Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar Claims Women Don't Need Guns for Self-Defense. During a debate in the Colorado state legislature, Rep. Joe Salazar stated that women do not need to carry concealed firearms on school campuses because they have access to "call boxes," "safe zones" and "whistles." Lets ask Amanda Collins about that. You see while attending the University of Nevada Amanda was attacked by a serial rapist at the University and violently raped in 2007. She had a CCW permit and could legally carry a firearm anywhere in town except the college campus because it was a gun free zone, a safe zone. Her attacker didnt care about the safe zone, as most criminals dont. Tragically, she was raped at gun point, in a gun-free zone, less than 100 feet away from campus authorities. Where were campus police? Home asleep snug in their little beds. Even if a call box had been above my head while I was being straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped it wouldnt have helped me one bit, she proclaimed. Her assailant went on to assault two other women and to kill a third. So just how good are, Rep. Joe Salazars "call boxes," "safe zones" and "whistles"? Now what was it Amanda said about call boxes? Even if a call box had been above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped it wouldnt have helped me one bit, I guess Mr. Salazar thinks Amanda could have asked her attacker to stop while she called police? Or maybe she should have reminded the rapist that it was a gun free zone. And a whistle? Is he serious? These are his solutions to ward off criminals. Oh wait thats right, they arent criminals, theyre poor misunderstood waifs that need touchy feely classes. Now you may think this was just an isolated incident... but youd be wrong. This is a scenario that is carried out all across America, every day at college campuses, in apartment complexes, in city and private parking garages, on the street, public parks and everywhere people go. How many think a gun free zone sign will keep armed criminals away? How many think a gun free zone sign is like ringing the dinner bell for sharks? Even if there were a call box next to you how many think a criminal will let you use it to call police before he attacks you? Ask Amanda. How many think a whistle, even if blown, will scare an attacker away? Sounds silly when put that way doesnt it but thats exactly what Rep Salazar advocates. In support of Rep Salazar our esteemed Vice president, Joe Biden, says all we need for self defense is a shotgun. Really, we should carry a shotgun around town with us? Oh, Im sorry; the shotgun is for self defense in the home, on the street we are to be victims. Thank you mister Vice-President. Also consider this; the average police response time across America is 7-10 minutes if you have time to call them so dont expect them to help you. Home invasions are becoming increasingly popular with criminals, especially in states/cities with gun prohibitions, because they know the odds of a homeowner having a readily accessible firearm is low. Still, it is constantly proven that firearm ownership and carry is the single best deterrent to criminals. The wages of gun control... is being a victim.
Good post, of course you do know antigunners actually think it's better to rely on the gubberment to protect us so they won't agree with your statement eh? Even if it costs you your life it's better for them if you don't have a gun......sad huh?
Ok, let's talk about potential rape victims carrying firearms to protect themselves... In 47% of rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Simple math highlights that 54% of rape victims had been drinking... Would you consider it a good idea to encourage anyone who is drinking to carry a firearm? As well as the large number of rapes that go unreported, only 25% of reported rapes result in arrest. This means that 75% of rapes do not result in arrest - much less conviction... If there isn't enough evidence to arrest an alleged rapist, how are the police going to react to a woman who has just shot someone to death? Wouldn't this just result in 75% of rape victims being arrested for murder? If a woman is carrying a gun and doesn't use it because she is too disturbed in the heat of the moment to kill her attacker (especially since a large percentage of rapes are committed by "friends", family members, or boyfriends/husbands of the victim); does that automatically imply she has given consent and prevent prosecution of the attacker? Oh, by the way, 7% or rapists (probably from the percentage that aren't "friends", family members, or boyfriends/husbands of the victim) are weilding a gun while they rape. Your proposal to just arm everyone sounds like a simple solution for simple minds.
Guns don't offer protection from the majority of rapes, but they offer some protection from the traumatic, violent stranger rapes. Why force women to be unnecessarily vulnerable to these kinds of rapes?
So rules should be made based on worst case scenario, rather than on the norm? Why doesn't that approach work when discussing mass shootings?
