Since people are attending class from home, though, there are bound to be some people doing things during the lecture that they never would have done in a physical class. The range from petting a cat to attending class in their PJs. These are normal and, to some degree, expected.

Yet a Harvard Law student was handling a firearm during one lecture, and you’d think it was the end of the damn world.

And now it’s happened! The incoming president of Harvard’s FedSoc chapter decided to spice up the Criminal Procedure: Adjudications Zoom lecture with a firearm, presumably to “own the libs” because that’s the only motivation for anything anymore. And of course he’s not been able to play with his metallic d*ck during class before since Harvard bans guns on campus. Because of the whole “mass shooting concern” thing.

Just to pre-empt the response here, no, it’s not fine to bring guns to class just because you’re not physically in the room. For clarification, other things you should not brandish during a Zoom class: a dildo, a bloody knife, a dead hooker. Also, please refrain from wearing your swastika pins during class and all the other things we apparently HAVE TO SAY OUT LOUD NOW. Yes, no one is going to get shot when a student whips out a gun in their house to answer the question absolutely no one asked, but that’s not the only reason we don’t consider weaponry an essential study aid.

Now, I’m willing to debate whether the display of guns during a video lecture is acceptable or not. After all, you’re in your own home. What’s the difference between someone having firearms displayed on the wall behind their desk? Minimal, really. Especially if someone isn’t being threatening with the firearm.

Still, it’s a debate worth having since this is all very new to so very many people.

Yet look at what the writer compares having a gun with: “a dildo, a bloody knife, a dead hooker.”

Now, two of those three are suggestive of someone having committed a violent crime. The first one is just way too personal and that’s the primary reason I don’t want to see it. The other two, though…mentioning those as points of comparison is more telling about the writer’s frame of mind. Then again, calling it a “metallic d*ck” does as well

Fun fact: If guns were compensating for penis size, no man would ever own a snub nose or subcompact firearm ever.

Anyway, comparing a firearm to evidence of a violent crime tells us that the writer is incredibly anti-gun, that they think of firearms as tools for murder rather than defending human life. He ignores the countless lives saved by guns and focuses on the small minority of instances when it’s used for criminal purposes. More importantly, he wants the readers to make that leap as well.

The writer goes on to claim that displaying a firearm isn’t just inappropriate but potentially traumatizing to people who have had a violent encounter. To that, I point out that if they can’t handle a firearm on a screen, their entertainment choices get very limited, very quickly. Frankly, few people are so broken they can’t handle seeing a gun in any context at all. Instead, you get a handful of people who like to pretend they’re that messed up. They’re playing the victim card for all they can, including for political gain, but they’re not that traumatized.

For the handful that are, maybe, that far gone, exposure is probably the right call anyway. Seeing an object that triggers them without the violence itself is good for helping them differentiate between the object and the act.

Now, is it appropriate to display a firearm during a lecture? Sure, let’s have that debate. I’m more than willing to entertain that debate. I may even decide that it’s not really the right time to do so.

But you’re not going to convince me you’re right by claiming it’s on part with displaying a dead hooker, a sex toy, or a bloody knife. Hyperbole only gets you so far. With me, it just gets you an eye roll and a middle finger.