#1 Colorado Dem to Rape Survivor: A Gun Wouldn’t Have Helped You03-06-2013, 01:32 AM
Colorado Dem to Rape Survivor: A Gun Wouldn’t Have Helped You Against Rapist Because ‘Statistics Are Not on Your Side’
Mar. 5, 2013 4:29am Jason Howerton
Rape survivor Amanda Collins bravely spoke about her horrific attack during a Monday legislative hearing concerning Colorado’s proposed ban on concealed firearms on college campuses. She explained how she wished she would’ve had a firearm to defend herself from her rapist, which could have possibly prevented the attack from occurring.
After calling her story “unsettling,” Democratic state Sen. Evie Hudak quickly went after Collins, saying “actually, statistics are not on your side, even if you had a gun.”
“You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experienced in Tae Kwon Do, and yet because this individual was so large, 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 that from you and possibly use it against you,” she added.
ReadMore>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-on-your-side/Pffffffffffffffffffffff! Buh Bye Big Ears
03-06-2013, 01:27 PM
A gun wouldn't help but pissing yourself would have. To quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"Deplorably Proud To Be An American
03-06-2013, 01:55 PM
I think, in Sen. Hudak, that we've found the author of the theory of gun control:
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
03-06-2013, 04:13 PM
I'm not sure if a gun would have helped her or not. It all depends on whether she saw him coming or not. If he saw the gun, he might have decided on a different victim. She's alive today, so she did something right.
That still doesn't mean the congressman can definitively say that it wouldn't have helped her.
03-06-2013, 06:13 PM
I think that the applicable rule is: better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Furthermore, I think that she, and anybody else that wants to, should carry whether it's against the rules or not. The applicable rule for that would be: better to tried by 12 than carried by 6.
FWIW, I'm sure that all the rapist that have been fatally shot by their would be victims agree wholeheartily with you and the bimbo senator."The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
03-06-2013, 06:32 PM
03-06-2013, 07:22 PM
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
03-07-2013, 10:55 AM
Again, I am not a gun grabber. I am just not a gun owner myself, and I don't really know that much about them. I do know this basic thing about self-defense-if you don't see the threat coming, you might not get a chance to use your weapon, whether it's a gun on a holster, pepper spray, baseball bat or a dagger clipped onto the inside of your boot.
And, yes, it is better to be a rape survivor than a rape/murder victim. Always.
03-07-2013, 12:32 PM
"Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon: they'll knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and then declare victory." --- unknown
I have personal experience with not seeing the threat coming but because I was armed with a gun I was able to neutralize the perp before he neutralized me. Your so called 'reasoning' is naive and doesnt' pass the smell test. If you personally don't want to arm yourself then, fine, risk being a victim but don't question or try to deny others their natural right to bear arms and defend themselves.
And, yes, it is better to be armed than to become a rape/murder victim, or any other kind of victim. Always.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|