And why its the opposite somehow true in this case? Regardless, the chances of a woman being involved in a violent stranger rape are much higher than her chances of being involved in an assault weapon shooting. If the tiny chances of such a shooting are sufficient justification for a ban, them the higher chances of a violent rape are more than sufficient to eliminate all gun-free zones.
Would you mind pointing out where I said I support a ban? I support "gun CONTROL", which does not mean a "gun BAN". Banning is what happens when you give up on control.
That's a good question... If the ban is a reinstatement of the previous, I'm not convinced it accomplished much the first time around... Though I could be swayed either way. In general, I think "assault weapon" is a misnomer that needs to be clearly defined before it can be used as a legislative tool. The function of a weapon should always be a primary consideration.
If the restriction is based on function, it would have to change a lot and add thousands of devices that perform the same functions as the banned ones, but often doing those functions better. Regardless, a modified version of the ban would still be a ban. Unless you are proposing that the next version should still allow those firearms and accessories to be produced and sold under the legislation. More importantly, what Obama is pushing for is absolutely a ban. Registration would make a retroactive version of the ban possible.
That's a fair comment... I've never supported banning historically, and don't think there would be any significant benefit now - particularly in comparison to other options available that would increase safety/decrease risk without significantly impacting lawful owners. Those other options would, however, still fall under the broad banner of "gun control"; which means many people (a few of whom are on these message boards) would immediately reject them without consideration. An inability to reach compromise is often what leads to drastic action (such as banning) being taken.
Nice primer on rape if we were talking about rape but we aren't we're talking about self defense and the inability of law enforcement to protect us. So finally you admit it's about "control", and not guns. So tell me, God forbid you are sitting at home with your wife and children, (assuming you have them), and thugs begin trying to break through your well secured door. Will you jump up and defend your family with your gun? Oh, wait you don't have one. Will you blow your cute little whistle? Maybe you will ask the thugs to stop so you can call police? Even if they did, LOL, it will take police 7-10 minutes to arrive. You're right, it's very possible that even if you had a room full of guns you may never reach one before they kill you and your family but if you did have a gun and it was close at hand you could defend your family. But since you don't have a gun what would you do? Sit in your chair and pee your pants?
Compromise? Really? I have a post right on these boards that is all about compromise, a path for discussion of real solutions yet neither you nor any of your brethren have proffered a discussion. Silence there and nothing more so don't even go there. It's clear you aren't interested in solutions, or making criminals responsible for their actions. You only want to disarm America... except for criminals of course.
[video=youtube;jHmxY7zE5uc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHmxY7zE5uc[/video] [video=youtube;1_LaBJvI0BI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI&feature=player_embedded[/video] you may be convinced, but more and more people are waking up to what's going on. This is meant sincerely and honestly. Find The Third Reich on the history channel and give it a very close watch. It is from the German people's point of view. http://shop.history.com/the-third-re...l.php?p=291108
Nope, CCL holders are taught that if you drink you don't carry, given that in my state the crime rate for CCL holders is lower than that of the general public I would say they follow that requirement adequately and since CCL holder statistics are not included in you "facts" we can't really make a determination that alcohol would be a factor. However I would ask, if we pretend that all the above included CCL holders...We should punish the 46 percent of women by denying them the right to carry a weapon as self defense? Are you concerned about a womans safety or about gun control laws. No because I would imagine that the police would apply standard investigative techniques and look at the attackers ability to carry out a rape, his either verbal or non-verbal intent to carry out a rape, his opportunity to carry out the rape and the influencing factors, such as gender, size, age, and location. Then they would apply them based on testimony and crime scene evidence and either make an arrest or charges would be dismissed. Nothing about 75 percent of rapes do not result in an arrest apply to the use of deadly force, they are two seperate types of crimes with their own statistics eh. All citizens and CCL holders know full well that if you use deadly force an investigation will ensue and justification will be required. Nice drama though. No it doesn't imply consent (wow, just wow) and "friends", family members, and boyfriends/husbands have been shot by a victim for more than just rape eh. I again ask....punish all the other women by telling them a whistle, callbox or whatever is better than a true equalizer such as a gun? So women should not carry a gun and get to decide the risks of pulling their own weapon just because the attacker has one? What if the rapist doesn't want to leave a victim, what if she is shot but still shoots the rapist, what if the rapists sees her gun and runs away. 7 percent huh I think you have some splainin to do eh? LOL
