Rape

Liberals Right That Guns Won't Stop Campus Rape, Wrong About Much Else

Liberals say guns won't mitigate college rape, and they're right. But affirmative consent won't help, either.

|

Gun girl
Girl with gun

Liberals have proposed several methods for reducing sexual assault on campus that just won't work. Now, evidently, the conservatives are taking their turn.

The New York Times (of all places) recently considered seriously—and with surprising sympathy—the argument that increasing students' access to guns would deter rapists from carrying out their crimes:

Support for so-called campus carry laws had been hard to muster despite efforts by proponents to argue that armed students and faculty members could prevent mass shootings like the one at Virginia Tech in 2007. The carrying of concealed firearms on college campuses is banned in 41 states by law or by university policy. Carrying guns openly is generally not permitted.

But this year, lawmakers in 10 states who are pushing bills that would permit the carrying of firearms on campus are hoping that the national spotlight on sexual assault will help them win passage of their measures.

"If you've got a person that's raped because you wouldn't let them carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think you're responsible," State Representative Dennis K. Baxley of Florida said during debate in a House subcommittee last month. The bill passed.

To be clear, I fully support concealed carry on campus. There are plenty of good reasons why students might wish to bring guns on campus; many who walk to class have to pass through crime-ridden areas of town and would feel safer if armed. For others who are legally entitled to carry virtually anywhere but a college campus, the rule against bringing their guns with them when they set foot on college grounds is inconvenient and unnecessary.

But I'm not remotely persuaded that more guns would mean less rape, for the simple reason that the kinds of rape most prevalent at colleges are unlikely to be prevented by guns. Sexual assault occurs at parties, under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Students often aren't aware they are being raped until the next morning—or long after the incident has passed. Campus rapists don't generally ambush victims in the park, or break into their homes. Instead, they incapacitate their victims and rely on hazy memories to acquit them. That's part of the reason that Jackie's story was so unbelievable—it was a straightforwardly violent attack on a fully-aware victim. A gun might have helped Jackie, but in the vast majority of actual sexual assaults on campus, I just don't see it.

And so, on this one point, I agree with The Huffington Post's Tyler Kingkade, The New Republic's Jamil Smith, Jezebel's Jia Tolentino, and Vox's Libby Nelson.

But isn't it kind of interesting how quick these left-leaning writers are to condemn a proposed solution to the campus rape crisis when that solution is 'more guns'? And here I was thinking that campus sexual assault had reached epidemic levels—1 in 5! 1 in 5!—such that we needed to do anything and everything to stop it, regardless of how ill-considered the solutions might be. Why, wasn't it Vox Emperor Ezra Klein himself who famously declared that California's affirmative consent 'Yes Means Yes' bill was "a terrible law, and I completely support it," for the sole reason that it purported to address the issue? In defense of a law he recognized didn't make any sense, Klein wrote:

Every discussion of the Yes Means Yes law needs to begin with a simple number: A 2007 study by the Department of Justice found that one in five women is the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault while in college.

One. In. Five.

Nelson, who works for Klein, explained in her takedown of the gun solution that the 1-in-5 statistic was "probably inaccurate." And Klein knows this—or should know this—because he even tweeted her article. Why is it okay to defend affirmative consent by chanting "1-in-5!" over and over again, and then kick that statistic to the curb when the subject of guns comes up? I'm tempted to think that some people want young women scared enough to submit to the new regiment of Neo-Victorian sexual and social restrictions, but not so scared that they actually demand the tools to defend themselves.

TNR's take is moronic enough that it deserves special scrutiny. After correctly dismissing guns as a valid solution to the campus rape problem, Smith took the opportunity to chastise former TNR editor Judith Shulevitz for supporting basic due process rights. He ended his piece with an unearned, garbled criticism of Shulevitz:

Shulevitz's solution is a terrible one that threatens to further muddle the collegiate adjudication process for sexual assault that needs to get less complicated. Adding more guns and an inappropriate legal standard to the debate doesn't help.

(For those who don't know, Shulevitz—a brilliant and fair-minded writer—left TNR during its recent mass exodus; Smith appears to have joined the staff after that. Perhaps he's taking her on to prove he deserves his post; regardless, ill-informed and poorly-constructed attacks like this are emblematic of TNR's sudden descent into Salon-quality madness. Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig provides more examples on a near-daily basis.)

Smith was most concerned with Shulevitz's suggestion that a "reasonable-person test" be applied in campus rape cases. Smith responded:

Given the fact that this country is still fighting to grasp the seriousness (or in some cases, the very definitions) of rape and sexual assault, who or what is "reasonable"? How do we know why Harvard Law professors object to this? (Shulevitz doesn't quote any of them and it isn't in their October 2014 statement bemoaning the lack of due process for the accused.) And what, exactly, is the "reasonable-person" test?

As Shulevitz quoted no experts on those subjects, I asked one to put the test into context.

Smith actually asked two "experts"; the second was Jessica Valenti:

"We're not very reasonable when it comes to rape," she told me. "As a society, we don't have a reasonable understanding of what rape is, we don't have reasonable responses—we're still a culture that overwhelmingly victim-blames. When Steubenville happened, the kid who walked in on the assault said he didn't know that was rape. Teenagers have gotten the message that you shouldn't drive drunk, but not that penetrating an unconscious girl is rape."

When Valenti is your token reasonable person, God help you.

For a libertarian solution to the campus rape crisis, read this.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

205 responses to “Liberals Right That Guns Won't Stop Campus Rape, Wrong About Much Else

  1. Is it, then, that there is simply an understood rate or danger of rape?

    I mean, I believe this to be true of murder, theft, etc. It makes sense to me that, no matter what, people will still be raped. It’s just not a nice pill to swallow.

    1. No matter what there will always be instances of rape.

      Not sure I buy into Soave’s statement that conceal carry would reduce instances of rape. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

      1. Everywhere in he U.S. where it is broadly known that random citizens might be armed, crime involving direct confrontation has dropped. Granted, there are other reasons this may be so, but the inference strikes me as convincing.

