Another politician is being slammed for his comments about rape, but this time it's a Democrat. The Colorado House of Representatives was debating a bill that would ban concealed handguns on college campuses.
When asked whether that legislation would give attackers an extra advantage against defenseless women, Rep. Joe Salazar said no, arguing that women have other options, like call boxes and whistles.
"If you feel like you’re going to be raped … when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop a round at somebody,” he said. That answer didn't sit well with Republicans; Salazar has since apologized.
Unfortunately the number of "guy in the bushes" rapes at college campuses are vastly outnumbered by date rape and alcohol/drug induced sex.
The few that do happen unfortunately might not be prevented by a woman carrying a gun even if she knows how to use it. The "accidental" scenario is potentially true, but again no reason to ban the handguns.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Link-and-discuss threads are discouraged in Debate, so this will stay here. Since these kinds of things tend to be controversial, consider this a preemptive "don't let this get too Debate-y" warning. Keep it calm and focused on the event rather than debating the underlying issues.
It's a not-quite-so-dumb idea said in a very dumb way. It's basically another "accidental deaths from overzealous gun owners who should have used less-deadly options instead should be mitigated" argument, which is a far cry from the controversial Republican "rape" comments, unless I'm missing something from that quote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#define ALWAYS SOMETIMES
#define NEVER RARELY
#define ALL MANY
-=GIVE US SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN=-
I'm nerd enough to link my WoW Armory Though I'll put it in a small font.
I don't know, it sounds like Mr. Salazar's argument has a bit too much hyperbole in it. While it's true that "traditional" rape (involving ambushing and assaulting the victim) does happen, the most common type of rape that occurs on college campuses are usually at school events, like fraternity parties. In these instances, rape occurs under the influence of drugs or alcohol where the ambiguity of the situation often keeps victims from coming forward or remembering large portions of the event, if at all. I doubt a gun would be much use in that situation.
I don't necessarily disagree with what the man is trying to say, but I do definitely disagree with the way he's saying it. He argument is based on several assumptions. 1. the potential victim has a firearm at all. 2. We're dealing with a rape involving ambush. 3. The potential victim is not in possession of a 'rape whistle' (you could debate the effectiveness of those in an of themselves) or is within distance of a call box or campus security. It's true that guns often make a bad situation worse, but the examples he's using and the claims he's making are shaky at best.
How was anything he said a fact? He's worried that suddenly female college students are just going to blast away at guys that happen to also be walking around on campus? That's called murder, we already have a set of laws to deal with that situation. Trust me if someone does do it it would not be frequent because news travels quick. It's really not hard to tell female college students how to approach a situation where they think they might be in danger that would lead to almost zero accidental shootings.
Although he could have phrased that to be slightly less flippant the statement is true. That puts it head and shoulders over every single republican gaff that I hear make the news.
Fluffy: People in alarmed states shoot people accidentally many times every year because they perceived a false fear. (And note its manslaughter not murder)
That's fact - and 18-22 yr old women are more on edge than most groups is likely true as well.
And note if you actually read the provided link and its update clarifying that was part of his apology. (Although it was obvious to me without personally)
I'm not sure how this is any different than any other time somebody has said something stupid. Why does political identification have anything to do with a lapse in judgment?
Everyone is stupid sometimes, obviously in varying degrees, but let's be real here, this isn't a political issue, really. Just a guy making an ass of himself.
This discussion reminds me of an NPR report I heard during the election cycle...
The researchers being interviewed had done a study where they took "proposed welfare plans" and arbitrarily assigned democratic or republican to them. What they found was that the content of the plans was largely irrelevant to people who identified with or strongly leaned towards one political party. If someone identified with R, they "agreed" with the R plan regardless of what the R plan said. Same thing with D.
Fluffy: People in alarmed states shoot people accidentally many times every year because they perceived a false fear. (And note its manslaughter not murder)
That's fact - and 18-22 yr old women are more on edge than most groups is likely true as well.
