An Austin woman has come up with a rather innovative way to protest a new “campus carry” law that will allow Texans to carry concealed weapons on campuses: what if gun control advocates were to show up on the University of Texas at Austin carrying not guns, but … dildos?
Naturally, she’s calling it #CocksNotGlocks.
As Jessica Jin, the woman behind the proposed protest, explained on the Facebook page she set up for the event,
“You’re carrying a gun to class? Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO.'”
Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.
She’s got a point: As the Washington Post has noted, for every “justified homicide” carried out with a gun — that is, for every time someone kills someone with a gun in an act of legitimate self-defense — there are 34 gun homicides, 78 gun suicides, and 2 people killed accidentally with guns.
Predictably, gun enthusiasts have responded to Jin’s protest — which isn’t even scheduled until the law takes effect next August — with the sort of behavior that suggests once again that they are the absolute last people in the world who should ever be entrusted with guns.
And that includes this guy:
The gun enthusiasts have been flooding Jin and her Facebook page with threats, angry rants, and an assortment of obscene pictures. Some of their, er, wisdom:
You can find more along these lines in Raw Storys post on the protest.
This guy, meanwhile, has been posting offensive pic after offensive pic. A few of the more palatable:
The threats have been worrying enough to Jin that she’s contacted the local police.
Just as worryingly, one self-described “Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole” by the name of Christopher Cantwell has decided to doxx her, posting her address and phone number on his blog and informing his readers that “I can confirm the number is working. I called her, and she called me back and left a voicemail with her name.”
Because why not give angry gun owners what amounts to a map to her home?
If Cantwell’s name sounds familiar, that’s because we’ve met him before: I wrote about last year when I discovered him on Twitter telling numerous people to go kill themselves in assorted inventive ways.
Oh, and did I mention he wrote not one, not two, but nine articles for A Voice for Men last year? And that AVFM’s Paul Elam and Dean Esmay responded to my post about his Twitter “activism” … by telling me to kill myself? Ah, memories!
Happily, gun control supporters have rallied around Jin and her protest, posting supportive comments and repurposed gun fetishist propaganda with dildos taking the place of guns.
So far, more than 4000 people on Facebook say they will be attending the protest, and there’s talk about getting a sex toy company to sponsor the event.
H/T — Thanks to Jennifer Graham and Snork Maiden for pointing me to this story.
Not that there’s no value to making people feel safe as an end to itself (even if they aren’t really safer), but waaaay too often it seems to go unfortunate directions, like “I’d feel more comfortable if there weren’t so many black people around.”
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WWpdRWX_m_A/hqdefault.jpg
“In other news, I’ve got a rather phallic-shaped zucchini. Can I protest with that? :)”
I fear it will go all flaccid, possibly with a weeping discharge, before the August protest. You could try freezing it, but shrinkage is inevitable if you do that.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/200.gif
Brilliant.
I yeah, I could get behind this:
https://imgflip.com/i/sgaju
I couldn’t resist…one more:
https://imgflip.com/i/sgaz9
He also posted this lovely story: http://christophercantwell.com/2015/10/04/5-reasons-to-blame-feminism-for-mass-shootings/
John Smith; the bad reputation of the US has a lot more to do with southern gun-toting Republican yahoos than feminists.
Alan, just because someone feels safer with a gun doesn’t make them safer, and the stats back that up… so think of guns as a security blanket that can kill you. From a strictly rational PoV, guns aren’t good defense in civilized society, no matter how anyone feels about *their* gun.
Thank you Pandapool, I’ll be here all week!
@Some Sort of Username
I live here and the place fucking scares me. Granted, I’m a destitute minority in a red state, so ofc I’m frightened by these people. Anglo Americans tend to be pretty awful, at least around here.
I worry about the kind of people gun ownership attracts in this country. They’re the exact people I don’t want to see armed. They’re the sort of people who would be the first to join an American gestapo if such a thing were ever formed.
@Paradoxical Intentions:
I almost wish Volition did a spin-off series of Professor Genki’s Super Ethical Reality Climax. It was easily my favorite mini-game in both SR3 and SR4.
@BitterSweet:
They really are some of the worst fucking people on the planet.
Of course, if you were to bring this up with any other gun-fanatic/fetishist, they’d drop a “No True Scotsman” argument and act aggrieved about it – as if just pointing out problematic behavior from people in their group isn’t allowed.
When it isn’t that, they’re regularly lying and pulling arguments straight from their ass. They misrepresent all proposed regulation as being equitable to prohibition no matter how sensible and counter that the best way to deal with dangerous people with guns is…giving more people guns. ‘Cause the best way to put out a fire is with gasoline, right?! Even when suggesting that loop holes for private sellers and gun shows should be fixed – what with the fact that’s where many of the guns used by criminals and mass shooters come from – they’ll argue it “won’t work” anyway. Not that they’ll explain how it “won’t work” save for “they’ll find another way” as if even bothering to try putting up obstacles is pointless. Yet, apparently, arming every citizen with a firearm – whether they like it or not – is the “logical” solution to overwhelming gun violence.
