CO dem scolds rape survivor

[TrackerSam]

Every year hundreds of thousands of Americans use firearms to defend themselves from attackers of one kind or another. Despite the state’s reputation as a frontier state, Colorado’s Democrats are hell-bent on disarming law-abiding citizens and, in particular, women, from being able to defend themselves with a firearm. The latest is state Sen. Evie Hudak who, at a hearing on banning concealed carry on college campuses, told rape survivor Amanda Collins that having a gun would not have done her any good. Collins had just shared her story of survival. Democrat Hudak berated her in response.

I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and 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 than from you and possibly use it against you …

Or she could have shot him, or cornered him and called 911 to get the police to come pick him up. A pistol can be a great equalizer in the face of a threat.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/0...n-ban-hearing-statistics-werent-on-your-side/

You can make this stuff up but unfornutately you don't have to.

 

[Nova]

I took a year of tae kwon do when it was assigned to my students. It is as much "dance" (in Western terms) as martial art. Unless they teach something very different at higher levels, I doubt it would help one to fight off an attacker.

 

[Ausgirl]

I find it pretty disgusting that rape and rape victims are being used to further a political agenda, on both sides of the debate.

 

[Kat]

I watched Senator Evie Hudak's response in the video at the OP link.

I didn't see her berating the victim. She seemed sympathetic to the victim's story and all I heard was she stated some statistics.

After her recitation of some statistics, the victim then again spoke---but if there was a response by the Senator it wasn't on the video.

I'm not getting into the gun debate or the politics of this I'm just stating I didn't see this victim berated by what was presented in the video attached to the link.

ETA: I don't know who the male senator was but his response is the one that didn't sit well with me.

 

[believe09]

I am feeling a little dubious about the source, to be frank. I am more than willing to believe that there are fools on both sides of the aisle, but here is information on PJ Media-

PJ Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it correct to state that it is a conservative and libertarian blog site?
They call themselves citizen journalists. Interesting!

 

[txsvicki]

Everything is turned into a gun debate or liberal/conservative argument nowadays. I don't mean here at WS, but comments all over the internet on news articles that don't even apply to politics. Even my family on FB.

 

[ohiogirl]

I watched Senator Evie Hudak's response in the video at the OP link.

I didn't see her berating the victim. She seemed sympathetic to the victim's story and all I heard was she stated some statistics.

After her recitation of some statistics, the victim then again spoke---but if there was a response by the Senator it wasn't on the video.

I'm not getting into the gun debate or the politics of this I'm just stating I didn't see this victim berated by what was presented in the video attached to the link.

ETA: I don't know who the male senator was but his response is the one that didn't sit well with me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/state-senator-evie-hudak-_n_2814716.html

Senator Hudak's apology, and I agree with you, the male senator's remarks were more insensitive to me than Hudak's. :seeya:

 

[TrackerSam]

I took a year of tae kwon do when it was assigned to my students. It is as much "dance" (in Western terms) as martial art. Unless they teach something very different at higher levels, I doubt it would help one to fight off an attacker.

I think you missed the point entirely. The senator was equating tae kwon do with a gun. Do you doubt a gun could fight of an attacker?

 

[gxm]

I think you missed the point entirely. The senator was equating tae kwon do with a gun. Do you doubt a gun could fight of an attacker?

Yes. I do. I'm a petite woman and one reason I'd never carry a gun for self defense is, IMO, the likelihood that someone could wrestle it away and use it against me.

 

[TrackerSam]

So you've just accepted that you're helpless? Well, this woman didn't and the senator shouldn't have made that judgement for her. If you're petite he wouldn't need the gun to kill you, if he wants to kill you he will. You've given up even having a fighting chance IMO. But it's your call, not the senator's, which is the point, and it's just stupid to equate tae kwan do with a gun for starters.

 

[Sonya610]

Yes. I do. I'm a petite woman and one reason I'd never carry a gun for self defense is, IMO, the likelihood that someone could wrestle it away and use it against me.

If your plan is to beat them with the gun then yeah...they will wrestle it away from you.

