Previous Post
Next Post

“Universities are typically non-threatening environments that see violent crime only in rare occasions, and mass shootings such as the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 are even rarer. If students are allowed to carry firearms on campus, that environment will likely gain a tense atmosphere of fear and paranoia that is detrimental to the classroom setting and could open the door to increased violence . . . Though it may be comforting to know you could have a firearm ready to defend yourself from violent crime, this is an extreme measure for far too rare of a circumstance on college campuses.” –  Alex Rosenthal, No need for guns on campus [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Uh, yeah, sure, except for the fact that the rate of violent sexual attacks against women is far greater ON college campuses than OFF of them. Most don’t get reported to either the authorities or the news because lots of the colleges try to downplay the attacks to protect their sporting reputations.

      • Ahh well, steroid soaked monsters whose worst violent tendencies are actively encouraged and rewarded will be boys, right?

        What are you gonna do?

        • Seems like since throughout history this tendency of young men, especially the martial/sports types, has been universally recognized, the logical solution would be legal and “well regulated” brothels where they could relieve this natural tension without resorting to raping unwilling fellow (female) students.

          Not a 100% solution, perhaps, but rather than everybody tooling up to shoot the bastards down when they act up, seems like a good alternative.

    • And remember the assaults that happen to students off-campus while commuting to/from off-campus housing. Those students who commute would have to leave their handguns at home before their commute which means they are defenseless both on and off-campus. (There is no place where such a student could store their handgun at the edge of the campus every day.)

      If I were a college student, I would probably carry concealed anyway. The down side of not having it (being raped, beaten, or killed) far outweighs the consequences of getting caught with it. And a student can virtually guarantee that they are never caught with a handgun.

    • You know, if a school or university accepts federal financial aid they have to post their yearly campus safety reports as part of the Cleary Act. With that info, you can find out exactly how many rapes, robberies, etc actually occurred on the school’s property. Mind you, it doesn’t extend to the private surrounding neighborhoods, but you could do a FOIA request from the local PD for that info. You can look up schools by name/location, etc here ->

      I don’t know which campus at University of South Florida Mr. Rosenthal attends (I picked the main campus), but last year there were 7 “Sex offenses – Forcible” on campus and another 7 “Sex offenses – Forcible” in On-campus student housing. I’d sure bet that those 14 victims would disagree with his “evaluation” of the situation.

      • Unfortunately the law of (un)intended consequences often
        strikes its ugly head when schools have to report crimes.
        For instances, I went to a certain Uni in the north east that
        busted 6 meth labs (four of which were turning out medical
        grade stuff) in one year. The next year there were none.
        One might think the cause was the school ramping up LE
        presence and keeping a closer eye on its students. Wrong.
        Instead the campus and local PD were told that the problem
        was now over and there was no need to ever look for drug
        labs on campus again. No crimes “found”, no crimes
        reported. If someone thinks the same type of coverup
        doesn’t happen with sexual assaults, rapes or any crime
        involving conservative students (political persecution is
        alive and well on almost every campus) then naive doesn’t
        even begin to cover their mindset.

    • And a good number of false accusations for petty revenge or to get money. White knights don’t care if an accusation is true or false.

      Also alot of colleges are near bad getto areas where the locals prey on students all the time with muggings, break ins, and worse.

  2. Haven’t we already sorta thoroughly debunked the whole “the streets will run red” argument?

    Also, tooling up at ANY time is preparation for a rare event. Around 2.5 million people die in the U.S. annually, roughly 12,000 of which involve a gun. If you’re one of the 2.5 million you have roughly a 0.5% chance that you’re death is going to involve a gun in any way.

    Risk/reward: I’ll carry around an extra couple of pounds every day to eliminate that risk..

    • Nope, they’re just going to keep running around in circles screaming “WILD WEST WILD WEST” like their hair is on fire.

      That couple pounds is a VERY small price to pay for knowing that I’m capable of being self sufficient, if hopefully never, one of these statistically unlikely rare events happens.

      • I like the Wild West analogy, they need to use it more so that we can shoot that one down as well. The OK Corral? Tombstone had a gun ban, the Earps were going to confiscate weapons because the Clanton’s and Mclaury’s were *gasp* BREAKING THE LAW.

