Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Auntie Germaine Goes On A Rant
Darlings, as the head of an organization that is all about lesbians who pack pink pistols, one might think that I would throw my diminutive weight behind a group of students who are holding an "Empty Holster" protest on campuses around the country today.
One would be wrong.
Student members of the group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus* (SCCC) will be wearing empty holsters to their classes today, to symbolize that they don't have the right to protect themselves on campus. They make a strong argument for their rights, essentially wanting to enlarge the sphere of influence of concealed carry. This student group knows how to use studies and facts, and sprinkles citings of such through their website.
Yet when it comes down to the nut of their issue: concealed carry would prevent a Virginia Tech style campus shooting, their rhetoric boils down to this:
Argument: "In an active shooter scenario, like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, a student or faculty member with a gun would only make things worse."
Answer: "What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue uncontested? How can any action with the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim after victim be considered ‘worse’ than allowing that killer to continue undeterred?"
Essentially, the little darlings simply click their ruby slippers together and hope for the best. There won't be crossfire. There won't be additional deaths due to stray bullets. There won't be shitty-assed shooters involved at all. Every student with a concealed weapon will be a little Clint Eastwood. Why? Because they say so. That's why. (And then I believe they stick their little tongues out at us).
They assure us that students won't be in harm's way due to students combining alcohol and firearms. Why? Well, because that would be illegal. As if the illegality of murdering fellow students was a deterrent for Columbine or Virginia Tech or anywhere else.
They assure us that concealed carry gun owners on campus won't snap. Why? Well, I quote "Contrary to popular myth, most psychiatric professionals agree that the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply ‘snapping’ and becoming violent is not supported by case evidence. A person’s downward spiral toward violence is usually accompanied by numerous warning signs." Um, yes. I believe we saw that with Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech Shooter. If he was licensed for concealed carry prior to his downward spiral, no one would have had a right to disarm him. But, shhh about that, mon petite chou.
Here's my favorite of the SCCC FAQ's:
Argument: "It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to violence is more guns."
Answer: "One might have just as easily told Edward Jenner, the man who discovered in the late eighteenth century that the cowpox virus could be used to inoculate people against smallpox, 'It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to disease is more viruses.'"
Darlings! What beautiful rhetoric! It is inconceivable to me that the secret to weight loss is more calories! It is inconceivable to me that the way to save for retirement is to spend my life savings (wait, I think this is actually a plank in the republican platform). Wherefore art thou studies now, ma chere enfants? Why did you choose not to study violent crime in our country versus places with much lower per capita of gun ownership? How did you leave out the fact that most of these juvenile shooting massacres used weapons that were easier, not harder, to obtain thanks to our access to the interwebs? Wouldn't Jenner's argument collapse against that?
My sweet peas. If you are in college and you are just itching to carry a gun around with you, may I kindly suggest you enlist in the United States Army or Marine Corps? I'm told that in Baghdad you don't even need to conceal your weapon.
*No, I won't provide a link. Use the Google Search "Empty Holster".