Seems like you're saying that people SHOULDN'T be carrying if they're drinking, but then you claim I'm denying someone their rights by asking whether people should carry while drinking... sounds like your arguing with yourself. eh? Now you seem to be claiming that police (who normally can't find enough evidence to charge 75% of rapists) would suddenly be able to find evidence against those rapists if they had been killed, even though this means the police can't even interview them... If you're wrong, and no solid evidence of an attempted rape can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the shooter could be charged with manslaughter or murder... eh? Do you really believe that a defense attorney representing a rapist could claim the sex was consentual because their client would have been shot if it wasn't consentual? Not saying it would be ethical, but defense attorney's aren't known for their ethics, and "reasonable doubt" can be a b!tch. eh? I suppose a woman has the right to choose whether she'd rather be raped or dead. eh? Actually, since you haven't detracted from my points, I don't have any "splainin" to do. eh?
I can find videos on crazy conspiracy theories too, but they're still not evidence of anything real. As discussed about a million times now, gun control in Germany prior to WW2 was actually put in place by the Allied forces.... Hitler actually relaxed the gun control laws for everyone except the jews. If anything, the nazi policies were very pro-gun.
Hardly, I'm just pointing out when the argument is inconsistent. Pointing out hypocrisy is not "moving the goal posts", it's just ensuring the goal posts are the same on both ends of the field.
your argument is fallacy-based. Hitler used registration to disarm the Jews. I never claimed he was responsible for enacting gun registration, but he did use it to convert the Jews into a disarmed portion of the country. Only Nazi loyalists were allowed to own firearms. He disarmed Poland, Bulgaria, and France. What's not to understand? Dude, when Washington, the DOJ, and DHS says the only way to get a ban is to register first, that should be sending a message that is loud and clear. Are you actually claiming that Feinstein never said what she did about seizing guns? - - - Updated - - - You pick your favorite DHS target yet?
Right, they chose not to relax pre-existing gun control on a proportion of the population, kind of like the pro-gun folks who only want gun control to effect black males. They also disarmed those foreign countries that they took over in war. I guess that's for Mexico to worry about if the US government decides to invade... Actually, they drew a parallel between registration and background checks. The only reference to banning was in relation to gun buybacks. Nope, and I agree Feinstein is a kook. Luckily, she doesn't have the authority to make a difference to the lives of most citizens. This is similar to Richard Mourdock's insane ramblings and their lack of impact on reality. Not sure I understand what you're referring to here... Care to elaborate?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/dh...hooting-targets-of-gun-owners-pregnant-women/ http://www.naturalnews.com/039177_gun_range_targets_pregnant_women_Homeland_Security.html http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=23956 Looks to me like the ones depicted in the targets are in a defensive mode
You clearly believe you should have the right and ability to shoot anyone who represents any kind of perceived threat, so this topic is highly hypocritical for you to raise. Police officers have to deal with all kinds of attrocities and terrible situations on a regular basis. This includes kids shooting other kids, criminals who happen to be female (and some females get pregnant), etc. As a vietnam vet who presumably swore to engage "all enemies, foreign and domestic", you should understand that not all threats are 6'2" 250lb bodybuilders in 'roid rage. Should police be trained to deal with worst-case scenarios on an emotional level as well as a physical one? Absolutely. Does this mean that a democratically elected government is preparing to go to war with the very people who put them in power through popular vote? Absolutely not... The majority of Americans support the current government enough to put them in power, where would be the benefit in shooting supporters?
Wrong, they put them in power to represent their interests an entirely different belief than what you present eh?
