Fox News uses rape to promote laws allowing guns on college campuses
12:44 pm - 04/10/2011Across the country, lawmakers are debating whether universities should let students and faculty with permits carry their concealed weapon on campus. Those who want to put an end to such gun-free zones have found an unlikely hero in a petite, soft spoken, young woman who wonders why colleges protect most Constitutional rights, but not the one that matters most when staring into the face of a violent criminal.
Amanda Collins, 25, is a wife and new mom, and a concealed weapon permit holder for years. At her father's law office in Reno, she showed us the 9-mm Glock she carries for her safety.
"It's got a pretty standard magazine," she said, "and night sights so you can see in the dark when you're aiming."
However, Collins couldn't aim her gun at the serial rapist who attacked her at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she was a student. That's because, like most public colleges outside of Utah and Colorado, UNR is a "gun free" zone. The rule required her to leave her gun at home, leaving her defenseless the one time she needed its protection most.
In October of 2007, while walking to her car after a night class, Collins was grabbed from behind in a university parking garage less than 300 yards from a campus police office. The school's "gun-free" designation meant nothing to James Biela, a serial rapist with a gun of his own, who saw Collins as an easy target. "He put a firearm to my temple," she recounted, "clocked off the safety, and told me not to say anything, before he raped me."
The university has since installed more emergency call boxes and lights in the parking structure, but Collins says that won't stop an attacker who knows the campus is a gun-free zone, a policy she believes invites crime, and may have even emboldened the man who raped her.
Just months later, Biela went on to murder 19-year old Brianna Dennison in a case that received widespread national attention. While Biela now sits on death row, Collins is convinced the outcome would have been different had she been armed.
"I know, having been the first victim, that Brianna Dennison would still be alive, had I been able to defend myself that night."
Collins is believed to be the first victim of an on-campus rape to come out and publicly share her horrific attack in an effort to change the law and keep people safe.
Last month, she testified before Nevada lawmakers in support of [missing from source] , a bill that would allow concealed weapons at the state's public universities. It would abolish the requirement that permit holders get permission from the university president -- a request that is routinely denied. (Amanda was finally allowed to carry her weapon -- after she was attacked).
But others say campus gun-free zones are vital to maintain security and reduce chances of gun related accidents and violence. Reno police oppose the bill, as does an academic group called the Nevada Faculty Alliance. Dr. Gregory Brown, professor of history at UNLV and vice president of the UNLV Faculty Alliance, points to studies that argue more guns on campus translates into more violence at school.
Nevada State Senator Michael Schneider, D-Las Vegas, fears guns in the hands of students will be disastrous.
"They are not trained professionals," Schneider said. "By the time any student could get a gun, when they were attacked by someone else with a gun if they went for their gun, it would be a bad outcome."
But author John Lott, who writes in support of gun rights, argues that at the 70 schools that allow students and faculty with permits to carry guns, "not one has experienced the type of harm predicted by opponents. Not a single permit holder on these campuses has been involved in a firearm accident or crime."
For Collins, the ban defies logic.
"I don't understand why (the state) trusts good, responsible people to be able to have their firearm across the street, and as soon as they cross an arbitrary line, they somehow lose all reason and ability to be able to be competent with that responsibility. It makes no sense to me at all."
Her main argument comes from self protection. "Everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves," she says. "The criminals who are intent on committing a crime don't care about what the rules and regulations are. The only ones that do are the law abiding citizens, and those are the ones who are permitted to carry everywhere else."
Later this month, SB 231 heads to the Senate floor, where Schneider vows to block it.
A dozen other states, including Florida, Idaho, and Texas, are also debating whether to lift gun bans on college campuses. As traumatic as it to relive her attack, Collins says she'll testify wherever and whenever she can to help make that happen.
Source.
So basically... sexual assault is the woman's fault until Fox News can use it to promote fuckery. Cool.
guns would be pretty useless then!
most rapes happen because of date rape
you're arguing that guns should be allowed to prevent rape
when they wouldn't prevent rape at all actually!
Also the fact is that right now nothing prevents a person with malicious intent to bring a gun to a college campus. Notice that in this article we are discussing a state that allows carrying weapon everywhere else - malls, restaurants, movie theaters, pubs.
Yes, we do this all the time as a society. We have decided, for example, that adult people cannot decide to yell "fire" in a crowded theater to amuse themselves, and that they cannot smoke marijuana to feel good, and that they cannot drive while drunk because of the inherent risk they pose to others. I am perfectly okay with society making rules to prevent adult people from doing certain things, because adults don't always make good and rational choices.
Also the fact is that right now nothing prevents a person with malicious intent to bring a gun to a college campus.
You yourself said that punishment is a deterrent, and so the fear of getting punished by a law's consequences is a deterrent from people carrying heat illegally onto campus. So that fear of getting punished is something that's preventing some people with malicious intent from carrying a weapon on campus - although of course, there will always be some with malicious intent who will ignore the laws and carry anyway. The difference is, now we can prosecute them from doing so, whereas if they change the law we can't.
I also want to know what concrete benefit you think people will derive from being able to carry on campus. And I'm not talking about this young woman's claims that she could've defended herself. Given the situation (she was ambushed from behind with a gun quickly pressed to her temple), I think that's quite unlikely. You also have not addressed any of the statements that with an underskilled handler, a gun can easily be wrested from the victim's possession and into the attacker's. Studies with police officers have shown that even they aren't quick enough to draw and fire guns if a perpetrator has less than 20 feet to cross to get to you, and they have intense training, both physically and psychologically. What reason do we have to believe that a bunch of armed college kids with minimal training will be able to draw, aim, and fire accurately at attackers to defend themselves on campus in a matter of seconds, and that the chance of this happening is greater than the chance of them accidentally shooting someone innocent or themselves or the chance that someone will exploit the concealed carry law to perpetrate violence on campus?