Not only do women disarm themselves, they disarm other women who want to resist!
This editorial by Amanda Marcotte at the Daily Beast, “When you legalize guns on campus, rapists will have more guns to rape with,” only succeeds if its purpose was to self-righteously insult people. Its language is explosively dismissive. People who believe in the Second Amendment are “gun fondlers” and it goes downhill from there.
As I read the editorial, I was reminded of Voltaire’s insightful statement: “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” Indeed, it is not only difficult to free them; it is difficult to prevent them from chaining others.
Marcotte thinks that rapists don’t use guns because they aren’t legal on campus yet. As soon as they are legal, then rapists will want to use them to give themselves an additional advantage.
So why don’t they use guns now? It isn’t like college campuses and dorms are places where it is difficult to smuggle contraband.
Basically, Marcotte thinks people who are “planning” (her emphasis) on raping are completely compliant with all gun laws. People who are fine with raping women will not violate a “gun free zone” sign.
The reason rapists often don’t use guns is because they don’t need to. They typically have a size or at least a strength advantage on a woman.
And that is the whole point of “gun fondling” as Marcotte likes to call it. The difference between an unarmed man and an unarmed woman gives the man a great advantage. The difference between an armed man and an armed woman reduces that advantage or even reverses it if the woman has bothered to practice. More importantly, the potential that a man would get killed or at least seriously injured, as well as arrested if he survives, goes way up. Rapists are cowards or else they wouldn’t be rapists. They are much less likely to accept the odds if feminists did their job and told women to defend themselves from predators.
Furthermore, this would help women whether or not they are armed (unless they are stupid enough to advertise their disarmed status). If it becomes common for women to be armed, then all women become potential dangers to attackers. Men who were once “planning” to rape will change their plans.
Of course, the real problem Marcotte has is that she isn’t concerned about rape that involves a violent confrontation and leaves evidence of a struggle. She is concerned about rapes that occur between people who know each other and who are at events where they are getting drunk and, therefore, would have the sense to not carry their firearm. How would we stop these rapes that leave no evidence and that the man claims were consensual?
I have no idea. I concede if you are going to disarm and get inebriated with a guy who turns out to be a rapist it will be difficult to prevent or prove. We don’t throw people in prison for rape on the basis of unsubstantiated testimony, as far as I know. Marcotte claims such worries are “rape denialism.” That’s how grownups put their fingers in their ears and yell “la la la, I can’t hear you.”
But in the meantime, the violent rapes that do leave evidence—rapes where someone attacks you with verifiable violence—do occur both on campus and off. There is no reason women should be forced to be defenseless to such attackers.