Cocks Not Glocks was so proud to be featured in an AJ+ video, that they bragged about it on their Facebook page.
AJ+ is an internet news and OpEd outlet that is part of the Al Jazeera Media Network. The video, and I mean this honestly, is a good video, reasonably balanced, and eye opening.
It interviews two students and a profesor at the University of Texas at Austin. One student is an advocate for Texas Campus Carry, the other is the co-founder of Students Against Campus Carry and a participant in Cocks Not Glocks. The professor is anti campus carry.
The video does address that campus carry applies only to people 21 years and older, it requires a Texas CCW which mandates training, and that open carry would still be banned on Texas campuses.
Pro Tip: when Al Jazeera is the voice of reason and moderation, your argument sucks.
Compare the statements made by the pro campus carry student to the anti campus carry student and professor.
Pro gun:
Anti gun:
And the professor:
The pro gun student makes the argument that mass shootings tend to take place in gun free zones because the shooters want to inflict mass casualties, not get into gunfights. All he wants is the right to protect himself and follow the law.
The anti gun student and professor have feelings. They feel scared. They feel worried. They feel like their freedom of expression is being threatened.
For the record, your First Amendment right to freedom of speech is a protection from government oppression. Social Justice Warriors are the first to remind you that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private individuals when a bunch of heckling crybabies get someone fired from their job because they said something that Snowflakes don’t like. That these Snowflakes are claiming that they are scared to speak freely because they are afraid that someone might get angry and shoot them, isn’t a First Amendment violation.
The professor tries to fall back on an un-sourced claim that no CCW permit holder with only 4 hours minimum training ever stopped a mass shooter. What she doesn’t have, because if she did I know she’d of mentioned it, is any evidence that a CCW permit holder has ever shot someone in a classroom for voicing their opinion or turning a mass shooting into an OK Corral bloodbath.
At the end of the day, all she has is feelings.
Also, the idea of training being a benchmark of quality is just an appeal to authority. Police get training, and we all know how bad the NYPD shoots – 84 times and hit the perp once, but hitting nine bystanders. Nice shootin’ Tex! That young man from the video may only have 4 hours of training, but has been shooting since he was “4 or 5 years old.” There is training and there is experience. But experience doesn’t come with the magic fairy dust of government approval, so the Left doesn’t accept it.
One one side you have facts, training, experience, and the desire to defend oneself and abide by the law.
On the other you have feelings and big rubber penises.
That is all these Special Snowflakes have, feelings.
It seems though that the winds of change are blowing and feelings are no longer the political currency that they once were. I don’t know which I would enjoy more, to be able to CCW my M9 and AAC Ti-Rant 9 across state lines or the epic butthurt of these Special Snowflakes.
I’ve found Al Jazeera’s reporting to be quite good for many subjects.
“The professor tries to fall back on an un-sourced claim that no CCW permit holder with only 4 hours minimum training ever stopped a mass shooter. What she doesn’t have, because if she did I know she’d of mentioned it, is any evidence that a CCW permit holder has ever shot someone in a classroom for voicing their opinion or turning a mass shooting into an OK Corral bloodbath.”
QFT.
Also consider what I call a “self-negating prophecy.” When someone says something along the lines of “no CCW has ever stopped a mass shooting,” I say “If someone stops an impending mass shooting before it happens, it logically follows that there was no mass shooting. That’s like saying no preventative measure ever works because what it’s preventing doesn’t happen.”
“If someone stops an impending mass shooting before it happens, it logically follows that there was no mass shooting.”
I was going to make, essentially the same comment you did on this.
It is logically impossible for anyone to stop a mass shooting, regardless of training, experience, etc…
A mass shooting is what? When four or more people are shot by the same person in less than 24 hours? Something like that.
So, the active shooter decides to attack, and a CCW stops them before they shoot more than two people. Not a mass shooting, does not count.
On the other hand, the active shooter starts killing, and a CCW stops them after they shoot six people. A mass shooting, but the CCW did not stop it before it became a mass shooting, so… does not count.
“…Illegal to carry a harmless floppy dildo…”
Have these kids never played Saints Row? It’s one of the more potent weapons in the game.
Fears are internal feelings that no one other than the person possessing them can change. Your fears shall not make my chains. My behaviors belong to me.
The professor tries to fall back on an un-sourced claim that no CCW permit holder with only 4 hours minimum training ever stopped a mass shooter.
Not just un-sourced. False.
SEE: Clackamas Town Center, Oregon, December 11, 2012. Perp with a stolen AR-15 opens fire, hits 3 and kills 2 (IIRC), is confronted by a CHL holder (who pointedly does NOT fire due to innocents in the background), and runs. “Mass shooting” ended before it meets the definition of “mass shooting”.
And that’s straight off the top of my head. Actual research will certainly uncover more.
What she doesn’t have, because if she did I know she’d of mentioned it, is any evidence that a CCW permit holder has ever shot someone in a classroom for voicing their opinion or turning a mass shooting into an OK Corral bloodbath.
On that, you are correct. It’s never happened. Unlike NYPD shootings, and the LAPD during the Chris Dorner manhunt, CCW permit holders favor de-escalation and tend to be highly selective and discerning when it comes to target engagement. [sarcasm] It’s almost like CCW licensees understand that they are morally and legally responsible for every single bullet they fire, or something! [/sarcasm]
These losers want to legally an the carry of firearms because it ‘frightens” them. I want to legally ban the carry of floppy sex toys because it disgusts me. Why should their feels get more legal credit than mine?