I think that Colorado lawmakers have proven that not only do they not care about a woman’s right to choose (to carry a weapon), but that they are completely missing the point of why Conservatives are against “gun free zones”.
A Colorado state senator, Evie Hudak, thinks that Amanda Collins (a rape victim would would have been carrying a gun, if she hadn’t been in the gun-free “safe” zone of The University of Nevada) wouldn’t have been able to protect herself with a gun if she had been carrying.
“I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you na possibly use it against you …”
– Hudak via (Dana Loesch)
You know what? Hudak might be right, even if she is being incredibly condescending to a rape victim who is trying to make her case.
I mean, Hudak is wrong about the “statistics” not being in Collins favor, which Dana Loesch did a fantastic job pointing out in the rest of that article I linked, but having a gun might not have helped Collins in her specific situation, but Democrats (both nationally and in Colorado) have completely missed the point on gun control and gun free zones.
Even Harvard gets the idea:
National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. “[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.
“Confrontation crimes”, well if rape doesn’t count as one of those I don’t know what does.
As Conservatives have been saying, it’s not about whether a gun saves one person in a specific situation. It’s about guns acting as a deterrent. My state of Arizona has some very lax gun laws. Anyone who legally owns a gun can carry it, concealed, without a permit. Compare this to crim in Illinois, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, especially in Chicago. Violent crime is twice as prevalent in Illinois as it is in Arizona.
Hmm, I wonder why that is?
Could it be that, as the NIJ found, criminals are usually smart enough to know not to commit a crime where the likelihood of someone carrying a weapon is high.
If you slap a sign on a building or college campus, letting everyone know that you are a gun free zone then why should you be surprised when mass murderers, rapists, and thieves choose that as their target? You have only disarmed the good people, those who will follow the law and trust the call boxes and rape whistles to protect them.
I will say this one more time, because it clearly hasn’t sunk in yet. Criminals do not care about the law, they only care about whether they can get away with the crime or not. Can they use force to steal from you and do so without fear of being shot? Can they force a woman down onto the ground and rape her without fear that she is carrying a concealed gun in her purse? Can they get away with the crime because the victim can’t protect themselves? As long as anti-gun advocates get their way, the answer will be yes.
Maybe a gun won’t save you in every situation, but neither will a rape whistle, a safe zone, or a call box.
I’d rather take my chances with a gun as my protection and stick to places where the law allows me to carry it, because every criminal who considers coming after me has to take that chance too.
And that’s a pretty strong deterrent right there.