Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

The Right to Bear Arms ... on Campus

I like the right to bear arms.  I will grudgingly agree that some places, such as bars, are places where guns probably shouldn't be.  This bill proposes allowing guns on college campuses.  I think that's a great idea.  It would make school shootings briefer, because one of the armed students or teachers might manage to take out the shooter.  And it might help discourage rape, too.
Tags: education, news, politics
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 118 comments
...go 1 level up... Expand
ysabetwordsmith

No...

ysabetwordsmith

March 17 2011, 18:33:35 UTC 10 years ago

I'm being serious. A campus is a dangerous place. The reason the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms is so that people can protect themselves. I believe that humans should be dangerous prey. It disgusts me to see humans trained to be victims, and there's a lot of that in this culture today. I would prefer to have a peaceful society, but since we don't and aren't likely to in the foreseeable future, I will settle for self-protection at gunpoint. If a woman shoots a would-be rapist, I consider that preferable to rape. I would prefer to see a campus shooting end the moment an armed bystander sees the shooter.

I am liberal on many issues, but on guns, I am conservative. Today it is the turn of my liberal friends to be annoyed by my stance.
cissa

Re: No...

cissa

March 22 2011, 01:58:44 UTC 10 years ago

Now, I'm about to fill out my application for a gun permit, but-

Guns are not a good defense against rape. Considering that even when a rape has been videotaped and the tape played for a jury, the rapists generally get off (after the jury has seen that the victim was unconscious, protesting, etc.),- how the HELL does anyone claim that women would not be prosecuted for senseless violence against a man if she shot him because he was ABOUT to rape her? when they don't even believe that a videotape of a rape counts as evidence of rape?

So: shooting a potential rapist may prevent you from getting raped- but it will mean you will be criminally prosecuted for aggravated assault up to murder.

And if you shoot him AFTER he raped you- well, that's just vengeance IF it can be proved you were raped; the rape doesn't matter, because after it's over you should report it to the cops so they can put you through the wringer and fail to do anything at all to the rapist. If you do anything yourself you're a vigilante, and the cops et al. take a very dim view of anyone encroaching on their prerogatives, even (especially?) when they have no intention to do anything at all about it themselves.

I am not at all sure that being legally prosecuted (and potentially imprisoned) for criminal aggravated assault through murder is actually preferable to being raped. And these are the actual choices women have here.
ysabetwordsmith

Well...

ysabetwordsmith

March 22 2011, 03:05:41 UTC 10 years ago

>> And these are the actual choices women have here.<<

That's exactly the point: actual choices women have. If campus bans guns but is full of men who think of women as walking vaginas, that removes one of a woman's choices in self-defense. Some women choose not to fight. Some women choose to fight, by hand or with mace or with a gun or with a brick. It should be HER CHOICE.

The fact that society often blames women for being raped, or punishes them for actions that distinguish them from doormats, is a separate issue. It does not incline me to disarm women.
cissa

Re: Well...

cissa

March 22 2011, 03:36:26 UTC 10 years ago

OK, I'll grant you that it should be our prerogative to choose- considering that we might have a split second or so to make a choice that either way might kill us or cause the rest of our lives to be trashed.

As i said, I'm applying for a gun license.

My issue is that a lot of people say that the solution to rape is arming women- and that might be true IF society took dangers that women face seriously, and did not penalize them for objecting to them. This is not now true. While the occasional aggressor may take pause if he realizes he could me maimed or killed- I think a LOT more women will pause rather than shoot first because they realize that society takes aggression against men very seriously indeed, and rape, domestic battery, etc. not seriously at all- meaning that self-defense on her part will be severely penalized. For the guy, if she doesn't maim or kill him, he knows that nothing else bad will happen.

Aggression against women is low-risk for men. Self-defense against men is high-risk for women. As long as that's the case, I don't see how anyone in conscience can argue that women ought to shoot men who attack them. OK, good to have the option rather than not having it- but it's not really a practical option.