Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Jefe Shannon Watts: Guns Don’t Stop College Rape

It’s kinda hard to argue against arming women to defend themselves against rapists. Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo does so by asserting that rapists would use their victims’ guns against them. As in shooting and killing their victims. In other words, it’s better to be unarmed and raped than shot and killed. Unless you’re raped and shot and killed. Go figure. Anyway, the head of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America knows her antis are losing ground in this debate. So Shannon Watts penned an “answer” to the guns-against-rapists trend for msnbc.com. Here’s Ms. Watts’ rationale for maintaining a gun ban on campus relative to its impact (or lack thereof) on rapists . . .

. . . guns on college campuses are not the answer to keeping women safe.

That’s because campuses are rife with alcohol, drugs, and depression: a dangerous recipe that may be made deadly by adding guns to the mix. Indeed, research shows that alcohol is involved in most campus sexual assault, and alcohol leads to impaired judgment about gun use.

Wait. What? Women on campus shouldn’t be able defend themselves against rapists because they’re drunk when they’re being raped? C’mon. That can’t be it. What does that even mean? That these drunk rape victims would shoot shoot someone who wasn’t raping them? Drunken co-ed lushes would the wrong person? Shoot themselves?

I get the idea that Shannon and her ilk don’t like the idea of [legally owned] guns around college students who are drunk, drugged or depressed. Too bad. Someone with a legal right to keep and bear arms should not be restricted from exercising that right by someone else’s fears of unintended consequences. Especially this fear – which is just plain stupid.

Actually, Shannon’s “excuse” for denying women their right to armed self-defense is demeaning to women. It’s outrageous. Almost as outrageous as Acevedo’s “logic.” Oh wait. Shannon’s down with that too.

But women are not falling for the NRA’s false narrative that most predators are strangers jumping out of the bushes and attacking women. In fact, between 80% and 90% of sexual assaults at colleges involve acquaintances, not strangers. A professor at Florida’s Eckerd College summed it up succinctly during her recent testimony at a hearing on campus carry in Florida: “Proponents will tell you that allowing concealed carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.”

Can this get any more stupider? I will point out the obvious: rapists aren’t waiting for a change in the law to arm themselves to commit their crime. What is wrong with this woman? She is delusional. As in unwilling to accept reality. Literally.

As a mother of five children—three of whom will be away at college this fall—the issue of campus carry is very personal. Like any mom, my primary concern is for my children’s safety—especially when they’re away from home. The thought that my daughters could be surrounded by students making impulsive and sometimes dangerous decisions while carrying a firearm or be expected to defend themselves with a gun, is not something I am willing to accept.

Shannon may not be willing to accept the idea of armed assailants at her children’s colleges, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter. They’re out there, somewhere, whether Shannon accepts it or not. [Note to Shannon: click here for a video report, Suspected armed rapist barges in on college birthday party.] As for expecting Ms. Watts’ children/step-children to defend themselves with a gun, I certainly don’t. But I want them to be able to should they decide to do so.

Of course, Ms. Watts isn’t into letting adults make their own decisions either. She wants to make decisions for them. Specifically, she wants all adults on campus disarmed, even if it leaves them defenseless. Even if it’s her own children. Because Mother knows best. She knows where the real danger lies.

The NRA is right that our daughters need protection; they need their parents to protect them from the NRA.

I think she actually believes that, even though she’s paid to say so. Too bad she couldn’t be more wrong if she tried.

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Someone needs to befriend Shannon’s college kids and get them to a range. What a hell of a story that would make.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You probably are not going to believe this but I had exactly the same thought.

      And then I realized that Shannon probably told her children that they have to remain gun free if they want the money to keep flowing their way.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        If her political advocacy is any indication of her parenting, her kids probably would not need much persuasion to rebel.

        1. avatar ADM says:

          So let’s say one of her daughters, obviously without informing her mother, legally carries a gun, and ends up using it to defend herself from an attacker. What then? Does Watts disown her? Does she try to use the situation as some sort of twisted “exception that proves the rule”? Obviously I certainly don’t want her children assaulted–no kid should have to suffer for having shitty parents–but it sure would make her head spin.

  2. avatar Publius says:

    ” A professor at Florida’s Eckerd College summed it up succinctly during her recent testimony at a hearing on campus carry in Florida: “Proponents will tell you that allowing concealed carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.” ”

    Like RF said, not as though rapists are going to bother going through the hoops to obtain a CHL in order to aid their crimes. Also, as it has been consistently shown, CHL holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in the country. (Even more so than police officers!)

    “The thought that my daughters could be surrounded by students making impulsive and sometimes dangerous decisions while carrying a firearm or be expected to defend themselves with a gun, is not something I am willing to accept.”

    Generally speaking, individuals who have a CHL are 21 years or older and have passed extensive background checks. These are the not the individuals you need to worry about. Utah, Colorado, and Idaho recently mandated that college campuses cannot restrict CHL holders from carrying. And yet, there’s been no sudden uptick in OK Corral incidents or a massive influx of rapes and homicides on campus. It’s almost as if it’s not the gun, but the person who makes the difference there…. nah, that can’t be it, at least according to Shannon Watts and the like.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      “Utah, Colorado, and Idaho recently mandated that college campuses cannot restrict CHL holders from carrying. And yet, there’s been no sudden uptick in OK Corral incidents or a massive influx of rapes and homicides on campus.”

      Shh…Watts doesn’t want that to get out, or any other examples of how ridiculous her bogus projections are of blood running down the collegiate halls.

      The young immature ‘let’s party’ students are gonna continue to drink and expose themselves to risk and danger. They won’t be the ones interested in carrying, at least not legally.