If the plan is to shoot them with the gun, several times at a few yards then I wish em luck if they try to "wrestle it away". Plus many women (myself included) prefer the shorter handguns just in case, god forbid, the attacker DID manage to grab it. Wrestling a short muzzled gun means their fingers are covering the opening of the barrel which means start pulling the trigger and watch their fingers get blown off.

 

[TrackerSam]

If your plan is to beat them with the gun then yeah...they will wrestle it away from you.

If the plan is to shoot them with the gun, several times at a few yards then I wish em luck if they try to "wrestle it away". Plus many women (myself included) prefer the shorter handguns just in case, god forbid, the attacker DID manage to grab it. Wrestling a short muzzled gun means their fingers are covering the opening of the barrel they will likely lose a few fingers if they managed to grab it.

:floorlaugh: I can't believe her reply either. Petite women shouldn't carry guns because they're too small?

 

[tlcya]

I find it pretty disgusting that rape and rape victims are being used to further a political agenda, on both sides of the debate.

yep yep yep. It is why I won't be commenting on this one.

 

[TrackerSam]

qUOTE=tlcya;9002027]yep yep yep. It is why I won't be commenting on this one.[/QUOTE]

:seeya:

 

[TrackerSam]

I find it pretty disgusting that rape and rape victims are being used to further a political agenda, on both sides of the debate.

Is that what that senator was doing? Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Sonya610]

As far as it being "disgusting" for Ms. Collins opinion to be used by "either side" does that also apply to the families of the CT school shootings?

Many of those families have expressed strong opinions on the topic, opinions that are DEFINITELY being used on some sides, should their opinions and viewpoints be ignored as well? Is the news media being "disgusting" by covering their statements on the topic?

 

[Nova]

I think you missed the point entirely. The senator was equating tae kwon do with a gun. Do you doubt a gun could fight of an attacker?

Although I'm hardly pro-gun, I was pointing out how the comparison was faulty. Unless she was very, very advanced, tae kwon do is NOT self-defense and not a substitute for a gun, mace, whistle or other form of protection.

What did I miss?

 

[Tugela]

I think you missed the point entirely. The senator was equating tae kwon do with a gun. Do you doubt a gun could fight of an attacker?

It could, if you had it in hand and you had a clear shot. That wouldn't be likely in the scenario being discussed though, in all probability the victim would have been disarmed and shot with her own gun. If you have a gun in a bag and are being physically attacked, you would not have the opportunity to use it effectively. The rapist would not stand by while she rumaged around her bag and cocked the gun. He would have stopped her and taken it from her.

People have this erroneous idea that having a gun empowers and protects you, but in actual fact in real life situations it is much messier than that. There is a high probability of collateral damage.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I believe it's a choice on whether a person wishes to carry a gun or not. There are going to be circumstances when the gun will be taken away and used against the victim and there will be times when the victim will have an opportunity to access the gun before they are overpowered. I haven't studied statistics but a good majority of violent criminals surprise their victims.

I will give two real life instances as examples:

1. A woman was asleep in bed and when she opened her eyes a gun was pointed at her forehead. The first thing the intruders did was run their hands under the mattress and pillows.

2. A woman was jogging and attacked from behind and overpowered. She had no idea there was anyone behind her.

I could give many more examples of victims of violent crimes, not having the opportunity to access a weapon, because they were caught off guard.

I love seeing the stories that have a different outcome though, where the victim turns the tables on the criminal.

 

[Sonya610]

It could, if you had it in hand and you had a clear shot. That wouldn't be likely in the scenario being discussed though, in all probability the victim would have been disarmed and shot with her own gun. If you have a gun in a bag and are being physically attacked, you would not have the opportunity to use it effectively. The rapist would not stand by while she rumaged around her bag and cocked the gun. He would have stopped her and taken it from her.

This woman was already attacked once so no, she would not likely be "rummaging through her bag". Handbags designed for carry have an outside pocket, if she is ill at ease in one second she easily puts her hand in the pocket and around the gun.

With a revolver she wouldn't even need to pull it out, just start shooting through the bag. Whether it is ever used to save her from attack is a mute point, the fact is having it there gives her the psychological security of KNOWING she can defend herself when she is uneasy or afraid.