New York Times Publishes the Truth About Campus Carry

Amanda Collins (courtesy pjmedia.com)

A cold wind blew through hell yesterday, as nytimes.com published an editorial by pro-campus carry spokeswoman Amanda Collins [above] — albeit accompanied by UT Sociology Professor Javier Ayero’s anti-campus carry screed. Ms. Collins’ testimony is a personal tale of victimization. It goes like this . . .

In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office . . .

At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.

Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

What more is there to say, really? Other than props to the Old Gray Lady for finally publishing the truth about guns.

comments

  1. avatar Roymond says:

    Make that “publishing some truth about guns’.

    But it’s an infinite improvement at that!

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      yeah, props to them for that.

      I always find it incredibly ironic that for all the anti-gun drivel they print, they had to defend their office and presses with a Gatling gun from rioters.

      Who knows, if they had rolled over and played dead as they are wont to advise currently, the NYT might just be a interesting foot note in history.

  2. avatar Vhyrus says:

    As much as the left harps about how male aggression is the new social cancer you would think they would be all for giving college women guns. The cognitive dissonance is astounding, as usual.

  3. avatar Wilson says:

    Women who wish to protect themselves should carry a gun and preferably a knife as well. They should get training with both. They should also learn BJJ.

    1. avatar Pyratemime says:

      I get your overall point to learn how to fight. With the emphasis BJJ has on going to the ground it seems a suboptimal choice. Once you are on the ground you are so hideously vulnerable to a second attacker and grappling with someone whose goal is get get a grip on you gives them exactly what they are going for. Stay on your feet and prepared to run as soon as the attacker has been neutralized enough to make an escape.

      1. avatar Wilson says:

        “Once you are on the ground you are so hideously vulnerable to a second attacker and grappling with someone whose goal is get get a grip on you gives them exactly what they are going for.”

        The simple fact is that if you’re unarmed against multiple opponents, you run. No questions, you run. You don’t try to incapacitate one of them, you book it unless you want to get your head kicked in.

        Now, yes, that person is going for a grip on you, but what you don’t seem to understand is that BJJ doesn’t start on the ground, it starts standing. It’s not all about ground fighting. A good portion of it is standing “grip fighting” and throws from standing positions, many of which actually are counters to common grips a person will try to get on you. A huge portion of BJJ is how you get someone on the ground, and mostly if you do it on a hard surface you’ll injure them badly enough that the fight is likely over. You’re worrying about an untrained asshole rapist getting a grip on you, if you knew BJJ you’d know that’s not a serious concern even if he’s larger and stronger than you, he’s stepping right into your wheelhouse by doing grabbing you. No matter how strong he is, he can’t win a fight against physics.

        Either way, statistics indicate that 80-85% of serious physical altercations will go to the ground regardless. In other words if the fight picks you, you’re more likely to end up on the ground than you are to remain standing no matter what you do. If that happens the person with even a few months of ground fighting experience is the likely winner over someone who’s out of their element.

        Most people don’t pick fights, the fight picks them. Staying on your feet for a kick boxing match works when it works, but it’s extremely dangerous to trade blows with another person especially if you’re a woman and your opponent is a man or if the other person is significantly larger than you. The distance to the ground is increased and a large number of significant injuries attained in a fight come from falling, tripping, slipping, being tackled etc and hitting your head.

        I’m not saying that martial arts is the end-all-be-all of self defense. Self-defense comes in layers and I’m not interested in getting to the last layer which is hand to hand, but it’s a damn nice set of skills to have if you need it.

        1. avatar Wilson says:

          I forgot to say this: Any fight is or attack is suboptimal.

          Nothing about what we’re discussing is optimal and there is no “optimal” response to a situation like this, there’s only better and worse choices.

          I’ll tell you this in closing. I used to go to a gym that’s run by a UFC fighter (retired a couple years ago, after I moved and left his school) and he was one of my instructors. In fact I rearranged my life to be in his classes specifically they were small and he was good. We had a lot of cops, sheriff’s deputies and general tough guys come in and tell us they knew how to fight but wanted some exercise. If they took the free week the first day they got paired with one of the girls who ranged between 100-135lbs and none of whom had more than a year of experience. None of these guys were less than 170, and most were trained cops that tend to win against your average criminal or average person because they’re better trained than 99% of people.