      Students interested in exercising CCW protections will be those who invest the time resources and effort in obtaining and maintaining a CCW license. They will be older, more mature, confident, and situationally aware.

      They won’t be drunken careless party goers. Watts is once again trying to feed the uninformed copious amounts of fantasy Kool-Aid.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        To be issued a CCP in most States you have to be 21; i.e., a Senior or graduate student. To reach that point, you must have gotten through at least 3 years of college with passing scores.
        Recalling way-back to my years at college, I don’t recall attending classes after having consumed an eye-opener; nor even a beer at lunch. It just wasn’t compatible with class participation, taking notes, remembering the lecture. Any drinking to be done was generally at home after studying. I can’t remember other students attending classes while under the influence; even night classes.
        Certainly, there was alcohol and pot at home whether on or off campus. The institution can rule whatever they like about guns on campus; they can’t govern guns at off-campus homes. In either case, after Heller and McDonald, I wonder if any State-operated school could Constitutionally prohibit handguns in a student’s home (assuming he was of lawful age to possess a handgun, which in most States, is 18). For the Constitutional issue to arise, the student would have to be found in possession of a gun at home; in which case, there is apt to be either a 4A issue or the school’s disciplinary action would be the least of the student’s concerns.
        In view of the foregoing, I have a pair of empirical questions:
        1. – how many college students are keeping arms in their homes whether or not against college rules?
        2. – how many homicides or accidents have occurred as a consequence?
        Perhaps those college students prudent enough to keep arms in their homes are just the sort to leave them alone on occasion when imbibing.

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          Ans. to last paragraph Mark: One would hope.

          Also note there are many students who attend college after a break following high school to work, serve, or just explore and mature, plus second or third career adults. The students aren’t all young and subject to making immature mistakes, though it certainly is not a one size fits all environment; there are always exceptions in all age groups.

    2. avatar Tim Going says:

      Never mind the fact that against the average sized college female, the majority of guys are armed and dangerous simply because they are bigger. Unless you mandate that everyone on college has to be physically equal then there is no way around it.

  3. avatar Jay-El says:

    Protect them from the NRA…why, exactly?

    “the NRA wants women to be able to protect themselves from rapists….women need to be protected from the NRA.”

    Oh.

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Because child killers blah blah blah racists blah blah blah misogynists blah blah blah…. Seriously, even if the NRA directly saved the lives of 10,000 nuns and 10,000 orphans, the left would find some way to demonize them for it. The NRA is the ultimate boogeyman for the enemies of freedom.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Because they are pretty effective at doing what we are paying them to do. That is being kept pretty quiet by the other side, too. Like hell! It is being actively denied, twisting words in the attempt to convince us that some evil party is attempting to get everyone killed in order to make money, or some equivalent nonsense.

    2. avatar BlueBronco says:

      A co-ed was double raped on the FSU campus in Tallahassee this past weekend. In fact it was near the Strozier Library that May shot up with his stolen gun. That was also the site of one of Ted Bundy’s last rampages. He was also on other college campuses. These tards seem to think that continued restrictions on law abiding folks is going to some how aid this stuff.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Tallahassee? Nonsense, I find that hard to believe. Just a couple of weeks ago the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper called for the banning of guns and the repeal of the Second Amendment. They would never ask for such drastic measures if women were getting double raped there.

        http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/

  4. avatar John says:

    Hammers don’t build houses either.

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… guns on college campuses are not the answer to keeping women safe. That’s because campuses are rife with alcohol, drugs, and depression: a dangerous recipe that may be made deadly by adding guns to the mix.” — Shannon Watts

    Alcohol, drugs, and depression impair the judgement of some college students. And that is rationale to ban firearms for everyone — because some people may have impaired judgement?

    We can say exactly the same thing about driving 3,000 pound deadly missiles around campus. Where are the cries to ban driving on college and university campuses?

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    Of course guns don’t stop college rape — colleges are gun free / free rape zones.

    For a rapist with half a brain — okay, that’s a stretch — target number one would have to be local colleges. Where else could a rapist find so many unarmed, defenseless, young airheads? The high degree of stupidity that’s being pounded into the girls’ little heads by the remnants of the Soviet Union currently known as “college professors” is carefully calculated to keep students malleable. And so they are.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      In all honesty the liberal farts profs are Marxist-Leninists, engineering departments less so.

  7. avatar MarkPA says:

    I get it! I really do!!
    So, here is Amanda, a teetotaler. (Perhaps she is a devout Muslim, Mormon or Seventh Day Adventists; no matter. She could just as well be a Progressive member of the Women’s Temperance Movement.) She takes care to choose her dates carefully; schedules classes that end during daylight hours.
    Beth and Cindy et. al are lushes; they will take any blind-date they can get and drop-in uninvited to any frat-house party. These are the 85%-probability victims of rape or other sexual assault. Majority rules!
    Amanda – exposed to a mere 15%-probability of victimization, looses her natural, and Constitutionally-guaranteed, right to the means of an effective self-defense because Beth and Cindy and all the rest are irresponsible.
    Isn’t that how all our other rights work? Only qualified professional journalists have a right to publish. Only licensed broadcasters have a right to speak. Only established religions to practice; politically-correct subjects to assemble. Only citizens who have nothing to hide to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
    Finally, I’m at peace. I understand.

    1. avatar Slick says:

      I’m not targeting you specifically but I have seen this a lot on this board recently.

      Its lose, not loose.

      /psa over

    2. avatar Rick Testa says:

      Ohhh…I like that! Can I steal that logic/situation to use in my arguments with antis?

