Nope

[Content Note: Sexual violence; guns.]

Via Andrea Grimes, here's a New York Times article headlined: "In a Bid to Allow Guns on Campus, Weapons Are Linked to Fighting Sexual Assault."

There is so much wrong with this shit, I hardly know where to begin. But many of the objections to this sort of proposal I laid out here: "Five Reasons Why 'Teach Women Self-Defense' Isn't a Comprehensive Solution to Rape." Particularly sections 4 and 5: Women who deter rape with violence, especially women of color, are often punished for doing so, and not every woman is prepared to use violence against her attacker, especially since many victims of sexual assault know the person assaulting them.

Further, making weapons more available in more places empowers people who are going to use them to commit violence at least as much (and, realistically, more so) than people who are going to use them to deter violence. If someone is seriously concerned about rape prevention, then limiting rapists' access to guns is a good place to start.

Even a rapist who might not rape at gunpoint may later use a gun to enforce his victim's silence.

And what of a rapist who is attempting rape at gunpoint? Is a woman supposed to pull out her own gun and have a shoot-out on campus in order to defend herself?

At what cost to the safety of other students does such a scenario come? It doesn't matter to the advocates of gun-slinging as rape deterrence.

Because they don't actually give a single, infinitesimal shit about rape or victims of rape. All they care about is guns everywhere all the time.

And if that comes at the cost of the people they invoke in fantasy narratives about rape prevention, they just hope no one will notice.

Well. I see you.