      2. Not sure I buy into Soave’s statement that conceal carry would reduce instances of rape. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

        Where/how did he say that conceal carry would reduce instances of rape? I took the article to be saying that he didn’t believe that, either.

      3. Not sure I buy into Soave’s statement that conceal carry would reduce instances of rape.

        Its not implausible. States with concealed carry have lower rates of violent crime, including rape, and violent crime tends to drop precipitously after CCW is adopted.

        http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c…..led-carry/

      4. But I’m not remotely persuaded that more guns would mean less rape, for the simple reason that the kinds of rape most prevalent at colleges are unlikely to be prevented by guns.

        I see him here saying that, because of the way campus rapes occur, guns won’t reduce the rate.

        1. he offers conjecture. Someone else might say the rate rape surely won’t increase if students are armed.

      5. Looks like I misunderstood. Apologies to Mr. Soave. I blame the brain-freezing cold and lack of coffee before posting.

      6. You are correct Restoras. Rapists are opportunistic predators. Armed or not, they will just wait for their chance.

        It won’t reduce rape.

        1. This is SVU Law and Order horseshit. The overwhelming majority of rapists are known to their victims and are NOT opportunistic predators.

      7. I think it makes a lot of sense – most campus rape is of the ‘date rape’ variety.

        And most of that is of the ‘I was drugged/too drunk to know better’ variety. A firearm isn’t going to help in these cases.

      8. It might not stop “If he doesn’t call me by noon,he raped me last night” but it might deter other types. Especially if a women is alone and notices one or more men following her.

    2. In Utopia, there will be no rape.

      1. Confucius say:

        No Such Thing As Rape:
        Girl Run Faster With Skirt Up,
        Than Boy Run With Pants Down!

  2. I’m tempted to think that some people want young women scared enough to submit to the new regiment of Neo-Victorian sexual and social restrictions, but not so scared that they actually demand the tools to defend themselves.

    A calculated agenda that massages numbers for its own purposes? How. DARE. You.

  3. The only guy I know who carries a gun with him at all times also talks about the virtues of “white civilization.”

    1. Funny the only guy I know who open carries all the time extols the virtues of black power.

      1. Odd, because I can see thousands of guys every day carrying guns all the time, and they only care about blue power.

        1. Nice.

      2. Forget it, IH, it’s Tony. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool proglodyte that believes government is always a force for good and that freedom is the root of all evil, and since that is the case individuals can’t be trusted with freedom.

        Since government is always and only a force for good then to intellectually stunted people like Tony there is no reason why government shouldn’t have all the guns, not to mention all the sovereignty.

        For your own good, you see.

        1. You don’t understand. Government is us and we are government. There is no separating government from society. They are one and the same. So when you give more power to the government, you’re giving power to yourself. When you arm government, you’re arming yourself. And when you don’t want something to be done by government, you don’t want it to be done at all by anyone.

          1. It really isn’t hard to dumb one’s self down to buy into this, especially if you are ignorant of history.

            1. My father, a hardcore leftist, got straight A’s in all his classes except history.

              1. This makes me cry.

                The more I read history the more I think it is an indispensable subject for everyone, no exceptions.

                A few years ago I read a few books on on ancient Greece, specifically the Peloponnesian War. It was utterly shocking to me how the Greeks treated each other – the Greeks, whose culture is so often held up as the germination of Western Civilization.

                That period of history, with its barbarity, malice and cruelty, reminded me of the 20th century and I realized that human nature hasn’t changed at all in at least 2,500 years, and likely much longer.

                I then realized that the worst tyrants in history, regardless of period or origin, while responsible for untold numbers of needless deaths, didn’t actually pull any triggers themselves. They all had willing and compliant government bureaucracies and agents do it for them.

                But even still, whenever I bring this inconvenience up, it is somehow all different now.

                1. That period of history, with its barbarity, malice and cruelty, reminded me of the 20th century and I realized that human nature hasn’t changed at all in at least 2,500 years, and likely much longer.

                  Yep. We’re three steps out of the cave with lots of shiny toys.

                2. One of the surprises I got from one book on ancient Mediterranean history was how little land was actually cultivated. Farmers would exhaust their plot and simply move; there were a lot of abandoned farms. It was only mentioned in passing, as if completely normal and implicitly understood, which made me wonder how much land was actually under cultivation at any given time.

                  The context was how little the ordinary peasant cared about what country he lived in or what king enslaved him.

          2. Nice way to describe a corporate state. 🙂

    2. I’ll bet he wears shoes too, the bastard!!!!!!!

    3. Cool story, bro.

      1. Yeah, I’m sure Tony hangs with white power nutters.

        1. White Power Nutts need power bottoms too

          1. I find this . . . plausible. Disturbingly so.

    4. I carry a gun at all times because minorities and those on the wrong side of a power imbalance (gender/racial/sexual orientation) who are armed worry a lot less about bashing/hate crimes.

    5. So Tony hangs out with white supremacists. Why am I not surprised?

    6. Why am I not suprised that you hang around with a$$holes?

    7. Sun rose in the east. Snow fell in New England. Lefty failed to engage the substance of the article.

    8. Well, if you know he’s carrying a gun all the time, then he’s doing it wrong. The whole point of carrying concealed is to keep it a secret.

    9. You know GUYS?

      You mean you’ve seen them right? They don’t actually hand out with you do they?

      Oh, ok, you mean you saw one on TV.

    10. Re: Tony,

      The only guy I know who carries a gun with him at all times also talks about the virtues of “white civilization.”

      You are the company you keep.

    11. Yeah, he’s the only guy you *know* carries a gun at all times.

      Most of us are not loud-mouthed arseholes. We simply carry and don’t feel the need to proclaim it to the world.

    12. You are a lying piece of shit, you don’t know any such person. I’m calling you a liar.

    13. Citation missing.

  4. Why is it okay to defend affirmative consent by chanting “1-in-5!” over and over again, and then kick that statistic to the curb when the subject of guns comes up?

    Because they’re partisan intellectual whores?