I’ve adopted a zero policy in dealing with them, after a friend on Facebook – who had owned guns in the past – rightfully pointed out the NRA is exploiting tragedy in order to just sell more guns. Some of his gun-fanatic/fetishist buddies didn’t like that and decided to be condescending pricks about it, acting as if anyone who disagreed never handled a gun before (it was their way of just dismissing everything my friend and I said – despite having actually done so), and came off like children having a temper tantrum about their toys being taken away.
They don’t want to discuss, much less listen to anyone they disagree with, so why bother even talking to them? It’s a pointless exercise in how much you can endure such obsessive behavior coupled with tunnel-vision.
MRA / NRA: The difference is one letter. And that letter is the next one in the alphabet!
Coincidence? Not a chance.
If I could just figure out what it meant…
One thing’s for sure: Paul Elam is the real victim here.
NickNameNick — seeing as how enduring that obsessive tunnel vision is a requirement for having housing (liberal safety net? Oh, yeah, that’s why I live with my parents? ARGHHH)… yeah, as I was saying…
“Even when suggesting that loop holes for private sellers and gun shows should be fixed…”
It’s either “it won’t work” or, in a moment that is both more honest and more repulsive, the systems required for that will make it impossible for honest gun dealers to stay in business. Honest in that their inability to handle basic change is the actual problem, more repulsive in every other way. As for impossible versus harder… I’ll buy impossible, but then, I deal with one of them using a computer! (A sale of some stamps or something today, the potential buyer asked for no more than 6 photos, no more than 2mb, cuz of attachment limits, my father acted like this was written in Ancient Greek, and suddenly couldn’t remember how to reply to an email!)
Me too! It was super fun.
Kind of like a really hyper-satirized Japanese game show hosted by a murderous pink cat in a lab coat.
I swear the gun control “debate” that has been going on in the States (for as long as I’ve been thinking about such things: I’m a 30-something for context) is right at the nexus of everything that is fucked up in the world right now
throwing up the hands and going “welp, what can we do? Clearly nothing. If anything, the answer is strengthening the feedback loop by putting more guns into the mix”
plus some kind of Orwellian doublethink (“no, you guys want people dead! You wanna take my AK!”)
It’s the exact same kind of thinking behind the climate change debate and gods know how many other fucking things
I’ve tried talking to some of these people. I grew up in the Rocky Mtn region, my grandpa was a gunsmith, and the first time I shot a gun I was probably about 10 years old. I get why some people might want to own a gun. I’ve owned a gun myself. But hunting, or even gun ‘hobbyism’ is NOT what is going on. They will talk about it in the language of self-defense, by conjuring up some over-simplified hypothetical situation where a gun owner saves the day, or even the statistically non-existent real event when that happens. But really what they mean is that any amount of death, and I do mean any, is worth it as long as they get to own the specific models of firearms they worship, and without any kind of meaningful regulation of ownership
because, don’t you know, they, and only they, know the True Meaning behind the words of people who formed the American government over 200 years ago
It’s a pain in the ass, that’s for certain!
There were places available that would’ve cost about $100 less than my current place does, which is something, but the catch is the places are either further away from places I consistently walk to (I don’t have a car) or in far worse condition and not really an improvement over the apartment I live in now.
It’s hard for me to feel bad about them, though – their business is based on selling a tool that can be used to kill when not to injure or maim. It isn’t like gun ownership is an absolute necessity (there’s plenty of people who never touch one) in this day and age, it isn’t an enterprise that deals in something people really need as much as they want.
I suppose one can argue that entertainment isn’t any more necessary, though I’d say otherwise – given how ubiquitous it’s become as a way to spend one’s free time as well as a staple in cultural discourse, which has been the case for a long time now – and point out that a movie or a videogame were never used in a mass shooting. I know there’s plenty of people, like that asshole Jack Thompson, who’d say such things cause those events but the reasons such incidents occur are far more complicated than “I did it ’cause I saw it in a movie/TV show/videogame/comicbook.”
It’s like when gun-fanatics/fetishists try to argue that cars are more dangerous than guns – conveniently omitting the fact a car’s purpose is for travel. Whatever death and injuries that come about are accidents that occur with such travel. Similarly, a movie or videogame is made explicitly so it can be enjoyed and those who create it usually don’t intend to make something that’ll cause people to go postal.
@Paradoxical Intent:
It’s even better with the Genki-Bowl DLC where you get to sky-dive or roll around in a gigantic ball of yarn.
If PGSERC became it’s own series, I could imagine just how bizarrely brilliant some of the show’s various challenges might be. They could even have bits like from Takeshi’s Castle where they just have a massive amount of people trying to reach the same goal at once.
It’s quite funny they, along with those totally-never-annoying FREEZE PEACH absolutists when it comes to the First Amendment, don’t even bother to consider the entire passage they seem to love so goddamn much. They’ll bring up the right to bear arms – but you’ll never hear them address the “well-regulated militia” part. Because, if they did, it would prove their incredibly broad (thus purposefully vague) interpretation of that document is completely inane and not worth anyone’s consideration.