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        No; it’s copyrighted and all rights are reserved.
        It won’t work on antis. You are authorized to use it exclusively with listeners who are uncommitted and are able to follow the logic: Majority-Moms-Rule.

  8. avatar Juliesa says:

    I hate very few people, but I really hate people who won’t let women use the best means to defend ourselves.

  9. avatar Slick says:

    Where are these examples of students shooting each other while drunk in Utah? CCW on campus has been legal since at 2007 (I think, it may have been 2004).

    According to this article, Utah LEOs state that the law has not been a problem at all. A few incidents of firearm falling out of the holster and a public safety director making vague accusations of students threatening others.

    http://idahoreporter.com/concealed-carry-caused-much-problem-utah-campuses/

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Indeed. The horse has already left the barn. There are too many States that have college campuses that allow carry of firearms, without blood running in the streets.

      Shannon Watts is full of it, and utterly despicable for taking such a stance.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        No amount of past experience has ever stopped them from using the blood in the streets argument before. I suspect it never will.

        1. avatar Jay-El says:

          And no amount of data (and even video) showing CCW holders protecting themselves and others from armed criminals stops Shannon from claiming it doesn’t happen, never has, and the data shows it doesn’t happen.

          There are lies, there are bald-faced lies, and there are shameless, morally repugnant lies.

          And then there’s Shannon Watts and MDA.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          The difficulty with using empirical data is that all politics is local.
          Put yourself into the mind-frame of someone from Baltimore in MD, a Won’t-Issue State. You hear that next-door in VA, carry permits are Shall-Issue. Even if some areas of VA are a lot like some areas of MD, Richmond is simply NOT-Baltimore. Nor is Alexandria anything like Bethesda. You are simply unwilling to accept that your neighborhood has any comparable counterpart anywhere in the rest of the country.
          Politicians are simply going to follow suite with the mentality of their constituents. It’s going to be really hard to penetrate the last few Won’t-Issue States internally through converting the voters.
          The political process within State legislatures has probably gone as far as its going to go. One by one, the States with a reasonable balance between pro-rights vs. anti-rights has come to fruition. Determined rights voters overcame the determined controllers. The low-hanging fruit has been harvested. There will be no further Shall-Issue States by political process.
          California, Hawaii and Oregon (to a lesser extent) will probably fall with Peruta. Eventually, SCOTUS may rule for better or for worse.
          Our trump card now is National Reciprocity. The States – generally – control Congress. Slave States can’t control the Senate. Slave States could control the House. The present seems to be our pest opportunity for those of us in Free States to tell our Senators and Representatives that we will accept nothing less than a veto-proof majority vote on National Reciprocity.
          Our rights, as travelers and sojourners in the Slave States, are infringed by the latter’s legislators. Those legislators brought upon themselves the consequences of National Reciprocity for better or worse. As a block, these legislatures REFUSED to either:
          – grant our permits bilateral reciprocity; or
          – issue us non-resident permits on terms they could dictate on the highest standards they might have seen fit.
          Pennsylvanians dare not exercise their 2A rights in NJ nor Virginians in MD. We have no political means of petitioning the NJ or MD legislators for redress. Our last resort is to expect our own representatives in Congress to impose full-faith-and-credit on the recalcitrant Slave States.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    How is this latest position even consistent with the name of the organization? How is disarming women and making them vulnerable to rapists a “sensible” policy?

  11. avatar pun&gun says:

    “Mother knows best.”

    Shannon Watts and Mother Gothel do have a lot in common, don’t they?

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    I have to wonder where these people went to school. With with eight years of after high school learnin’ behind me I don’t recall dorms or campuses being awash with hysterical stressed-out depressives drinking themselves into stupors then proceeding to engage in fist fights during “heated debate” in the classroom.

    College is neither Animal House nor Dead Poet’s Society.

    The reality is it’s a bunch of tired and slightly annoyed twenty somethings regurgitating material and hoping their checks don’t bounce.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, been going on a while. I went to college in the ’60s, kept looking for “free love” and other manners of loose women and wild nightlife, instead found lots of late nights, but they were trying to prepare for the next exam. There’s a party now and then, but if you party all the time your time will be short at college.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      That’s because campuses are rife with alcohol, drugs, and depression: Bull!
      My Wife, 2 Daughters, and I went to both Indiana and Purdue Universities. None of that crap was really present and most of the students were too busy to party hardy. Most of the students were actually fairly mature and disciplined.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Purdue, West Lafayette, maybe. But IU Bloomington? I call shenanigans!

        1. avatar Alphapod says:

          There’s a minority of students who embody the stereotype, but the majority of us are here for an education with the occasional drink, not the other way around. IU is large enough that you find what you’re looking for here, whether that’s a serious education or just a lot of alcohol. The drunk bros get a lot of attention, unfortunately, but there are plenty of serious students here too. And no gun rights on-campus, but hopefully the Indiana Legislature will get to fixing that in the next few years.

  13. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    I wonder if things have changed a lot with college students in the last 40 years. I was both a student and then a teacher in college between 1970 and 1990, and I don’t remember any large number of people who were drunk, stoned or otherwise impaired on campus. Of course, there were some, and it was their own choice. The consequences for those choices also belong entirely to them.

    As for carrying a gun, my experience over the last 50 years has been that those who choose to own guns and carry usually also accept the responsibility and are prepared to live with the consequences. Generally speaking, they are simply not the same ones who choose to be drunk, stoned and otherwise impaired.