    • They claim that 500,000 of those are killed by smoking (which is purest bullshit, but…) so if that’s the case, then you’re FOUR TIMES AS LIKELY TO DIE FROM NOT SMOKING!!!!!

  3. At my last school there were so many attacks that most girls were scared to go out at night at least 4 attacks per month were happening on campus

    • “at least 4 attacks per month were [reported to be] happening on campus”.

      Fixed it for you.

      • There is a huge difference between false accusations and false reports. Why don’t you crawl back under your rock.

        • I could see his comment being interpreted either way: that the reports might be bogus, or the actual events might be even more numerous than just four. My first thought was the latter. Probably not cool to whip out an insult based on an ambiguous comment.

        • *Correct

          “Sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes, with 60% still being left unreported.”

          Sometimes an assailant may not know that “no means no” unless looking at the “business end” of a firearm.

  4. University of Colorado has had conceal carry for close to 6 years now. zero shootings on a campus yet

    • But that didn’t stop the Democrats from introducing a bill to ban concealed carry on college campuses last year. And it would have passed, if not for the backlash against their treatment of Amanda Collins, a rape victim who testified against the bill. (Where was the feminist outrage against these anti-choice Democrats?) It cost Colorado state senator Evie Hudak — a truly despicable creature — her job, who recently resigned rather than face a recall election.

      This year, they are introducing a ballot measure to ban concealed carry on college campuses. And I predict it will pass.

      So by their logic

      (1) crime on college campus is so rare, that there is no need to carry a gun on campus, and

      (2) crime by persons who have a concealed weapons permit is so rampant, we need to ban them from carrying their licensed weapon on college campuses.

      Colorado state representive Claire Levy (D-Boulder), the sponsor of the bill, admitted that “I don’t know how on Earth they can draw a causal relationship. I make no assertion that this bill either increase or reduce violent crime. That is not the premise of the bill.” Video here.

      But that didn’t stop the author of HB13-1226 from putting the following language in the bill:

      SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

        • I believe it’s currently in the petition phase. It will easily get enough signatures in the Denver/Boulder area to get on the ballot. And, if there are enough no-show 2A supporters, it will pass. It’s incumbent on us-especially those of us who live in Colorado-to make sure we get out to vote, along with every like minded voter we can find. Otherwise we’ll be handing Bloomie and his new BFF Shannon a gift all wrapped up with a bow.

      • Are you sure she actually said, ” I make no assertion that this bill either increase or reduce violent crime”?
        Because, in my experience, very few people get this number thing that wrong.

        • Yes. See the video of her saying that:

          The link in my comment above was formatted incorrectly (whether by me or by this site’s software, I have no idea).

        • Rich, It’s obvious that its sole purpose and intent is to further the goal of total civilian disarmament. It can have no other purpose.

        • If it will have no effect, the what the f– is it for???

          (1) It’s to legislate their bigotry against law-abiding gun owners.

          (2) It’s part of an overall effort to make lawfully carrying a concealed weapon such a hassle and inconvenience that those licensed to do so will not. In other words, to create a “chilling effect” and a de facto ban in order to disenfranchise us from exercising our rights. It’s all explained on page 18 of Moving America Forward (the 2012 Democrat Party Platform):

          Voting Rights. …we oppose [support] laws that place unnecessary restrictions on those seeking to exercise that freedom….Democrats know that voter identification laws can disproportionately burden young voters, people of color, low-income families, people with disabilities, and the elderly, and we refuse to allow the use of political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens.

          If I’m walking through downtown Boulder or Denver, both home to very large C.U. campuses, it is at times a lot more convenient for me to walk across the open campuses than around them. But unless I have mapped my route out before I leave my house, I have no idea whether or not I should carry my gun — which I am licensed to do. Therefore, the rational economic choice — a choice distorted by a ban on CCW on campus — is to not exercise my right to legally carry a gun while in Boulder or Denver.

          For decades, the anti-gunners screamed that they wanted gun-owners to be licensed, in order to weed out the criminals. Now they want to create additional barriers and burdens for those of us who do have licenses.