    1. Well, since 1- in – 5 is total pigswill in the first place, why do you expect intellectual honesty from anyone repeating it?

  5. That is because the majority of campus “rapes” are not rape in any meaningful sense of the term because the woman consents to the acts at the moment they are occurring.

    You really want to cut down on the number of rapes, define it in clear unambiguous terms that make it impossible for someone to “come to realize they were raped” after the fact.

    1. “come to realize they were raped”

      Um, you might want to rephrase that.

    2. clear unambiguous terms that make it impossible for someone to “come to realize they were raped” after the fact

      So sex with an unconscious person is cool?

      1. It might be, Depends on the nature of your relationship with them.

        That said there is a critical difference between a person who was raped while unconscious learning the truth of what happened to them and a person “realizing” long after the fact that events which they have always been cognizant of were actually rape.

        1. “It might be, Depends on the nature of your relationship with them.”

          That would be a very odd relationship.

          1. No actually it’s called being in a healthy marriage (or other committed relationship) where both partners clearly understand that affirmative consent for routine sex acts is assumed (routine as defined by that couple)

            1. Are you saying that it’s okay to have sex with a passed out drunk partner if you’re married? That does not seem quite right to me.

              1. Better draw up the paperwork, just in case.

              2. (routine as defined by that couple)

                Seems to be the key bit there.

                1. Yeah, I think I missed that my first time through.

              3. Are you saying that it’s okay to have sex with a passed out drunk partner if you’re married? That does not seem quite right to me.

                How about neither party sober and/or cognizant enough to meet the current standards of providing and/or confirming consent?

                I must say, waking up in the morning mid-coitus (however you might define that), is one of life’s great pleasures. Especially on those days when the broodlings have been foisted into the care of others.

              4. I don’t think he’s stating that as an ‘absolute’ applicable to all cases — I think he’s just pointing out that there does often exist a sort of ‘assumed consent’ in many normal, happy, healthy relationships. A good number of people are totally cool with giving their partner advance permission to engage in sexual activities with them while in a compromised state — myself included. It’s absolutely not rape, it’s just a reciprocal privilege we grant each other as part of our ‘contract’ with one another — an advance directive, if you will. Even if I didn’t (or couldn’t) explicitly say ‘yes!’ at the time, he (1) is capable of exercising sound judgement/interpreting non-verbal signals and (2) would never abuse this privilege to cause me harm — so as far as I’m concerned, I haven’t been violated in any way. This sort of practice exists as a non-problematic reality for many couples, and I don’t think it should be condemned off the bat just because it’s wrong outside the context of an intimate relationship where both parties define it as being permissible.

                1. I think that’s right. I missed the “routine as defined by the couple” qualifier the first time around.

          2. The reasonable person can draw a sharp distinction between coming onto a partner while s/he’s asleep–which is common and not unwelcome in most relationships–and raping someone who’s blacked-out drunk at a frat party.

        2. there is a critical difference between a person who was raped while unconscious learning the truth of what happened to them and a person “realizing” long after the fact that events which they have always been cognizant of were actually rape

          Well maybe you should have specified that instead of saying it should be impossible for someone to realize they were raped after the fact.

          1. Actually I didn’t.

            I put the entire phrase into quotes indicating a specific meaning. I was actually indirectly quoting a recent high profile campus rape victim du jour

      2. I think he specifically had the “after taking this Feminist Studies course, that mediocre sex I consented to with the gross dude who looked okay after two wine coolers was totally rape!”-rape in mind with his comment.

        1. When you fail to say what you mean and thereby end up saying something that could easily be interpreted as writing off a whole class of actual rapes, you are fucking up in ways that give ideological opponents completely retarded and unnecessary ammunition.

          1. Oh, I agree. I think a lot of us spend so much time in the ‘bubble’ of HyR that we forget that our comments, when not carefully explicated, can be taken to mean something entirely different — and entirely awful — by our ideological opponents.

          2. I think his meaning was implicit in his first sentence:

            That is because the majority of campus “rapes” are not rape in any meaningful sense of the term because the woman consents to the acts at the moment they are occurring.

            Seems that pretty much excludes unconscious women.

            1. Bah! You expect people to read and comprehend someone’s ENTIRE statement before getting up on their high horse and commenting critically about it. That’s for amateurs!

        2. Lolz, wine coolers. Anybody else remember Zima? I still don’t know why that didn’t stick around, chicks loved it.

          1. It lingered for 15 years and was finally killed off by Smirnoff Ice.

    3. In this brave new world women will no longer be bound by consent they’ve given in the past. No more poor decision making to regret later. Have a change of heart or mind on down the road? Just scream rape and all will be made well again.

      Of course, it’s not difficult to see great fault with that strategy. And not just for the poor bastard who is wrongfully branded sex offender for all eternity, but in the long run the pathological self deception can’t be healthy for the accuser either.

    4. “That is because the majority of campus “rapes” are not rape in any meaningful sense of the term because the woman consents to the acts at the moment they are occurring.”

      And you are basing this off of … what exactly?

      Pulling statistics out of your ass is no better when done by a libertarian than a left-wing feminist.

  6. Signed legal consent forms. So much for spontaneity. For people who base every choice they ever make in life solely upon their feelings and emotions it would stand to reason that progs would at least have a vague idea how worthwhile sex works. They do not. Which may explain a lot of their bizarre beliefs, behaviors and demands; chronic sexual frustration.

    1. She signed while she was drunk. Inadmissible.

      His drunkenness, however, only increases his guilt.

    2. A state or university issued conswnt to have sex spermit

  7. But I’m not remotely persuaded that more guns would mean less rape

    Jennifer Spencer, however, believes they can be used for vengeance against rapists:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_Impact

    1. Day of the Woman, aka I Spit on Your Grave.

  8. How about we start prosecuting young women who make demonstrably false Rape charges? Think THAT might knock the number of rape accusations on the head?

    Or we could just decide that, since women are too weak minded and silly to absorb th consequences of their actions if they go out and get blotto, they shouldn’t have the vote and might be better off as chattle.

