Let us engage in a small exercise in logic. If the Obama Administration is to be believed (I know, I know, but just play along, please), everyone should go to college and the taxpayers should foot the bill. And why should everyone go to college? Because at least 20% (1 in 5) of all women will be raped there! And what is the government’s solution? Force colleges to conduct rape kangaroo courts that deny the male “rapists” due process rights without involving the police. Of course, this huge number of female rape victims must absolutely be denied firearms, because feminism, equality, diversity, tolerance, a pristine educational atmosphere, etc. . . .
Lawmakers in 13 states are considering ‘campus-carry’ bills. Supporters believe armed students could stop violent crimes like sexual assaults, but the controversy is dividing students.
At Florida State University, opponents believe allowing students to be armed is a dangerous idea, while proponents say crime victims have a right to fend off their attackers, reports CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller.
‘If I was single and dating in college and my boyfriend tried something that I said no to, and started sexually assaulting me, I would use my firearm to defend myself,’ Students for Concealed Carry co-president Rebeka Hargrove said.
The graduate student has a concealed weapons permit, but state law prohibits her from entering the Florida State University campus with her firearm.
She said she feels much safer with a gun in her purse.
‘I know that if anything were to happen, I would be able to defend myself,’ Hargrove said.
Among the traditional arguments against concealed carry on college campuses is the fact that students are young, immature, and often drink to excess. However, the minimum age for a concealed carry license in virtually every state is 21. Most traditional college students reaching that age are juniors or seniors, and more and more students are non-traditional, older, experienced, more mature.
Hargrove thinks guns will help deter would-be rapists, but also points to mass shootings like an incident in November, when a gunman opened fire in a campus library, injuring three people.
‘There were students there that could have stopped the shooter before he hurt and seriously injured more students,’ she said.
Colleges are almost universally victim disarmament zones where victims must rely on the police to save them if an attack occurs. Of course, the mere, well-publicized fact that no one is armed on campus throws any sort of deterrent effect out the window. That there are virtually no cases of the police stopping a school shooter in recent history seems not to bother anti-liberty activists and some police administrators.
Florida State University Police Chief David Perry disagreed.
‘That would have exacerbated and made our situation even worse,’ he said. ‘To have two or three or more people with weapons yelling commands, people firing rounds that can’t be accounted for, that’s just not a good mix.
What Perry neglects to mention is that police officers are trained to understand that they can easily roll into ambiguous situations. Any officer that would just blindly start shooting anyone holding a gun shouldn’t be on the street in the first place. And as I’ve recently written, police shooting in crisis situations is nothing about which to brag, nor is their “accountability” for rounds fired. In fact, when an attack occurs, it is the people actually present who are most likely to know exactly what is happening and who the bad guy is.
Even in victim disarmament zones, the police can’t just shoot anyone holding a weapon, which is what Perry implies. In the world outside such zones, where anyone could be legitimately armed, the police must be even more careful. If his officers are truly so ill-trained, they’re more dangerous to the public than anyone lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.
Perry joined top officials from the rest of Florida’s public universities opposing the bill, saying guns would actually make campuses less safe.
‘There’s also a culture of drugs, there’s also a culture of underage drinking, there’s also a culture of sometimes poor decision making,’ he said.
The ultimate flaw in this sort of reasoning is that criminals don’t obey the law. Those that want guns will get guns. Only the law-abiding, those victimized by criminals, will obey gun laws that disarm them. Consider this “logic” from a graduate student:
Yale Law student Alexandra Brodsky helped start ‘Know Your IX,’ a nationwide advocacy group that helps survivors of sexual violence. She believes campus-carry laws won’t work.
‘We’re talking about why shouldn’t a woman be able to carry a gun to protect herself. But if you’re going to give her a gun, you’re also going to have to give rapists a gun, and I think we can all realize that’s a really bad idea,’ Brodsky said.
Well of course. No rapist–someone contemplating committing a violent felony–would ever consider arming themselves unless they knew their victim was also armed. You’re so much better off just giving violent criminals whatever they want, or they might really get mad. Why, they might even commit microaggressions, or even applause!
The Justice Department says 1 in 10 sex assaults involves a weapon.
‘There’s a lot of men who are bigger and stronger than me,’ Hargrove said. ‘I don’t want to have to think back and say, ‘Oh, I could have stopped that if I had an equalizing weapon.
