This post is in response to this plea:
special request. can you go over to mike’s blog and write a response post here to his assertion from yesterday that people who are for gun regulation hate rape victims?
pretty pretty please?
with a cherry on top?
Here is the post she referenced, entitled Guns, Rape and Democrats. Let’s break this down:
I have absolutely zero respect for anyone who tells women (or anyone else) that “you don’t need a gun for self-defense.” These assholes who tell women they should vomit or shit on an attacker, tell them they’re on their period, use a damn whistle, etc. etc. are despicable.
While Mike’s post jumps all over the place, his rant focuses on comments about college rape. I disagreed with Salazar’s comments yesterday, because… well… they were stupid. What I don’t disagree with is the law banning guns from college campuses. And that has nothing to do with women protecting themselves and everything to do with kids being away from home in stressful situations like failing a class or a bad break up.
Who in the hell do these old, white, liberal assholes think they are telling women how they can and cannot defend themselves from rape, while simultaneously trying to deny them the best means to do that?
This is the true “War on Women.” Anti-gun liberals do not care about the well-being of women. They shrug off their very real concerns with not just indifference, but contempt.
Isn’t he clever? Look at Mike trying to play the old white guy card and the War on Women card that Republicans own. But we’ve seen this before from Mike.
Us: Mike, why do you need a gun? What are you afraid of?
Mike: You’re the ones who are afraid. That’s why you don’t own a gun.
Raising children can be exhausting.
Since Mike is still in short pants, let me try and be patient. Mike’s view of rape is the same as his need to be armed – stranger danger. But the fact is, when it comes to rape, strangers are the least of women’s worries. Mike’s idea of woman shooting a stranger intent on raping her is the same fear he nurtures about a stranger coming into his parents’ Hockessin home with guns blazing. Rape is a huge problem, but not in the way Mike envisions.
His next paragraphs deal with Salazar, who I’ve already called out – yesterday – so we’ll skip that and move onto:
Many college campuses are “gun free zones” at least by university policy, yet brutal rapes and murders happen even without guns, like what happened to Sarah Wisnosky.
Go read the horrible story of Sarah Wisnosky. This wasn’t stranger rape, and Wisnosky, who attended functions and spent the night with her rapist and murderer prior to her horrific rape and murder, would not have armed herself against him because she trusted him and believed she knew him.
Wisnosky was a 17-year-old Caucasian and a student in her first year at Old Dominion University (ODU). Nicki Vanbelkum, Wisnosky’s dormitory roommate, last saw Wisnosky alive on the afternoon of September 21, 1993. Vanbelkum and Wisnosky had planned to meet later that day, but Wisnosky did not appear.
Barnabei, also a Caucasian, first arrived in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area in August 1993. He identified himself to others as “Serafino” or “Serf” Barnabei and claimed to have been a member of the Tau Kappa Epsilon (TKE) fraternity at Rutgers University. Soon thereafter, Barnabei began to associate with members of TKE at ODU. He rented a room in a house that was occupied by four other young men, who were either past or present students at ODU.
Barnabei became acquainted with Wisnosky, and the two attended a number of functions at the rooming house. On several occasions, Wisnosky spent the night with Barnabei.
Why would this woman have carried a gun in this circumstance? Answer: She wouldn’t. They were dating. Basically, Mike has stumbled across the biggest threat to women. Violence/rape by someone you know. Exactly like owning a gun makes those around you, and yourself, more likely to be shot by that gun. It makes me wonder if he even read through this case. If he had, surely he wouldn’t have used this example – a case in which the rapist gains the trust and affection of the victim… to the point where she‘s comfortable with him. Seriously, bad example. Her having a gun probably wouldn’t have stopped this tragedy, simply because she trusted this guy.
I cannot help but think that those who want women disarmed, those who think it’s not OK for a woman to shoot a rapist because “he has a right to life” have ulterior motives. I can’t say I’m surprised though. For leftists, My body, my choice, has never applied to the ability to defend it, not in my lifetime at least.
Are you flippin’ kidding me? Who has ever claimed such drivel? It isn’t leftists claiming that women lie all the time about rape, and how some girls rape easy. This sounds like a trap for woman. Shoot a guy who you “claim” was trying to rape you and end up in jail. After all, Republicans and Men’s Rights groups love to tell us how women LIE about rape all the time – and have absolutely no problem grilling a rape victim on what she was wearing and her sexual past.
This “shoot your rapist” talk is a cheap ploy. Worse, it has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with the capability to arm yourself to the teeth – specifically, Mike’s ability to arm himself to the teeth while lying to his father about bringing guns into his father’s home. Talk about an irresponsible gun owner, who‘s now hiding behind rape victims to keep his toys. It’s unbelievably insulting. Mike uses women and rape for his own self interest. The Colorado ban isn’t about female students and rape. It’s about all students. It’s about college/universities not wanting guns on their campuses. That’s it. And that’s enough.