    1. But prosecuting false accusers would make real rape victims reluctant to come forward…somehow.
      /femsplaining

      1. Actually it would.

        The realproblem is that most false rape claims are not the sort we see at UVA where the story was made up whole cloth and even cases like mattress girls where the sex happened and one of the two of them are lying about it is the minority of them.

        The majority are cases where she legitimately believes that she was raped and he legitimately believes that it was consentual

        1. If it comes down to he-said / she-said, and nobody else knows for sure what happened, that’s not a “demonstrably false” accusation. That would mean overwhelming evidence that the accusation was a deliberate lie.

          Granted, such cases aren’t the norm – but prosecution of known liars would be a deterrent to making false claims, because you might get caught. With little to no effect on legitimate accusations and the merely questionable ones based on misunderstanding of actual events: if something happened, no one can prove it didn’t, and the accuser is safe. You can either prove it did happen, or not easily be able to tell one way or the other, depending on evidence quantity and quality. Neither situation would be classified as a known false accusation.

          The standard would not be to prosecute accusers in trials that ended “not guilty.” The standard would be to prosecute them when there is strong evidence that they intentionally filed a false police report and/or committed perjury, and convict if that evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, like any other criminal trial.

      2. “Prosecuting false accusers would make real rape fraud victims reluctant to come forward.”

        I know that most of these arguments are offered by people whose driving motivation in life is rage and the self-justification that comes with it, but that’s as embarrassing an anti-justice argument as it gets.

        If you harm someone, it’s a tort. If you don’t want to get a successful tort thrown at you, don’t offer false accusations (or, here in the real world, accusations that a reasonable person would be overwhelmingly likely to consider to be false).

    2. Women are fully equal, capable, proud and productive people, right up until they are frail and vulnerable creatures, incapable of most important decision making and lacking responsibility for their actions.

      How can you not see that?

  9. There are plenty of good reasons why students might wish to bring guns on campus; many who walk to class have to pass through crime-ridden areas of town and would feel safer if armed.

    Will all due respect Robby, if you need to carry to feel safe in an area, it’s a place to avoid period. Carrying is for those places you feel safe, like a parking garage on campus or the school library, for those (forgive me) black swan events.

    1. A lot of big east coast schools are in horrible neighborhoods. Penn and Temple are both in the ghetto. Brown is in a shitty neighborhood. The entire city of New Haven, where Yale is located, is a ghetto. Catholic is in a shitty part of Washington, though it is slowly filling with hipsters and gays (not sure if that is any better). Some students can’t avoid bad neighborhoods.

      1. Well, it does make sense. College students aren’t known for having a lot of cash, and they’re going to want to live close to school. This creates demand for low-rent housing, which then devolves into a generally shitty neighborhood as low-lives rent these cheap apartments meant for students.

        1. And campus is often seen as a soft-target for criminals. My university is nowhere near a bad part of town, but with a bunch of kids wandering around with thousands of dollars worth of electronics and not paying attention to their surroundings, we have a pretty decent number of muggings and vehicle smash-and-grabs. And the rapes and attempted rapes on campus that are made public usually don’t involve two students.

          1. When I lived in Boulder, stealing bicycles was big business. It was not uncommon to see flatbed trucks stacked with presumably stolen bikes. Cops didn’t even pretend to care. Even happened to me. I left a bar and went to get my bike, but found nothing but a broken U-lock. I looked around and saw down the street a truck with a bunch of bikes on it. A female voice mockingly said “Are you looking for your bike? Hehehehe.” So I called the cops, telling them that there was a truck full of stolen bikes being loaded up as I looked on. The dispatcher laughed at me and then hung up.

            1. Yup. Exact same stuff happens here and the campus cops don’t even try and stop it. In fact, about 7 or 8 years ago, some thieves came on campus with a panel van and a pneumatic cutter. Dressed in overalls and carrying clipboards, they stole hundreds of bikes in a single day. Anyone that questioned them were directed to contact the campus police.

              The university’s response was to ban people from riding bikes on central campus and move all the bike racks to the edges of campus, making them easier to steal.

              Academia is impossible to parody.

              1. These are the same cops who, when it became a short-lived fad to walk with a decorative cane, confiscated the canes from the kids, claiming that they were weapons. They made a big deal out of it, calling the fad a threat to society. But actual crimes like theft? Meh.

                1. These are the same cops who, when it became a short-lived fad to walk with a decorative cane, confiscated the canes from the kids, claiming that they were weapons. … But actual crimes like theft? Meh.

                  Actual criminals might be dangerous people. Surely you’re not suggesting that these “heroes in blue” risk not making it home to their families? College kid hipsters trying to look “cool” by walking around with canes, OTOH…

                  I’ve also noticed over the years that cops in college towns love hassling college students. Probably because most cops either couldn’t afford to go to college, or more likely were too dumb to get into college. So they take out their frustrations on those who are able to go to college.

              2. Academia is impossible to parody.

                Academic administrations are the germ for Gilliam’s Brazil.

                Cowardly, bumbling, incompetent, ass-covering, with spines of overcooked pasta, willing to cede to any demand from any shrieking collectivist, no matter how ridiculous or meek, while still expecting total control and compliance with their endless rules and diktats.

          2. My brother had his Jeep Wrangler broken into repeatedly in Rolla, MO. Even in the country at an engineering school, he kept having to have his top fixed because people would knife their way in and steel his stereo, and other stuff. Eventually had to sell it to get an SUV without a soft top. You speak the truth.

        2. What Sugar Free said. They don’t have cash but they always have things like lap tops and Iphones that are easy to fence. And of course they are easy marks.

      2. “Catholic is in a shitty part of Washington, though it is slowly filling with hipsters and gays”

        I got mugged whilst walking from the dining hall to my dorm, which has since been torn down because it was off the main campus and thus vulnerable.

        Fucker had a knife, I didn’t have a gun, thanks to DC’s stupid laws.

      3. Penn and Temple are both in the ghetto

        Yes to Temple, but the area around Penn is gentrifying and no where near as bad as it used to be.

