you show your own fantasy world paranoia.
Isu
What you seem to be saying is that SCOTUS only ruled that way by happenstance. In fact the supreme court even recently which contains very liberal justices in Sotomayor and Kagan ruled gun bans are unconstitutional.
Isu,
Oh, so you just KNOW that if SCOTUS came up with a different understanding that I would disagree with it? you are such an ass.
I only have judged what you said; I haven’t presumed to judge you for beliefs I ascribe to you as you do to me. Ergo, I am NOT a hypocrite.
And again you foolishly say I have a paranoia. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
John,
“What you seem to be saying is that SCOTUS only ruled that way by happenstance.”
That is not the point.
“In fact the supreme court even recently which contains very liberal justices in Sotomayor and Kagan ruled gun bans are unconstitutional.”
It would be interesting to see the rule.
I bet someone would be happy to say “Now I have a machine gun Ho Ho Ho”.
Isu,
After reading your last few comments, it really underscores the communication problem here. You scold me for making assumptions about you, then you turn right around and do the same thing to Glen you just jumped on me for. Despite what you might want to believe, the current US law is that personal ownership of firearms IS LEGAL, that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to self defense, and that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. I’m sure John can cite the case to which he is referring also. Finally, I hate to burst your bubble here, but machine guns are legal in the US. Unfortunately for you and your ilk there is no evidence of criminals using them. But yes they are legal. Guess what we can own tanks too. Seriously, come join us in the real world.