          As Glenn Reynolds wrote in “Second Amendment Penumbras” (14 page PDF, well worth reading):

          First Amendment analogies, in fact, suggest another doctrine that might apply: chilling effect. Traditionally, violation of gun laws was treated as mere malum prohibitum, and penalties for violations were generally light. During our nation’s interlude of hostility toward guns in the latter half of the twentieth century, penalties for violations of gun laws, especially in states with generally anti-gun philosophies, became much stiffer. Gun ownership was treated as a suspect (or perhaps “deviant” is a better word) act—one to be engaged in, if at all, at the actor’s peril.

          But with gun ownership now recognized as an important constitutional right belonging to all Americans, that deviant characterization cannot be correct. Regulation of firearms cannot now justifiably proceed on an in terrorem approach, in which the underlying goal is to discourage people from having anything to do with firearms at all. Laws treating fairly minor or technical violations as felonies must be regarded with the same sort of suspicion as pre–New York Times v. Sullivan laws on criminal libel: as improper burdens on the exercise of a constitutional right.

          This change has important penumbral implications. At present, Americans face a patchwork of gun laws that often vary unpredictably from state to state, and sometimes from town to town. Travelers must thus either surrender their Second Amendment rights, or risk prosecution. Two recent cases from the state of New Jersey illustrate the risks.

          . . .

          Cases like this are common enough to give gun owners pause, and to support the publication of various guides to compliance. Legal approaches like New Jersey’s seem intended to stigmatize and denormalize firearms possession generally, and to produce an in terrorem effect that will make gun ownership less common. The question is, does this chilling effect run afoul of the Second Amendment?

          If they were really concerned about reducing violent crime on college campuses, they would spend more effort trying to ban men from campuses, since men commit violent crime at a higher per-capita rate than CCW permit holders and the general population.

          If that’s too broad, then just ban heterosexual men from campus, since they commit violent crime at a higher per-capita rate than homosexual men. (I have no idea if that’s true or not, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is).

          If that’s still too broad, then they could try banning just black men from campuses, since black men commit violent crime at an ever higher-per capita rate.

          Would such proposals be sexist, bigoted, and racist, even if the basic assertions are true? According to liberals, the answers are “No”, “No”, and “Yes”, respectively. It’s not sexist to point out that men commit violent crime at a higher-per capita rate than women, or that heterosexual males commit violent crime at a higher-per capita rate than than homosexual males. But it is horribly wrong to point out that black males commit violent crime at a higher rate than while males, CCW permit holders, or the general population at large.

          I suspect that, if we were to categorize every group on college campuses to some granular level, the least violent group would be lesbian Asian females with CCW permits.

          Which is why the anti-gunners always say they want to have a “discussion about gun-violence” (which begs the question), rather than a “disucssion about violence” — because the truth about violence is probably very ugly, very politically incorrect, and could lead to places that we don’t want to go.

          But if brown-shirts like Claire Levy, Evie Hudak, Joe Salazar, Rhonda Fields, Morgan Carroll, Dickie Lee Hullunghorst, Matt Jones, Rollie Heath, John Hickenlooper, Bruce Benson, Professor Jerry Peterson, etc., are going to codify their bigotry — whether in the legislature or at the ballot box — against those of us who have licenses to carry a concealed weapon, or just own guns in general, then going to those dark and ugly places where the truth leads us may, unfortunately, become a viable option in this struggle for our rights. Allah help us if it does.

          Then again, I don’t remember feminists, blacks, gays, illegal aliens, abortionists, the press, pot smokers, the handicapped, etc., standing up for our rights when the Democrats decided to crap all over law abdiding gun owners. So f*** ’em.

        • In my comment above,

          and we refuse to allow the use of political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens.

          should be

          and we refuse to allow the use of political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens.

          Site moderators: If you want to go ahead and edit that, and then delete this comment, it would be much appreciated.

        • I don’t remember…gays… standing up for our rights when the Democrats decided to crap all over law abdiding gun owners.