        1. Penn and Teller are both in Vegas.

    2. Of course, an adult doesn’t need a “good reason” to carry a gun.

      “Because I want to” is more than sufficient.

      1. FYTW can be a force for good too.

  10. The thing to remember about Ezra Klein is that is a complete mediocrity. He has nothing to offer the world except his ability to lick the boots of the powerful and give the party line. If Klein had even an ounce of integrity, he would be a below average assistant manager at a Staples somewhere. All he brings to the world is a utter and complete lack of shame or integrity in support of the cause. So of course he tries to have it both ways with the one in five statistic. If he didn’t, he might have to actually write or say something interesting.

    1. It’s like a gay porn actor being told he’s Oscar material just because of his lack of a gag reflex.

      1. He is a “wonk” Sugar Free. Wonk is what they call the retarded kids in Washington these days.

        1. Wonk: An expert who studies a subject or issue thoroughly and excessively.

          Has anyone who actually is a “wonK’ been called a “wonk”? Or do they think “wonk” is an alt spelling of “shill”?

          1. It is like scientists you see on TV. They are rarely particularly great scientists. Actual great scientists are generally too busy doing science to want to fuck around with going on TV. It is the same way in every field. People who are actual experts in say the business of health care are out making their fortune running hospitals and insurance companies. People who are actual experts in Constitutional Law are out working for the Solicitor General or some big law firm. The people who write about those subjects are non entities who don’t know enough to make a living doing it.

            1. “Those who can’t do, report.”

              1. “Those who can’t do, teach.”

                “Those who can’t teach, profess.”

                1. Those who can’t teach, go into marketing.

            2. and yet, their mediocrity allows for a handsome living.

            3. Klein is more of a Twonk.

              1. You misspelled ‘Twink’.

        2. I thought “wonk” meant “wannabe politician who has the charisma of a turnip and therefore can never win an election, so instead they pass themselves off as an ‘expert’ in some political topic or field and get jobs writing idiotic tripe aimed at fellow true believers.”

  11. Shulevitz’s solution is a terrible one that threatens to further muddle the collegiate adjudication process for sexual assault that needs to get less complicated.

    Like this sentence, am I right?!

  12. What “Campus Rape Crisis”?

    Seriously, there isn’t a crisis, this is a media invention. Crime is down across the board, including rape. You’re welcome.

    1. While I dislike the media myself, amd think them capable of almost any enormity, this one isn’t theirs. This is the creation of the Feministas; the Feminists who dragged the Womens’ Movement so far to the political Left that convincing young women that they are fragile flowers who desperately need special privileges is the only way they can get young women to lsiten to them anymore.

      1. This is the creation of the Feministas…

        Sure, like Alex Jones created the “9/11 was an inside job”.

        The difference is that the media has openly and actively propagandized on behalf of one group, while (correctly) ignoring the other.

        So sure, the media didn’t create the lies, but they are absolutely responsible for their widespread belief.

    2. this is about relevance and it’s playing out across the SJW spectrum. The feminists had to invest rape culture, the civil rights crowd had to invent white privilege, and the gayz think forcing someone to bake them a cake is persuasion.

      In the case of the gays, the backlash is coming a bit faster but it’s hitting the other two groups, too. It just does not dawn on the warriors that calling people racists or sexists might go over well.

    3. Bingo. It’s unfortunate that even journalists who contest the ‘epidemic’ narrative still feel the need to give due deference to this bullshit, lest they be tarred as ‘rape deniers.’ Even when the statistics supporting the ‘crisis’ have been properly skewered. Even when the most high-profile cases used to peddle the narrative have been thoroughly debunked. Even when recent studies have shown that college campuses are statistically safer for young women than the outside environment.

    4. It just dawned on me that the campus rape hysteria sounds similar to all the day care abuse hysteria of the early 90’s.

      These things really are no different than the witch hunts of old.

      1. 1980s – razor blades in Halloween candy!

  13. I don’t think more women carrying would make a profound difference, but I feel if a woman was known to own a gun and knows how to use it it might make a potential date rapist think twice to avoid reprisals.

  14. 🙂 Robby, the incidence of rape decreased in E-V-E-R-Y state that has passed a shall issue CC law. Your argument is a non sequitur.

    1. “kyle_r_hudson|2.20.15 @ 10:46AM|#

      🙂 Robby, the incidence of rape decreased in E-V-E-R-Y state that has passed a shall issue CC law.”

      You could have simply said,

      the incidence of rape has decreased in every state”…. whether or not there was any CC law.

      If you’re referring to the John Lott studies on impact of concealed carry… they were done 1977-1997. not saying they’re irrelevant, but they’re not exactly either fresh, or reflective of the massive declines in overall crime around the country in places with or without concealed carry laws.

  15. Liberals say guns won’t mitigate college rape, and they’re right[…] But I’m not remotely persuaded that more guns would mean less rape, for the simple reason that the kinds of rape most prevalent at colleges are unlikely to be prevented by guns.

    How about the less prevalent kind of rape? Doesn’t the word mitigation imply a reduction?

    And if so, then wouldn’t it be true that potential victims of the less prevalent kind of rape – perpetrated by an outside person or an unknown assailant – could have a better chance of avoiding an attack or deterring an attack by carrying a gun for protection?

    If you agree to these things, then the contention that the little red Marxians are right is clearly wrong and contradictory. They can’t be right and slightly wrong at the same time on this particular issue.

    Logic – it’s wonderful.

    1. How about the less prevalent kind of rape?

      You and i hit on exactly the same point here.

      Robby seems to be saying,

      “Guns wont’ help prevent the uniquely un-preventable dynamic of the majority of ‘campus rape’ (which doesn’t actually resemble anything people commonly think of when the term ‘rape’ is used)”

      … while ignoring that “the old-fashioned, ‘real-rapey-rape’-style of rape *does still happen* – and that guns very much DO help prevent that sort of thing.

      Its basically claiming ‘this campus sort of rape is special and unique’…

      (which, as i note = probably deserves a different *name* then)

      …’and guns won’t help stop that‘.

