Are they "hot"?

We should be doing everything in our power to make sure women confronted by rapists are unarmed.

Rapes occurring on campuses aren't, by and large, 'strangers jumping out of bushes and grabbing women'. They're women being assaulted when they've been incapacitated with alcohol or other drugs, mostly. In which case 'being armed' isn't going to do a damn thing, except maybe let their weapons be stolen while they're unconscious.

because bans do not work.

Sure, there are always idiots who think laws don't apply to them, but most people actually do follow laws most of the time.

But those who are criminally-minded will always still decide to break the law. Ban assault rifles, and those who think laws don't apply to them will still keep theirs in secret. Heck, they'll tell you that you 'made law-abiding citizens into criminals', rather than admitting that they were already people willing to break laws they didn't like.

If by 'work' you mean absolutely prevent anyone from using drugs, then sure, the answer is no.

As I said, there are always idiots and libertarians around. But the vast majority of Americans aren't methheads, aren't doing coke or heroin.

A much larger percentage of the population does it, but again, the majority of the population actually follows the rules for the vast majority of their lives.

Interesting.

Still, it doesn't matter what motivates most campus rapes people still have no obligation to remain defenseless if confronted by a rapist.

I said laws are usually followed.

And I also still say when you're completely drunk, you owning a gun, even carrying it on your person does nothing to provide you a 'defense' against rape. It just gives the rapists a chance to steal a gun while he's at it.

It doesn't matter if the margin of rapes involve some, most or an overwhelming majority of drunk victims; if there is at least 1 sober would-be victim and she elects to defend herself that is her right to decide and act upon. It would be an appalling statement for society to arrest, prosecute and punish her for doing so.

Pretending her victimhood somehow reduces predations committed elsewhere is a non-sequitur that does little more than say, "Take one for the team, honey."

And while I know it is not your intention, the implication that rape = drunk victim means drunk victim = rape. This is shockingly close to victim blaming. I know the typical argument is to properly assert women have as much right as men to party and it is a right I myself have exercised

However, if we are to weigh the right to party to the right of self defense then self defense ought to win hands down particularly if it is being claimed that partying leads to situations that provoke a need for self defense. Just tell women they aren't allowed to drink because it makes them victims.

from the 'once is too much' in terms of innocent people being shot with guns? Because you put a bunch of guns on campuses and I guarantee you somebody, somewhere is going to be hit by someone aiming at someone else.

But hey, those innocent gun violence victims should just 'Take one for the team'.

That argument is little more than telling someone to take one for the team.

It is also an appeal to convict based on pre-crime. Your accusing the woman who decides to defend herself of harming an innocent at some future point so the law is entitled to act against her in the present before any misdeed has been committed.

This line of thinking only heaps one legalistic insult after another upon those who act upon an essential human right.

So following the chain back up the subthread, it's pretty funny that that is specifically the "ban" it looks like you're trying to argue for, here.

prohibition for specific parties in a few dozen buildings on campus.

The post you responded to said

If you follow the posts upthread, it's completely obvious to the reader that we're talking about alcohol on campus, because that's where we were talking about guns on campus.

Where is alcohol drunk on campus? In frat houses and in dormitories. Places that typically encompass a few dozen houses specifically.


Finally, every law is a 'ban' in one sense or another, with the idea of minimizing whatever sort of behaviour is being made 'illegal'. Laws have varying degrees of success - some people follow them, others don't. Some break them a few times, then quit breaking them, others break them constantly.

20 million out of 320 million or so Americans is a bit over 6%. Even if you say twice as many Americans are smoking pot, that means almost 90% of Americans aren't, which is a pretty good overall success rate, enough to warrant the phrase 'the vast majority'.

So I stick by what I've said. Laws generally work, and 'bans' are merely one subset of laws. Yes, some laws are broken far more frequently, but even in the case of things like 'marijuana usage' that are societally popular, they still work most of the time.

Never any context.

And Who is "they"?

Those of us who are befuddled by the bizarro reality we've stumbled into where people on DU are supposed to support alcohol and marijuana prohibition?

