I have my WordPress app set to deliver me any blog that mentions Fox News, and last night it filled my screen with just one story – this one:
And so on…you get the idea.
So, I want to pick apart what she said:
“I just think it’s ridiculous, and I think that for the girls, it’s a good thing, for the good girls–or women–to be told stay home. Be safe. The other bad girls–bad women–or the ones who like to be naughty, might go out and play. And get hurt. But then the other thing about this is that it [they] then blame it on the alcohol instead of the person who over-drinks. So it’s like the same thing with guns. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Alcohol doesn’t get you drunk. You get yourself drunk.”
The other bad girls–bad women–or the ones who like to be naughty, might go out and play. And get hurt.
Really? It’s because women are ‘bad’ that they get raped?
It get’s a little worse:
But then the other thing about this is that it [they] then blame it on the alcohol instead of the person who over-drinks.
So the blame is a sometimes laid on the presence of drink now. Well. it’s a thought. and a better one than ‘thought’ 1. This article discuses the subject of the use of alcohol as a date rape drug, and half way down it says this:
“People don’t get raped because they have been drinking, because they are passed out or because they are drunk. People get raped because there is a perpetrator there — someone who wants to take advantage of them.”
And a piece of personal testimony: I’ve experienced every sector of the drink “craze” – from being teetotal to winding up in hospital with three quarters of a bottle of scotch in me. And the presence of alcohol has never fooled me into raping someone.
Then she loses it with the usual spurious gun argument:
So it’s like the same thing with guns. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Ok, I’m not going to come out with statistics here, just a broad idea:
I’m currently sitting in one of the biggest buildings in my city, along with hundreds of other people, and I guarantee that there are no guns in the building. The risk of being shot then is zero. You can’t shoot someone with a gun you don’t have.
Suppose someone walks in off the street with a gun. The risk of being shot has suddenly gone up – because it is possible to shoot someone with a gun that you do have. The change has taken place; not because the person has walked in off the street but because there is now a gun in the building. So guns do indeed kill people.
Dash’s gun argument is spurious and nonsensical.
For anyone who has never encountered Dash – here is her Wiki.