      Well, fine. *So what*? Does that mean the small number of ‘violent assaults’ that turn into rape are to be ignored as ‘meaningless’?

      As has been said many times before – this emphasis on elevating ‘regretted campus sex’ to ‘rape’ simply devalues and marginalizes the actual violent-crime of “capital-R” Rape, which still happens, and pretends that its ‘less of a problem’, despite it being the more-preventable kind, apparently.

  16. I’m surprised at the anti-gun statements here, of all places. Affirms my belief that libertarians don’t really know what they believe half the time.

    1. Those are not libertarians, TeeJaw.

      1. To be clear, I fully support concealed carry on campus. There are plenty of good reasons why students might wish to bring guns on campus; many who walk to class have to pass through crime-ridden areas of town and would feel safer if armed. For others who are legally entitled to carry virtually anywhere but a college campus, the rule against bringing their guns with them when they set foot on college grounds is inconvenient and unnecessary.

        -Robby Soave, rabid anti-gun “libertarian”

        1. Re: SugarFree,

          Tony and American Stolid are not libertarians.

          1. If TeeJaw is criticizing commenters, then let him say so or reply to them. Posting like this looks like it is directed at Soave.

            1. Posting like this looks like it is directed at Soave.

              Or a general comment directed at everyone and meant to elicit a response. IOW trolling.

      2. Admit it OM, he got us. None of us here own or carry guns. In fact most of us think second amendment should only apply to flintlocks. The cat is out of the bag.

        1. Not in New Jersey.

          1. i feel bad for the guy but, come on. Why collect guns in a state that is so anti-gun?

            1. I don’t think it occurred to him that this particular antique was a gun of the scary useful variety that all good progs know should be banned. From various articles I’ve seen, he collects historical memorabilia not guns per se.

            2. Why even live in a state that is so anti-gun?

              Of course I am not one to talk as I currently live in NY, but at least I can buy long guns – well, mostly – without a lot of hassle.

              1. How many states are more anti-gun that NY? Four?

            3. Most people don’t understand how petty prosecutors or police can be until they fall under their power. Your average American doesn’t hang out in libertarian echo chambers where this stuff is taken for granted.

    2. Other than Tony’s, where are the “anti-gun” statements? Robby is pro-carry, even if he doesn’t think it’ll reduce the types of sexual assaults that occur on campuses. But that’s not “anti-gun.”

    3. I suspect you’re a drive-by, but I’ll humor you — where exactly are these dastardly anti-gun statements? Provide your source. Because as far as I see, the only one making such statements in this thread is the guy named ‘american socialist.

      1. I’m going to bet he’s an interloper from Hot Air, or maybe even Instapundit.

    4. Wasn’t an anti-gun statement. If you read the article, he says that a gun wouldn’t effect the rate of incidents of rape because of the way most rapes occur. This is very different from saying that people shouldn’t have guns because it wouldn’t reduce the rate of campus rapes.

      Affirms my belief that people who aren’t libertarians don’t really comprehension or universal principles.

  17. Shulevitz’s solution is a terrible one that threatens to further muddle the collegiate adjudication process for sexual assault that needs to get less complicated.

    “We can’t have Star Chambers if we preoccupy ourselves too much with procedure and the rule of law! So, OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”

  18. I think someone needs to start trolling these idiots by proposing that female college student not be allowed in public without either an older female escort or a male escort who is a blood relation. If female college students were always under the supervision and protection of an older male relative or a responsible older female, the campus rape problem would virtually disappear.

    1. It might not be a bad idea for the women to cover themselves up a bit as well. After all, men just can’t help themselves when they see some skin or hair. It drives them into a frenzy. And it’s the woman’s fault.

      1. No, cover up everyone. That way the rapist might rape a guy, freeing said rapist from the mind-control of the patriarchy and punishing the rapee for being a man.

        1. This all seems unnecessarily complicated. Why not just decree everyone have their eyes removed when they arrive on campus and return them upon graduation?

      2. They could design some sort of special head-to-toe concealing garment to protect them from the Male Gaze. I wonder what what this garment might be called…

        1. May I interest you in a burqini for all of your modest swimwear needs?

          1. I actually enjoy wearing burqas. There is no finer garment on the planet for anonymity, sun protection, and concealed carry. You can walk around with a .50 cal rifle under there and no one is the wiser. Also you can be buck naked, sporting really bad hair, and not wearing a lick of makeup. It’s a real time saver.

          2. Oh and aside from the bad fit, how is this different than a full body wetsuit?

            1. My understanding is that it’s like a double layer rash guard. The first layer clings to your skin and the second layer hangs loosely and makes your formlessly modest. It’s a much lighter material than wetsuits generally are.

  19. “Guns won’t stop campus rape”

    They won’t? But, I’ve been taught that the 2nd amendment is the solution to all problems. Have a crazed gunman in a movie theater? No problem. Start a firefight in a crowded, blackened room. Concerned about fights in a drunken bar? Bring handguns to solve disputes. Have a problem with acne? Guns will fix that too. Shoot that blackhead off with your 9 mm. Geez, Robby, why do you write this Ceasefire propaganda?

    1. Guns are the solution to murdering millions of undesirables and enemies of the state, though, aren’t they, comrade?

      1. His only objection is that they are charged for the bullet used to shoot them. Being murdered by your government should be free. Tax the 1%!

    2. Re: American Stolid,

      They won’t?

      I already established the flaw in that logic above, Stolid.

      Start a firefight in a crowded, blackened room.

      Is a firefight inherently worse than a massacre, Stolid?

      Little red Marxians prove once again their creepy hold to irrationality.

      1. Only government can legitimately use force. That means self defense is vigilantism.

        1. I don’t really give a crap whether the nation that dropped two atomic bombs on cities full of civilians, launched a genocidal war in Vietnam, and an imperialist war in Iraq continues to exist or not. I’m just not sure that a partisan army of ayn rand worshippers armed with handguns is going to be effective at taking on a military with nuclear weapons nor am I convinced that mandating health insurance or raising the tax rate on rich people from 36 to 39% is casus belli.