Leaving aside the your flat-out silly assertion that things like marijuana laws "work" (no they don't- that's why it is impossible for either party to find a presidential candidate who NEVER broke that particular law. A law that a majority of people completely ignore at some point or another is NOT a law that "works&quot

I have one quick question;

John Lawrence, Texas, 1998.--

Would you characterize him as an "idiot"?

Or a "libertarian"?

'Never heard of him'.

And btw, I don't support a general alcohol prohibition and do support legalization of marijuana, as well as a decriminalization of 'user' crimes for harder drugs. If a university wants to declare it's campus alcohol free, I support them in so doing. I'm not arguing that our current laws are the BEST routes toward reducing certain behaviours or that they don't have staggering social costs.

And I know you'll accuse me of backpedaling or 'moving goalposts' or whatever dreary metaphor you feel like because you've extrapolated things I've said into things I haven't said, and are confused because what I say doesn't fit with what you imagined me to say.

exceptions to that characterization, but since this is the first comment in which you or anyone else brought up that point, I didn't bother to edit and address it.

There are certainly a class of laws that are unjust or simply have no use, and one doesn't need to be an idiot or libertarian to be opposed to them. As to the first, the Civil Rights movement as a whole highlights that. As to the second, look to various 'fetal heartbeat' laws that keep getting proposed. No basis in reality, simply ideology-driven. So yes, there are certainly such cases.

On the other hand, there are plenty of the 'idiots or libertarians' kind of lawbreakers. Cliven Bundy, who didn't think he should have to pay the same grazing fees as anyone else, that the law didn't or shouldn't apply to him comes to mind.

Or people who simply want to do what they want to do for their own gratification, and ignore the ramifications of their actions until somebody else is lying dead, at which point they cry 'accident' or 'freedom'. Drunk drivers, people who shoot others by 'accident', people who sell drugs to children, etc, etc etc.

The existence of a few idiots and libertarians does not mean that everyone who objects to unjust laws, or thinks that some laws are ineffective, ill-advised, or worse, is an "idiot or libertarian".

If you want to turn sideways into a general rant against the Gratification-minded boogeymen you have bouncing in your head, fine, but that really wasn't how we got here. Instead, you were making a general point about ALL laws and how they "work pretty well", specifically things like pot or alcohol prohibition, which plainly do NOT work.

And which you also say you're against, but you still seem to think are good, or at least workable ideas. Or something.

If you say "ALL X are Y" and I come up with examples of X that are NOT Y, asserting that "but see, there are Xs that are Y" is not good, argument winning logic.

but again, in the original context, we were talking about a pretty limited subset of laws, and I was careless in my later generalization.

And there's a large difference between thinking that something that 'works' for problem X 90% of the time is 'working' pretty well in terms of that problem and considering it 'good'. Shooting someone dead works 100% of the time in preventing them from committing further crimes, but is in no way a 'good' thing.

The 'or something' in this case is in suggesting that banning alcohol from campuses would significantly (statistically speaking) reduce the number of incidents of rape on campus. Which is not anywhere near the same as saying 'We should go back to prohibition'. Is it going to prevent them all? Of course not. Is it going to even stop a fair number of kids from sneaking alcohol onto campus? Of course not. In that sense it's like speeding laws. A LOT of people break them, but even so, when you raise them or do away with them, far more people end up dead on the roads.

So moving on to the specific case scenario you're putting forth: Like I said, there are already some significant bans on alcohol specific to certain university functions. Personally, I'm not broadly or philosophically opposed OR in favor of them, because again I think it depends on the specific situation.

That said, in a broad sense, I think expecting that college students aren't going to drink is wishful thinking, I realize that the notion appeals (seeing as we're taking the opportunity to axe grind against folks that get on our nerves, in this rather unrelated thread topic ) to the sort of "cranky grandparent demographic" which seems to have taken over a good chunk of "the old Deee Yew" and only dimly remembers their own sneak a flask into the sock hop days ...

but simple truth is, college students drink and are likely to continue to do so, "bans" or no.

