It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: Gang Rape at UC Santa Barbara Edition

 (courtesy KTLA5)

Idaho educators are up in arms about legislation that would allow [legal] guns on campus. Meanwhile, women continue to be raped, assaulted and murdered, both on and off campus. (Men too.) But mostly off-campus, such as the woman who was gang-raped near UC Santa Barbara. An assault that preceded another rape by a matter of a few hours. No to mention that “Sunday’s was the second reported gang rape of a UCSB student in the area in two months.” The latimes.com reports that “In the pre-dawn hours of Jan. 18, an 18-year-old student was raped by two men and a male juvenile next to the campus.” As a father to four girls, as an American, as a sympathetic human being, I say these women should have been armed. Why is that so hard to understand? The antis argue that . . .

“allowing” Americans to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is more dangerous than prohibiting them from doing so.

First, by what authority does anyone – especially the state – usurp a person’s right to armed self-defense? Whether or not it is more dangerous for a person to carry a gun – in terms of having their gun taken away and used against them, or enabling a suicidal impulse, or any other negative consequence real or imagined – it doesn’t matter. Gun rights are individual rights. It’s the individual’s right to choose whether they want to assume those risks or not. Full stop.

Second, if the antis are going to make the case that the dangers of “allowing” Americans to carry on campus outweigh the advantages, bring it! Let the gun grabbers present verifiable evidence of the negative consequences of campus carry (e.g. frat boys rum amok with guns or students intimidating professors or whatever). Then the pro side can go into detail about all the crimes committed on or near campus by predatory criminals. Crimes that should have been a defensive gun use.

And maybe we should ask rape victims and the families or those murdered on or near campus if they wish the victims had been armed.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

102 Responses to It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: Gang Rape at UC Santa Barbara Edition

  1. avatarDelmarva Chip says:

    As for the story itself … I definitely wonder how the anti-gun folks at Boise State would respond regarding these incidents.

    Anti-self defense = pro-criminal.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      Word.

    • avatarjuliesa says:

      Absolutely, and they are pro-rape. I regard all anti-gun rights folks as rape enablers. They are engaging in a War on Women©.

      • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

        I’m envisioning a public service announcement …

        Video starts by showing a reporter and a cameraman running along a path on what appears to be a college campus towards a rally. You then see the video from the running cameraman – the reporter says “We’ve just gotten word of a rally at East State University … let’s check it out.”

        They arrive at the rally in a park; you can see campus buildings in the distance. They see a decent-sized crowd of men & women chanting: “We support rape! We support rape!” Various folks in the crowd are holding signs like “SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL RAPIST,” “RAPISTS ARE PEOPLE TOO,” etc.

        The reporter asks a spokesperson at the rally “What is going on here?” A big, bad-looking guy in a ski mask pops in front of the camera and says “I need a safe working environment like everyone else!”

        Video rewinds (with that needle scratching sound effect ) back to the reporter & cameraman running … you hear them say “let’s check it out.” They arrive at the rally …

        You see the same crowd, but this time they are chanting “Gun control now!” “Gun control now!” Folks in the crowd are holding up signs that say “COMMON SENSE GUN CONTROL NOW” … “BAN GUNS ON CAMPUS” … “SUPPORT GUN FREE ZONES” … etc.

        Scene fades to the same on-campus park location, but now it’s late at night. You see a woman walking towards her car, which is 100+ feet away. She walks by a “gun free zone” sign. You then see the ski mask guy from the first rally jump out from behind a bush about 30 feet away, between her and her car. She sees him and takes off running the other way, but he is much faster. Just before he catches her the video slows down and fades to black.

        Text appears on the screen with a voice-over:

        Supporting gun control means supporting rape.
        Don’t support rape.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          Good idea. The problem is you’ll have to get it past a bunch of highly left-leaning Hollywood producer types. The kind of folks who have enough money to hire their own personal bodyguards. Armed guards. And those folks are ok with a few rapes now and then as long as the peasant remain disarmed.

        • avatar2hotel9 says:

          Damn, you do this for a living?!?! I like that, a bunch of college or high school media students should do that one. GoPro time!

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        Yeah, and have you noticed how, for the anti-gun dweebs, “a woman’s right to choose” doesn’t include her right to choose the most effective means of self-defense?