          1. Mmmmmmmm…that’s some good derp!

          2. I must say, those are some wonderful counterarguments to arguments that I’ve never seen anyone make! Bravo! You set that strawman straight!

            1. “Arguments I’ve never seen anyone make!”

              You haven’t heard arguments that 65% of the population believes?

              http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..st_tyranny

              1. Protection against tyranny does not necessarily mean fighting the military. Even if it did, the military can’t win without “boots on the ground,” and our government is not going to use nukes on it’s own soil. That means going house to house with guns. If every house had armed people fighting back, then the military would quickly lose by attrition alone. That’s assuming that soldiers would follow orders to kill their fellow Americans, which isn’t necessarily a good assumption.

          3. Re: American Stolid,

            I’m just not sure that a partisan army of ayn rand worshippers armed with handguns is going to be effective at taking on a military with nuclear weapons

            Stolid ignores how the Mujahideen took on the whole might of the Soviet Army. Last I remember, the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons…

            It is also quite revealing how Stolid, like other little red Marxians, justify the disarmament of a population because “what difference does it make, right?”

            1. LOL. Yeah, they battled the Soviet Union with their hunting rifles AND billions of dollars of military equipment from the USA. There sure are a lot of libertarians who like limited government and a government that transfers billions of dollars in weapons to religious radicals half way around the world.

              Who is arguing about disarming the population? I think you should be able to buy and possess a gun subject to licensing requirement and that local communities that don’t want guns in their neighborhoods should be able to regulate these laws as they see fit– up to and including prohibition.

              I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on buying a gun so why should I care if the government regulates gun purchases? You know, kind of like the way some people on this website talk about abortion rights.

              1. I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on buying a gun so why should I care if the government regulates gun purchases?

                Tyrants love people like you.

              2. I guess local communities who do not want black people in their neighborhoods should ” should be able to regulate these laws as they see fit– up to and including prohibition”, right?

              3. Put a sign out on your lawn (or on the door of your apt) that says, NO GUNS INSIDE

          4. You think a government and military with nuclear weapons that wouldn’t use them against islamo-fascist insurgents and an Iraqi populace they obviously don’t care about would use nuclear weapons against their own tax cattle on their own soil?

          5. Where in Vietnam were the American-operated death camps?

      2. Actual Marxists are as opposed to gun control as we are:

        Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

        The common “socialist” is just a majoritarian nationalist who finds it inconvenient to say so.

        1. Hi, maybe you should tip off some of your fellow “libertarians” who casually toss around Marxist as the worst conceivable epithet that Marx and Engels advocated a political system where the state would wither away.

          “Majoritarian nationalist”

          Ridiculous. I’m many things. A nationalist is not one of them.

          1. Hush.

          2. When the state withers away, how is the coercive tax system going to be enforced? Or have you eugenicized the libertarian genes out of humanity? (For attempts at this, see Stalin and Mao).

    3. But, I’ve been taught that the 2nd amendment is the solution to all problems.

      I’m sorry yours parents were such horrible people to teach you lethal violence is an acceptable answer to any problem no matter how slight. You should seek counseling.

      To help ease your fears of others, please know that your particular upbringing is far from normal. Most parents who are legal gun owners and also introduce their children to guns do so in very strict and responsible ways.

      And while I know this seems very foreign to you, given all you’ve been taught, but should your deep personal problems really be a guiding reason to control others lives?

      Seriously, if a man shouldn’t have to pay for the sins of their father, why do you think 325+ million should pay for the sins of your morally bankrupt and psychopathically violent family?

  20. Maybe I’m late, but….speaking of colleges in shitty neighborhoods, the area around the University of Chicago is dangerously scary. There was a takeout fried chicken place near our apartment where everthing was behind bulletproof glass, including a little rotating carousel to take your money and give you your order…the carousel was made of bullet proof glass too.

    1. scary neighborhood with a fried chicken place.
      **thinks briefly, confers with panel**

      RACIST!!

      1. But also, can I get directions?

  21. Maybe we should use the hysterics’ own premises against them and begin asserting anyone against warning women to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves is advocating rape.

  22. Nelson, who works for Klein, explained in her takedown of the gun solution that the 1-in-5 statistic was “probably inaccurate.” And Klein knows this?or should know this?because he even tweeted her article.

    Fake but accurate…No, wait. Um, accurate but fake?

  23. “Students often aren’t aware they are being raped until the next morning?or long after the incident has passed.”

    That’s because… that’s NOT RAPE.

    Let’s look at a definition of rape, shall we?

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
    says: “unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.”

    Consent is not something you can revoke after the fact – that becomes revisionist history.

    If you consent, then regardless of your remorse after the fact, you *did* consent.

    I agree conceptually with the idea of “yes means yes”. Unless you tell the guy – or girl – that you don’t want to have sex, you are consenting. Not saying anything, but going along “in the heat of the moment” is tacit consent.

    Personally, though, I’d flip that around and go with “no means no” – and, moreso, “anything EXCEPT ‘yes’, means NO. That is, I suspect, where we’re headed as a society – because it’s better affirmation that you do or do not want to participate.

    1. I think he’s referring to incapacitation.

  24. And what, exactly, is the “reasonable-person” test?

    Why does it not surprise me that a New Republic writer would be flummoxed by the notion of a reasonable person?

  25. “the kinds of rape most prevalent at college”

    Are there really “kinds of rape”? Is that sort of like being “mostly pregnant”?

    For college kids, they really do seem to have a particularly limited vocabulary.

  26. Ugh. Really, Reason? Wow. Just. Wow. I can’t even. You guys this is SOOO problematic I don’t even know where to begin. No words.

    1. +1 Gawker reader.

      But. Still. Needs. More. Dramatic.

      I mean this is so very i can’t even

    2. You keep post the same inarticulate waffle. What do you hope to achieve?

  27. Are there really “kinds of rape”?

    Your mundane reliance on conventional definitions is charming, in a primitive sort of way. Get with the program.