    If this ditzy broad hasn’t raised her children to be sober, productive and responsible adults… the consequences belong to her and them, and nobody else. She can decide for herself, and probably browbeat her children, but she has no authority to decide for anyone else. And that’s the part she’ll never accept.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      That’s why I partly agree with the Wattinator. Guns in the hands of those that are not willing to take any responsibility for themselves is not a good idea. Regardless of if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol or not, someone that is not willing to fight for their safety will not be safe. Women especially are told everyone else will take care of them and that they are free to do whatever they want without repercussions. Those types of people should really be under the supervision of an adult, regardless of their age they are not adults. Now instead of doing the difficult task of telling people they are wrong and need to learn to take responsibility for themselves (we can’t even teach spelling any longer for fear of hurting little Johnny’s feelings) and separating the helicopter parents from their poorly-adjusted children.

      I really think some parents purposefully disable their children (not physically) in order to always have a purpose in life. Now they want to apply that to everyone through legislation and make everyone their children, because they know better.

  14. avatar the ruester says:

    Wait…. soooo… if the NRA is responsible for every gun death, doesn’t that make NOW responsible for every rape?

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      We really need a rim-shot soundtrack for some postings here at TTAG.

      I suspect we’d come to call it “The Ralph Sound,” but today it would be yours.

  15. avatar MarkPA says:

    Only about 20% of rapists are armed. Does this make any sense? Perhaps so, the attacker needs to keep his victim under control; generally, that’s going to require keeping both of his hands free to control her movements. Most men wouldn’t need a per-se weapon to subdue most women; a strong-armed assault suffices.
    In this light, why would making campuses gun-permitting make rapists more likely to arm-up? Because they can?
    First, one needs to eliminate any rapist who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence incident. These rapists would be prohibited persons. Then, eliminate those of the remaining 2A-able rapists who prefer to rape unencoumbered by a hand-gun. What is the size of the remaining pool? I.e., those who – today – are inhibited from bearing arms while raping just because its against the law?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If I were in the mood for a friendly little rape or two, I wouldn’t want a partner to be very ventilated, that seems counterproductive. Seems like a knife would be a better choice, on campus or not. At which time, by rights, you should be carrying a knife to a gunfight.

  16. avatar Gwen Patton says:

    Shannon Watts is smoking some primo stuff there.

    I had some gormless little piece of dung pull a knife on me in JUNIOR HIGH. I told him to put it away before I hurt him with it. He didn’t believe me. BIG mistake. With my retractable keychain, I disarmed him of the knife, then broke his nose with the reel end, flailing it like a morningstar. He ran one way, I ran the other.

    In my college years, I had a drunk pull a switchblade on me in a restaurant parking lot. I used a walking stick to disarm him, breaking his wrist, then jabbed him in the solar plexus with the tip, making him barf in the gutter while I broke the blade of his knife against the curb. Then I got in my car and drove away.

    Being able to defend yourself from these godless couchfraks, who despite Shannon’s willful blindness, are perfectly willing to arm themselves without one moment’s thought about the law, is a critical life skill. Learn to defend yourself, not just with a gun, but with a variety of weapons and methods. Anything within reach should be a potential weapon in your hands, because YOU are the true weapon. Anything else is simply a force multiplier for your use.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      Wow. Good on ya.

      I wonder what Shannon and Bloomberg would say about women defending themselves, particularly with things that aren’t guns. Wouldn’t would-be rapists simply take those objects away from you and use them against you?

      What’s more, if Shannon is right, and “the data shows that guns are never used in self-defense/it never happens,” how could anyone possibly defend themselves with something less lethal and effective than a gun?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Boy, you had some kinda weird fashion sense in college if you regularly carried a walking stick.

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Truer words have never been spoken:

      “Learn to defend yourself, not just with a gun, but with a variety of weapons and methods. Anything within reach should be a potential weapon in your hands, because YOU are the true weapon. Anything else is simply a force multiplier for your use.”

      This is what I spent years learning in martial arts. Anything can become a weapon. Too many people focus on a weapon, and not on the fight. The important thing is to have the mentality of fighting, regardless of what is at hand. Once you have that, weapons seem to appear as if by magic – they’re all around you. Flashlights, car keys, 2/x4’s, bottles, pieces of pipe, a car antenna.

      A gun, however, helps put distance between you and someone else. And that’s a nice thing to have when you’d like to walk away from an encounter…

  17. avatar foo dog says:

    I spit on sleazy pols like Austin PD Chief Acevedo, and hear is why.

    Any experienced street cop who is courageous enough to be honest will say that citizens need to e prepared to defend themselves if they are in a dangerous environment.

    Acevedo knows this. But he parrots the line that citizens dont need to defend themselves because cops are there to do it for one simple reason. Power. His personal ambitions and need for power trump reality. I am assuming that based on his name, and the politics of Austin, hat the Chief is Hispanic.

    That means he has thrown his own people, especially at risklatina women, under the bus of progressive politics, and the need for top-down control that is embedded in the marxist-socialist roots of progresivism v 2.0., that ESPECIALLY disempowers the weak, the poor, and minority populatins that historically live in high crime neighborhoods. Whom have in many cases, fled to live illegally in the US, precisely to escape the threat of criminals that abuse the poor, at the point of a gun, in Mexico.

    Acevedo is an immoral man. I suspect he knows this in his heart of hearts, but if not, or he denies it, then he is a borderline sociopath. That may sound extreme, but when you consider he directly, or indirectly puts innocent lives at risk, by depriving them of their constitutional and natrual god-give right to self defense, what other black and white conclusion is there?

    He is a man without honor. No es un macho. No es en buen hombre.