        How’s that go? “God created men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal.”

        • avatartrollinCOLLEGESTUDENT says:

          To my knowledge at Boise State universality one can’t even have a stun gun on campus. To me that sounds like a 100% pro-rape!

    • avatarJeremy S says:

      Agreed. A fighting chance, if somebody so chooses to arm themselves in order to have more of a fighting chance, is better than near-assured victimhood should one be attacked unarmed.

      I’d basically go one step further than the post here and make it very clear that EVEN IF the carrying of firearms on campus were decriminalized and lots of people did it AND crime, injury, and deaths were WORSE than under the firearms ban, YOU DO IT ANYWAY. Your constitutional rights are not grounded in social utility. Freedom sometimes comes at a cost. That was known to the founders and it was worth the cost and our constitution protects that. EVEN IF the ‘antis’ legitimately prove that the dangers of carrying outweigh the benefits, I do not believe that changes a damn thing. “The greater good” is not a valid reason to infringe upon the rights of individuals. Or isn’t supposed to be. Not in the U.S. of A.

      • avatarCliff H says:

        Does anyone really believe that the Continental Army or the Militia did not contain ANY criminals, rapists or mentally defective/incompetent members, or that the leadership knew this was the case? DO they really believe there were no Minutemen who were wife-beaters?

        The Second Amendment acknowledges that whoever you are you have the same rights as everyone else, even if we, or especially the government, wish you did not.

        • avatarGrumpy in Kali says:

          Our armed society (more guns than any other nation in the world) shoots Mickey D’s drive-thru speakers because they’re out of McNuggets…..

        • avatarDBM says:

          But how many of those people that do that legally purchased them? Id wager close to zero.

        • avatar2hotel9 says:

          I can only think of one instance of that, a crackhead shot a Jack-in-the-toilet drive thru menu board in Cali or OR. That meme, that bullets will fly and all the poor little childerens will die horrendous deaths never really pans out. In fact it goes the opposite direction.

    • avatarrlc2 says:

      Ok, lets say a young lady attending freshman year has a gun in her purse, loaded, that her dad has given her for self-defense.

      Under CA law, she is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on circumstances.

      http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm

      If the young lady is under the age of 18, then its possible the father could be charged with a felony under the new Criminal Storage laws.

      In other words, another perverse example of the law of unintended consequences- well meaning anti-gunners are making the vulnerable more defenseless and criminalizing them when they arm themselves instead.

      Remember: when seconds count the police are only minutes away…

  2. avatarRobert Farago says:

    I apologize for the autoplay ad. Removed.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Mr. Farago,

      Please consider a slight change to the text of your opening line as follows:

      Idaho educators are up in arms about legislation that would allow [legal] guns no longer criminalize people who are armed for self defense on campus.

      This is an important change for two reasons. First, we are not beholdend to legislators and thus we do not need their permission to “allow” us to do anything. Second, it is more accurate, direct, and invokes empathy. (Who in their right mind would oppose someone being able to defend themselves from a violent attacker?)

      Remember, WE need to own the language.

      • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

        I fully support this “own the language” concept.

        Recently, NRA commentator Dom Raso posted a video called “Respect Yourself.” One of the great points he makes in the video is about language. He states:

        “We have such a government-first mindset. I hear it all the time. ‘The second amendment allows me to do this. It allows me to do that.’

        Nothing in the bill of rights allows us to do anything. Those rights were ours to begin with.”

        The point is spot-on. Government does not allow us to do anything – it only prohibits us from taking actions. Firearms carry (openly or concealed) is legal by default. It only becomes a criminal activity when a government creates a law prohibiting the activity.

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        And allow me to quote from the Idaho Constitution:
        CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
        ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
        “Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.”

        You notice the Idaho Constitution does NOT allow the Legislature to regulate the OPEN carry of firearms?

        • avataruncommon_sense says:

          So the students and visitors who wish to be armed at Idaho universities should carry openly right now. After the universities get fed up with open carry (but are unable to prevent it), I wonder if they will finally accept concealed carry?

      • avatarDD says:

        There is a lot of confusion about the Idaho Campus Carry bill. Currently, students are not allowed to carry on Idaho campuses as a matter of policy. If a student were to be caught with a gun, they could have school disciplinary action taken against them, but they would not be in violation of the law. Just like if my employer has a no gun policy that I choose to ignore, I could be fired, but not arrested for carrying to work.

