Jessica Jin, who set up the "Campus (DILDO) Carry" event on Facebook, invokes the argument that allowing more guns on campus will make students safe is a fallacy. She's urging students to send campus leaders that message by strapping on the plastic phalluses.
"'You're carrying a gun to class? Yeah well I'm carrying a HUGE DILDO,'" Jin says in the group's description. "Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play." More than 2,200 people have already signed up to participate. The "strap in" will occur on Aug. 24, 2016, the first day of next year's fall semester.
The event was created the same day one student was killed and another wounded in a shooting at Texas Southern University, and just days after other deadly shootings on campuses in Oregon and Arizona. Pro-campus carry advocates have said allowing concealed handguns on campus will enable people to defend themselves in the event of a live shooter, while those against it say it makes little difference and could even add to the chaos.
5 comments:
I was recently some what agog to discover that the american congress has banned their own CDC (the group concerned with public health) from investigating guns. Explicitly banned any kind of research regarding death by guns or why it's an order of magnitude to happen in the US compared to any other nation in the weat.
"I was recently some what agog to discover that the american congress has banned their own CDC (the group concerned with public health) from investigating guns. Explicitly banned any kind of research regarding death by guns or why it's an order of magnitude to happen in the US compared to any other nation in the west."
Amazing, isn't it? What are they so scared of?
Losing money from gun nut donors and the NRA. Too many of our legislators are bought and paid for by special interests. Also, the Congresspeople who come from the Red States have to worry about single issue voters. Too many people down there (the South) consider their guns to be more important than health care, education, Social Security, etc. Many of them actually vote against their own interests just to support gun ownership.
Barbwire:
You don't get to define our own interests and can't tell us whether we're voting against them or not. We're plenty smart enough to do that ourselves. This is liberal elitism at its finest, deigning to define out belief systems for us.
Gun-control voters are just as much single-issue voters as are some gun-rights voters. Everyone wants to think of themselves as a well-rounded, rational voter and the other guy as bought-and-paid-for. Try to remember that works both ways.
Some of us "down there" (which you know nothing about) and "up here" too in the midwest (about which you are equally ignorant) are values voters and one of the things we value is the constitution. It's not under the bus yet, despite the efforts of you and yours.
Amy,
The CDC had developed a history of extraordinarily biased reporting when it came to guns. They see only the end results and don't care whether this was a criminal who was shot by a homeowner being robbed or an innocent civilian shot by a criminal. They see both equally, and both equally arguing for bans of guns.
They also pursue a false model of guns, treating them as vectors of disease. They are the only vectors incapable of self-replication, so their models are doomed from the start.
Lastly, their models and writings do not take into account that private gun ownership is an inalienable right protected by our constitution.
In short, the government funded Centers for Disease Control has no business in the gun violence field. The long and the short of it is to enforce existing law, but that is not sexy enough to get politicians elected.
Post a Comment