Indiana Lawmaker Claims More Guns = Less Campus Rape

Email this to a friend

Nice Move

In a statement to the Associated Press State Senator Jim Banks suggested that the expansion of campus carry allowances is necessary to student safety. However, rather strangely, he specifically extended this argument to reference sexual assault, a realm of crimes where the victim often knows the attacker and, in all likelihood, would probably be pretty hesitant to shoot them.

I think it’s safe to say State Senator Banks is making some logical leaps here that the average person may be uncomfortable with. The good senator has recently begun a push to arm students across the state of Indiana, in a move that he hopes will lower campus crime rates and help prevent sexual assaults.

Banks had this to say on the issue, “That’s what’s compelling about this issue, is how many female students there are around the state, who have very specific and real reasons to be afraid for their own safety on their campus,” he said. “The number of sexual assault cases on campuses is alarming.”

To summarize, his idea to reduce the number of rapes on campuses is to give communities that have thousands of drunk students every weekend guns. This can only end well.

While I agree with the sentiment that more can be done to help prevent sexual assault on our campuses, I think there are about 100 other things you could get to before a literal “War on Rape.” Should this come to pass, I now imagine all future potential sexual assaults playing out like this:

___

(*guy takes girl home, both are visibly intoxicated*)

Drunk Guy: Hey, lesh have shex.

Drunk Girl: Nooooo.

(*drunk guy gets naked anyway*)

(*girl freaks out, pulls her handgun on him, shoot his dick off*)

___

That might not have been the most graceful execution of “The Naked Man,” but it didn’t deserve a bullet to the dick.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am one of the biggest proponents of the second amendment that you will find, but as you can see here in my hastily constructed, poorly reasoned argument which might have been inspired by the esteemed Jim Banks’ hastily constructed, poorly reasoned argument: arming students causes guys to get their dicks shot off by drunk girls. I think it’s probably safer if we don’t legally fill an environment that frequently includes drunk 18-20 somethings, who may become extremely irrational if they get a little too much liquor in them, with firearms.

[via The Huffington Post and SFGate.com]

Image via Bigwowo.com

***

Email this to a friend

Nice Move

Comments

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or create an account.

    • -1
      Bacon

      Ladies and Gentlemen, I am one of the biggest proponents of the second amendment that you will find,

      1) Liberal? Learn to read.

      but as you can see here in my hastily constructed, poorly reasoned argument which might have been inspired by the esteemed Jim Banks’ hastily constructed, poorly reasoned argument: arming students causes guys to get their dicks shot off by drunk girls. I think it’s probably safer if we don’t legally fill an environment that frequently includes drunk 18-20 somethings, who may become extremely irrational if they get a little too much liquor in them, with firearms.

      2) Not being 100% in favor of EVERY.SINGLE.GUN.PROPOSAL. doesn’t make you liberal, but thinking that it does makes you a fucking idiot.

      Get your shit together.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
  1. 28
    Seal Team Six

    I hate this new shit. I don’t know which way to put my arrow because I don’t know whether my post is going to appear above or below the comment I’m trying to reference.

    ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 2
      faffy

      Right or Wrong: The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make sure we the people are able to defend ourselves if the government cannot keep themselves in check. There should be no other interpretations of it. Also, we need 30 round mags and assault rifles to get rid of idiots like you.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 1
      GodisGreatBeerisGood

      tbh if the govt ever turns tyranical then im going up to alaska and gonna see if russia will send some troops over. canada wouldnt be much help but they could help as well. we would have ally with someone else just like we did in the revolution (in that case it was the french).