        While this bill does remove some of the anti-gun policies from campuses, it has a number of issues. For one, it makes it illegal to carry in certain areas of campus where it is legal to do so now. It also gives no gun signs the force of law, a first for Idaho. This bill is so badly written that the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance opposes the bill.

        The ISAA position statement on this bill is available here:
        http://idahosaa.org/?page_id=66

        The ISAA proposal to modify S1254 is available here:
        http://idahosaa.org/?p=112

  3. avatarST says:

    The way the opposition sees it, one rape every month/week is a better social outcome then a campus full of firearms.

    The biggest danger IMO isn’t the campus itself, but the area around it .If you travel to a college, you’ll not only be disarmed on the premesis, but going to and from also.

    • avatarRokurota says:

      Harsh, but true.

    • avatarjuliesa says:

      Yes. I was attacked at the grocery store next to the campus. College campuses and their immediate surroundings are perv magnets. My college experiences decades ago made me a lifelong gun rights activist.

      • Not too long ago, UW-Stout had a serial rapist. He was breaking into the student rental houses surrounding the main campus and for months and months nobody saw a thing. Then he started hitting the neighborhood adjacent to mine and people started taking a stand. There were groups of people, including even high school boys patrolling the streets at all hours. I remember running into a group of them walking home from work one evening. Baseball bats, hammers, garden rakes and golf clubs. I have no doubt that a few of the older gentlemen were packing heat. In the end, the suspicions a neighbor and I had were confirmed when it ended up being a UW Stout police officer doing the rapes as one patrol car was frequently seen in the area immediately before another rape and it was out of their patrol area. Of course it didn’t even make the news. In Dunn County, the corruption in local government is as bad as some former Soviet states. When bringing evidence of corruption to any of the newspapers and TV stations, all give you the same line: “We do not print stories about our elected officials.” Even rival papers spit it out word for word. Even today they spit out that same old tired line.

        Now that the people can freely arm themselves again, I doubt any of them will ever rape again but I fully expect the local government to be handed down from one generation of that family to the next.

    • avatarDBM says:

      100 or 1000 raped women is better than one shot (wounded or killed) rapist. That just shows you that liberalism really is a mental disorder.

      • avatarEvan in Dallas says:

        Most of these people think you can just make rape go away with the stroke of a pen. Completely idiotic train of thought, but that’s what they think. Fighting back against their attacker is seen a sour of the question.

  4. avatarlolinski says:

    Don’t people use headphones or earplugs (though I will admit it startles me)?

    • avatarChris. says:

      All day every day? No, I only wear headphones when my sound bothers others.

      • avatarlolinski says:

        I usually wear headphones when I don’t want my sound to disturb others and when I don’t want to be disturbed (pretty much gun stuff and comedy).

  5. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    If they were armed they could shoot somebody, can’t have that. From the liberal gun grabber handbook chapter 2, “how to be polite yet firm to the home break in burgler when he is in the bedroom with your 3 year old daughter”.

  6. avatarscooter says:

    How would a campus respond to an awareness campaign in which self-defense minded students posted signs that said “Low-Resistance Rape Zone, Strictly Enforced” or “Soft-Target Robbery Campus, Strictly Enforced” all over public areas? Or perhaps “Attention: Campus policy is in the event of a robbery or sexual assault you may comply, cry, scream, or attempt to flee, but use of a WEAPON to avoid violation of your body or harm to you person is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.” Post them next to the gun free signs we all know so well.

  7. avatarMediocrates says:

    The Federal government would have you believe the The Bill of Rights doesn’t mean what the words say, but rather what they believe them to say, and even then, the rights are not absolute. The Constitution is subject to the whims of the Federal judiciary.

  8. avatarHannibal says:

    They shouldn’t be raping anyone! That’s impolite and not conducive to the educative environment. Quick, somebody put up a sign!

