Posted on 03/27/2015 4:23:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
The self-proclaimed champions of women’s rights, the political left, is once again insisting that a woman’s right to protect herself from sexual attackers should be regulated, restricted, and in some cases banned. After all, only American Liberals would believe that a woman being raped is morally superior to a rapist being shot. Arguing that concealed carry on college campuses would actually “reinforce rape culture” on campus, an editorial in the University of North Carolina’s student’s newspaper argued against arming young (law abiding) women.
Concealed weapons would not significantly reduce sexual assault and would create inadvertent risks within other forms of interpersonal violence… Even worse, they could reinforce rape culture because the burden of stopping assault would be further placed upon women.
Apparently, when leftists talk about the need to “empower” women, they don’t mean physically. (Remember when that Colorado legislator claimed that women are too dumb to be trusted with concealed weapons?) I guess the risks associated with being an unarmed target for violence isn’t considered a big deal to the editorial staff at the Daily Tarheel.
The opinion piece continued by echoing the same concerns that plagued the concealed carry debate back in the 1980s (how progressive):
Expanding concealed carry restrictions on campus would arm potential perpetrators — not just of sexual assault but also of violence in relationships.
Right… Because unarmed rapists and abusers are generally known for their willingness to follow the rules, and respect boundaries. It might come as a shock, but rapists, muggers, home invaders, and even would-be murderers tend to feel a little dissuaded when it occurs to them that their potential victims might start shooting back. After all, we’re not talking about arming drunken frat boys… We’re talking about allowing responsible adults (21 and over) the right to arm themselves for personal defense.
And, according to the statistics (as well as common sense), these are exactly the people we want armed. Trained, law-abiding, and safety-conscious. And the best part, is they are far less likely to fall victim to other violently-inclined would-be assaulters.
Allowing concealed weapons on campus for the purpose of preventing sexual assault will create the unintended consequence of increased homicides stemming from intimate partner violence.
Wait… Are we just making things up now?
Having guns that are accessible in a household where domestic violence occurs increases the risk of homicide. In 2005, perpetrators used guns in over half of cases of female homicide related to domestic violence.
And people with cars are more likely to drink and drive… What is their point? (I always thought this was why we supported background checks.) But I’m confused: Are we talking about concealed carry, or gun ownership? Because it’s not a stretch to imagine that some of the folks attending the University of North Carolina already have a few firearms in their private homes. Maybe we should make sure potential victims of domestic violence have their own access to the tools necessary to defend themselves.
The apparently hoplophobic anti-gunners who run the editorial board at UNC’s student paper concluded their short tantrum against armed defense with an appeal to alternative methods of keeping women safe from sexual predators:
To reduce sexual assault, focus should be maintained on preventative programs that challenge rigid gender roles and promote healthy relationships as well as intervention trainings that teach peers to be active bystanders rather than on measures that will not solve the problem.
Asking men not to rape (and calling it “prevention”) is about as misogynistic as one can get. Personally, I don’t think women should be legislated into depending on the decency of men for their protection. Rape “prevention”, education, and awareness might be a perfectly fine way to help reduce the sexual assault risk on college campuses; but at the end of the day assaults will still happen. And when they do, unlike our liberal friends over at the Daily Tarheel, I would like women to be allowed the tools necessary for adequate self-defense.
How terribly sexist of me, right?
yessiree Bob..the rapists will be rushing to line up and get shot...
Well if the guy is beating up his girlfriend -- then it might very well be a justified homicide.
Put “THIS IS A GUN FREE HOUSE” signs up, you idiots.
“What are they smoking over there?” PING
Just reinforces my theory that what womyn call "choice" is actually "shopping."
“...an editorial in the University of North Carolina’s student’s newspaper argued against arming young (law abiding) women.....”
Could be a valid argument for a late “postpartum” abortion of the editorial writer.
Seriously, the Daily Tarheel? Isn’t that racist? Someone needs to call Al Sharpton.
Ahhh... Now I know why all the rules/laws are being proposed and passed to restrict mean speech. People that write/believe s*** like this need to be berated until they cry.
this is what you get when you send a dunce to college — an educated idiot.
How d’you mean?
Ever notice how women will criticize, demean, and castigate inanimate objects they don't like when shopping?
Ah—To be a college student again and know everything.
Horsecrap. most compliance when a victim results in severe beatings by the perp that do not stop.
Wow. It takes a special kind of idiot to write something that fatuous. I can only stand in awe.
With vampires it's crosses and holy water.
For werewolves it's silver bullets.
When it comes to Progressives it is any suggestion whatsoever of personal responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.