(It takes a while to rack up 6 degrees.) And yes, I drank for much of that time. But honestly, if I'd had a factual account of exactly what that alcohol was doing to my body, I would have stopped drinking much sooner. I basically stopped only when I started taking nursing classes, and got up close and personal with the kidneys. Realistically, I think the best way to reduce college (and high school) drinking rates is to start putting honest, accurate information in front of the kids earlier on, and not rely on just rhetoric. Young people are smarter than they get credit for; they see through all the 'booga booga' 'eeeevil drugs' nonsense.

I also think it could be said that several decades ago, people would have said 'simple truth is, college students smoke and are likely to continue doing so', but with a serious public health push to reduce smoking, rates have gone way, way down.

You don't have to tell me.

But I'm also realistic about these things. (And it is worth noting that people tend to drink alcohol for different reasons than they smoke cigarettes. Nicotine is about the most useless drug I came across in my extensive youthful field research into the matter.)

I actually think there are some refreshing trends towards honesty; I mean, simple medical fact is that, for instance, marijuana is a far safer drug than alcohol, in general- doesn't mean it is "good for" people or that no one has problems with it.. but as you say, honesty works better with education. When you lie and tell kids that smoking a joint is going to kill them, they aren't going to believe you when you warn them off of something like meth.

Decriminalizing the mj trade would also, of course, go a long way towards reducing police ability to harass and attack minorities and help break that 'school to prison' pipeline. And I'd rather see folks doing THC than alcohol (although I think I'd prefer they use ingestables rather than smoking, for reasons related to the effects of smoked anything on the lining of the throat and lungs.) in terms of health issues.

What, exactly, do you imagine yourself capable of doing?

...not to bring guns to class.

Anybody who refuses will be kicked out of class.

I will not have guns in my classroom. And I will refuse to enter the classroom if needs be.

It's that simple.

One might as demand pledges to vote for certain political parties.

Nobody has the right to force me to teach calculus in an armed classroom.

I imagine that will prove quite the civil liability for the community college.

I teach at a state university.

And I will not teach calculus in a room full of guns.

It just won't happen.

Take your Gods of Metal elsewhere.

I'm an atheist, and a rather militant atheist at that.

Your Gods of Metal are simply not welcome in my classroom.

I know a lot of the things you're saying just don't add up.

Just because I detest your fundamentalist religion and don't want your Gods of Metal anywhere near my calculus classroom in a state university, does not mean that I am an unprofessional mathematician.

abuses authority entrusted to them in order to do so I can think of no better definition of unprofessional behavior.

Be prepared to show your work.

Do you think that it somehow bolsters your case or something?

professional would have the authority to abrogate legally recognized rights by refusing to provide services that have already been paid for in advance.

I can only imagine the outrage that would appropriately attend a so-called professional refusing to teach women who are using birth control. Again, it doesn't matter how emotional the teacher became they have no authority to impose such strictures and they would be abusing the authority entrusted to them to make such a demand.

...on faculty in state universities.

Keep your Gods of Metal out of my calculus classroom.

right to practice the doctrine of their religion. You, on the other hand, are demanding others change their lives to accommodate you and you apparently think it is OK to abuse authority to impose something that is not in your purview.

Why do you want impose your Gods of Metal on faculty and students at a state university?

What's so special about your Gods?

You aren't even attempting to defend the abuse of authority you're just typing the same arguments you couldn't defend the first time. Maybe you're trying to win just by typing the longest but the fact remains that if the ban is lifted you have no authority and if you refuse to render services that have already been secured in the name of denying the exercise of legally recognized rights then you will place the university in a position of civil liability.

Which is basically All gun related sites.

And gun fetishists scratch their white scalps when their guns are compared to their 'hot little penises.'

"he's" not a man. The first sentence of the article:

The woman staring straight at the camera is Michele Fiore.



Check out her AK-47 table lamp in http://www.kptv.com/Clip/11100444/michele-fiore-discusses-opposition-to-gov-sandovals-budget

Michele Fiore is Sarah Palin without the moose chili.

Blovating Tea Billy running from scrutiny,and,another Vegas Grifter and Huckster. But hey,Aedlson and Wynn think she is the greatest.

