In response to Mr. Pastena ("Conservative ideals also condemn rape," April 19): While we are correcting misconceptions, I have a few I would like to point out.

First, to correct the Collegian and Mr. Pastena, at least 300 people attended Take Back the Night. That is nearly the capacity of 119 Osmond, which has 341 seats.

So, in fact, it appears that at best these events had equal draws.

Secondly, at Take Back the Night, we aren't expecting to "convert" predatory rapists, but rather to create a space for survivors to share and heal.

We are concerned with helping those affected recover their dignity, power and peace.

Thirdly, the primary problem many feminists such as myself have with the "carry a gun" solution is that it does not address the majority of rapes and assaults.

If carrying a gun makes a woman feel empowered and prevents even one rape or assault, many feminists would feel it is justified.

By the way, feminism, like conservatism, is not a monolithic ideology; it is a mosaic of opinion and belief that is constantly being negotiated and reshaped.

However, we are concerned with the attacks it cannot prevent. Packing heat does not address domestic, relationship and acquaintance violence.

It would not have protected me from the intimate who raped me, protect children from abuse or stop assault in the home.

What is the "conservative" solution? Finally, there is the problem of "freedom as our founding fathers saw it."

Let's keep in mind that the system they established permitted slavery, the annihilation of Native Americans and shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the Alien and Sedition Acts permitting the president to order the arrest and deportation of any alien and prosecute anyone expressing dissent toward the government.

If that's not government interference, what is?