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Let us look at this event through the eyes of civilian disarmament proponents:

      There really was no rape because a huge consensus of the group (75%) was in favor of having sex with the woman. Furthermore, the “benefits” of the event justify the activity:
      (1) The men were terrified that they would not find willing women for sex partners. Sex with the woman calmed their fear.
      (2) The men benefited from the exercise that is involved in sexual activity.
      (3) The men felt much better and were much more calm after the event.
      (4) The woman benefited from her physical activity involved in the sexual activity.
      Furthermore, only a backwards old fashioned prude would not want to have sex. Any young, vibrant, mature woman would jump at the chance to have sex with three men — not to mention the opportunity to have sex with three men at the same time!

      To be crystal clear: I do NOT condone the gang rape described in this article. Rather, I am illustrating the monumentally wrong mindset of gun grabbers. And to illustrate that, I applied their exact same arguments to a sexual assault.

  9. avatarPeter Lane says:

    Were the “Rape free zone” posters adequately displayed?

  10. avatarTammy says:

    I would also note that, even absent the ban on campus carry, the Santa Barbara County sheriff is extremely and vocally anti-CCW, and last I checked there were fewer than 100 active CCW permits in the entire county. And that is yet one more reason why “may issue” CCW is a bad idea.

  11. avatarJake W says:

    Gun control: the notion that being gang raped is morally superior to shooting your attacker.

    • avatarTheBear says:

      Basically you got it one.

      That said, to play devil’s advocate here, guns are not the answer for everyone.

      I agree that /everyone/ should have the opportunity to carry if it is right for them. However, as I’ve posted before, I could give my GF any gun in the world and it would be useless.

      First of all, in danger, she’d probably freeze. Second, I doubt she could shoot anyone even to save her own life or my life. I don’t know, maybe subconsciously that is part of what attracted me to her since I am a vet. I am not sure.

      My point is that I think making everything black and white, cut and dried on serious issues like this can hurt our cause. How about instead of saying, “THOSE GIRLS SHOULD HAVE HAD GUNS!” we should instead say, “Those girls should have had the opportunity and ability to own and carry a gun.”

      The difference is minor, but in the midst of a culture war, those subtle changes can mean the difference between winning new allies or creating new enemies.

      • avatarDerryM says:

        I agree with you. The point of defending the Right to keep and bear arms, and all Rights for that matter, is that every person has the Right to make a choice. In this case, choose to be armed, or choose not to be armed. Some people cannot defend themselves under any circumstances and there’s very little any of us who would defend ourselves can say or do to change their mind. After the Right, the next fundamental thing is the choice to exercise the Right, or not. Does not matter what Right is in question, there is the Right and the choice to exercise it as each individual sees fit.

        The Right to Life is the parent of the Right to Self Defense, which extends to an obligation to defend those who cannot defend themselves (like babies aborted, the elderly, mentally challenged, weak, helpless and infirm [to list a few]). That, too, is a choice. In the end the Right is indisputable and so is the Right to choose to exercise the Parent Right, or not.

        There is NO Right to dictate to anyone whether he/she has the Right or the choice to exercise the Right. It is perfectly acceptable to strongly encourage any and all to exercise their Rights, but once there is an attempt to remove/infringe the Right of choice, that crosses a line I could never agree with.

  12. avatar2hotel9 says:

    There you go, again, Robert. Throwing facts and reality into the faces of leftards simply makes them MORE determined to strip everyone of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense.

  13. avatarmichael nieto says:

    I knew a girl who Attended uc santa Barbara So brainwashed she probably wouldn’t carry a gun if she knew she was going to be assaulted and it would 100 percent prevent it she was on of those it’s societies fault that a person behaves like a savage animals

    • avatarropingdown says:

      Perceptive comment. While a little pistol would help, I find myself asking this: A good 2 oz container of pepper spray, say Fox brand with the very convenient flip cap, would go a long way towards discouraging rapists during the wait to achieve “shall issue.” Yet remarkably few female college students take the trouble to carry such a convenient effective item. Why? Just why? I find it baffling,

      The worst that can happen with pepper is some blow-back, but still the attacker will no longer have sex on his deficient little brain. I can only assume that the “why?” is indeed answered by “the women are taught that defending themselves is bad.” Critiques welcome.

      • avatarknightofbob says:

        I wouldn’t trust pepper spray for anything. It might be statistically unlikely, but spraying someone who routinely handles and consumes spicy foods would have no effect. Most states limit pepper spray to be weaker than many hot sauces. Sure, if you’re lucky enough to get it in their eyes it might limit their vision, but for many attackers it’s just going to make them more resolute to finish what they started.

