Forum Thread

College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist

DJPlayer 10,627 690 February 21, 2013 at 09:20 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/jus...index.html

Quote :
College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist

(CNN) -- A Colorado school has caused a stir with an advisory that suggested women could urinate or vomit to deter a rape.

The list of 10 tips by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs was billed as "last resort" options to deter a sexual assault.

"Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," read one tip.
"Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone," read another.
By Tuesday night, the list was taken down and replaced by an explanation and an apology. But it was too late.

Last week, Colorado lawmakers debated legislation that would ban firearms in college campus buildings. The debate made headlines after Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar made controversial statements about ways to protect women on campuses, stating:

Quote :
"It's why we have call boxes. It's why we have safe zones. That's why we have the whistles, because you just don't know who you're going to be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're going to be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody."
Self defense via urination, puke, menstruation etc.. laugh out loud

696 Comments

7 8 9 10 11

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
17,507 Posts
1,013 Reputation
#121
Quote from JackHandey View Post :

What's been made clear in the multitude of studies is that concealed carry does not increase crime, and that there is a VERY low incidence of misconduct with CCW holders.
If everyone in New York and Oakland could carry a concealed pistol without a permit, there would be people killing each other right and left. So how about if you show us your "multitude of studies"?

If guns are outlawed, the police can arrest the outlaws who carry them about in America's cities.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2007
2 tickets to the gun show
15,586 Posts
1,154 Reputation
#122
Quote from Rebound View Post :
If everyone in New York and Oakland could carry a concealed pistol without a permit, there would be people killing each other right and left.
New York and Oakland are full of crazy people who are one step away from killing each other and so they all should be locked up. Got it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Morons react to Trump winning [youtu.be]
Larry Elder Dismantles The "Systemic Racism Argument" [youtube.com]

2/16/16 - "If it's Hillary vs. Trump, Trump landslide." - me!
7/25/16 - "Trump wins in a landslide." - me again! Dance13

Baby Boomers are the only generation in American history to find virtue in the third-world invasion of their country and displacement of their own grandchildren.

Citizens cheering the destruction of their country by "refugees":

Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations [youtu.be]
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2008
Non-partisan idealogue
2,656 Posts
476 Reputation
#123
Quote from Rebound View Post :
If everyone in New York and Oakland could carry a concealed pistol without a permit, there would be people killing each other right and left.
That's racist!
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2007
L7: Teacher
2,916 Posts
1,952 Reputation
Pro
#124
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
What's been made clear in the multitude of studies is that concealed carry does not increase crime, and that there is a VERY low incidence of misconduct with CCW holders.
Quote from Rebound View Post :
If everyone in New York and Oakland could carry a concealed pistol without a permit, there would be people killing each other right and left. So how about if you show us your "multitude of studies"?

If guns are outlawed, the police can arrest the outlaws who carry them about in America's cities.
Rebound, even if you are right about those people killing each other right and left, that has nothing to do with what you quoted. Note his claim was about people with permits, not just any random person who wants to carry a gun. Permits (in the states where I am familiar with the requirements, anyway) require background checks. People who are likely to kill others right and left can't usually pass those background checks. If non permitted concealed carry is outlawed, the police can arrest the outlaws who carry them about in America's cities. And the law abiding can still have them. Win-win.


I live in a state (Oregon) where concealed carry permit holders are legally allowed to concealed carry on campuses, college and K-12. In the 14 years I have lived here, I don't remember hearing a single story of a ccw permit holder killing someone at a school campus.

Why, if the ccw permit holders of Oregon aren't shooting up schools and using their guns to rape women, should we expect them to in other states if ccw were legal on campus?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by TheWoman February 21, 2013 at 10:35 PM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
17,507 Posts
1,013 Reputation
#125
Quote from Deusxmachina View Post :
New York and Oakland are full of crazy people who are one step away from killing each other and so they all should be locked up. Got it.
No, they should just be banned from carrying weapons in public.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#126
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
That's your opinion; hardly a "fact."
No, it is quite clear. The way you referenced "A well regulated militia" shows you do not understand the meaning as it was written.

Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
Even in Heller, the SCOTUS acknowledged that guns may be regulated.
Perhaps you mean this little gem, or one of the similar excerpts:
Quote :
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Fine, I can't carry concealed everywhere. I can handle a bit of open carry from time to time. And no, felons and the mentally ill shouldn't have firearms. They should be locked up, or in the case of violent felons, have their disposition altered. And yes, some schools and government buildings conducting sensitive business and sweeping all who enter for weapons, that's wonderful. Qualifications and conditions on what's sold? Hell, everything else sold is regulated. I don't see the need for it, but if the government wants to make sure my pistol isn't going to blow up in my face, grand.

Then we get to Miller, which shows what a grand bunch of muddled thinkers the judges can be at times. What weapon isn't dangerous? What new weapon isn't unusual? The revolver was thought terribly unusual. And then the semi-auto pistol! And when they started making them out of plastic, how incredibly odd that was. And on the other hand, if "in common use at the time" is the benchmark we are going for, I shouldn't have an RPG, but an M47 Dragon. And my select fire AR-15 should include auto. But, this is what happens when those with no technical knowledge get to impart their wisdom concerning technical subjects. If they stuck with the philosophy of the law, and left it at the purpose being "for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense" we'd be a lot better off.

Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
Because you don't know how to use it? Stick Out Tongue
Funny guy. I've operated more complicated weapon systems. I'm sure I could figure out a little RPG. But if imagining all us red neck hicks that don't learn so good 'un can't shoot our bang sticks makes you feel safer, awesome. That's what I call a win-win.

Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
It is certainly capable of multiplying any violent intentions.



English, please. Oh, nvm, not even worth trying to understand your ad hominems substituted for lack of an argument.
Come now, there was a good argument there. It was all mixed up together.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#127
Quote from BigBananaMess View Post :
I also see the right to feel safe referenced a lot by anti-gunners. I.e. some woman sees a professionally dressed concealed carrier print while reaching for something on a top shelf and calls the cops b/c he violated her right to feel safe. laugh out loud
Great. Let them do what they have to do to feel safe then. I feel safe keeping an eye on what's going on around me, and having a well stocked home that I can retreat to in time of unrest and disaster. Perhaps these women would feel safer if they had a force equalizer.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
17,507 Posts
1,013 Reputation
#128
Quote from msummers80 View Post :
No, it is quite clear. The way you referenced "A well regulated militia" shows you do not understand the meaning as it was written.
But a militia is clearly a type of army; how does this objective of maintaining an armed force result in a need for individuals to roam the streets carrying guns into the grocery store?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2007
2 tickets to the gun show
15,586 Posts
1,154 Reputation
#129
Quote from TheWoman View Post :
Rebound, even if you are right about those people killing each other right and left, that has nothing to do with what you quoted. Note his claim was about people with permits, not just any random person who wants to carry a gun. Permits (in the states where I am familiar with the requirements, anyway) require background checks. People who are likely to kill others right and left can't usually pass those background checks. If non permitted concealed carry is outlawed, the police can arrest the outlaws who carry them about in America's cities. And the law abiding can still have them. Win-win.
I know you're meeting Rebound on his terms on that one so he is left with no excuses on the matter, but requiring a permit to exercise your Second Amendment rights is still lame.
Quote from Rebound View Post :
No, they should just be banned from carrying weapons in public.
No way. Lock 'em up. People that crazy and dangerous who would shoot up the city just because they can carry a gun shouldn't be on the streets. Lock up everyone in New York and Oakland. They are infringing on my right to feel safe.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Knowledge is power
6,488 Posts
1,745 Reputation
#130
Quote from Rebound View Post :
If everyone in New York and Oakland could carry a concealed pistol without a permit, there would be people killing each other right and left.
hmmm, so why isn't this happening in states that already have such freedoms? How many is "right and left"?

"Among U.S. states, Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. These states also allow the open carry of a handgun without a permit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Click here to feed a hungry animal! [theanimalrescuesite.com]

It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. -Henry Ford
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Knowledge is power
6,488 Posts
1,745 Reputation
#131
Quote from msummers80 View Post :

or in the case of violent felons, have their disposition altered.
can you elaborate?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,197 Posts
269 Reputation
#132
Quote from Rebound View Post :
If everyone in New York and Oakland could carry a concealed pistol without a permit, there would be people killing each other right and left. So how about if you show us your "multitude of studies"?
This is a straw man, as I never said anything about CCW without a permit. However, your assertion speaks to the populations of Oakland and NYC more than it does to the general population. The entire state of Vermont allows concealed carry without a permit. Somehow they have avoided the wild west sort of thing you imply.