Just this.

what could possibly go wrong.

She was removed from her leadership position earlier last year for failure to pay her taxes while chairman of the taxation committee and has been trying to advance lunatic policies here in nevada for quite some time, going as far as being in the opposition to our republican governor.

This is one of those folks that wants to legislate by gut feelings instead of evidence. She recently did an NPR interview where she was confronted with evidence that her positions had no basis in fact and she just ignored it and went right ahead with the crazy.

who have to do something? Why can't men do something to stop violence against women? I say this as a man who feels that nothing is really being done by the male gender to control our penises. I also know that misogyny is about more than sex. That needs to be seriously addressed too.

the types of men who would rape a woman or stand around and watch while another guy rapes a woman will usually have a very negative attitude. They are the same types who will slam the door in a woman's face because "you've got your rights." That is the type of stuff they say to women and how they treat women. I know that because I have specifically had that done to me. I was simply coming out of the post office and a guy did that to me. I still don't know of anything I did to cause it either. I simply dropped off my mail and came back out the door.

I agree with you though. By reducing rape to only about sex in the minds of the majority, law enforcement have made it next to impossible to cut down on the number of rapes that happen. The first question I was asked after being raped was "Was he your boyfriend?" The first question I was asked after a stalker followed me home from college classes was, "Is he your boyfriend?" In neither case were these men ever a boyfriend of any kind to me. I have girlfriends, not boyfriends.

That condescending attitude should explain to anyone who is unclear why rape is rampant and goes unpunished all too often. Women get tired of being treated in such condescending, crappy ways. If he was a boyfriend, what difference would that even make? Is rape not rape if the rapist was a boyfriend at one time? Everyone from law enforcement to college security to the general public tries to make rape about sex, when rape is about assaulting and controlling and so many other things that are not sex.

Nice.

Will be killed with their own gun after being assaulted.

Way too much partying goes on.

is about concealed carry on campus, but the partying is generally off-campus (in apartments, frat houses, and the like). People who would be affected by this bill (those with CCW permits) can already carry to the parties.

I don't have a problem with allowing those with permits to carry on campus (although I support high standards for the permitting). I do have a problem with the sexist framing and the apparent misunderstanding of how sexual assault mainly manifests in the campus environment...

A lot of women would be too afraid to use the guns to defend themselves, because women have been taught to be compliant and give a guy every chance in the world to not act badly. Most women would not know where to draw the line. That hesitancy would cause exactly the scenario you describe here. These people must not know much at all about women or how we have been raised, trained, taught, and indoctrinated with the "boys will be boys" mentality since birth to take far too much shit from assholes.

Is this propensity for violent behaviors a genetic problem?
Were they raised in homes that used violence as a primary problem solver?
Is violence an acquired reaction due to the enormous amount of rightwing propaganda they absorb?

I don't understand it. Why does the onus always fall on the female victim? In what bizarro world does the government renounce mandate to protect the public and opt for violent vigilante street justice at the end of a gun as the only way women can avoid a rapist?

The government (any government- fed, state, or local) has a 'mandate' to protect the general public, but they owe you, the person, no protection unless you're in their custody.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

[div class='excerpt']The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[div class='excerpt']The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.


Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)

[div class='excerpt']In 1986, the Maryland Court of Appeals was again presented in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County with an action in civil liability involving the failure of law enforcement to enforce the law. In this case, a police officer, Freeberger, found an intoxicated man in a running pickup truck sitting in front of convenience store. Although he could have arrested the driver, the police officer told the driver to pull the truck over to the side of the lot and to discontinue driving that evening. Instead, shortly after the law enforcement officer left, the intoxicated driver pulled out of the lot and collided with a pedestrian, Ashburn, who as a direct result of the accident sustained severe injuries and lost a leg. After Ashburn brought suit against the driver, Officer Freeberger, the police department, and Anne Arundel County, the trial court dismissed charges against the later three, holding Freeberger owed no special duty to the plaintiff, the county was immune from liability, and that the police department was not a separate legal entity.
...
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that, "absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers." Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..