    1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      ⬆ESTO⬆

    2. avatar Juliesa says:

      De veras.

    3. avatar Jay-El says:

      Mas un mil.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That still doesn’t make sense, though. I mean, yeah, he learned how to function in Kommiefornicate, but the attitude is so very out-of-place in Austin that it’s ridiculous. Does he believe he can get away with that crap here? We have not been force-fed the Kool-Aid for the past few decades, few will believe that BS.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Sadly, that attitude is not at all out of place among Austin’s political class which is, of course, progressive. Acevedo has based his entire career on working for people like this. He knows who his bosses are and so he also knows what he’s supposed to say. Because of differences in class privilege, progressives always insist that victims share guilt with their violent attackers. Since violent attackers are seen as only partly responsible for their crimes, it’s hard for progressive to support measures that might result in their death.

  18. avatar George says:

    I gotta wonder about the college career of the anti-gun crowd. Between going to school and working, I didn’t have much time to drink and carouse.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Indoctrination works best when you’re drunk or drugged.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Maybe it should be outlawed?!?

    2. avatar Fred says:

      Thanks to the new trend of financing education one can stay in college indefinitely without working. The average student loan debt is about $30,000. Students these days can stay in school a whole decade without having to worry about paying anything until later, which makes perfect sense for those that hate personal responsibility and working. Then add in easy-to-get credit cards, with an average of $15,000 of debt, and entitled kids can keep on partying, even without parental support, which is also increasing up until age 26.

      Ten years of school. Over $100,000 in debt. Zero responsibility. Welcome to the new America.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Ten years of school. Over $100,000 in debt. Zero responsibility.

        You forgot “no job.”

        1. avatar Fred says:

          I lump that in with “Zero responsibility”, but I didn’t want to be redundant and use “zero” twice 🙂

      2. avatar Louis says:

        Gratefully my daughter graduated college with no debt thanks to mine and her forethought. She held jobs before and after college as she pursued her career in dancing. We go to the range whenever she visits home, but I still cannot figure out how she became liberal. What concerns me most, she’s moving to Austin, Texas later this spring. As far as I know she has no intention of carrying. Oh Well!

  19. avatar John says:

    Ok, I’m willing to play devil’s advocate here. I don’t think that guns will necessarily stop college girls from being rapped. If you look at the way most of these rapes happen, it isn’t some predator waiting to attack and rape a girl on her walk home from classes. While that sometimes is the case, most of the time it is an acquaintance that comes over (usually invited for a “study session” or a movie or something), brings alcohol, gets them drunk, and rapes them while they are incapacitated. Or it is at a large party where everyone is wasted and some girl (or guy) passes out and, again, gets raped while they are incapacitated and don’t realize what happened until the next morning. In either of these situations a firearm would not help because the victim is not in the proper state of mind to use one or, in the case of the party, probably doesn’t have one. (At least they shouldn’t have one if they know that they are going to a party and are going to drunk. Guns and alcohol should never be mixed). However, this does not mean that college students shouldn’t have guns. While they may not help in these specific cases, they most certainly WILL stop the other kinds of crimes that happen to students such as being broken-in to or being attacked while walking home at night. For these reasons, campus carry should definitely be permitted.

    1. avatar foo dog says:

      Ok, John. I’ll play.
      For sake of argument, lets say there are some number of rapes that could be called “date rape”.
      Where a manipulative coward forces a vulnerable woman into sex, despite her clearly saying no, in some way.

      Now. John. Imagine you are that sort of cowardly useless bag of skin rapist. No quibbles or caveats, here, ok?

      Are you going to take a chance pushing the self-confident and armed woman, that says no and can enforce it?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And what about those which are NOT date rape, but off campus sleazeballs who know where to find unarmed chicks? Shall we just forget about them? Maybe so, we can discuss cost/benefit just as soon as any actual cost is proven. Otherwise, we are talking about a woman’s RIGHT to defend herself, while MEN are claiming they are not responsible enough. Those men are the ones the ladies need to defend themselves from.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You mean, like Jesse Matthew?

        2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          And what about those which are NOT date rape, but off campus sleazeballs who know where to find unarmed chicks? I am not so worried about the fellow students raping my daughter at IUPUI, as much as the off campus thugs from the fantastic neighborhoods surrounding it.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      Actually, considering the vast range of conduct that the feminist grievance industry is pleased to classify as “rape”, John may have something of a point there. But that doesn’t change the fact that armed women are most certainly in a better position to avoid forcible rape than are unarmed women. And that is the problem with Shannon and Acevedo and their ilk trying to make sure women are disarmed.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        A win-win situation. You were armed, yet decided not to shoot him? Then it was not rape. Next case!

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Sigh. Every woman I’ve ever talked to about this, has had a bad-moment-in-a-dark-parking-lot moment which caused her, whether anything happened or not, to be fearful enough to wish for 1) immediate help or 2) the ability to defend herself. Nobody, male or female, should have to face that kind of encounter without having the right to defend themselves with a firearm. School parking lots and walkways are always under-patroled, especially late at night when the last classes are ending or when the libraries are about to close. At my old school there were a grand total of 2 campus cops on night patrol on a campus of 9000+ students. At any campus, you’ll see scumbags hanging around looking for targets of opportunity. That’s where the real danger lies.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Absolutely agree. Each of us has some degree of control over the circumstances we allow ourselves to become exposed to. A woman can accept/reject an invitation for a date, the time, the place. She can go to a party; or not.
        At the other end of the spectrum, we all find ourselves in situations where we have to take a chance. A particular class she needs to take this semester ends in the evening. The only parking places available before the class begins are a long dark walk when the class lets out. A job in a bustling office building from 9 – 5 might require her to work late one night when there is no one around.
        Just because some women in some situations might be in a poor position to use a gun to defend themselves does not logically lead to a conclusion that all women in all situations must be deprived of the means to an effective self-defense.

