Dem state senator to rape victim: Having a gun on you probably wouldn’t have stopped him, you know
posted at 6:01 pm on March 5, 2013 by Allahpundit
Via Katie Pavlich, who reminds us that Colorado is the same state that brought us the urination defense to sexual assault in lieu of carrying concealed plus this moron mumbling about women with guns maybe taking potshots at innocent men whom they only think are rapists. The thing to remember as you watch the clip, in which an honest to goodness state legislator reasons that because the victim couldn’t karate the rapist off of her then a gun probably wouldn’t have worked either, is that there really are no “good” arguments against women arming themselves against sexual assault. Gun-control fans resort to idiocy like this vis-a-vis rape simply because they’ve got nothing better on the shelf than “well, maybe try blowing a whistle to alert the police instead.” In fact, per Pavlich’s post, the victim here was attacked just 50 feet from a campus police station (yes, Bob Beckel, it does happen) and since it was after hours, there was no help on the way. Which, as Jeffrey Goldberg notes, is not uncommon when a crime’s in progress:
An important, and overlooked, fact of the Sandy Hook tragedy is that it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the school. The police are spread too thinly across many American communities to stop shootings in their first moments. And armed civilians have been instrumental in stopping shootings at New Life Church in Colorado, Pearl High School in Mississippi and elsewhere.
This hasn’t stopped some Democrats from arguing against armed self-defense. Some left-wing commentators, members of a class not previously known for its love of the police, think their fellow citizens don’t possess adequate faith that law enforcement will protect them…
Shortly after Sandy Hook, a blogger at the Washington Monthly, making the unfounded assumption that the police provide Americans with flawless protection, asked, “Isn’t one of the fundamental reasons of forming any kind of government in the first place to provide for a common defense, instead of having to bear the totality of that burden all by yourself?” Yes, but this misses the point entirely. When the government’s provision of defense is inadequate, as it usually is during a mass shooting, you have to defend yourself.
When you boil down Hudak’s “statistical” argument, what she’s really saying is that guns are so dangerous that society’s better off leaving women unarmed and tolerating a certain amount of rape than letting them arm up and risking extra gun thefts and shootings. Note to House Democrats: I encourage you to run on that message in 2014 as part of your big “yay, gun control” platform. Suggested slogan: “You’re safer when you’re defenseless.”