    “Rape” encompasses a riotous profusion of emotional slights and social degradations.

    1. “”Rape” encompasses a riotous profusion of emotional slights and social degradations.”

      In France, we call it “a first date”!

      1. Ahahahahahaha… You guys and your jokes about rape. Are you still having problems getting chicks to go to your libertarian conventions? Some of those guys there look like they could use a pity fuck.

        1. “libertarian conventions”

          Never heard of them. What were you doing there?

          1. Eh… I’m not invited. I think Obama is actually a good President and I haven’t gotten behind the gay marriage and abortion restricting Rand Paul Campaign for Freedom Club. They’d probably show me the exit door on the Koch mansion in 15 minutes or so.

            1. So, “all in your head” then. Got it.

            2. Do you feel he should give back his Nobel Peace Prize in light of authoriIng the murder of hundreds of innocent moms and kids via drone strike?

  28. While I attended a rural college a girl was abducted and raped. If she was carrying a weapon she probably would have gotten away.

    Not all rapes at college are of the drunk sex type. Many of them are forcible – especially in “urban” areas – one happened recently at Georgia State University – a downtown atlanta commuter university in one of the parking decks – it could have been prevented by a weapon.

    So once again – reason has posted an article which is completely falacious in its central premise. I really wish reason would screen these articles to see if the agrument actually makes any sense BEFORE they post it. Otherwise they look as stupid as Yahoo(which is pretty bad).

    1. Follow the logic =

      “I’m not remotely persuaded that more guns would mean less rape

      Ok.

      “…for the simple reason that the kinds of rape most prevalent at colleges are unlikely to be prevented by guns”

      1) how would reductions of the ‘less prevalent’, more-likely-to-be-prevented-by-guns ‘Kind Of Rape’ NOT still be ‘less rape’?

      2) When you say, “unlikely” – that’s implying a claim to some knowledge of probabilities. What data does anyone have to make this assessment, and can it be shared? IOW – what basis does anyone have to suggest that the ‘less rapey-kind-of-rape’ is entirely unaffected by a person’s self-defense capability?

      Take ‘guns’ away – If ‘college-style-rape’* unaffected by guns… how about pepper spray? Rape Whistles? RAPE GUARD DOGS? BEDROOM CAMERAS?

      I’m not making a pro-gun argument so much as pointing out that the position being taken is just so much arbitrary conclusion-asserting.

      Never mind that ‘campus rape’ is being defined as such a amorphous and impossible-to-prevent thing that the issue is entirely moot to begin with.

    2. Not all rapes at college are of the drunk sex type. Many of them are forcible…

      First, I’m a firm believer in the right to own and carry a gun. As others have stated, I think any adult who wants to carry should and “because I want to” or “it’s none of your business why” are perfectly acceptable reasons for doing so.

      However, all real rape is “forcible”, but if by forcible you mean to imply stranger rape, that’s not the case. In the vast majority of crimes (I believe 90% range), the perpetrator is known to the victim. This is true of rape, murder, burglary, etc, etc, etc.

      If that wasn’t the implication, ignore me, but if it was, I think “many” is inaccurate.

  29. So once again – reason has posted an article which is completely falacious in its central premise.

    DRINK!

  30. Look. I’m a liberal. I believe the 1 in 5 statistic is dubious and that the rape epidemic on college campuses is very much exaggerated. Our most privileged population in the world does not require this kind of political attention, nor do they deserve their outrageous mandates. This IS the fault of our current administration. I don’t feel rape is ever okay, but to create a witch-hunt like environment on campuses is not the way to solve the problem. In reading about arming young women to stop campus sexual assault, I feel sad. Do we really want guns and stand your ground laws on our college campuses? Also, I agree that the liberals who demand yes means yes legislation and lowering the burden of proof for the accused are equally messed up. What about innocent until proven guilty? What about our most cherished principles of justice and due process? What I find interesting is that the far left and the far right are very much the same- they are both illiberal. They both want to deal with young men who are accused by assuming guilt and stripping them of due process-making it ok to shoot first and ask questions later.

    1. Do we really want guns and stand your ground laws on our college campuses?

      Admin could mandate that college students may not wear bike helmets, but that doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea either.

    2. Do we really want guns and stand your ground laws on our college campuses?

      With all due respect, I think you should turn this question around and rethink your current stance. IE:

      Do we really want college campuses to be a place where the rights given to all other adults cease to exist there?

      Should college kids adults have fewer legal abilities to protect themselves than the general public?

      Should certain rights adults have stop at campus boundaries? If so, is the 2nd the only one students should lose? Why not the 1st, or 5th? Or 4th (what’s left of it on campuses anyway)?

      1. I get your point, but I am a liberal by nature and do not support open carry gun laws. Seeing someone in public carrying a gun makes me very uncomfortable, and I feel that violates my right to feel safe. My sons will never attend a college where guns are permitted on campus. Not ever. But I do see your point.

        1. Seeing someone in public carrying a gun makes me very uncomfortable

          You have no reason to fear Officer Friendly.

  31. But I’m not remotely persuaded that more guns would mean less rape, for the simple reason that the kinds of rape most prevalent at colleges are unlikely to be prevented by guns.

    But of course, not all rapes are they type you describe, and the type you ignore is precisely where guns might help. Indeed, the mere idea that a victim might be armed has deterred some 40% of criminal attacks (Wright Rossi report).

  32. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……
    http://www.wixjob.com

  33. $$$ rolex cash system $$$
    how to turn $10 into $10,000 in 7 days online
    discover a bullet-proof,5-step
    formula for injection your bank
    account with absurds windfalls
    of cold hard cash
    Feel FREE To Check This Out Here:.. .

    ——??? http://www.netpay20.com

  34. There is some deep wisdom to combining heavy alcohol consumption and target practice. I wish I knew what it was.

  35. I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link
    Try it, you won t regret it!.

    ?????? http://www.netjob70.com

  36. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    == .. http://WWW.JOBSBLAZE.COM

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.