  20. avatar Tom says:

    “campuses are rife with alcohol, drugs, and depression”
    This ad for college brought to you by MDA.

  21. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I also would like to point out the false premise of a statement such as allowing guns on campus won’t stop rape: the exercise of a natural, constitutionally protected right does not require any specific purpose. Women (and men) should be able to carry firearms on campus in a lawful manner for no reason other than that it is their natural, constitutionally protected right to do so.

    So, ultimately, the response to an assertion such as allowing guns on campus won’t stop rape should be: so what?

  22. avatar Alexander says:

    Shannon actually has a point, though she cannot openly say so. If 80-90% of campus rapes are perpetrated by people known to each other, then she’s admitting that 80-90% are date rapes, of which most are actually bad sex leading to a remorse and a societally accepted way to dump that remorse onto someone else.

    1. avatar foo dog says:

      Exactly. They wont say, for fear of being accsed of the made up crime of victim shaming, what your Grandmother would say. Dont be a fool and get drunk enough to be vulnerable around strangers.

      Instead they say, make yourelf even more vulnerable by failing to protect, yourself.

      Victimhood by the masses, for the sake of the power of a few. Feminism v3.0 is another aspect of the deliberate takeover by the Elite Who Know Whats Best For The Rest of Us…They called them the Cadre in Maoism.Commissars in the USSR.

      This Admin, calls them Czars, like Van Jones, or Community Organizers, or the simply, the Elite at NOW, Emily’s List, and so on, pretending to represent women, but throwing their comrades under the bus, in service to The Narrative.

      The Ends Justify The Means” ~V.I. Lenin, and Saul Alinsky…

  23. avatar JSIII says:

    The irony that the same people who won’t tell women they should avoid passing out drunk at parties to prevent rape, WILL tell women NOT to arm themselves to prevent rape.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      This, a million times. Further, if anyone on anything close to the right end of the political spectrum even came close to intimating that a woman getting drunk might play some role in her also getting raped, that person would be tarred and feathered. But Shannon and Art get a pass, because GUNS…

  24. avatar Bob108 says:

    I cannot believe people still argue that if a victim has a firearm, they risk the assailant killing them with it. First, the assailant does not simply decide to be a murderer because the victim has a gun. The assailant has already made that decision, and whether he does it with a gun, knife, bat, or his bare hands, he does not care. Second, the gun is the only thing on this earth that can give most people a fighting chance against an assailant with a 30 lb. advantage. Drunken frat parties aside, long gone are the days that most rapist simply allow a witness to walk away and identify them later. If rape garners similar prison sentences as murder, what is the incentive for the assailant not to follow the rape with murder no matter what method they use to do it. As for drunken frat parties, a conceal carrier should know better than setting foot in one.

  25. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    That’s because campuses are rife with alcohol, drugs, and depression: a dangerous recipe that may be made deadly by adding guns to the mix.

    That’s eerily close to the reason the military doesn’t want soldiers (and Marines, sailors, and airmen) to be able to carry guns on base. Command officers and NCOs state that alcohol usage is a huge problem in the military. Couple that with anger, depression, and the pressure put on them and it’s a recipe for disaster, they say.

  26. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “As a mother of five children…”

    I love how breeding is a resume’ attachment now…

    My neighbor’s cow has had five calves, maybe we she ask the cows its opinion on current affairs too.

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Yep, the arrogance is astounding. “I pushed several small people out of my vagina, therefore I have the moral high ground, and whatever I say is right! Why, I don’t even need facts on my side!”

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Don’t forget, she speaks for all moms, or rather, all women.

        She very well might be the messiah.

  27. avatar Scrubula says:

    Ok, college students (grown ass adults, although young) should not be allowed to carry because they might be drunk. Or the assailant might take the gun from Ms. Helpless female. Or because a person sick enough to rape and murder someone else might be deterred from bringing a weapon because of campus policy.

    There’s a lot of mights, and a lot of stupidity. Luckily the average person has a better grasp of reality than Shannon Watts and we should see more gun free zones being removed in various states.

  28. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    “But women are not falling for the NRA’s false narrative that most predators are strangers jumping out of the bushes and attacking women.”

    Tell that to Amanda Collins and the family of Brianna Denison.

  29. avatar JohnO says:

    Shannon should pay to put up Rape Free Zone signs. Thy will end the rape epidemic.

    Also, double-ban underage drinking. Put signs up for that, too.

  30. avatar CM says:

    The more she opens her mouth, the more she reminds me of “Baghdad Bob”.

    1. avatar DickG says:

      A not-so-distant cousin, no doubt.

  31. avatar Sammy says:

    “Gun” control isn’t necessarily a reference to firearms in this case.

  32. avatar Royal Tony says:

    I remember when a conservative type (forget exactly who) said something to the effect of “college girls wouldn’t get raped so much if they didn’t drink so much and made better decisions.” And boy was he shouted down by so called progressive harpies as misogynist, victim blaming, etc. Now we have good old Shannon saying the same thing, that college girls are too drunk, depressed, and stoned to make good decisions. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for the neofeminists to shout her down, because guns.

