This story is unintentionally hilarious. MassLive: "Hampshire College, which couldn't get Beyoncé, President Obama or Bernie Sanders, replaces commencement speaker to address student gripes."
They invited every politically-correct person under the sun and settled on Dr. Emily Wong who worked on infectious diseases in Africa. But that just wasn't good enough for the kids. So they dis-invited the doctor and invited Reina Gossett, a filmmaker who made a movie about the Stonewall riots.
Graduation is Saturday, May 14th. The competition among Gender Studies majors at Applebees will be intense on Sunday.
5 comments:
Better to be in PC snowflakeland than to be at Liberty University, which will allow handguns in the dorms beginning this September. I'll take my chances with trigger warnings over actual triggers.
Just like at Colorado with all those campus shootings...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/20/guns-on-university-campuses-the-colorado-experience/
There's even more argument by anecdote and skimpy data on the other side:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/campus-carry-self-defense-accidental-shootings-research/
Yes, the National Crime Victimization Survey analyzing 27,595 attempted violent crimes is nothing if not skimpy.
But thanks for admitting the skimpiness of the output from "The Trace", an anti-gun propaganda mill funded by nutty Michael Bloomberg. There is indeed "even more argument by anecdote and skimpy data on the other side."
I think my favorite section in the wonderful linked article from "The Trace" was the following:
An FBI report detailing 160 active shooting incidents from 2000-2013 found that only one incident was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder, and he happened to be a Marine.
The Trace here is apparently trying to methodically prove that "good guys with guns" will not stop "bad guys with guns." It mocks gun advocates thusly: "Gun advocates might argue that the reason so few concealed carriers have intervened in active shootings* comes down to bad luck: They just haven’t been in the right place at the right time."
Uh, no, Trace. They don't attribute it to "bad luck" (but thanks for admitting you were putting words in their mouths). They would more likely attribute it to "unconstitutional laws". Those would be the laws (or private prohibitions) against the carrying of guns by law abiding citizens in any place where people congregate. You know - the places where mass shootings occur.
Trace then delivers the coup-de-grace: "By comparison, 21 active shooters were stopped by unarmed citizens — good guys without guns" (emphasis by The Trace). See? It's those heroes without guns that are the only effective citizenry against shooters of the active variety!
The Trace is exhibiting a chilling example of what results when a human being surrenders his critical thinking abilities. Even if citizens with guns shrink from using them to stop an active shooter, the chances that there will be an armed good guy (who is breaking the law by carrying!) in the vicinity of any given hyperactive shooter must be vanishingly small, given the "bad luck" that The Trace cited above. Therefore, the citizens who are in the vicinity of a shooter are going to be unarmed, right Trace? (Stop me if this is getting too complicated.) Hence, if they would like to continue living, they are going to make an attempt to stop the shooter. In some cases, they are going to be successful.
Congratulations, Trace! You've struck another devastating blow for "gun safety"!
*By the way, what the hell is an "active shooting"? How would one of those differ from "a shooting"? Is there such a thing as an "inactive shooting"?
Post a Comment