“I suppose one can argue that entertainment isn’t any more necessary”
This is approximately the point they start throwing around words like “liberal” as if that’s a horrible thing to call someone and any ability for reasonable discussion rapidly goes the way of “there is not enough booze in the world to deal with you”. Once “you don’t understand” and “read the constitution” are brandished as their own weapons, not screaming in frustration is the most of a victory you’ll get.
Translation — that’s the point at which I decide my time would be better spent trying to train my stupid ass puffer fish not to be quite so stupid. I’ve already got my axolotl and tortoise trained to eat from a dish, and taught an old dog new tricks (literally), but trying to train an (aquatic) puppy not to jump into his food dish is posing a challenge on par with debating gun lovers… ironically, I think I just heard the telltale splash that he did it again >.<
“It’s like when gun-fanatics/fetishists try to argue that cars are more dangerous than guns – conveniently omitting the fact a car’s purpose is for travel.”
Never mind the purpose of cars… both the item and operator are registered/licensed and insurance is generally required and for good reason.
I’m from a gun loving American sub-culture and sure I’ve shot guns and had guns in the house (I’ve never personally owned a gun) and known plenty of hunters and am kin to people who are gun fetishists. Personally I’m in favour of really strict gun control, but I’d certainly be satisfied with guns and their owner/operators being treated like cars and their owner/operators.
That bitch stole my idea! Now I’ll have to continue carrying a length of rubber hose since my 12 gauge stays at home. And here I was thinking about stashing a massive double ender in the glove compartment of my car just in case – it’s not like you can get arrested on weapons charges for that!
*Rubber hose has a low risk of leaving visible bruising when used as a striking weapon. Also, even if one decides to get into a fight with someone, who wants to admit that they were brought down by a person wielding a giant dildo?
** All statements made in this comment are of a speculative nature and for entertainment only. Except for the part about owning a 12 gauge, which is registered and fully legal under current jurisdictional laws.
@Alan:
The Moscow Criterion works within the Clauswitzian atmosphere of the Cold War. It works very poorly on an interpersonal level.
Steven Lansburg, in his excellent book More Sex Is Safer Sex, crunched the numbers on the deterrent value of violence in the justice system. He concluded that there were two independent values which must be studied:
A) The severity of punishment
B) The chance that the punishment will occur
In a purely game-theoretic approach the two are equivalent, of course; but humans are not purely game-theoretic. More importantly, different humans react to those two differently. Some people are more put off by a small chance of a high punishment, others by a high chance of a small punishment.
Landsburg analysed the data – including cross-referencing lots of other stuff – and pointed out that it appears that the single most important factor in this preference is impulse control; that is, that people with good impulse control react to the size of the punishment while people with poor impulse control react to the probability of getting caught.
Poor impulse control correlates quite highly with being a rapist, too.
This is borne out by statistics from policing: people react to the chances of getting away with it, not the headline-making severity of the sentence. An almost-certain slap on the wrist works very well; a lottery chance of a death sentence does not. The size of a sentence is almost of no value as a deterrent, according to Landsburg, presumably because no matter what it is, people shrug and assume that it isn’t going to happen to them.
Therefore, a self-defence method which centres around the Moscow Criterion is going to be ineffective. A good citizen like yourself may be put off by the fact that it turns rape into Russian Roulette – but then you’re not a rapist to begin with.
Whoever started #CocksNotGlocks is right inasmuch as concealed firearms not being an effective form of personal protection. People freeze and there isn’t time to use them. And, realistically, the great majority of people wouldn’t carry them anyway, so the shoot back scenario falls apart.
@Argenti:
And it’s hard not to lose your composure and scream in frustration – especially when you’ve had the exact same conversation before, with different people.
But, of course, each and every person you argue with will want to be treated like the most individualistic individual of all. They are incapable of admitting that they’re just parroting the sentiments of someone else and acting as if they came up with it on their own.
Apparently you need to bend over backwards to make them feel special – but God forbid they ever stop misrepresenting their opponents with obfuscation and strawmen.
@rugbyyogi
Which, again, they conveniently omit in many discussions – knowing it’ll render their position invalid.
Both my father and I used to love guns – but now we don’t. The reason for that is none other than gun-fanatics/fetishists.
Over time, it just becomes harder and harder to tolerate their behavior when it comes to their reaction to mass shootings. Moreso when the people who support gun control, who can be the survivors of shootings or knew someone who was a victim, have completely understandable motives for why they support such policies. Their point is only proven further as the occurrence of such events increases as regulation has decreased – among other factors (namely the way Western culture panders to, enables, and lionizes extremism).
I mean, other than hunting and target-shooting as hobbies, what other valid defense do these people have? Self-defense is always one – but I can’t help that’s often a smoke-screen for “I’m suspicious of those brown-skinned/black people living in my neighborhood.”