          One of the talking points of the anti-gun movement last year was that gun ownership is declining, and therefore it is both morally acceptable and politically viable to treat gun ownership as a deviant behavior, rather than a right exercised by tens of millions of Americans. See

          – “Gun-Free Households Are An Increasing Majority While Gun-Owning Households Are A Shrinking Minority” (April 26, 2011)

          – “Gun Ownership Falling? Anti-Gunners Meme Business!” (September 21, 2012)

          – “WSJ Discovers Counting Gun Owners is Problematic” (March 23, 2013)

          – “Mythbusting: Gun Ownership Is On the Decline in the U.S.” (October 05, 2013)

          Since gays are less than 4% of the population,

          Wikipedia: “According to a Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.8% of American adults identify themselves either as lesbian or gay (1.70%), bisexual (1.80%), or transgender (0.30%); which would correspond to approximately 9 million of adult[1] Americans as of the 2010 Census.”

          it should be OK to discriminate against them, too, right?

          But it’s not. While the state of Colorado was attempting to make it legal for the state of Colorado to discriminate against gun owners, the state of Colorado made it illegal for business owners with strange and medieval religious beliefs to discriminate against gays.

          December 05, 2013: The Colorado attorney general originally filed the discrimination charge against Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips, for refusing on Christian tenets to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake in 2012. The ACLU intervened to represent Craig and Mullins.

          December 07, 2013: Just two days after the owner of a Lakewood, Colo. bakery appeared in court to defend himself against charges that he that he discriminated against a gay couple last July when he refused to bake a cake for their wedding, a civil judge found the owner guilty of unlawful discrimination.

          “Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” Mullins told KDVR Friday. “We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today’s decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.”

          But it’s OK to discriminate against those of us who are licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon? To offend and dehumanize us?

          Civil unions for gays was legalized in Colorado, right after the legislature got done s**tting all over my rights. Normally, my reaction to legalizing civil unions, or even gay marriage, would have been, “It’s about time”. But now I have my own problems to worry about, and if it means I have to support the most vile anti-gay bigot politicians to get my rights back, I will. I won’t be happy about it, but the logic of “the lesser of two evils” applies.

          • anonymous: You misunderstand about discrimination. A private business has every right to refuse service to anyone they want to. Only government agencies are forbidden to “discriminate.” If the cake-maker wants to turn away the money of gays, that is his right. Forcing him to do business with people he doesn’t like is wrong. The vast majority of shopkeepers have no interest in turning away business from people – they couldn’t care less what color your skin is, or whom you have sex with, as long as your money is green. The only reason that lunch counters banned blacks during the Jim Crow days was because it was the law.

            Forcing the homophobic shopkeeper to violate his own moral principles is wrong, and I’d sue the barstids.

        • You misunderstand about discrimination. A private business has every right to refuse service to anyone they want to.

          What is it that I do not understand?

          The University of Colorado — which has tried to ban CCW on its campuses — is not a private business; it is a state university.

          And private businesses do not have the legal “right to refuse service to anyone they want to”. Whether they should is another discussion.

          I stated no position on the bakery case, so I’m not sure what your point is.

        • Show me.


          The Civil Rights Act of 1964 “outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce”.

          Also, a few comments above this one, I cited a case in Colorado which made it illegal for a bakery to refuse service to a gay couple.

  5. So I just finished grad school at SMU. While a student, I received torrents of spam email from them, including reports of every time there is a sexual assault or some kind of crime on main campus. Lemme tell you this, the VAST MAJORITY of them were, wait for it big surprise incoming, sexual assaults.

    So tired of the paranoia inference.

    • But how many of those “assaults” were girls who decided expost that they didn’t want to have sex with their partner of the night? Rape and sexual assaults on campus are inflated by wymen defined standards

      • tdiinva, I like most of your comments, but this is outa line. Yes, false accusations exist, but rape and sexual assault is real; it’s not some feminist jihad. What’s more, it messes a lot of women up for life. It’s already hard to prosecute, and comments like this is why more women don’t report it. If you want to stand up to bad guys, stow this attitude.

        • Sorry to offend you but you ought look at the latest Department Education and Department of Justice guidelines which enables this kind of behavior. There are many women, Christna Hoff Sommers comes to mind, that make the point that the feminst redefinition of rape undermines real rape victims. Feminists claim that one out four women are raped in college. The only way you get to that number is by considering ex-post rape cases. According to the FBI’s latest report the forcible rape rate is 52.7 per 100k or 0.05%. Even if you think the real rate is 10 times it is only 0.5%.