          What happened? Every single one of them got mauled, completely mauled. I mean it was embarrassing to watch their childlike attempts at defending themselves against these girls. Truly pitiful. We’re talking trained officers that take down meth heads as their day job and they have no idea what to do against a 110lb high school girl. They couldn’t defend the most rudimentary takedowns and couldn’t execute one of their own. They couldn’t even handle a white belt chick with 3 months experience. To a person it was like watching Tyson in his prime fighting a 12 year old.

      2. avatar Other Tony says:

        I definitely agree that knowing how to fight is the main point. I disagree about whether knowing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu forces you to fight on the ground. I think it gives you great options for grappling whether on the ground or standing up. It should also be combined with skills for other forms of fighting including strikes and weapons.

        1. avatar TTACer says:

          It was my understanding that BJJ does not “force” you to fight on the ground, just that the Gracie philosophy was that all fights eventually end up on the ground, so you may as well learn what to do there.

  4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Some truth is better than none which what is what you usually get from the Times. Still the only reason this was published was because there was a female victim, and that fits another one of their political items (women as victims of men). On the subject of campus carry, I am still ticked off at our jerk governor, Nathan Deal.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Still the only reason this was published was because there was a female victim

      Absolutely. And had she been trans, the story of her rape would have been on the front page above the fold.

  5. avatar Mickey R. says:

    Man the comments on the NYT page are hard to read… So many folks saying something to the effect of “What happened to you is terrible, but if you’d been carrying a gun it wouldn’t have helped and you’d just be dead instead of a rape survivor.”

    Either that, or “You should’ve just used pepper spray. It would’ve been more effective than a gun.”

    SMDH…

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      I won’t give the NYT clicks anymore, but you have confirmed what I believed I would have found in the comments section. The people commenting at the NYT are a special brand of d-bag that continually try to achieve Peak Derp.

    2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      “Man the comments on the NYT page are hard to read… “

      Well, that’s why they try so hard to squelch first-person factual accounts. Actual facts mess up the story they’re trying to self. But worse, the true believers’ foaming response puts what they’re really about on display.

      So, in this story…
      – Not a camo-clad mall ninja, dentally-challenged hillbilly, misogynist testosterone addict, or even OFWG. Even goes to college.
      – Carries for defense.
      – So law abiding, doesn’t carry on campus.
      – Assault happened within feet of police station.
      – By multi-offending career thug.
      – etc.

      Kinda messes up the stereotypes. But, it’s worse than that. Put the story out there, and what they’re really about comes through.

      “Sorry (but not really), victim-woman. Even if it would have helped, we’re willing to sacrifice you for the greater good (as we see it.) Also we get to decide, not you. Any questions?”

  6. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    I’m surprised they published this at all. Ms. Collins is “not the victim they are looking for.”

    1. avatar Martin Gomez says:

      True. The left-wing Times, for example, took the sides of Tawana Brawley, Crystal Mangum, and the Jena 6 hate criminals against the white victims. They also pusblished the name of the white victim of the Central Park gang rape in order to humiliate her. The Times is often so full of intellectualized white-bashing and caucasophobia that I’m surprised when they manage to attack white people.

      The victim the Times is looking for is whomever is most triggered by even the thought of white people or guns, let alone, both in one narrative.

  7. avatar Martin Gomez says:

    Surprised the Red Lady didn’t feel the need to “balance” the editorial with 29 anti-gun viewpoints in order to maintain her reputation for subversion of gun rights.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      No doubt those 29 anti-gun viewpoints are every day for the rest June.

  8. avatar Mike J says:

    I know several individuals who have admitted to carrying concealed handguns on the main campus of the University of Houston, which is in a blighted, high-crime area. I believe that’s still a third degree felony in Texas. I’m sure that really terrifies the robbers and rapists who frequent the campus.

  9. avatar LHW says:

    Something about a broken clock.

  10. avatar Dave says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if Dr. Suzanna Rupp wrote a piece for them next?

    For those who may not be familiar with her story and the Lubbys Diner massacre…
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/14/famous-luby-massacre-survivor-to-senate-im-not-a-victim-of-guns-but-of-lawmakers-who-legislated-me-out-of-the-right-to-protect-myself-and-my-family/

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