Allowing women, who tend to be smaller and weaker than men, and who tend to be most of the victims of actual rape, to carry concealed handguns, almost makes sense when one thinks about it, but then under the Brodsky Rule, rapists would have to be provided guns too.
This is the kind of thing people pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to learn in our institutions of higher learning.
Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
As a student I hope that Floridas campus carry passes. Im sure all the rapists will leave their guns off campus if not. At least then he could only rape the females and not shoot them to. Theres definitely not any other weapon he could utiliz Like pens, pencils, or their bare hands.
“You have to give the rapists guns too.”
Because only concealed carry permit holders commit rape. That must be it.
Yet we have the government hand 17-year-olds rifles and march them across a desert half a world away.
Is he talking about college students or Marines?
Error 404: Logic not found.
Because, obviously, the unenforced gun control laws will modify behavior where unenforced drug, alcohol, and sex laws have not. I wonder why that sign doesn’t say “I deserve a Drug/Alcohol Free Campus” ? Presumably, without drugs and booze, these loose women (let’s call it a spade, already) won’t “find themselves” out of control in “compromising positions.”
how dare you, loose women indeed! Are implying you should be responsible for your actions? Further are you suggesting don’t do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people? You have DEEPLY offended me!
While some rapes may be due to evolving social situations (read: drinking/partying) and changing one’s mind, some are due to victimizations and predators. Let’s not diminish the true victims by painting a broad brush. And for that victim who was heading home in a low-traffic area, or who had a home invasion that then progressed to rape? That victim deserves to defend herself and carry concealed! Even if it saves one woman! … Moms demand action should really be supporting this, shouldn’t they?
Nice victim blaming asshole. Instead of telling women not to drink, you should tell men not to rape drunk women.
And nothing says it quite like the straight-on, close-up view of the bore of a .45 Colt.
God created men and women. Sam Colt made them EQUAL!
Hey why is this post only 20% as long as usual?
Since the backbone of the anti-gun “movement” is women, I’m completely opposed to allowing them the use of arms in self-defense. For ’tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with her own petard.
“Movement” –hee hee. Or do you mean “push?” Or “putsch?” (man, moronic politics is such a rich joke area)
The woman’s movement is best seen and appreciated from behind…
Can anyone decipher what the hell the blue sign on the left is trying to say? It’s like liberal buzzword-salad, or something (even if part of the sign is blocked, how can you cobble together sustainability, global education, and sexual assault in the same thought?). Oh, it’s a report card that was cooked up (I assume) by a third grader, or something! Good to know that “Sustainability” (would love to know how modern tuition is “sustainable” in any universe), “Global Ed” (what-EVER the hell that means) have equal footing with “safety from sexual assault” (ooh, another value that can’t be measured, just like the other two, as well as –I assume– that guy’s test scores!)
“I DESERVE A FREE SAMMICH” –See, I can make up moronic slogans, too!
“Look to your left, look to your right; statistics show that both these men will rape you”
I think you are misinterrpreting Brodsky’s comment. She means all men are potential rapists and allowing campus carry would potentially arm all men, i.e. rapists. Brodsky is a homophobe in the literal sense of the word.
Now hopefully people are beginning to see what a scam college has become. Tens of thousands of dollars and students can’t think past OMG GUNS! Useless required classes along with tons of useless or mostly useless majors, but fat salaries for the administration and professors for no work to minimal work. Let’s see if we can squeeze another semester or two out of these dopey students. More money for us, more debt for the future barista.
Thank you for saying it for me. The Education system is every bit as bad as the Healthcare system, they’re both designed to cripple people without mercy or apology. Yet we can’t seem to figure out why this country has the problems that it does.
It’s worse than you likely think: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0
Why do they believe that what they think they deserve trumps our constitutionally protected right?
Because, like most I met in college, they have been educated beyond their intelligence. I define this as: A level of education where the brain in question can no longer process information, but only memorize sound bites by rote.
As usual, one of the biggest misconceptions out there is the idea that owning a gun will make you more likely commit X crime. A gun is not an evil talisman that has powers of coercion.
