My comment over there:
She's a brave young woman and a wonderful spokesperson for you cause. She is however mistaken. Although she did admit she asks herself the big question, what would have been different had she been armed, and that it keeps her up at night, the entire video was based on the presumption which she stated clearly at the end, that having a gun would have saved her.What's your opinion? Are the pro-gun women mistaken to think they're safer carrying a gun? Isn't this the same mentality that drives the concealed carry movement in general?
That's wrong. In that kind of attack, it's very unlikely that a gun would help. But by preparing for that very unlikely event by carrying day in and day out, the chances that the gun will be misused someday are far greater. Sometimes the misuse of a gun is as devastating as what happened to her.
The gun is not the answer to this. Parking in a better location, better campus security both video and personal, longer sentences for violent offenders, etc., these are the answers.
Some of our commenters are fond of pointing out that the violent criminals are the problem not the guns. But now they say the violent criminals are not the problem it's the lack of a gun. Is there some double-talk going on here?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Once again, you blame the victim because she wasn't sufficiently afraid of the dangers in this world. On the other hand, we know how not having a gun worked out for her. How can you claim that she is safer by being unarmed? Apparently, you regard rape as a kind of safety.
ReplyDeleteMike, first of all I would really have to question your thought process here. Your comment inferred that you believe that this woman or any woman could not safely carry a gun concealed on a daily basis without endangering her own life or the lives of others. I'm sure that there are many women in law enforcement and military (defending YOUR rights on a daily basis) who would take offense to that.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, and more importantly rape is most commonly a crime of opportunity meaning the rapist is looking for the easiest victim. While I agree that situational awareness is absolutely critical to women’s safety I would also submit that a gun carried by any trained individual becomes a force multiplier. Let me break this down for you: if the woman has a force multiplier (such as gun) she is no longer what we might call easy prey. You can do the math from there.
Why bother increasing sentences for violent crimes? Why not just make rape illegal to begin with? Oh wait! It already is…and clearly criminals have no regard for the law anyways. A longer prison sentence does no good once the woman has already become a victim. On the other hand, armed and properly trained women may never become a victim to begin with.
Thank God we live in a country where a woman’s right to protect herself is constitutionally protected. If you had your way a woman would be deprived of her right to protect herself with a gun and would be forced into becoming a victim who’s only conciliation MIGHT be a prison sentence handed down to the perpetrator.
On a personal note, I have carried a gun every day of my life for 3 years and have not hurt myself or anyone else. On the contrary, my carrying a gun saved me and my girlfriends from a similar circumstance to that of the woman in the video.
The real question here should be this: Should society enable women to prevent sexual attacks to begin with or do we force them into the role of victimhood?
Gracie, thanks for the comment, but please don't turn it into a thing where I'm disparaging women. If you read my blog you'll see I don't do that and about concealed carry, I say the same thing to the men.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the personal anecdotes. I'm glad you've never had any gun mishaps in the three years. I sincerely hope that continues.
About that time carrying a gun saved you and your girlfriends, I'd love to hear more about that. Is there a link to place where you described it in detail? Would you write it up for me to post?
My idea is that true DGUs are rare. What often happens is a gunowner thinks there might be a threat, pulls out the gun and thinks she's saved the day, when actually there was no serious threat to begin with. Other times people get shot who didn't deserve it.
I know the thought of a violent attack is frightening, but I don't think your responding to it the right way. Guns do more harm than good, even in the hands of good people.
Mikeb, I read your blog regularly. I consider you to be a particularly dangerous type of person. You're not evil by nature. In fact, you want to make the world a better place. But you are an activist do-gooder. You believe that you know better how the rest of us should live our lives, and you seek to impose your beliefs on everyone.
ReplyDeleteIf you would focus on those who do wrong, you'd have little opposition. But instead, you look at crime and argue for punishing those who don't commit crime.
Greg I do focus on those who do wrong, the gun-rights activists and the hidden criminals among them. You're the dangerous one who's in denial.
DeleteMy idea is that true DGUs are rare. What often happens is a gunowner thinks there might be a threat, pulls out the gun and thinks she's saved the day, when actually there was no serious threat to begin with. Other times people get shot who didn't deserve it.
ReplyDeleteThe gun community helping rearm a so that she will not be a victim....
http://armsfarmsandfam.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-difference-helping-sarah.html
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteYour primary assertion that in most defensive gun uses "... actually there was no serious threat to begin with." is preposterous. I have heard gun control proponents point to examples where a defensive gun use was not necessary because no one was physically injured. Well that is easy to determine after the fact. However, when the attack starts, no one -- sometimes not even the criminal -- knows how far they are going to go. Tens of thousands of attacks do result in physical injury, sexual assault, and/or murder of the victims. If that isn't a serious threat, I don't know what is.
Any criminal attack that involves violence or threat of force is serious and extremely dangerous. Such an attack always imparts an emotional injury on the victim. And physical injuries up to the death of the victim happen. That justifies a defensive gun use. Your standard, that people be clairvoyant and read the criminal's mind or foretell the future before justifying a defensive gun use, is ridiculous.
Greg, You're starting to piss me off. You are mischaracterizing what I said, again.
ReplyDelete"Your primary assertion that in most defensive gun uses "... actually there was no serious threat to begin with." is preposterous."
Did I say MOST?