Ideology and reality have been known to have some ugly collisions, but rarely is the scene of the crash as bloody as when gun control zealotry T-bones common sense. It's been happening a lot lately in Colorado, where rigid anti-Second Amendment ideology has led the control freaks to say some simply amazing things on the subject of campus rape and self-defense.
The problem is that ideology dictates no private citizen can be trusted with a firearm, and encouraging anyone to purchase such a weapon is therefore an affront to State-guaranteed public safety. The notable failure of the State to guarantee such safety does not dissuade them. (Ideology is not about scientifically testing and discarding hypotheses - it's about bludgeoning reality until it conforms to pre-determined conclusions.) This failure is not entirely the "fault" of the State, which employs many people who would very much like to be on the scene to intervene when a rapist or murderer goes after innocent citizens. But it just doesn't work that way. There are too many dark corners in even the most brightly-lit metropolis, too many occasions when predators can have a private moment with their prey.
That's how we've ended up with the Colorado legislature insisting that women don't need guns to protect themselves, when they've got such ready access to whistles, harsh language, urine, spit, vomit, ballpoint pens, government-designated "safe zones," and similar useless implements of self-defense. The screamingly obvious (and I do mean "screamingly") value of firearms as an equalizer between women and large, aggressive male assailants must be ignored, for the self-esteem of Big Government hangs in the balance.
Standing up to challenge this idiocy is Amanda Collins, who is a walking, and thankfully talking, one-woman refutation of gun control extremism. Six years ago, she was brutally raped in a gun-free "safe zone" at the University of Nevada in Reno, by an assailant who cheerfully lugged his own gun into the safe zone, correctly viewing it as a target-rich environment of forcibly disarmed innocent women. The attack occurred only a few hundred yards from a campus police office. Colllins is a martial arts student - another avenue of self-defense advocated by the gun control nuts, many of whom also drink deeply from feminist ideology - but she was taken by surprise and overpowered by her much larger attacker.
Her attacker went on to murder a subsequent victim, and is now parked on Death Row. Collins is confident that she could have prevented this murder, if she had been allowed to defend herself effectively.
What in the world does even the most ideologically blinkered gun-control extremist lunatic say to someone like Amanda Collins? This: "You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experienced in Tae Kwon Do, and yet because this individual was so large, 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 that from you and possibly use it against you."
Thus spake Democrat state senator Evie Hudak, unwittingly deploying an irresistible argument against the women-in-combat policies pushed by the Obama Administration, and even the employment of female police officers. Even women who know kung fu will be swiftly disarmed by male aggressors and murdered with their own weapons! How can we trust any little lady anywhere to pack heat? Even if women followed Vice President Joe Biden's dimwitted advice and fired double-barreled shotguns in the air to intimidate trespassers, they'd be overpowered and blown away with the shell sitting in the other barrel. (And if they survived, they would be arrested for following Biden's advice, which is either a felony or misdemeanor in most states.)
This lunacy is by no means limited to Colorado. The enterprising guerrilla filmmakers of James O'Keefe's Project Veritas decided to bring hidden cameras into the police stations in various gun-free utopias and ask for advice on gun-free self-defense. After being assured that the odds of police rescue from violent attackers were not good, they were advised to scream, lock themselves in the bathroom, throw bleach or ammonia on their attackers, scream, and think about getting an attack dog.
We can quote gun statistics and the effect of concealed-carry laws upon violent crime at the gun control nuts all day, and it won't make any difference. Neither do they care about the soaring rates of violent crime that invariably follow disarmament of the populace, everywhere in the world. And don't even try lecturing them on the relationship between armed citizens and government tyranny, because everybody knows that irregular armed resistance against a modern high-tech government army is impossible. Just ask the Taliban.
No, these people have made up their minds, and Amanda Collins poignantly illuminated their conclusions by asking, "I don't understand why [the government] rusts 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."
They don't really trust you with that gun across the street either, Ms. Collins. They don't trust you at all, and it goes far beyond your right to carry a firearm... but that serves as a useful proxy for the contempt held by the acolytes of the total State for its childlike subjects. You're supposed to be content with the business opportunities they allow, the necessities they provide, and the protection they offer. Inalienable rights are just arbitrary restrictions to the power of benevolent government, and the idea of such senseless limits to compassionate power drives its devout followers more than a little crazy. If women are really concerned about personal protection, they should do the sensible thing and run for public office, so they can get their own security detail. Otherwise, keep your Clorox handy, and try to disarm your attacker with witty repartee.