“But if everyone owns guns, there will be more X crimes”
What people pushing this agenda are willfully ignoring or failing to see is would-be criminals will commit whatever crime they are willing to carry out regardless of whether or not they currently own a firearm (legally or not). Most “mass shootings” are carried out with illegally-appropriated firearms — they are stolen or taken from victims of murder….
However, on the flip side, there are hundreds of thousands of DGUs that are willful acts of self defense every year by law abiding citizens. That can’t be denied. And I have zero doubt that the people saying they will employ their firearm for defense of self mean what they say.
I believe that number far outweighs the phantom-would-be-Minority-Report-criminals that will spring from anonymity and cause chaos in the streets. Because that’s not how criminal behavior really works.
So yeah, the numbers don’t add up. The amount of DGUs by good people will far outweigh the paranoia of phantom criminal uprising that doesn’t have any numbers to support it.
A statement to which many will reply ‘why have any laws at all since the criminals aren’t going to follow them.’
As if that is even a question.
I went to college. I learned some stuff. And I really have to wonder if the college campuses of today are that much worse, or is it just the stupid getting more face time than the smart?
“…And I really have to wonder if the college campuses of today are that much worse, or is it just the stupid getting more face time than the smart?”
Yes to both.
I think gun makers should start nick-naming the manufacturing floor “Mount Doom” just for fun. Afterall, antis seem to think guns are enchanted by Sauron.
“You Have To Give The Rapists Guns Too…It’s Only Fair ”
I am sorry to inform you that no, you don’t have to give them guns too. They already have them or know where to get one.
To deny a woman the opportunity to defend herself against a sexual assault is the very definition of “NOT FAIR”! (Unless you are the perpetrator).
Try this meme and see how it flies on campus:
You can’t have campus carry because college age women can’t be trusted with guns. No telling who they’ll shoot. If we allow campus carry, then some women will want guns, too. At the very least, the air of self sufficiency will discourage potential husbands. We can’t allow that. No guns 4 U.
Anne Skomorowsky of the Washington Post already beat you to it. Because her alcoholic 17 year old daughter cannot be trusted with a cell phone, no 21 year old student should be trusted with a gun.
From the washingtonpost page: “It also makes dangerous assumptions about teenagers’ capacity to handle deadly weapons.”
Teenagers? Where in the F can a teenager acquire a concealed carry permit?
In MS you can get a carry permit at 18 if you’re a member or veteran of the US military. I suppose that counts as a teenager.
Outstanding work as always Mr. McDaniel.
Offering a less than humble opinion, in a truly fair and just society, your articles would be required reading — with of course, the well-earned and well-deserved measures of monetary compensation.
Actually everyone needs to go to college because it buys the current administration time before the current generation hits the unemployment numbers. It’s paying Peter with Paul’s money at it’s simplest level. The jobs are just not there for everyone and the feds know it. If they encourage people to go back to school they can keep a good percentage of people from being registered as unemployed because they aren’t unemployed they are in school.
Now we can put gun control in the same category as the epa and irs. They state a purposed mission of protecting one thing when really they just enslave the American people. In fact they work to control the economy and our safety at a minimum level of acceptance to be used for propaganda at a later time. Keep everything on the precipice between good and bad and you are one policy change or tragedy away from pushing your agenda further or pointing out how well the regime has been doing so far, Never let the carrot get too close or too far away.
NO ONE IS GIVING GUNS TO ANYONE!
It’s not about providing guns for anyone, it’s about not preventing us from getting them!
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard someone say this.
“If we give students guns, we will have to give criminals guns too”, or some variation thereof.
The only explanation I can give is some form of mental illness. I have no other way to explain how somebody could come up with this leap of logic.
As you said, first, nobody is talking about “giving” guns to any one. This statement shows that not only do they not understand what students are asking for when they support allowing carry on campus, but they also appear to be completely lacking in anything resembling a normal logical thought process.
In decades past, these people would not graduate from college. In fact, they wouldn’t even be there in the first place.
Right? I would sure love to know where all these huge gun giveaways are. Save me a fortune.
“What Perry neglects to mention is that police officers are trained to understand that they can easily roll into ambiguous situations. Any officer that would just blindly start shooting anyone holding a gun shouldn’t be on the street in the first place… Even in victim disarmament zones, the police can’t just shoot anyone holding a weapon, which is what Perry implies…”
Normally no, but in an active shooter situation at a school if the police find you holding a gun you very well may be shot before questions are asked.