        • I’m aware of Dworkin and her “all sex is rape” bullshit. Her nonsense does not invalidate the real (maybe I should say “legitimate”) rapes when they happen. And is that number convictions? Arrests? Just as DGUs are way understated by the numbers, so are sexual assaults. Unless there’s DNA or video, it’s difficult to collect enough evidence for an arrest. But again, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

        • I would like to begin by stating categorically that I do NOT condone rape!

          Okay, in today’s culture the women on campus “tend” to be much more sexually liberated than at any other time in our nation’s history. They “tend” to dress and act provocatively. They “tend” to send very ambiguous signals to the male students who are by and large as interested in sex as men their age have always been throughout history and who are bombarded daily with this narrative of sexual freedom for women.

          If they have NO OTHER OUTLET for their natural sexual urges than their fellow students, and their fellow students seem to be sexually liberated, how can it be a surprise that there are both legitimately reported and other types of rapes on campus? Have you ever seen a “Girls Gone Wild” video or all the publicity Spring Break gets every year?

          Rape is a BAD thing. But to some degree women have to take ownership of the mixed messages being disseminated on their behalf. And I say this as a step-father to a fine young man who was falsely accused of date-rape ex post facto. In this cultural environment there are far too many victims on BOTH sides of this issue.

      • As much as I do not agree with tdiinva’s comment, there is a bit of truth in it. I worked for a Rape Crisis center in TX while in college both as a volunteer and a paid staff member. At that time, the general consensus was that no woman ever claims rape unless rape actually happened. The thought was that the repercussions, which were large and very negative (especially back then), for a woman claiming she was raped were sufficient to make all claims valid.

        Well, not really. There are cases where women claimed rape as vengeance against an intimate partner. There are certainly cases where women claimed an event was non-consensual when a high-profile person (with deep pockets) was involved. It happens. But those situations are not common. There are even women (radical feminists) who state that there is no true consensual intercourse – it is always rape regardless of what the female participant says.

        While all of that may be true, it does not invalidate that rape is a violent crime and it can attain a level of pure meanness you simply cannot imagine facing. If you ever talk with a victim of this kind of assault, you will understand what I mean. The effects on the victim can be devastating and can endure for years. The victims are not just women, they are our mothers, sisters, and daughters. And rape – even outside a prison – happens to men as well.

        When it comes to our right to keep and bear arms, statistics and probability simply should not come into play. It does not matter how many times something happens, or even if it would NEVER happen, it just doesn’t matter. The right to bear arms does not exist to prevent a crime, but to empower a potential victim. The fact that rape is a fairly common crime on college campuses does not justify the right to carry arms – that should need no justification – but it damn sure ought to cause some administrator or elected representative to get out of way more quickly of people choosing to exercise that right.

        Never assume a claim of rape is bullshit. It may be, but if you are wrong, which is true in very few cases, you have just devastated the victim again.

        • Yes, true. Thanks for your balanced view. The burden of proof for a conviction is necessarily high, but even if there’s no conviction or indictment, it doesn’t mean the victim is lying.

        • “The right to bear arms does not exist to prevent a crime, but to empower a potential victim.”

          This is the complete, unvarnished truth. Thank you for bringing it to light.

      • And some are not reported. I didn’t report it when it happened to me just off campus by a stranger at the grocery store because I didn’t think anyone would believe me.

        It made me a life long activist for gun rights, though, especially for women’s right to carry.

        Sure a lot of false reports are made, but college campuses are pervert magnets, and I speak from personal experience. Large groups of young women attract rapists like sugar draws ants.

        • I’m glad you survived the assault. I wish you great success in your fight for carry rights for women, and thanks for taking that on, because, well, the women in my life are the most important parts of it. Strong voices are needed and I’m glad yours is here.

          • Many years ago, before Doonesbury became a propaganda machine, I saw one where the main female character (whose name I can’t remember) was sitting up in bed with Rich Redfern. He answers the phone, and says, “Sure, I’ll be there. Can I bring my lady friend?” And the lady (I know it’s not Sally Forth, but Doonesbury fans should know) says, “Lady friend?” And Rick says, “Well, yeah. You’re not my wife, ‘girl friend’ is a little too high school, ‘friend’ isn’t exactly enough – how should I refer to you?” And she says, “How about ‘reason for living’?”

