I generally find your posts to be very amusing. But I think that you have missed not just the bullseye but the whole target in your most recent post.
Regardless of how the writer of the piece may have slanted it, the core issue in this situation was that the speaker was scheduled, she received a death threat, and she then asked that those attending the scheduled talk be screened for weapons. That request was denied because weapons are allowed on campus, apparently whether death threats have been made to a specific speaker or not.
So this was not someone simply and irrationally equating guns with danger. This was someone recognizing the potential danger in the very explicit message that someone intended to shoot her if she spoke.
Unless you have actually received a death threat that was tied to your expressing a particular viewpoint and have nonetheless…
View original post 690 more words