And note if you actually read the provided link and its update clarifying that was part of his apology. (Although it was obvious to me without personally)
I know that's what he meant however I disagree. Do you expect that women who are in college are going to just walk around campus at night with their gun drawn, just in case? Why doesn't this already happen on the streets where conceal and carry is legal? It's not like every freshman girl is just going to go get a gun and walk around with it loaded. I would expect the vast majority of them to be people who grew up around guns and successfully obtained a carry permit.
More to the point, how many cases of guys getting hit with mace or tazers on campuses happen every year? If that number is high I will reconsider my position but if it is low, as I imagine, I stand by my assessment that this is nothing more than fear-mongering trying to paint guns as an accident waiting to happen.
Mace stats for Maryland has "accidental discharge" at about 3:1 from the stats in police reports FWIW.
And while it is over the top its based on something that does happen, rarely - but yet is being compared to something that doesn't happen on this plane of existence.
Mace stats for Maryland has "accidental discharge" at about 3:1 from the stats in police reports FWIW.
And while it is over the top its based on something that does happen, rarely - but yet is being compared to something that doesn't happen on this plane of existence.
Hyperbole != Nonsense fabrications
I think you misunderstood.... 3:1 means nothing to me here. I want to know how many times it happens in a given time period and whether or not those women would have been so quick to react if they knew that they could kill the person they were worried about maybe raping them. Which is why the other stat that I am interested in is how many guys are shot on the street in a given year by women with conceal and carry permits that thought that guy was going to rape them.
We can agree I am sure that rape is possible when not on campus, we can also agree that women with a conceal and carry permit in many areas are able to carry a loaded gun. if this is a real concern I would expect to see evidence that guys are being shot accidentally by women fearing being raped in areas where conceal and carry is allowed.
Accidental CCW shootings do exist - not common in the slightest - but they do exist. And while that doesn't cover the specific you want - women in fear of tape don't act MORE rationally than the average...
Accidental CCW shootings do exist - not common in the slightest - but they do exist. And while that doesn't cover the specific you want - women in fear of tape don't act MORE rationally than the average...
You're grasping at straws to feign outrage.
I am not outraged in the slightest. I just completely disagree with his argument that allowing women to carry a gun on college campuses will somehow result in a big problem of women accidentally shooting guys on campus that were just being creepy.
I do however think that if even 5% of women carried a gun on campus we would see fewer rapes on college campuses because it would become more of a gamble. A decrease in rate of rape would then also lead to a decrease in fear of being raped which would lead to a decrease in likelihood of accidental shooting.
I was in college not that long ago. I used to walk girls home from parties at my house if they were planning to walk alone because of the rate of girls in college being raped on their way home in the city. This was in a city where in the daytime nobody have have a second thought about letting their kids run down to the park a few blocks away. The ridiculous part is the people who seem more concerned about these girls accidentally killing someone if they have a lapse in judgement than the problem of having a huge feeding ground for criminals being able to prey on victims they know are helpless.
I'm not sure how this is any different than any other time somebody has said something stupid. Why does political identification have anything to do with a lapse in judgment?
Everyone is stupid sometimes, obviously in varying degrees, but let's be real here, this isn't a political issue, really. Just a guy making an ass of himself.
It doesn't. The thing is people make irrational decisions(aka stupid ones) while emotional. People saying things like this make people emotional. Political figures and the media then attempt exacerbate that emotion. Then use it to get people to vote for their party.
It's just like the phony "war on women" via abortion. The media gets people all riled up and angry with "they're trying to take away women's rights those evil misogynists!!!" The "war on women" in this case is actually war on baby killing in the people in the eyes of the pro-lifers. But it's hard to get people emotional about being pro-baby killing, so they invent a falsehood. Call it a war or women and get people angry. Instead of having them make the decision based on the rational choice of when they believe life begins.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
He was saying it generated the potential not that it would cause it. Still not read his response, eh?
I did, I still disagree with him. I would rather trade the "safety" of law abiding individuals not being able to have guns for the safety of law abiding individuals being able to defend themselves deterring attackers.