A cop can sit eating a donut watching you be beaten, maimed, raped, then killed- and there's nothing

Speaking as a survivor, no one -- man or woman -- wants to live with the aftermath of rape... or murder, but beyond that, not everyone has the physical strength, training and skills needed to react like a Hollywood superhero. Maybe I am too young, too old, too weak or disabled, too poor, or too morally bound by my own principles to ever live up to the unrealistic silliness of the survival of the fittest manttra you're suggesting. I don't know, but clearly, my worldviews, my political inclinations and my value system are much different than yours and I suffer no similar comic book delusions sketched around a young man's imaginary Ramboesque fantasy.

At issue is state legislation proposed by a Republican politician who wants to allow guns on campus because she thinks "hot little girls" can prevent assaults if only they had a gun.

Along with many others, I also disagreed, whilst you sided with the Republican. I cited several examples to demonstrate the flawed logic in that simplistic raison d'être. If you're still dissatisfied, then may I suggest your issues lay elsewhere and are unlike to be satisfactory resolved here.

You made a statement:

"More violence is never a solution."

You listed no qualifiers as to it only pertaining to "hot little girls", and in fact used the word never.

Clearly, that statement is wrong, since we as a society have decided to have police, secret service, and military to engage in violence on our behalf when occasions merit its use.

Allowing within her personal space. If it became known that women were concealed carrying, the likely result is that in the first few moments of the attack, the rapist would search for a gun and disarm the woman and probably use the gun to facilitate the rape. Rape is a crime where the rapist overpowers their victim physically or through coercion with a weapon. A gun is not going to help a person in an acquaintance rape or a rape facilitated with a weapon or alcohol/drugs.

The scenario you are imagining is an unknown assailant trying to chase down a woman in a lot or park and she has time before the rapist closes the distance to draw her weapon and fire. That's not a typical campus rape situation.

And by the way, are you considering that in a concealed carry campus, guys would be carrying too and could simply pull their guns out at the very beginning and demand the woman disrobe, effectively disarming them as well in the process?

Guns are not the answer to this problem.

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

In a notably Democratic forum, the chances of finding people to join you in siding with a Republican is just a bridge too far, but hold fast to your opinions. Even though you haven't found many kindred souls who want to live by the gun in the wild, wild west of centuries past, or recreate life in Somalia, or participate in a Darwinian experiment, opt for the fiercest opposition.

You're obviously very passionate and hold to a different outlook even though it is at odds with many other views. That's OK, we should always cherish our deeply held convictions and let it end there. However, as you can see, the continued browbeating has not changed anyone else's opinion regarding the use of guns as the panacea for the ills of society.

Do you believe that only republicans see self defense with a firearm as something other than "violent vigilante street justice"?

"Siding with a republican"

No one here is fooled by how you are going about it.

The fact that it pertains to guns doesn't change that.

Men won't have guns, only "Little Hotties" will be armed.

That's what these insane lunatics want isn't it?

One of our glorious elected Republican state congress people told be that she was crazy as well as corrupt: besides saying stuff like this regularly, she's facing multiple charges of fraud, tax evasion, etc. She lost her position as head of the financial committee and got it back within the day, after accusing Republican leadership of sexism. The irony here is amazing.

a member of the macho gun loving bully boy club--a haot girl to shoot it out with before you take what you think you are entitled to. That takes care of that demographic.

Females (and any other legal owner) should never have to wait for the privilege of effective self defense.

To hell with this asshat and her "I'd allow" sexist attitude. In this day and age there's no excuse for letting the 1%ers dictate policy of personal safety.

And it mostly reveals what an asshole this man is.

I must have read it too fast, seeing Micheal instead of Michele.

more guns. For christ sake, some of these supposed leaders need to get a grip on life.

Last edited Sun Feb 22, 2015, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Marilyn Kirkpatrick said.. "To claim that sexual assault is only happening to 'young, hot little girls' and that arming people can alleviate this problem is a false narrative."

False narrative? What the hell is that. gobble dee gook....

What she should have said was. "shut the fuck up."