  33. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I see Shannon is busy projecting again

  34. avatar Another Robert says:

    Shannon may not be pathological, but her arguments certainly are. How else would you describe someone who, in the name of making women safe, would rather put a woman in the position where she will definitely be raped, and possibly futher injured or killed, than see her in a position where she might possibly be raped, might possibly be raped and further injured or killed, or might possibly not be raped or hurt at all.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      …and she would also prefer that a would-be rapist become an actual rapist than for him to possibly be shot while attempting to rape someone…or for nobody to get hurt at all and the would-be rapist gets arrested for attempted rape.

      Sorry for the convoluted grammar. That alone tells us something about MDA’s logic–it defies clear expression.

  35. avatar ToddR says:

    When seconds count…

  36. In almost every state it is illegal for a person to carry while intoxicated, so Watts is worried about something that simply can NOT happen. Because it is, like, illegal, ya know?

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      Hey, good point! That’s also why it MUST be the case that no rapist would ever grab his victim’s gun away and use it against them.

      Well, at least in states that require a background check for every transfer of a firearm.

      😉

  37. avatar foo dog says:

    For the benefit of those new, and any search bots:

    Shannon Watts is a paid PR shill (sockpuppet) for former NY Mayor Nanny Bloomberg’s latest astro-turfing effort, Everytown, following the collapse of credibility of his Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Mayors left in droves, when it was revealed his true purpose was gun confiscation.

    Mom’s Demanding Action was a ‘campaign’ of MAIG, some surmise to avoid funding reporting under IRS non-profit reporting rules, that has been thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere as a group of FakeBook profiles that can barely muster a dozen warm bodies in actual live protests.

    In other words, its a propaganda machine, and a ver poor one, that creates fake news, to “trade up the chain” for other biased, discredited, and failing media outlets, like MSNBC, for revenue to replace the catastrophic loss of eyeballs, viewership and advertising revenue, as the masses depart in disgust. CNN hasn’t had Ms Watts back since the howler of a lie she told about good guys with a gun dont stop bad guys…”it never happens, data proves it never happened”.

    I wont dignify Everytown with a click, but note that Bloomberg has already been sued, and Everytown apologized for lies told about gun stores, and his famous claim to destroy the NRA fell flat, as did his donations to politicians ti defeat pro-freedom candidate, like Sheriff Clark, in Milwaukee County resulted in huge wins for the pro-freedom side.

    Read “Trust Me, I’m Lying” to understand this last gasp of Progressivism v2.0, and the money it generates, to fujd the ecosystem of Vox, Politico, HuffPo, and assorted Journolistas, in the end game of mass media complicity in the greatest lies ever told to the American people, by the formerly Free Press, like MSNBC and its like.

    I am glad Bloomberg et al is too dumb to press on. Watts and her kind only speed the disgust and sea change underwaty away from the Progressive Narrative as free citizens recognize it for what it is, a last desperate gasp to control citizens through left wing cultural marxist propaganda, that simply defies “common sense”.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      Marx was against gun control. So, it’s not entirely accurate to consider Watts and her supporters to be “Marxists” per se.

  38. avatar Bob says:

    Clearly they should just ban penises and alcohol from college campus. Only sober women and eunuchs can get an education. Or maybe the return of the chastity belt, for both sexes.

    I love the “but it’s someone they know” argument. Hello, if they are trying to rape you, shoot them, doesn’t matter who. People who try to rape you are not your friend.

  39. avatar Tokamak says:

    Doesn’t anyone else think it’s just Sad that Shannon Watts has reproduced 5 Times? (Maybe some are step children but she still has influence on them) That’s 5 chances for her “legacy” to last. So sad…

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      She hasn’t, IIRC–some of those she claims are her hubby’s, but not hers. Maybe Dirk will come along directly with the straight skinny.

  40. avatar Fred says:

    I forgot to say Shannon is right. Guns don’t stop college rape, people with guns stop college rape.

    Also, “don’t let the NRA brainwash you, let mommy do it” isn’t a compelling argument either. I’m sure all that motherly worrying will do wonders while watching the news report of an incident on TV miles from the campus, that is if the campus isn’t trying to suppress the story to make it look like rape or murder doesn’t happen there.

  41. avatar Higgs says:

    I need a sanity check….

    Did the reporter 44 seconds into the news actually refer the alleged rapist in the following way:

    “When an unknown male VICTIM came in and pointed a gun at her head……”

    The redacted document that they show ( and I assume the the reporter was reading from ) does not have the word Victim in it….

    So did the reporter slip it in? Was the copy written that way? Freudian Slip? Liberal Bias? Bad reporting?

  42. avatar Hannibal says:

    “But women are not falling for the NRA’s false narrative that most predators are strangers jumping out of the bushes and attacking women. In fact, between 80% and 90% of sexual assaults at colleges involve acquaintances, not strangers…”

    Bullets don’t just work on strangers jumping out of the bushes.

  43. avatar Javier says:

    Madam Twatts should go pound sand. If it where legal for my daughter to just buy a gun and carry it on campus I would buy it for her. How long would it take for the cops to get to any one spot on a school campus to protect our children from predators? If it where your daughter would it ever be fast enough? Rape is illegal and it still happens there aren’t enough police to protect each of our children Bloomberg has the money to hire private armed security teams WE can barely pay for bus fare and tuition.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      Calling names in public forums is not helping the woman-hating image of gun rights advocates that the “Moms” has been crafting for some time now.

      Seriously, anyone who cannot restrain themselves from this type of stuff should just not vent in type. It gives the statists easy ammunition.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree with your sentiments. The comments of a few on gun blogs seem to serve primarily to cast a bad light on gun-owners. Are any of these vulgar commenters really plants from the Moms? Probably not if a comment includes enough technical information to rule-out a Mom or fellow traveler of the Moms.
        Nevertheless, the image we should be trying to project is one of family-men, mothers, big-brothers/-sisters. We care about our communities and will defend them as necessary. We aren’t biker-gang members or bar-room brawlers.

