Feminist cancels talk at USU after guns allowed despite shooting threat

[alp227]

Last edited Wed Oct 15, 2014, 12:36 AM - Edit history (2)

Source: Salt Lake Tribune

Anita Sarkeesian has shown up for speaking engagements amidst terror threats before.

But after learning that Utah State University was legally forbidden from restricting firearms at a Wednesday lecture over which she received a death threat, the nationally-known feminist writer and video game critic canceled her appearance.

"Sarkeesian asked if weapons will be permitted at the speaking venue," according to a statement released late Tuesday by USU. "Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue."

Sarkeesian confirmed, via Tweet: "Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn’t take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event."

Read more: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/video-feminist-sarkeesian-women.html.csp

---

More info from the university:

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54178

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

[OldRedneck]

1. Utah?

But I thought all those folks were peaceful Mormons?

[JimDandy]

16. As a group, Mormons are the most misogynistic people

I have ever known and the church-produced children's graphic book of the Book of Mormon is probably the bloodiest children's book ever published. The Book of Mormon is massacre, after murder, after massacre. Nothing peaceful about the Mormons.

[freshwest]

24. Who gets murdered and massacred in their book? I thought Mormons considered themselves victims.

And no, I haven't read it and have no interest in doing so. Just trying to see how their claim of being victims works with such a text book. Or rather their holy book or prophecy, whatever it is to them. I read they claim they were persecuted by the USA government, so they don't want to have anything to do with it. TIA.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Jeez I hope they nail this jerk's hide to the wall.

The Internet is certainly a wonderful device for exposing psychopathology.

[SharonAnn]

27. So, she felt she had to cancel her appearance which just proves her point about

women being silenced.

[jtuck004]

70. She chose to be silenced. There are women who would have walked into that,unafraid.

Last edited Wed Oct 15, 2014, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

As long as people can be scared off, the bully wins.

I'm not dissing her, it's just a fact. It takes a lot to stand up in the face of danger, and not everyone has whatever "it" is.

On the other hand, how ignorant could a school be? If she had talked, and there was a shooting, and with the threat in hand they decided to let guns in anyway, the settlement from the lawsuit over negligence might have threatened the future of that school.

On edit - I doubt fear was her motivation and I shouldn't have attributed it to that. She has gone into some hazardous situations. Still, they didn't hear her voice, and that was what the bullies wanted. Perhaps the message that people do get will be what she wanted/wants.

[NutmegYankee]

73. Given the complete indifference of police, I can't blame her.

The logical thing would have been to have metal detectors set up just like going to a NFL football game and a strong police presence to ward off any trouble. The legal excuse they provided was utter BS. If a major politician was giving a speech, we all know guns would be verboten.

[yellowcanine]

85. I disagree. Not speaking makes a statement. "If you won't exclude guns at the event, you don't get

me as a speaker." It sends a message. If the school says, "we can't because it is against the law," then they need to use this experience to get the law changed.

[jtuck004]

86. The school could. Law is clear about property and safety. They just won't. Which means the bullies

win. There is no law that makes them allow those guns in a public setting when safety, especially the blatant disregard of an assassination threat, is ignored.

On the other hand, I would LOVE to be the lawyer charging fees to tilt against the windmill of forcing them to allow weapon carrying in a place where an assassination threat was received. That's 2 summer homes by itself, with zero possibility of winning because of the liability.

Bullies always win until someone is unafraid enough to stand up to them.

[yellowcanine]

87. Okay then. Even more reason why she made the right call.

The school doesn't want to do what is clearly reasonable, they should expect people not to agree to speak there. And students will decide that we don't want to go to a school like that. In fact I would think a student (or students) could now make the case that the school is putting them in danger by allowing guns on campus - there is your lawsuit.

[jtuck004]

88. Still, bullies win, she is silenced, regardless of the excuses. They don't hear her message, they

hear that the gun-toters must be in the right, since they won. And that will be reinforced every day.

Though it is possible the students could sue for something, perhaps many of them agree, perhaps most. Which is why people with opposing viewpoints need to speak.

Not happening here.

I never argued that she didn't make the right call. For her.

[crim son]

92. Ummm, and for me.

I don't require that college speakers risk their lives for my right to be a feminist. And let me ask you this: had she spoken, would we even know about this event, or who this woman is? Her silence is all over the internet.

[jtuck004]

93. I expect so. And it may be all over the Internet, but is it the message she wanted?

That would have to come from her.

ymmv bye

[crim son]

95. Perhaps you are very young?

Perhaps not. I think there are smarter ways to make your point, whatever your age. "Bye."

[cui bono]

107. What if she had spoken and she got murdered?

Would that have been a better message?

I can tell you that definitely would NOT have been the message she wanted.

[yellowcanine]

99. Well see, I don't agree she has been silenced. I think she is being heard even more, having taken

this stance. There are different ways of being heard.

[jtuck004]

100. I would agree, except I've never heard...her. And that's the point. bye. n/t

[snooper2]

115. she trolls people for money, just a scam artist

[NaturalHigh]

116. Jury results

On Thu Oct 16, 2014, 02:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

she trolls people for money, just a scam artist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=919971

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post adds nothing to the conversation, other than an ad-hominem attack on Anita Sarkeesian.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 16, 2014, 02:45 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you don't like the comment, either put the alerter on Ignore or respond. Also, learn the meaning of ad hominum.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. This post is inappropriate.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: its' true - so we'll leave it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: With the name snooper2, definitely a troll.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree with the sentiment but how is this in any way hideworthy? Poster did not attack another DUer. This is their opinion.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it alone. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cui bono]

106. So do you think she was selfish then?

I never argued that she didn't make the right call. For her.

Why should she put her life on the line when no one is taking any precaution to prevent her losing it? Why are you putting the responsibility on her and saying the bullies won because of HER decision. They won because of the SCHOOL's decision. And because of the systemic sexism in this country and the gaming industry in particular.

More blaming the victim, just in a different way. It's not her fault.

[jtuck004]

108. What she chooses to do, or not do, is most certainly her responsibilty. To point

fingers at others is childish and weak.

Frankly, however, we live in a world where people no longer put their lives on the line, and it is getting much more dangerous and precarious. A large part of the reason we are here today is because millions of people did put their lives on the line, so perhaps your suggestion that she was selfish holds some water.

Maybe it's time we stop looking to people who shirk danger as role models?

Think what you want - I have other things to do. Bye.

[cui bono]

109. The threat was not only against her.

An email to Utah State University threatened "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if the school did not cancel a lecture Wednesday morning by a well-known feminist writer and video game critic.

Is that still selfish?

Plus, she's not going to war with an entire army or going out on a march with thousands of others, but you really expect her to step out and hope to not get shot at in a venue with a gun toting audience after she has received death threats? If she had done it and gotten shot I would bet that she would be called stupid, don't you think? It's not the same thing as putting your life on the line to fight for the country or as part of a movement.

It was wise of her not to put herself and others in jeopardy. How do you think she could do the greatest good for her cause? Go and speak and get murdered or maimed or not speak, make a statement by not speaking and live to fight the good fight?

And as to no one putting their lives on the line, there are doctors who put their lives on the line - and have died - for women's rights every damn day. Again, for women's rights.

Maybe it's time for you to start paying more attention and stop trying to assassinate this brave woman's character for not doing something that probably no one else would have done either.

[NobodyHere]

97. If they changed the law

What would stop a potential shooter from breaking the law and bring a gun anyways?

[blackcrowflies]

117. maybe there are women who don't care if they die

I prefer not to. Diss me for that if you will, jtuck.

[jtuck004]

118. So you didn't read the op.

I can't type it any slower. Not worth my time if you won't even do that.

Bye.

[Salviati]

3. but but but...

gamergate isn't about maladjusted asshats being misogynistic, it's about ethics in videogame journalism....


...whatever.

I wonder how many posts one would have to read before running across some MRA claiming that this is just false flag propaganda...

[TDale313]

4. Start charging these asshats with felonies.

Sick and fuckin' tired of these creepy little man-children threatening any woman who dares to speak up. This is not the price women should be forced to pay for entering the public dialogue. And the venom against feminists is just sickening and way too widespread.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Damn right!

[CherokeeDem]

14. This!!!

Couldn't have said it better!!

[freshwest]

22. Thank you! I wish you'd make an OP out of that. I'd rec it.

[Laffy Kat]

26. ^^^ What you said. nt

[The Magistrate]

36. God, It Must Suck To Be You....

[TDale313]

42. Seriously. n/t

[arcane1]

62. Funny how the most "superior" among us never have anything better to do than troll.

[bullwinkle428]

55. +1000.

[aikoaiko]

101. Completely, agree.

[Helen Borg]

5. So, are they gonna cancel?

[EEO]

6. They should just put a bunch of good guys with guns in and around the event.

[Helen Borg]

9. But what if one of th good guys is the bad guy?

[LiberalElite]

20. That's where the white hats and black hats come in -

[crim son]

94. Heh.

Thanks for the laugh!

[freshwest]

21. +1. Needs to be asked more often.

[DonCoquixote]

57. no

put some good LADIES with guns around the event. Not like Utah could ban them without threatening the gun fetish that state has.

[cosmicone]

7. "Feminists have ruined my life"

Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

They can only do that if one is a rabid misogynist. Rest of us get along fine with women's rights and equality.

[Stallion]

25. Yes What was this Feminist Thinking Dropping this Prize

sounds like a real winner

[whereisjustice]

10. Anyone can buy a gun that can kill dozens of people in a few short minutes. It's our exceptionalism.

[Salviati]

11. "Uniquely American"

AKA - severely fucked up in almost every imaginable way.

[whereisjustice]

12. And clearly what the founders had in mind with 2nd amendment.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

13. Sounds like pure bullshit,

But he sure got a lot of attention.

[Ken Burch]

15. Probably from the provisional wing of the MRA.

Another divorced asshole who didn't get the custody ruling he wanted and blames feminism for that, rather than the personal traits he brought to the relationship.

If he does burst in and start shooting, he'll probably shout "what about battered men?"

[ThoughtCriminal]

17. Another proud member of our "Well Regulated Militia"

with a "2nd Amendment Solution" to his problems with women.

[ballyhoo]

18. Perps don't generally write letters announcing their intentions.

[The Magistrate]

23. Your Psychic Abilities, Sir, Are Getting A Real Work-Out Today....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014916947#post7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014916947#post28

People in a mood for some serious lulz are strongly recommended to follow the links....

[Tommymac]

28. Thanks Magistrate, for hound dogging this one.

[freshwest]

33. Didn't these idealists make their plans known?

How about this guy:



Or this lovely couple:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/09/1305585/--Revolutionary-Vegas-Cop-Killers-were-so-Right-Wing-they-d-been-banned-from-Bundy-land

No, no way to miss it when it's in print. As to reading minds.

It's not necessary. RWNJs are happy to show you what they think.

[liberalhistorian]

91. WOW.

WTF is this poster still doing here? And I'd recommend people follow the other links you provided in that thread as well.

[SunSeeker]

19. K & R for exposure. nt

[riqster]

29. Kick and rec

[chrisa]

30. Gamergate / MRA losers. Get off the internet and go outside.

I know there's a 99% chance this is fake, but you Gamergate guys are absolute tools. Stop sniveling about feminists and go and do something with your lives. You're an embarrassment to men everywhere.

[The Magistrate]

41. I Agree Ma'am: They Let The Side Down Badly

A man whining is a truly disgusting sound.

[The Magistrate]

53. Now That Was Some Good MIRT Work: Never Before Saw A Post Disappear As i Opened It....

I think someone who dates a Fleshlight was calling me a eunuch, but it is hard to be sure, since it just vanished....

[NRaleighLiberal]

66. .

on a 15 minute cycle, it seems.

[NutmegYankee]

74. lol

Now that's a response!

[chrisa]

103. So many delicious tears here. My only wish is that the posts would remain.

They're comical gold.

[The Magistrate]

61. Damn, This Is Fun: Whimpering And Nothing To Boast Of But Being A White Fella

Sad....

[Blue_Tires]

31. If these are the people who claim to represent the gaming community

then I'm glad I left it behind...

[d_legendary1]

32. She cancelled her talk at the univeristy.

She tweeted, "Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event."

She also tweeted the reason for the cancellation: "Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches."

Hurray for the NRA!!!!

[proReality]

40. That's absolutely crazy.

If someone did start shooting, he wouldn't just be shooting the innocent lecturer, he'd be killing off lots of innocent students. Apparently their lives aren't worth anything to the Utah police or campus police.

[lolly]

58. Maybe that's a feature, not a bug

If having "the right people" carrying guns keeps "the wrong people" (feminists, liberals, etc) from speaking, then it's all good for them, isn't it?

[Le Taz Hot]

83. Since when does the Second Amendment right

come before a First Amendment right? The Founders put the First Amendment first for a reason. Yeah, "they" hate us for our freedoms alright -- "they" being homegrown terrorists.

[El Shaman]

90. 100%

agree with you ( why couldn't i say that!) TY.

[Kali]

34. I think that guy trolls here.

[NutmegYankee]

39. This is terrorism.

There isn't any difference here from what the Taliban did with women in Pakistan. They made threats to those who spoke out for women's issues and in some cases, carried through with the threat.

[NutmegYankee]

45. Go back to ISIS.

*Note -This was a reply to an extremely misogynistic troll who said the terrorism was deserved.

A round of applause to MIRT is in order

[TDale313]

50. ...

[The Magistrate]

64. Are They Just A Bit Slow Now, Or are They Leaving Us a Chew-Toy?

"Enquiring minds want to know!"

[marions ghost]

82. Yes it is terrorism

and guns are how they get what they want.

[redruddyred]

43. people bust out the guns

when they know people won't listen to them in more civilized circumstances.

[quakerboy]

49. Bologna

Sorry excuses for people bust out the threats, and occasionally the guns, when they know that their arguments are completely without merit in more civilized circumstances, leaving force and terror as their only viable method of forcing their will over others. .

[redruddyred]

71. yeah what you said.

an idiot with a gun is no longer simply an idiot.

[abelenkpe]

46. She canceled?

Bummer.

[freshwest]

47. Mission Accomplished:

Last edited Wed Oct 15, 2014, 01:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Sarkeesian confirmed, via Tweet: "Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn’t take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event."

A resounding, public slap down of women's rights in the public sphere. How women will deal with the coming feudalism, I don't know, but there is no doubt they aren't going to stop now. The ALEC - Koch agenda of silencing women (and minorities) is rolling on while people refuse to vote. So the people who push this state of affairs on us keep winning.

This is the reason for the guns and weapons all over the place laws, to stifle freedom of speech. It's always worked that way, anyone with any historical knowledge or a bit of common sense knows its purpose is to make civil society withdraw under the onslaught of fascists.

There is only so much one can take. The 'writing on the wall' was a death sentence, for those who don't know the origin of the phrase.

[TDale313]

48. And the asshats win. Sigh. n/t

[MisterP]

51. that's actually a big connection: McVeigh, Cho, Lépine, and Kaczynski

all had *galloping* huge issues with women (Kaczynski's whole history is actually very hair-raising)

Elliot Rodger *really* hated women too, but he's also a Monster-of-Florence couples-killer

[ReRe]

54. Too bad the FBI couldn't have...

... turned the table on the SOB. Fill the lecture hall with young verile armed agents complete with a Sarkessian look-alike lecturer at the front of the class. Oh yeah... agents down the halls and at near every entry to the hall and building.

[TerrapinFlyer]

59. Since the NSA is watching everyone, it will be easy to catch whomever sent this email, right?

Either the NSA Program is a huge boon dongle that is useless, but costs billions.. or they don't want to "catch the criminals".

I am not sure which is worse.

[quakerboy]

69. Or, most likely

both at the same time!

Yay Republicocracy!

[Helen Borg]

68. Oh, they will find this person.

These days, you cannot hide.

[DetlefK]

75. Sure sounds like domestic terrorism to me.

[DetlefK]

78. You are implying a whole lot there.

1. You are implying that a businesswoman and speaker got so nervous at the thought of speaking in front of an audience (about a topic that is important to her, that she knows and that she is prepared for), that she made up a crime as an excuse.

2. You are implying that she loves being threatened because it gives her attention. I have yet to hear of a single case of misandry but some men just can't stop complaining and griping and crying that THEY are the real victims. Now who is playing the victim and trying to get attention?

3. Regarding women as subhuman and denying them the possibilities that men enjoy. That is a mental illness.

[DetlefK]

80. Oh hey, you are back!

1. I thought it only takes working in some sort of industry and being responsible for several underlings to count as a businessman/-woman.

2. Who exactly humiliates her in open discussions? Can you please list some of those "reasoned criticisms" that she refuses to engage?

3. You might have a point there: She's just a fickle woman who doesn't know what she wants: First she gets an appearance at the USU. Then the audience at USU would be so hostile that she would have to face critical questions like "Feminism is a mental illness! Go home, you Feminazi!". Then she gets all nervous, because she's a fickle woman and has not thought through that appearing in front of an audience might bring her in contact with that audience. Then she decides to back out of the appearance, but she can't just claim to be sick or to have an emergency in the family. So she hatches the dastardly plan to get a new E-Mail-account and send a terrorist threat to the USU, because there's no way this could backfire. Then she asks the police and university to take precautions so she can still hold her talk. And then she takes advantage of legal loophole that allows people to bring guns to an event where a mass-shooting has been announced. And finally she can back out of a public appearance that she never wanted to begin with.

4. You have proof that she uses sockpuppet-accounts to send threats to herself? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? EXPOSE THAT VILE HAG!

5. Anita Sarkeesian a misandrist. I am shocked and saddened to hear that. Please provide some examples where she said/insinuated/implied that men (in general or with respect to a specific specimen) are inferior to women and I will join you with utmost outrage post-haste.

[Skittles]

104. I'm giving you real points for rationally dealing with that pathetic nitwit

yes INDEED

[Mister Nightowl]

81. I wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're fucking nuts?

[Bragi]

84. The main problem here isn't misogyny, it's idiotic gun laws

Misogyny is part of the problem here, but nothing has changed in this regard, it's been around forever.

What required her to cancel her talk, however, and what denied her the ability to exercise her right to free speech, are the increasingly idiotic gun laws in the US.

For people with controversial views, the constitutional right of others to bear arms now trumps their constitutional right to free speech.

[Blue Idaho]

89. Once again the Second Ammendment trumps the First Ammendment...

So much for free speech in America today... and especially for those brave citizens of Deseret.

Somebody probably just got a special blessing from their Ward Bishop for protecting the brothers and sisters from the speaker's dangerous impure thoughts.

[ncjustice80]

96. Perfect example of why ghe 2A needs to be repealed. People can t even speak in public without goons

Guns threatening to show up and murder them.

[Helen Borg]

98. Not negotiating with terrorists means...

You don't cancel an event based on an email...

[cui bono]

110. But you let them bring their weapons?

I think she made a responsible choice considering the circumstances. What if she had spoken and "the deadliest school shooting in American history" did occur?

[Helen Borg]

112. I see your point. At the same time...

Isn't this the same with all negotiations with terrorists? In fact, in terrorist cases, it is almost certain that not paying up will result in somebody getting killed (e.g., the hostage). I'm just saying that this sets a precedent, where now any nut can send an email and get organizers to cancel an event. So, do you think that if they had been able to enforce a no-gun event that they would have gone ahead with it? Perhaps.

[cui bono]

119. I think they should have had a no gun policy considering the threat.

Not sure if that would make the idiot feel that they "won" something or not, but it doesn't make sense to me for the school to not take any precaution. There are no easy answers of course.

[ZombieHorde]

102. She may have saved some lives by cancelling.

I would not blame her for any deaths if she spoke and there was a shooting, but still, she may have saved some lives by not speaking.

[KamaAina]

105. More at GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025669085

[Ash_F]

111. Where is the NSA?

I thought they were supposed to be our saviors against terrorism.

[Sancho]

113. I haven't posted this for a while, but I suggest this for "gun threads"...

In this case, it might apply. Personally, I think guns on college campuses is crazy! I may need to add a bullet to my list that restricts guns from certain public places and events. Regardless, it's dealing with the access to guns by people who shouldn't have them that's the real issue.

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[greymattermom]

114. Easy answer

Just call in a gun threat for every speaker and every class.