  6. Either we have an epidemic of school shootings or they are so rare we don’t need to worry — They need to pick a side

    • Nah, their logic is all circular anyway, so their arguments don’t really have a side. Logical consistency has no place in emotional arguments. It’s all about the feelings.

  7. Can’t have guns on campus. It wouldn’t be safe for the good ole boys to pencil a little raping into their busy party schedule if women were armed.

  8. Watching that vid reminded me of the early 1990’s in UNC-Chapel Hill. There was a ‘rash’ of sexual assaults, and not all of them ‘date rape;’ some were quite violent, and I remember the thinking at the time was that there was at least one ‘serial rapist’ working.

    It was publicized that there would be “Rape Free Zones” and a ‘rally’ was organized on campus. I went over there naively thinking I’d hear statements from university administrators or security personnel regarding was being done.

    What I saw made me want to throw up. About 20 ‘activists’ stood around chanting “Rape Free Zone, Rape Free Zone” and that’s about it. Soon there were little cardboard signs all over the places saying “This is a Rape Free Zone.”

    Around the same time, the local police (not university security) put out a ‘security bulletin’ on the local news about how women could protect themselves. It included things like pepper spray and keys as weapons and whatever you do, do NOT carry a gun or fight back – it will only make the aggressor more … aggressive.

    A few days later, a girl was killed while jogging – she was killed after spraying her attacker with pepper spray, if I remember correctly.

    What I did not understand at the time was why it was ALL TALK and no DO. There were plenty of guys (like me) that were willing to be a ‘visible presence’ around campus – a built in security force to at the very least be extra eyes for the cops.

    Nope. The recurring message was “Let us handle it. If anyone tries to help, you’ll only make the problem worse.”

    Yep. UNC taught some real life lessons with that episode that were far more valuable than anything they taught in the classrooms.

    I’m still sickened by the thought of that girl, the one that followed their stupid advice and lost her life anyway. I still ask, out loud on occasion, where was their mea culpa after the fact saying, “oops, well, we really didn’t know how dangerous our pacifist words were.”

    Nope. Just more status quo “don’t fight back” rhetoric and how guns are bad and all that.

    These folks either don’t know or don’t care that it is real people’s lives they are playing with. The first case is scary; the second is pure evil.

    • Sounds par for the course. Some time ago (I think when hippies became professors) the universities became less about education and more about indoctrination. Their main objective is to make sheeple who will accept whatever their elites tell them without question. You can’t have people taking control over their own security, that is far too empowering. Empowered people can’t be controlled.

      • I think it became more about money than indoctrination. Indoctrinating the students enhances the profs’ status while lining their pockets with tenure and raises via good course reviews. Of course, getting a reputation as a “rape friendly” campus cuts into the revenue stream, so that’s right out.

    • “don’t fight back” rhetoric

      Public officials may get ‘lawyered up’ and don’t want to make any call to action that might lead to them being sued.

      • He didn’t say that. He said that false reports exist and over-inflate the numbers in a manner that undermines proper attention on REAL rapes.

        I worked in law enforcement on the forensic side. I’ve testified in rape trails. I’ve seen the victims; a cousin of mine was raped at knife point. A good friend’s daughter was raped.

        Rape is a horrible crime. To equate it with “regret,” like REALLY DOES HAPPEN (remember, I’ve been involved in REAL investigations see below) is itself a crime.

        Politicizing crime like rape is vile.

        Just two quick examples where “rape” was reported but found, through proper and thorough investigation, to be junk:

        1 – Young woman flirted with guys at a bar, left with them to motel room. Participated in sexual activity, then AFTER THE FACT demanded money. When they refused, she said, “Pay me or I’ll call the cops and say you raped me.”

        2 – Young woman claimed to be kidnapped and raped. She made this report on the basis of the fact that she was a white woman dating a black man, and after being seen in his car by some friends after a social gathering, was embarrassed (or some such) and did not want her friends to know she was dating black man. And yes, she ended up getting charged for doing that.

