Wednesday, May 07, 2003
�How many perpetrators of mass rape would have qualified to be licensed for �conceal and carry� of prophylactics under Minnesota�s new law?�I recall some highschoolers during my days who stuck a rubber in his wallet "in case of emergency". (What? You hear sirens?) So of course a guy gets to thinking, and to Googling, and I find this article by Michelle Malkin. "If you teach a child how to use a condom, you're promoting safety -- not usage. Why, then, doesn't the same logic apply to guns?"
What really concerns me now is that there will be thousands more men walking around our State Fair . . . and our campus . . . with rubbers concealed on their bodies. Sure, some may have received state-mandated training in their use by licensed instructors, and some may use them to prevent the criminal spread of V.D. But I mean, really, don�t you think that some men - intoxicated at the Beer Garden or caught up in the moment of looking at nubile young bodies going down the Giant Slide - may be emboldened by knowing that they are carrying condoms, seize the moment, and whip them out?
I don't intend to have the blog become a place to discuss the Minnesota law -- Mitch Berg has cornered that market, and this piece from a friend's blog deserves a full reading -- but what is telling is that when you ask these people for even a shred of evidence suggesting that passage of non-discriminatory CCW permit issuance leads to more gun-related deaths, nobody comes with an answer. And these are supposed to be academics, not your run-of-the-mill mediot. ("Mediot " = "media" + "idiot")
Just so you know, I'm not packing ... either item.