Why are so many students delusional? Once a campus is wise enough to be armed the rapes will occur off campus in the no-firearm zones. And sex will return to the fun experimental learning insanity it historically been at college.
Guns are a good idea for solving the rape problem. However, rape victims will seldom be in a position to use them because they are so intoxicated when they are raped that they cannot use any kind of weapon for self defense. This is simply because rapists use alcohol to make their victims defenseless so it is easier to commit the assault. One prevention strategy is bystander intervention supported by RAINN (Rape Abuse and Incest National Network). Bystanders at a party or bar could be armed provided they do no get too intoxicated and break existing laws concerning alcohol intoxication and firearms possession. If you, a bystander in a bar sees a man trying to isolate a severely intoxicated woman (who cannot walk from point A to B without assistance) then you must intervene. It is a very typical rapist behavior to isolate intoxicated victims. Rapists are ordinarily violent individuals who rape many victims in their lifetime (think Bill Cosby or Will Hayden) therefore, many women get victimized (why 1 in 5 women will be raped; victims are way more common than perpetrators) and are likely to be pissed off that you are intervening. The rapist could very easily react violently because a violent man who thinks you are “cockblocking” is a potentially dangerous situation. And if this rapist is one of the football players, chances are higher you will need the power of a firearm to defend yourself and the victim that you are helping.
Good point. Designated drivers could double as armed rape deterrents, too. In my observations, they are already commonly tasked with “douche interference.” It would be nice if they had something better than a cell phone to back them up.
The point also perfectly outlines the stupidity of Texas’ 51% law. Not everyone drinks alcohol at a bar. Why should rapists and other criminals have a monopoly on force in bars? Also something, something, private property!
Additionally, we must not marginalize rape victims that would be able to use their weapons in self-defense. No matter how few they may be. I see the antis throw out statistics, like “90% of rape victims wouldn’t have been able to use a firearm to defend themselves.” So the other 10% shouldn’t be given the chance? Those 10% matter just as much as the other 90%!
Everything I’ve seen from the anti campus carry groups seems pretty anti-feminist. They paint a picture of college women as bumbling inebriated floozies, incapable of bearing the responsibility that comes with concealed carry. What is wrong with these people? I thought they were supposed to be riding the 3rd wave of feminism. Where is the outrage from the SJWs? Are we the SJWs in this battle? Weird! I should go to bed…
Wow you’re had the full indoctrination.
Perhaps a voung lady (with a brain) might chose to NOT get stinking drunk? Most college young’un are not of legal age to begin with. I suppose you have a lecture about right to be a moron and rampant ruffie.
Think about it. Does the leftwing media and hysterical feminazi narrative of 20% (or ____) of college gals will be “rape” even make sense? And man made global warming/climate change/____ or the Easter Bunny..
“Force colleges to conduct rape kangaroo courts that deny the male “rapists” due process rights without involving the police”
The problem is that the college Stalinists don’t have summary execution powers. The Checka used mass deportation but didn’t become REALLY effective until they started shooting their internal enemies. Perhaps drowning in latte or asphyxiation by pot smoke would work for the campus libtards.
You make good points, but the whole, “One in five women will be raped” thing is absolute nonsense. It’s just not true. One cannot claim 1 in 5 are with certainty going to be raped. Or have been raped. And, most importantly, the statistic in itself is insanely inflated by false/fake reports, bad data, political pandering, and blatant lies by liberals and feminists.
And after you’ve shot the “perp” you find out that he is/was the woman’s husband who was just trying to get her out of the bar and into their car so they could go home before she passed out completely.
A man who is just trying to get his drunk wife home is not going to react violently if you show concern for their loved ones well being. You try to solve the problem nonviolently first by saying “she doesn’t look so good, maybe she should stay here.” A man trying to get his wife home is not going to react violently to that.
I can see that you’ve never worked in a bar, Bill.
.Get some experience before you start giving people advice.
@ DickG. I have worked in a bar before. As a doorman, as a server, and a bar tender on the drunkest nights at one of the drunkest schools in the country. South Dakota State University. Non violent men do not try to isolate drunk women and then attack you if you try to suggest something else.
Jumping in the middle between a man and his wife, or a man and his girlfriend is apt to get you beat up by both, and you know it.