        I also did an internship in the Trace Analysis lab in a major southeastern city – one who once led the FBI’s per capita murder rate – and my job was testing rape kits for the presence of semen. At that time, it was estimated (how I don’t know, but that was not part of my job) that only 10-20% of the cases we worked in the lab were real assaults; the rest included some fraction that were so-called after-the-fact regret reports. Don’t know a number.

        I get the sense that it insults your sensibilities to think a woman might falsely report a rape. It does happen. It happens more than we should be comfortable with. And with that…

        I stand behind the notion that such false reports hurt the victims of real rape even more. It poisons juries, for example, as well as public opinion on a very hideous crime.

      • Nice distortion of what the comment was. So you hear the stats from the femi crowd that the sexual assault rate is like 25% on campus and the general population like 0.05%. So does this pass the smell test for you? Really, 500x more likely to get assaulted on campus? Are you totally unaware of how feminazis want to pump that number up so that they indict every male on campus? This corruption of the “rape” charge is just the logical followup to how leftists have mis-applied the accusations of Homophobe! Islamaphobe! Sexist! Intolerant! Xenophobe! Bigot! and their old go-to of Racist!. So does it really surprise you when every encounter between a barbaric male and an angelic female is defined as Rape! by the femi crowd?

        The left has so over used inappropriately the words like Racist! and Bigot! to the point that the general public just now assumes that it’s a meaningless and baseless charge. Of coarse the big downside of this “crying wolf” is that when a real racist shows up on the scene the person doesn’t get the negative attention he deserves. The leftists are in process of doing the same dilution to the rape charge.

  9. By his logic – that since violent crime on campus is “rare” there is no need for a firearm on campus – then since house fires are rare there must then be no need to have a fire extinguisher in your home. And if violent crime was so rare on campus why are we wasting all that money on campus police departments?

    • Because it’s harder for the school administration to lean on an independent police agency to misplace paperwork.

  10. Funny how campus violence rare when we want to arm ourselves for self defense, but it is an epidemic when they want to disarm us for their own perceived safety.

  11. “Non-threatening environments”… Sure, if you don’t speak your true thoughts and feelings.

  12. The college campus these days is nothing more than a target rich victim zone. You have the anti-gun crowd. A population of students who, for the most part, are idealistic and not cognizant that there are bad people out there who won’t hesitate to harm them. Campus police/security that can’t be in all places at all times. Add to all of this the propensity of college kids to probably not keep aware and realize the possibility of danger on campus…….easy pickings.

  13. Since the anti-gunners want to turn this into an ugly fight, let’s do so. There should be public service announcements (PSAs) making people aware of the demographics of violent criminals.

    sex: men vs. women
    race: white vs. black vs. Hispanic vs. Asian vs. Eskimo, etc.
    weapon: gun vs. knife vs. club vs. fist, etc.
    license status: CCW permit holder vs. non-CCW permit holder

    Obviously, men will be at the top fo the list, and CCW permit holders will be at the bottom of the list. Any guesses what the results will be if we start cross-tabulating those categories?

  14. Oh yeah, forgot to add…we are REQUIRED to have automobile insurance, homeowners insurance in many cases and now health insurance. All “just in case” something happens, no matter how rare. So why are we forced to pay extortion money for something that may never happen but if we choose to carry a firearm for protection in the rare event something happens that is actively discouraged??

    • Hey, turn it around. CCW fees add to state/county coffers. To put it into terms that politicians can understand: GUNZ = $$$$$.

  15. I go to school in Philadelphia. I’m not very concerned about my safety when I’m in school buildings, I don’t feel the need to carry there. My walk home from campus through through Powelton Village and Mantua is very insecure and I want to be able to carry. So I don’t want the right to carry on class because I am afraid I might need it in class, I need to be able to carry in class if I will be able to carry on my walk home through the bad neighborhood

    • I appreciate your comment, but at the bottom of this all is that you should not need to justify your “Right” to carry ANYWHERE.

      That you are even making this distinction is already giving the anti’s argument more weight than it deserves.

      The bottom line – it’s your life are seeking to protect. You should not have to rationalize that in any way, shape or form. An inalienable right exists or it does not; no further explanation needed.

      Unless and until the anti-RKBA movement can show that owning/carrying a deadly weapon automatically turns every such owner/carrier into a murderer or rapist or robber, no amount of statistics over how dangerous it REALLY is to be in location x, y or z really matters. The argument is, or should be, over before it starts.