  44. avatar KenL says:

    You know what also doesn’t stop college rape? Taking the woman’s gun away.

  45. avatar Bob says:

    Robert, I think this post would have been a lot more productive had you rebutted their arguments in the post. Surely some people unaware of the counter arguments will read this. The post seems to merely rant to the choir.

  46. avatar Anonymous says:

    Guns may not “always” stop college rape.

    However, laws and cops most certainly don’t as has already been proven.

  47. avatar JJ48 says:

    So, a woman should not be allowed to arm herself because her firearm MAY (indicating possibility, not certainty) be taken and used against her. Allow me to illustrate the absurdity of this argument.

    Suppose we have two women who both live alone in apartments. One night, both of their apartments are broken into by a six-foot tall male, who is 250 lbs of solid muscle. The first woman is unarmed, so she runs to the phone to call the police. Her attacker grabs her before she gets there, throws her onto her bed, grasps her firmly around the neck, and says, “Do as I say or I squeeze.”

    The second woman owns a gun, so when her attacker comes in, she reaches for it. Unfortunately, the attacker is too close and gets the gun away from her. He throws her onto her bed, puts the gun to her head, and says, “Do as I say or I squeeze.”

    Clearly, both of these women are in a situation no one should ever have to be in. However, is the second woman somehow in a WORSE position because her attackers weapon is her gun rather than his hands? Is the first woman thinking, “Well, it’s horrible that I’m being violated and threatened with death, but at least the threats are of strangulation rather than of being shot!” Though I don’t personally know anyone who has endured such a thing, I feel I can state with some confidence that she would NOT be thinking this.

    Having a firearm does not GUARANTEE you will be able to protect yourself in every situation, but it at least gives you a CHANCE.

  48. avatar Burley Ole'Bear says:

    Shannon is a statist. Statists don’t give a $h!t about you(or anyone, for that matter) and your well being. They only care about their own power and what limits its acquisition. An armed populace keeps statists at a certain distance from total power, hence the uncompromising call to disarmament. Pro 2A advocates mostly just want power over their own lives, statists like Shannon, ALSO want control over your own lives. Running their own is not good enough. Besides, if college students were allowed to carry, there would be an immediate and sharp decrease in crime against college students. Shannon can’t let that happen because, again, it’s an obstacle to her power. Her power is based on a demographic that is in crisis. If people are solving their own problems, she isn’t needed.

  49. avatar bozo says:

    Ya know… I’m going to go out on a limb and say this site gives MDA more publicity than any other outlet. Her shenanigans are entertaining to be sure, and it’s fun to see into the mind of madness, but this is literally the only place I ever read about her anymore. Just fyi. That’d also be a great article actually. “TTAG Keeping MDA Relevant”

    Alternatively, as this is the second most commented on article on the front page right now (assuming most clicks / ad revenue)… that’d also be a great article! “MDA Keeping TTAG In Business”

  50. avatar Geoff in TX says:

    We are really mixing up 2 separate concepts here:
    The first, is the idea tat concealed carry license holders (which are the only people anyone has actually been suggesting be allowed to carry guns on campus) are likely to be carrying and getting drunk or acting irresponsibly while armed. That is already illegal in most states anyway, and in fact, these folks are statistically the least likely group in our population to behave this way, because they tend to be both very responsible, and inordinately law-abiding as a group. While there may be a lot of drunkenness on our college campuses (campi?), there are also a lot of impulsive folks (who usually can’t get a CCW license due to their legal history), and underage drinkers (who can’t get a CCW because of their age) involved. The CCW license holder, as the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus group has often pointed out, is ALREADY carrying concealed guns everywhere else, at the supermarket, the movie theater, the restaurant, on the street, etc., without any problems. Why would any rational person (ie, someone who is not thinking irrationally because of their fear of guns) think that they will somehow become LESS safe just because they have walked across the street and stepped onto the college campus? The very idea is utterly absurd on its face.

    Second though, is the way rape is now being defined, especially by colleges. Carrying a gun would be an extremely appropriate and effective defense and preventative measure for the CCW licensee who is attacked by someone (whether known to her or not) who attempts to force her to engage in sex, by using violence or the imminent threat thereof. These perpetrators are probably already carrying weapons of their own now, without anyone being aware of it until they perpetrate an assault. So the idea that allowing concealed carry on campus would be “arming the attackers” is irrelevant…they are ALREADY armed, or else plan to commit their assault by force of strength alone. Either way, a potential victim who is armed with a concealed handgun is a good preventative measure. In fact, merely the fact that it is impossible to tell in advance, whether or not an intended victim might be armed is a good preventative. This means that many potential victims who are not actually armed, will benefit from the level of doubt inevitably present in the mind of the potential assailants.
    HOWEVER, pulling a gun is probably NOT a good response in the case of a so-called “date rape,” in which the issue of rape itself is highly questionable. The coed who gets drunk with a date, gets laid, and wakes up the next morning with second thoughts, doesn’t qualify as a “rape victim” in any rational meaning of the term. The solution to that problem, which mothers have been warning their daughters about (and most fathers warn their sons about, since there are social problems attendant to such behavior too), is simply not to drink so much that you get incapacitated, especially on a date. The distinction between “rape” and “seduction” is simply too blurry to take a chance these days. And, BTW, anyone getting drunk while carrying, even, in fact especially, a CCW license holder, is already violating the law, even before sex raises its lovely head.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email