        Similarly with Tasers. You can’t guarantee both leads are going to make contact, or that your battery is going to be at optimal charge. Non debilitating pain can serve to anger an attacker even more.

        A 10mm hollowpoint to center mass, however, will make anyone rethink their previous actions.

        • avatarropingdown says:

          I have used pepper spray twice in the last eight or nine years. I disagree completely with the often-heard comments that it is ineffective. I will say this: The ‘stream spray’ version used by police is a loser for personal defense. LEOs only use it because it reduces blow back probability….which blow-back reduces their ability to use their sidearm if needed. For a citizen that doesn’t carry a sidearm this concern doesn’t exist. The “cone mist” dispenser is much more effective. There is a chance of blow back for those unskilled in its use, but so what? As long as a woman’s attacker has closed tearing eyes and can breath only with pain, blow-back is small beer. Eating spicy food will do nothing to reduce the effect. People generally do not understand how to use pepper….don’t know to move backward forcing the perp to move into (and thus breath) the spray. It really does work. College women really do not seem to carry it often.

        • avatar2hotel9 says:

          I have had a couple of training sessions with “pepperspray” and we were taught to draw them in before discharging. Now, this was in the hideously evil riot control training(GASP) so the tactics are a bit different than for a co-ed in a dark parking lot or dorm hallway. Still, you want a cloud enveloping the target, without warning. Lets put that in caps. WITHOUT WARNING Don’t flash it, don’t threaten them, just hose them and run.

          If you are going to use stream type, 1/2 the distance it claims it fires, trying to stand back and keep distance won’t help and will disperse it, especially if the wind is against or across you.

        • avatarknightofbob says:

          Trust me, capsaicin resistance through regular consumption most certainly is a thing, and definitely has an effect on vulnerability to pepper spray. Some people are reduced to tears and gagging if they get a whiff of jalapenos being chopped, others can stand downwind of a person trying to dissuade a bear with the high-test stuff and not bat an eye. Tell me, in the two times you used spray, were the recipients still on scene when authorities arrived, or did they flee? This is important, because, if they fled, they could just as easily continued their attack.

        • avatarDBM says:

          No it wouldn’t. They’d be before they finished their last though “Oh Shi………..”

      • avatarJoe says:

        I think the problem as in “why” they don’t carry pepper spray goes even deeper than that. Why the hell are they note more concerned for their safety and their surroundings? Too many women, older and younger, do not know they first damn thing about defending themselves or just simply being aware of who and what is surround them. I’m sorry but that’s weak upbringing. In THIS day and age? Extremely weak. They don’t know how to carry themselves in an assertive manner, they don’t know how to throw a punch, but they know how to go out and drink and get their nails done. It’s a shame they don’t know how to USE those nails effectively, or how to use their car/house keys as a self defense weapon. It annoys me cause this is alot of females I care about as well as many of the people posting about this are as well. Being a victim is so much a mental game as well, many people just don’t understand that either.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      I recently had a conversation with a DC resident about armed self defense. She has been mugged and many of her friends of both sexes have been as well. Her response was that you can’t do anything about it. She believes that the thugs are unstoppable and a gun would be of no use. She is even against guns for protection in the home. She told me that anybody who keeps a gun on the night stand is paranoid. Her solution to securing the house is stronger locks, bars on the windows and steel grates instead of screen doors. You see a lot that kind of protection on Capital Hill where she lives. It never occurred to her that living in fortress or just accepting that you will be attacked is a lot more abnormal that defending yourself.

      • avatarCliff H says:

        Good plan – instead of putting the criminals in prison, or in the ground, build a prison for yourself and live inside of it.

      • avatar2hotel9 says:

        One small quibble here. She is not living in a fortress, she is living in a jail cell. Got electric and TV and water, gets to leave from time to time, jail cell. AND she gets to pay for the privilege. Pays a lot.

        I got family in DC, have spent a great deal of time there, and I know the mentality you speak of. It is in most major urban areas, I have seen it in Atlanta, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Tegucigalpa, Kinshasa, New Orleans. It is a malady that afflicts humans all over and throughout our history.

      • avatarropingdown says:

        The refusal to defend themselves in DC at the risk of their lives simply reflects the fact that for people like that the loss of their politically correct credential seems a fate worse than death. To each his own. But when they advocate I do the same they’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me….