As a doorman, server, and/or bartender YOU have the opportunity to know who has had too much to drink and who has not. YOU likely know your customers and something of their relationships, how they behave and how they react.
An outside observer who is wandering around YOUR bar, looking for “situations” to become involved in is a tremendous liability to your club’s financial future, the employees’ (including you) employment and the reputation of the business.
As you know, fights or serious altercations generally clear out a bar for the night which equals loss of business, loss of tips, and maybe some cocktail waitress is not being able to pay her rent next month.
If you feel strongly about it, fine! Then you and your fellow employees have a meeting, decide on a strategy and a response plan, and YOU take care of it. You and your fellow employees including the manager or owner have the authority (and in some states, the obligation) to control your customers.
In Oregon, in the bars I worked in, we found it advantageous to have enough employees on the floor to watch our customers and tactfully cut them off for the night with an offer of no more alcohol, but free soda and coffee if they wanted it. If they were drunk before they came to the door, they didn’t get in (you want your customers to get drunk on YOUR booze, not the competition’s and you don’t want other bars’ “toss-outs”!)
Coordination amongst employees is essential, of course.
Follow that outline and you won’t have the problems to begin with.
South Dakota college bar. Let’s see. University students, townies, bikers, wanna-be cowboys, hippies, mall-rats, & if there’s good dance music, some older town folks. A “fun mix”! Sound familiar?
Your understanding of the issue is very poor. Rapists are usually acquaintances to there victims. The are not in an intimate relationship. In most cases the woman can be asked if she knows who they are and they will answer correctly despite being drunk. In fact they can still recount what happened on the witness stand in many of these cases. And anyway, I am not suggesting going about this in an offensive manor.
Thanks for the article, without which I would not have found your blog. I’ll be over there if I’m needed…
Sorry, I don’t buy the argument. Not that I don’t support campus concealed carry, because I do. But, the problem is that campuses are not free rape zones. Rather, just the opposite – rape is apparently lower on campuses than in the rest of society, and esp. in comparison to young adults of the same age as typical college students.
What we are talking here are almost entirely ambiguous sexual situations that would not be prosecuted outside college campuses (or, more accurately maybe, if the perps and “survivors” weren’t college students). We are talking drunken hookups, or situations where the parties have had sex before, or at least put themselves in situations that could be taken wrong. If a co-ed starts the pre-party in the afternoon with her girlfriends, then starts hitting it hard when they hit the parties in the evening, ending up with a BAC 2-3-4 times the legal drinking level for driving, and then ends up in bed with some guy, she probably shouldn’t be able to get the guy expelled. Esp. since this likely wasn’t the first weekend she did this. This is the sort of behavior that those students are calling “rape”.
Which is why connecting this with campus carry doesn’t make sense. The kids who engage in this sort of behavior are most often not old enough to be able to legally carry a concealed firearm. If they did get drunk, then carried, they are violating the terms of their permits. And, very rarely do they know at the time that they are being “raped”. Rather, that is a conclusion that they come to down the road after they sober up, or the guy doesn’t call back, etc.
“. The kids who engage in this sort of behavior are most often not old enough to be able to legally carry a concealed firearm.
. The kids who engage in this sort of behavior are most often not MATURE enough to be in COLLEGE, AWAY FROM MOMMY AND DADDY.
There! Fixed it for ya!
They haven’t put rape free zone signs up yet? Everyone knows that conclusivley ends rape within the designated zone.
Someone needs to run an ad campaign that is a series of photos, each one depicting a petite woman holding a pistol standing next to a large convict who had obviously worked out with the weights during his last incarceration. The caption would be something like “124 grains of equality, because sometimes bad guys are just bigger and stronger.”
Wait. So a rapist is totally cool with breaking the law to rape but breaking a law to carry in a gun free zone is just too far across the line for a rapist?
Otherwise law-abiding rapist? Oh to laugh.
Never mind that breaking a law here is ultimately trivial compared to the total assault of another human being. A reprehensible action in the complete absence of any written law.
This is like catholics who believe so strongly to rail against abortion and birth control but somehow they dont believe strongly enough to not have premarital sex in the first place. Nothing quite like a knocked up catholic girl trying to rationalize why one thing is okay and forgivable but the other thing is a one-way ticket to hell.