      In other words, it’s none of their business WHY I carry. I might be a paranoid freak who would see danger around every corner in a day care center full of babies. So long as I am not DOING anything dangerous to others (as a criminal) – and no, I’m not talking about the fiat crimes that define me as a criminal, I’m talking about REAL criminal ACTIONS- I have committed no crime and thus, on grounds of 2nd A and 4th A and probably a few others…leave me the HELL alone.

      By denying your RKBA in class, they are assuming, before you’ve done anything, that you are a criminal. Last I checked, and as I was taught in LEO school, that’s a direct violation of the spirit behind the 5th and 6th Amendments along with a few court rulings to support the notion.

  16. I go to a public university in my state capital, and I receive emails every week, and sometimes more than one per week, about violent crimes reported on or near campus. People get robbed, carjacked, and sexually assaulted quite frequently, thank you very much. I can lock my gun in my car on campus due to a recent change, but I still can’t carry.

  17. Amanda Collins would disagree with you,She is a CCW holder raped at the University of Nevada Reno ,cause she couldn’t carry on campus .she had opportunity to shoot her attacker had she been armed.Two weeks later that same attacker raped ,kidnapped and killed Brianna Dennison,they found her body in a field.
    So you antis,keep drinking the cool aid .

  18. A properly concealed weapon is not a threat to anyone and, whether you are licensed or not, should be a basic right. Laws promoting ‘gun free zones’ are certainly not ‘crime free zones’, and may be the opposite. The safest place to keep a weapon is on your person, concealed. I heard a firearms instructor say, “Treat your pistol like your penis! Don’t take it out in public!” If it’s properly holstered and concealed, no one is going to know unless you do something stupid. Protect yourself, and protect your gun. Our President and Attorney General don’t obey laws they don’t like, why should we?

  19. What do you want to bet the guy who wrote that opinion uses those same mass shooting events — even though they’re so rare they don’t need to be prepared for — to justify taking guns away from millions of peaceful people, just in case?

  20. I think I’d concealed carry anyway, no matter the law. What are the odds you’ll get in trouble? Most people are so oblivious they don’t see or hear their attackers. They won’t look at the lump in your pocket and say “That must be a pocket .380! OMG!”

    • That’s pretty much what I did. After I was assaulted when I was 19, I used my roommate’s boyfriend to make a straw purchase of a revolver which I illegally kept in the dorm and in my car while traveling to my hometown. It came in handy when my truck broke down on the highway, and a man who stopped to “help” got too “friendly”.

      That’s when I became a gun rights activist, especially for women’s right to carry.

  21. “could open the door to increased violence”

    This guy sounds like the stupidest kind of psychopath – one who goes around and picks fights with armed people.

  22. How do the gun grabbers get away with sanctimoniously declaring that we supposedly believe the occasional mass shooting is the price we pay for some of us exercising our God-given right to self-defense, yet no one calls them out for actually proclaiming that gun-free zones must continue even if that means we endure a “rare” murder, rape or robbery here and there?

    • Because they control all the public venues where someone could credibly call them out. Very convenient, that.

  23. Never had anyone preform a search of my truck, bag, or person while on a college campus…

    For whatever that is worth.

    • I kept mine in the dorm and in my car for three years in college. Never came close to getting caught.

  24. The author’s basic argument is unimpressive. I recently reviewed the violent crime reports of the five largest universities in one state and the violent crime rate was about half of the overall violent crime rate. That was not a trivial number — especially when you consider how those odds increase over the course of a four to eight year college stint.

    In the end statistics are irrelevant. A right is a right, period.

  25. While attending a large state university my wife’s strong belief in the 2nd Amendment become rather well known in her program. During a recent rash of sexual assaults and stalking incidents she had a fascinating thing occur. Students and teachers began asking her to escort them to their cars and dorms at night making the logical deduction that her strong support of the 2nd Amendment probably included her legally carrying a concealed weapon on campus.

  26. I’ve been saying for a long time that statistics don’t mean diddly to someone who finds themselves on the receiving end of a robbery, rape, and/or murder.

Comments are closed.