I would be happy to provide you with some studies that indicate that concealed carry does not increase violent crime...There are even some that suggest it lowers crime. However, since you are the one asserting that a right should be taken away, how about one of those rare occasions where you actually back up some solid reasoning for holding your position?

Show me that you are actually serious for a change, and I will definitely provide some cites.

Quote :
If guns are outlawed, the police can arrest the outlaws who carry them about in America's cities.
And if sodomy were outlawed, we could arrest sodomites... Were we to outlaw abortion, we could arrest those that perform them, too... So, your assertion is absurd. As things currently stand, law enforcement can already arrest "outlaws"that carry guns.

If law abiding citizens were to have more options/opportunity to carry, I assert that fewer people that would engage in violent crimes would engage in them. The shooters in all of these mass killings of late seem to agree on something; it's much easier to kill large groups of people when you know your targets are unarmed.

I conversely also argue that if business owners or government agencies are going to say that firearms are illegal on their premises, that they need to provide adequate armed protection on the premises to ensure the safety of those that are on property they control. After all, they have determined that they do not want people they do not trust on their premises to be armed, but in so doing they have arbitrarily made a decision to inhibit the ability of those on their premises to protect themselves, and in so doing should have to be held accountable for the safety of those they disarmed.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Personally, I'm interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process. -- James Lileks
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,197 Posts
269 Reputation
#133
Quote from Deusxmachina View Post :
I know you're meeting Rebound on his terms on that one so he is left with no excuses on the matter, but requiring a permit to exercise your Second Amendment rights is still lame.
It sucks, but it also unfortunately makes sense. Those walking around and carrying guns should actually bear the onus of demonstrating that they do know how to use their weapons and the laws concerning CCW shootings.

I believe that Firearms I.D. cards themselves are absurd, as you shouldn't need to be registered to OWN a gun. Being able to walk around and carry one in the public square is a bit different. However, I am also a strong supporter of "shall issue" carry provisions.

Quote :
No way. Lock 'em up. People that crazy and dangerous who would shoot up the city just because they can carry a gun shouldn't be on the streets. Lock up everyone in New York and Oakland. They are infringing on my right to feel safe.
Holy crap, you are responding to Rebound on his own terms here... It's equally off the wall, but also equally valid (or invalid).
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
39,215 Posts
#134
Quote from msummers80 View Post :
I'm hardly admitting defeat. The fact that you don't understand what "a well regulated militia" means doesn't mean you get to assume it means what you'd like to think it means. But feel free to quote any particular court opinion on the issue, and we'll go from there.

I wonder if you are aware that an RPG or any weapon sitting in my home is utterly incapable of inflicting any sort of violence on anyone. Well, with one exception. The weak minded no doubt bear unspeakable violence at the notion such a thing exists.
Hmm... It seems you are of the opinion that the 2A guarantees the right of people to own RPGs. (BTW, yet again I admire your courage and sincerity to say what you think.) If so then it means your understanding of the 2A is not in agreement with that of the SCOTUS. And earlier wrt to "well regulated" you asked for a court opinion. Hmm...

I wish we would once and for all totally and conclusively settle the disagreement around the 2A. If the 2A guarantees the right of the people to have machine guns and RPGs, then so bet it. If the 2A does not guarantee that you can have assault weapons or large clips or own guns with no BGCs or registration, so be it too. Either way then one side could attempt to amend the constitution if they claim their side has popular support. But after that we need to get on with the business of solving our multitudes of other problems.

(BTW, same with abortion.)
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
39,215 Posts
#135
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
As for handguns, Heller did make it pretty clear that handguns are protected. It is also difficult to dispute that without fail these mass shooters are specifically choosing targets that will not fight back, as they stick to places that do not allow guns.
I keep seeing this claim. While I am not inclined to question its validity, I would like to ask for a couple examples of indoor places where there is concentration of people suitable to be targets for nuts with guns and it is not a "gun free zone" -- aside from gun shows, shooting rangers, FFLs...., that is.

In fact didn't a mass shooting happen in a military barrack? Gun free zone?

Question: when Lapierre speaks to rank and file, are guns allowed in the audience? When the NRA board meets, can the audience bring guns with them? Are board members allowed to pack?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 9 of 47
7 8 9 10 11
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2018. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard