Gun control and Gamergate


I suggest that anyone, for any reason, should insist that their employer or host make it clear that concealed weapons are not allowed in the workplace or public forum. I know this isn’t always possible to accomodate, but often it is.

Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah campus appearance after threats of a "Montreal-style massacre"

All this means is that if there IS a disgruntled employee, that they have a shooting gallery until the police show up. If somebody intends to commit murder, I am sure that they would not be stopped by a “no guns allowed” sign.




That’s a risk I’m willing to take, and subject my coworkers/neighbors to. Also, bullshit.


About 2 hours from UTU you will find BYU. BYU is privately owned and bans all guns from campus.


Not necessarily. The feminists just need to be better armed than their opponents. Open carry laws give them that freedom.


Guns are cheaper than computers, and handguns are far more concealable than rifles while still being easily available.


Okay, this guy wasn’t denied, although apparently he was meant to be (does inside the CDC count as a public venue?):


Bomb threats do not even remotely equal gun threats, especially in states with extremely permissive concealed carry rules in a country with a strong gun culture (i.e. Utah, USA). The relative number of people capable of creating a bomb is miniscule, and they’d be arrested for possessing such a device. That is, gun threats are far more credible than bomb threats, especially if your audience is likely to be packing heat.

And allowing guns just means that once a gunman has already shot someone, someone else might have a better chance of stopping him before he’s shot too many others. Not a great comfort if you’re the speaker who has just been threatened, i.e. the first person to be targeted.


Presumably, anyone attending the talk would be aware of the death threats or should be made so. Each person could make the decision for themselves. So, if a speaker who had death threats leveled wants to speak, I don’t think we can say that the speaker is subjecting people to the threat. That would be to discount the free agency of the attendee.


Not sure if you’re being sarcastic there, but by that logic, there is no such thing as intimidation and these losers wouldn’t have bothered threatening a massacre.


I imagine certain parts of the CDC are considered public, while other parts are not. Probably highly context senstitive.

Also, Secret Service protocol is not the same thing as state or federal law. The contractor in question was not breaking the law in carrying his concealed firearm, he was merely contraveneing Secret Service protocol.


Sure, it’s a great help. When you’re giving a lecture and someone in the audience suddenly shoots you to death, you can… well, you’re not going to do much of anything, I suppose.


Well, yeah, it kind of is about gun control. Gun control and Feminism, it can be two things.


“Bullshit?” Please elaborate? Mass shootings overwhelmingly happen in “gun-free” zones. Please explain how a sign can stop somebody? The ONLY way it would actually work is if you have metal detectors and armed guards.


Kentucky allows open carry. Obama had an outdoor speech here in Lexington a while back, at the University of Kentucky–a public university–and the area was roped off and you had to pass through a police-monitored line to get in. I didn’t go, so I don’t know if they were actually searching people, but I rather doubt they’d have gone to all that trouble just to wave a guy with a hunting rifle on through.

In fact, now that I think of it, firearms are 100% banned on UK campus, despite Kentucky’s open carry laws. So I’m skeptical that Utah State doesn’t have the same power.


Hmmm. The current president, and the previous one, made “free speech zones” where he can speak without ever seeing anybody who might actually disagree with him! If he can restrict 1st Amendment rights, he can also restrict 2nd Amendment rights easier! I can actually understand keeping people with guns away from the POTUS, but to keep away people who are simply holding signs? That is ridiculous.

What next? “Freedom from search and seizure zones” where you can go if you actually require a warrant before being searched? If you leave the zone, too bad, you surrender your rights…


*USU (it’s my alma mater)


Many (most?) states allow private employers to ban guns from the workplace, through explicit company policy.


Which is exactly what the university should have done once the specifics of the threat were communicated.

It’s absurd that a public university in the US cannot be a safe space for free speech. The world may not like our 2nd amendment, but the world does commend our first amendment as one of the best frameworks for free expression on the planet.