Friday, March 27

Goofy college newspaper editorial board says guns wouldn't reduce rape

I rarely post about breathless pronouncements by college students and/or their propaganda organs (amusingly called "newspapers") because one expects goofy acts and declarations from people who have virtually zero real-world experience. 

I'm not saying they're stupid--hell, I was the same way at that age.  It's just that without experience it's hard to make causal connections about complex systems.  Again, totally understandable.

With that said:  Agreeing that rape was a problem, students at the U of North Carolina decided that a great tool to reduce the incidence would be to allow students to carry a handgun.

Hard to argue with that one.  Plug a few attackers and the rest quickly decide there are better ways to spend their time.

Of course the idea of armed, law-abiding citizens is totally repugnant to liberal/"progressive" thinkers, so the editors of student newspaper have now come down against the idea of concealed-carry to reduce rape.  And their stated reason? 

"Guns would not address the causes of sexual assault,” the editorial board wrote.  “Worse, they could reinforce rape culture because the burden of stopping assault would be further placed upon women.”

Didja get that?  "We no let wimmens have guns cuz guns not address causes of assault."

Wow, there's some real high-grade looney-left logic for ya.  Notice what they *don't* say:  They don't deny concealed-carry would reduce the incidence of assault--because the layman would instantly recognize that as utter crap.  So instead they proceed to set up a strawman: Guns wouldn't "address" (interesting leftist word dodge there) the cause of assault, so they're a bad idea.


Not only that, guns "could" "reinforce rape culture."  Really?  The editors explain that this astonishing twist would--excuse me, could--happen "because the burden of stopping assault would further be placed on women."  They don't tell you how that would occur but gee, it sounds so marvelously cryptic and vague that it just has to be true.

Okay, I know, not fair to make 22-year-olds defend their illogical statements.  Sorry.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home