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 0
      yourfavgeed

      ““This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety … While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

      “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

      “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

      -Ronald Reagan

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 0
      right or wrong

      FUCKING CHRIST I WAS TROLLING i promptly said trolol right after i posted you butthurt fools

      fuck obama and long live out great nation and the second amendment

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 0
      yourfavgeed

      ^^
      When liberals use Reagan for their own political views then disregard his others are just trying to manipulate a great man’s words

      “Manipulate”? I quoted him verbatim. Can’t someone hold all of Reagan’s other views, including his approach to gun control? Just because someone isn’t 100% of EVERY gun anti-restriction doesn’t make them “liberal.” That’s retarded.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 0
      NativeFIoridaCracker

      At the time Britain had the best military, but we won. If our government did turn tyrannical, why would you want to give us a disadvantage, or in a more likely situation if we were invaded, why make it easier for the invader to move through the country? If you think neither will ever happen, get your head out of your ass and stop living in your utopian fantasy. No country or civilization lasts forever.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 0
      yourfavgeed

      mr. tokyo rose of the trailer park here says “yankee”; i say higher education, literacy, standard of living, income, winning civil wars, and not fucking my own cousin rates.

      sucks to be poor

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • -1
      right or wrong

      more guns= more deaths…. all of you conservatives on here are blind sheep just look at the statistics.. ohh wait you probably cant read… and who the fuck needs an assault rifle. THERE IS NO POINT it only causes harm. WHO NEEDS high capacity rounds NOONE. this attitude that guns are good and we all have the right to do whatever we want is BS… sometimes the gov’t needs to keep you dumb rednecks in check.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • -1
      2Fratty4MyShirt

      If we are limited to hand guns and the military has fully automatic assault rifles seems like home defense against any government entity is pretty useless. When liberals use Reagan for their own political views then disregard his others are just trying to manipulate a great man’s words. For all those who think we should be limited to small arms should shoot themselves. Pun aside seriously come the fuck on.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • -1
      yourfavgeed

      Also,

      home defense against any government entity is pretty useless.

      THE GOVERNMENT HAS DRONES AND PLANES AND NUKES. Just ask the Iraqis how well their full automatic did against the power and might of the US military.

      fuck.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • -1
      GodisGreatBeerisGood

      hey guy arguing against the assault weapons. my friend explained it this way. the bad guys are always gonna be able to get ar15’s and ak’s. sometimes even full auto ones. the last thing i want is some guy breaking in my house and outgunning me like that. and like someone else argued. we need to be able to form a militia. we need more gun control. not gun restrictions.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • -1
      yourfavgeed

      ^^ People are always going to find ways to get abortions. Terrorists will always find ways to find nuclear weapons. Surely you don’t believe we shouldn’t try to prevent them from doing such.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • -1
      yourfavgeed

      I’ll bite, Bronson. Yes, I do know the difference quite well. The other guy said,

      “If we are limited to hand guns and the military has fully automatic assault rifles seems like home defense against any government entity is pretty useless.”

      Which I believe is retarded, as the US military, if it really wanted to, would be able to crush any insurgency or militia in the US fighting against it if it ever chose to turn tyrannical. (wouldn’t it be concerning if the best military in the world weren’t able to?)

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • -1
      yourfavgeed

      The Redcoats didn’t have drones, fighter planes, or nukes. Actually stop and think what an invasion of the American homeland would look like.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
    • 0
      Bronan the Barbarian

      It’s not like I’m advocating an expanded role for the federal government with respect to our guns, because I’m not. I’m pretty libertarian leaning socially. However, the liability you introduce to a university by arming students, many of whom are under a lot of stress, away from home for the first time, etc, is not going to lead to fewer gun deaths. I’m simply saying, there are other things universities can do that don’t include open or concealed carry on campus. You’ll have more incidents like VT without either an improved mental health screening system or more stringent gun background procedures, and even then that won’t stop illegal gun sales. Removing the extra check built into not allowing students to have weapons on campus ties local police’s hands.

      The second amendment is sacrosanct, much like the first. However, both have reasonable limitations placed on them. This is one of them. You can’t advocate violence or crime with free speech, but I don’t see people beating down the door on that one. If the idea bothers you so much, do what every rational person I know does, get a gun locker at the nearest place that has them and keep your gear there.

      ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
  2. 8
    Bros A Bank

    Don’t worry guys, the statistics show the Governor is actually smarter than this dumbass. More concealed carry permits = less violent crime.

    ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago
  3. 4
    Alpha Frat

    I seriously would hope that girls would not be hesitant to shoot someone that is raping them just because they know that person.

    ^ ThisTake a lapReply • 2 years ago

Load More

1 2