    • avatarJason says:

      This doesn’t sound like brainwashing: it sounds like a difference of opinion, and a personal realization that she couldn’t take another person’s life even if it would save hers. While I and most people will disagree, that isn’t all that crazy of a position.

      But it is far easier to be dismissive and condescending, so carry on.

      • avatarNJ2AZ says:

        I know there are those people out there, but i just can’t comprehend the idea that some people couldn’t take a life of an aggressor even to save their own or that of a loved one…

        I have a family, if someone was threatening them and the only way to stop that person was the most drawn out, awful, painful death imagined, i wouldn’t bat an eye. I figure they assumed responsibility for such an outcome the second they decided to do harm to another person.

        different strokes for different folks i reckon..

        • avatarDBM says:

          NJ, Sadly I have met people who would rather allow themselves to be brutally murdered than take another persons life in self defense or in defense of an innocent. Whats worse is they were in the Army.

          Luckily I don’t have and aversion to self defense and the defense of others.

  14. “walking hone alone between midnight and 12:30″

    Bad move

    • avatarTaylor Tx says:

      My thoughts exactly as well, dont be a lone, weak, gazelle walking through the plains at night.

    • avatarneiowa says:

      Bingo. NOTHING good happens out between midnight and 5am

    • avatarNighthawk says:

      So we’re going to blame the victims for being preyed upon? Everyone has a right to safety even at midnight, it’s the people who want to DENY that right to safety via legislation so that those who would also deny you safety via their criminal actions that are to blame.

  15. avatarMitch says:

    Quality journalism. Girl should’ve had a gun and she would have never been raped.

    • avatarTheBear says:

      I think I addressed that in my post above.

      That said, I believe that 2 topics should be taught in public schools.

      A. The basics of self defense and weapons

      B. The basics of crime prevention and avoidance

      It stuns me that not only are public schools failing at teaching the basics of math etc, but they also don’t even address the transition of children to adulthood. Where are the classes on online banking, renting an apartment, or ::gasp:: situational awareness.

      Hell, how many 16-? year old girls don’t even know to go to the hospital and get a rape kit after being raped. Quite a few if statistics are to be believed. Our educational system sucks.

      Don’t get me wrong, everyone should be able to be armed if they choose. It is their constitutional right. But on the flip side, our educational system is choosing to address crime by sticking its head in the sand and pretending bad people don’t exist.

      Parents don’t parent anymore. So if information is not on TV or taught in schools, a lot of kids won’t get it unless they learn the hard way.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Your assumption is as faulty as theirs. A gun is not a magical talisman.

      • avatarThomasR says:

        So Hannibal; what’s your point? Neither is wearing a seat belt; having a fire extinguisher; having health insurance or looking both ways before crossing the street.

        But you would be incredibly irresponsible to not have these tools or behaviors available to lessen but not eliminate the risks involved in being alive in a dangerous world.

      • avatarNighthawk says:

        Why are you espousing logical fallacies? No one said a gun is a magical talisman. A gun is a LOT better means of defending yourself than nothing. That is undeniable.

  16. avatarJeff says:

    She could “only provide a vague description.” Uh huh, sure, and you didn’t even include that vague description in the article, LA Times. Wonder why…

    • avatarHannibal says:

      …because the only thing worse than no description is a vague description. It’s worse than useless because it will actively waste time when people call the police on every third person walking down the street.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      ‘Cause the “vague description” included a badge number?

    • avatarLongBeach says:

      They showed the sketch artist’s rendering on the news a few days ago and it was terrible. They may as well have shown the stereotypical cartoon of the asian man with a goatee and rice paddy hat. Not much to work with. Mug shots taken after she had shot them and they had been arrested at the hospital would have been the best outcome, instead we’re left with vague, racist-ass police sketch looney toons.

  17. avatarJake Tallman says:

    Liberals have an unacceptable dedication to non-violence. In their eyes, it doesn’t matter if a criminal is willing to use violence against you or your loved ones, you CANNOT RESPOND WITH VIOLENCE. And since guns are instruments of violence and killing (as a statement of fact; notice that I didn’t say guns kill and commit violence), they don’t want them. They are the same people who would teach women not to fight back against a rapist because, “You’ll only make it worse for yourself.”

    They live in a world of sunshine and rainbows and puppies. To acknowledge that guns are useful would be to acknowledge that there are circumstances where it is necessary and just to kill another human being, something that they simply refuse to do.

  18. avatarUcsbKevin says:

    I am a current student at UCSB. Unfortunately it should NOT have been a DGU. I would estimate 95% of the rapes that happen around campus (usually Isla Vista) happen on Friday or Saturday, the main drinking/partying nights. We have established that guns and alcohol don’t mix. These piece of s*** subhumans pick these times when these girls are intoxicated and are less able to defend themselves because of their loss of coordination as well as if they are blacked out they may not remember it and the rapists are less likely to get caught. There are other solutions out there. I could write a whole article on this if TTAG wanted me to…

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      UCSBKevin,

      What you described (women getting so drunk that they literally have no idea what they are doing or actually blacking out … in the presence of young men no less) is ginormously foolish. I put that on par with jumping into the tiger cage at the zoo or walking unarmed into the middle of a ghetto and shouting a racial slur … and expecting that no harm comes to you.

      This isn’t about the brainless statement “guns and alcohol don’t mix”. This is about making sure that responsible women have effective tools to defend themselves. A responsible woman abstains from getting dangerously inebriated in the midst of a bunch of young men. There is no reason whatsoever that such a woman cannot be armed as she goes about her life.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        How are you going to test to see which women are “responsible” and which ones are not? Remember, we are talking about women who are almost entirely between the ages of 18 and 21, who have little (in some cases any) experience with alcohol or freedom from parental control….

        • avataruncommon_sense says:

          Good question Mark N.

          And my response is that no test is required. This is a “self selection” situation. Women who are responsible enough to recognize the danger of being inebriated to the point of incapacitation are responsible enough to recognize the danger of being sober and unarmed while resisting a rapist. Those women who recognize the danger will prepare themselves for that danger. And if they decide that a personal firearm is the best way to resist a rapist, we have no business telling them otherwise.

        • avatar2hotel9 says:

          Oop, there it is.

        • avatarrlc2 says:

          uncommon +1000 !

          Same for the young men away at college for the first time, for that matter.

        • avatarCliff H says:

          As stated, the Second Amendment not only does NOT contain a test for eligibility to exercise your RKBA, (other than breathing), it contains an EXPLICITE prohibition “…shall not be infringed.” against the government creating or administering any such test.

  19. avatarBR549 says:

    On the outside, the anti-gun people are denouncing violence; on the inside, they are all wondering what it would be like if it was THEY who had gotten raped. But why should they worry? They can sit back and view these episodes as detestable aberrant behavior, as if they were sitting and watching it all at the movies, and then go back home and anal-retentaively clean their house ….. again.

  20. avatarTRP says:

    Thanks to Mr. Peruta and the 9th District Court of Appeals, relaxed CCW is something we may finally see in CA. Thank God, it’s about time!

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Not for women under the age of 21. California only issues to those 21 and up.

      • avatarrlc2 says:

        Good catch. This bears thinking on- in the same context of the “un-intended consequences” of bad legislation.

        What the State of CA Legislature intends, and AG Kamala Harris defends, is for most citizens to be essentially banned from carrying a gun for self defense.

        If a young college student WERE to apply for a concealed weapons permit, they would be to;d to wait until they are old enough at 21.

        At age 18 they can vote, they can drive, they can give their lives in defense of their country by joining the military, but they may NOT exercise their NATURAL RIGHTS as described in the Second Amendment, to defend themselves.

        For anyone visiting from UCSB or LA Times- stop and think about that.

        How is the State empowering you… or not?

        “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…”

  21. avatarRalph says:

    I support free choice. Therefore, if a woman (or a man) decides to be a defenseless victim, I support that decision. In fact, I encourage it. Predators need victims, and better them than me.

    For the scientific among us, it’s very Darwinian for the weak to die off. For the religious among us, if god didn’t want them sheared, he wouldn’t have made them sheep.

    The bottom line is, if they don’t care about their lives, why should I?

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Uhmmm, because it empowers the predator? And said predator might then move on to target you or someone you care about? After all, “it takes a village” to create an environment toxic to criminal behavior…

    • avatarAnother Robert says:

      I think the point here is that the law often denies young women (among others) the “choice” and forces them into “defenseless victim” mode by default.

  22. avatarMark N. says:

    I don’t have time right now to peruse the whole thread, so pardon me if someone noted this before. In California–and I suspect most states (Texas is one), a person under the age of 21 cannot get a concealed weapons permit, and under federal law, a person under 21 cannot purchase a handgun (can own one if over the age of 18, but can’t buy one). So how is it that these women, who are prohibited by law from concealed weapons permits–as held to be constitutional by the Court of Appeals in a NRA sponsored case out of Texas–to legally carry guns for their own protection? [The Supreme court denied cert in that case.]

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Good point. Time to change some laws. And if the laws won’t change, time for something revolutionary…

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      ‘Why yes miss, we do carry it; would you like a pink or a black canister?’

      (If she doesn’t take the initiative to protect herself in SOME fashion, access to a firearm – or not – won’t matter.)

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Because – SCOTUS be damned! Every one of those restrictions you listed is a violation of the individual’s civil rights AND the Second Amendment to the Constitution. End of story. THAT is where we need to focus, not on plinking away against specific laws and regulations we don’t like.

  23. avatarFrank says:

    I’d love to see an experiment where only women are allowed to carry around campus. I bet crime would dry up right quick….

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      I’ll see that bet and raise you….

      How about an experiment where a College or University trains all of the students in security & firearms then all students are required to serve as security officers spread out over their Junior/Senior years? A kind of security ROTC plan if you will….

  24. avatarrlc2 says:

    Out of curiousity- I went to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff webpage- there was no information on applying for CCW, nor would searches for permit, gun, ccw turn anything up.

    Not surprising UCSB is situated in one of the most “progressive” areas of California. – here’s the Sheriffs policy take a couple years back:

    http://www.independent.com/news/2013/jul/11/strict-stance-concealed-weapons/

    Here’s the spin on the UCSB Chancellor comments, from the same local “indy” paper, spinning desperately that maybe rapes are up, because women are feeling more empowered to report it…

    http://www.independent.com/news/2014/feb/28/ucsb-police-release-sketch-rape-suspects/#c115003

    and a story about Santa Barbara County Sheriff Browns rationale – pre-Peruta:
    http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/236-santa-barbara-co-sheriff-bill-brown-no-issue.html

  25. avatarJus Bill says:

    Something to think about:

    When the right to keep and bear arms is invoked for self defense, the argument changes from that right being a civil right to a human right.

    That’s a whole different ball game. Watch the UN start to sweat, based on their charter…

    • avatar2hotel9 says:

      Actually, invoking the UN will worsen any situation. They will send in “peacekeepers” who will disarm everyone and then commence to rape, torture, murder and loot just as they do elsewhere in the world.

  26. avatarPhillip Evans says:

    “Shall not be infringed”. Apparently, “the people” in nine of the first ten amendments of the Constitution means one thing, but something entirely different in the 2nd Amendment according to the freedom haters.

    In Georgia, we’ve also been trying to pass college campus carry for those who are 21 years old that have a weapons license. But the politically powerful Board of Regents deems it better that women are raped, and anyone robbed, asssaulted, and murdered on and near campus than for them to use a pistol in self-defense. It’s sickenly immoral for these wealthy elites to impose this on our young people who are targeted by crime.

    • avatar2hotel9 says:

      Perhaps it is time for a concerted campaign to beat rob and rape the members of the Board of Regents? Oh, yea, they have 24/7 armed security AND live in gated communities with full time armed guards. Never mind.

  27. avatartroll1 says:

    Clearly all these people need is a rape whistle

  28. avatarpatriarchal landmine says:

    putting guns in the hands of unstable women based on a false rape accusation?

    no thanks.

  29. avatarWow says:

    How about we try and lower the crime rates through education instead of just handing fire-arms to everyone. What happens once everyone is armed? Fastes to pull the gun wins?
    Man, and they say the wild west is over…

    • avatar2hotel9 says:

      Want to reduce crime? Really? Then stop voting Democrat.

      Arming citizens is the second step. Education is not the problem, plenty of people with sh*tloads of education commit crimes every day.

      And last, the “wild west” was far more peaceful than movies and TV portray it.

      Buy a clue and try again.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.