Commons has the right of it, politics often devolve into the same old song and dance of invoking the largest emotion within people, and using that leverage to get votes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
This discussion reminds me of an NPR report I heard during the election cycle...
The researchers being interviewed had done a study where they took "proposed welfare plans" and arbitrarily assigned democratic or republican to them. What they found was that the content of the plans was largely irrelevant to people who identified with or strongly leaned towards one political party. If someone identified with R, they "agreed" with the R plan regardless of what the R plan said. Same thing with D.
Branding always amazes me, especially for generations raised on consumerism and brand loyalty.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
As far as I know, aren't most rapes committed by people the victim knows? His comments seem very strange in that light.
Most rapes yes, he is specifically referring to the variety where a creepy guy jumps out of the bushes as a girls crosses campus late at night though.
I would think a better way for him to have argued his point would have been the alcohol culture in College. If you allow college students to have access to guns at all times do we risk having students be irresponsible and carry when they are drinking? I know plenty of people who carry and would never bring their weapon with them to a bar or party but there are also Plaxico Burress types of people in the world.
Most rapes yes, he is specifically referring to the variety where a creepy guy jumps out of the bushes as a girls crosses campus late at night though.
I would think a better way for him to have argued his point would have been the alcohol culture in College. If you allow college students to have access to guns at all times do we risk having students be irresponsible and carry when they are drinking? I know plenty of people who carry and would never bring their weapon with them to a bar or party but there are also Plaxico Burress types of people in the world.
I'd also argue that the laissez faire attitude we've incorporated into the Twixter age bracket, which is totally an artificial construct in and of itself, is what we used to do with younger teenagers. That is the "rebellion phase" has shifted from the 16 year old to the 20 something that has nothing to really hold them back and are on their own for the first time.
Whereas in the older times, a 16 year old could be very much autonomous and some even married. I'm not arguing for teenage marriage again and people working in mines, but there were some advantages in those times in making the youth a part of the community early on. They had an incentive to buy in, rather than seeing college youths as some cancer on society living in luxury. Which was true during part of the middle of the 20th century, but today with the rise in "overachiever isn't good enough to get a mediocre job" we've basically split the youth into "achievers that are really overachievers" and slackers that don't see the benefit of hard work because the "achievers" are overworking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://now.msn.com/rep-joe-salazar-criticized-for-comments-about-guns-rape
Unfortunately the number of "guy in the bushes" rapes at college campuses are vastly outnumbered by date rape and alcohol/drug induced sex.
The few that do happen unfortunately might not be prevented by a woman carrying a gun even if she knows how to use it. The "accidental" scenario is potentially true, but again no reason to ban the handguns.
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
I don't necessarily disagree with what the man is trying to say, but I do definitely disagree with the way he's saying it. He argument is based on several assumptions. 1. the potential victim has a firearm at all. 2. We're dealing with a rape involving ambush. 3. The potential victim is not in possession of a 'rape whistle' (you could debate the effectiveness of those in an of themselves) or is within distance of a call box or campus security. It's true that guns often make a bad situation worse, but the examples he's using and the claims he's making are shaky at best.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
We don't need another Swazi Spring or a Dem equivalency, thanks.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
That's fact - and 18-22 yr old women are more on edge than most groups is likely true as well.
And note if you actually read the provided link and its update clarifying that was part of his apology. (Although it was obvious to me without personally)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Everyone is stupid sometimes, obviously in varying degrees, but let's be real here, this isn't a political issue, really. Just a guy making an ass of himself.
Because we care about facts.
The researchers being interviewed had done a study where they took "proposed welfare plans" and arbitrarily assigned democratic or republican to them. What they found was that the content of the plans was largely irrelevant to people who identified with or strongly leaned towards one political party. If someone identified with R, they "agreed" with the R plan regardless of what the R plan said. Same thing with D.
I know that's what he meant however I disagree. Do you expect that women who are in college are going to just walk around campus at night with their gun drawn, just in case? Why doesn't this already happen on the streets where conceal and carry is legal? It's not like every freshman girl is just going to go get a gun and walk around with it loaded. I would expect the vast majority of them to be people who grew up around guns and successfully obtained a carry permit.