You overplayed your hand with the Catholic example. Abortion is a sin because it destroys life. Premarital sex is a separate sin. That committing one sin might put you in a position to be tempted to commit another sin is regrettable, but still, they’re separate sins.
As for birth control, Catholics are not against it outright. They believe in the rhythm method, because it neither destroys nor interferes with the creation of life.
Your overall point about behavior invalidating belief is cute, but invalid. Belief cannot be determined by behavior, because humans are fallible and given to sin. By your preposterous standard, nothing is real or held dear unless someone is flawless and adheres to perfect behavior? Come on. Do your children ever disappoint you? But you still love them, right?
If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches and poor men’s cottages princes’ palaces. That’s the Bard, not the Pope, but the point still stands.
Hogwash– 20% of women will NOT be raped during college. That’s BS– like the “3 million” missing children each year, or the scads of “human trafficking” victims.
Don’t be such gullible.
What they mean is that 20% of the co-eds are going to have sex that they regret the next day, or maybe even months later. That is what they have redefined “rape” to be.
How do they get so much mileage out of the ‘confused situation, people pointing guns at each other’ albatross?? That has never ever happened anywhere, because universally if a BG is engaged by a carrying citizen, things are long over and done with by the time the badges arrive!
And that might be safest for everyone, too, given how many bystanders the police tend to shoot in the course of taking down armed assailants when they do finally show up.
“the fact that students are young, immature, and often drink to excess.”
Fact is that today, students are grown, mature and most do NOT drink to excess.
Just another faceless comment meant to mislead everyone.
“That there are virtually no cases of the police stopping a school shooter in recent history seems not to bother anti-liberty activists and some police administrators.”
That’s disingenuous. For starters, there are those words “virtually” and “recently”; elastic qualifiers which make an assertion unfalsifiable. This site castigates antis for that same tactic, as with their use of “appropriately” or “nearly”, yet allows it here in the interest of the cause.
Moreover, it limits the discussion to just school shooters, which limits the pool of counter examples. I know, I know, the article topic is campus carry. Still, the underlying principle, repeated here virtually (or is it nearly?) every day, is that we’re each our own first responder and we shouldn’t rely on the police. In that vein, non-school spree shooters stopped by the police, such as Dorner, the Boston Bombers, the Reno CiCi’s/Walmart shooters, and the Washington Naval Yard, should count, too.
Let’s set those aside, though, as recent school examples include New River Community College (2013), Santa Monica College (2013), and Isla Vista (2014). Yes, the sorority house counts as part of the college and the people targeted were students. (I’ve anticipated the next 10 quibbling points, too, and already have counters. So bring your best!)
All of that aside, the fact is the police loom large in the thoughts of these killers. Even when the police don’t actually stop the attack, many time they still effectively stop it. Many cases exist of spree killers, including at schools, committing suicide. It isn’t that they’ve sated their blood lust. It’s that’s the police were on their way.
Some actually hear the sirens, then end the attack to end themselves. Some just estimate the arrival time in advance. They do this because they want to die, rather than be captured. It is police who apply that pressure and who force the killer’s hand, prompting him commit suicide, and who end the spree even if indirectly by bookending it. To argue against that would be to argue, as well, against the deterrent effect of concealed carry itself. People, even common criminals and spree killers, respond to incentives. The prospect of heavy return fire tends to reprioritize one’s actions.
Sometimes that bookend is at the front end of a spree, preventing it from even starting! The proof? The Isla Vista killer had originally planned to commit his spree during the well attended Deltopia event, so as to maximize the number of victims. However, he concluded that the heavy police presence on patrol would “dispatch” him too quickly for him to attain his goal.
I live in Tallahassee. I can tell you from first hand experience that Chief Perry is a dipshit. His FSU Officers and TPD officers fired wildly from multiple directions. It was contagious fire. If the perp hadn’t been waiting around for 3 minutes on the door steps, they wouldn’t have found him so easily. A couple of staff/students wouldn’t have been anymore wild than the officers were that night and likely less so.
Sunday a guy out of prison and tried to kidnap a coed on FSU campus. Fortunately some students were able to stop it. The guy is back in jail. They are fortunate the guy wasn’t armed.
Where are the lesbians? They believe in gun civil rights. Hey pink pistols. Where are you?