More to the point, how many cases of guys getting hit with mace or tazers on campuses happen every year? If that number is high I will reconsider my position but if it is low, as I imagine, I stand by my assessment that this is nothing more than fear-mongering trying to paint guns as an accident waiting to happen.
And while it is over the top its based on something that does happen, rarely - but yet is being compared to something that doesn't happen on this plane of existence.
Hyperbole != Nonsense fabrications
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I think you misunderstood.... 3:1 means nothing to me here. I want to know how many times it happens in a given time period and whether or not those women would have been so quick to react if they knew that they could kill the person they were worried about maybe raping them. Which is why the other stat that I am interested in is how many guys are shot on the street in a given year by women with conceal and carry permits that thought that guy was going to rape them.
We can agree I am sure that rape is possible when not on campus, we can also agree that women with a conceal and carry permit in many areas are able to carry a loaded gun. if this is a real concern I would expect to see evidence that guys are being shot accidentally by women fearing being raped in areas where conceal and carry is allowed.
You're grasping at straws to feign outrage.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I am not outraged in the slightest. I just completely disagree with his argument that allowing women to carry a gun on college campuses will somehow result in a big problem of women accidentally shooting guys on campus that were just being creepy.
I do however think that if even 5% of women carried a gun on campus we would see fewer rapes on college campuses because it would become more of a gamble. A decrease in rate of rape would then also lead to a decrease in fear of being raped which would lead to a decrease in likelihood of accidental shooting.
I was in college not that long ago. I used to walk girls home from parties at my house if they were planning to walk alone because of the rate of girls in college being raped on their way home in the city. This was in a city where in the daytime nobody have have a second thought about letting their kids run down to the park a few blocks away. The ridiculous part is the people who seem more concerned about these girls accidentally killing someone if they have a lapse in judgement than the problem of having a huge feeding ground for criminals being able to prey on victims they know are helpless.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
It doesn't. The thing is people make irrational decisions(aka stupid ones) while emotional. People saying things like this make people emotional. Political figures and the media then attempt exacerbate that emotion. Then use it to get people to vote for their party.
It's just like the phony "war on women" via abortion. The media gets people all riled up and angry with "they're trying to take away women's rights those evil misogynists!!!" The "war on women" in this case is actually war on baby killing in the people in the eyes of the pro-lifers. But it's hard to get people emotional about being pro-baby killing, so they invent a falsehood. Call it a war or women and get people angry. Instead of having them make the decision based on the rational choice of when they believe life begins.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I did, I still disagree with him. I would rather trade the "safety" of law abiding individuals not being able to have guns for the safety of law abiding individuals being able to defend themselves deterring attackers.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
/thread?
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
Branding always amazes me, especially for generations raised on consumerism and brand loyalty.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Most rapes yes, he is specifically referring to the variety where a creepy guy jumps out of the bushes as a girls crosses campus late at night though.
I would think a better way for him to have argued his point would have been the alcohol culture in College. If you allow college students to have access to guns at all times do we risk having students be irresponsible and carry when they are drinking? I know plenty of people who carry and would never bring their weapon with them to a bar or party but there are also Plaxico Burress types of people in the world.
I'd also argue that the laissez faire attitude we've incorporated into the Twixter age bracket, which is totally an artificial construct in and of itself, is what we used to do with younger teenagers. That is the "rebellion phase" has shifted from the 16 year old to the 20 something that has nothing to really hold them back and are on their own for the first time.
Whereas in the older times, a 16 year old could be very much autonomous and some even married. I'm not arguing for teenage marriage again and people working in mines, but there were some advantages in those times in making the youth a part of the community early on. They had an incentive to buy in, rather than seeing college youths as some cancer on society living in luxury. Which was true during part of the middle of the 20th century, but today with the rise in "overachiever isn't good enough to get a mediocre job" we've basically split the youth into "achievers that are really overachievers" and slackers that don't see the benefit of hard work because the "achievers" are overworking.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.