It Looks Like All the Predictions of Shootouts in University Lecture Halls Were Baseless Fearmongering

Students holds signs and sex toys as they protest a campus carry law in Austin, Texas, Wednesday Aug. 24, 2016. Hundreds of University of Texas students waved sex toys at a campus rally during the first day of classes, protesting a new state law that allows concealed handguns in college classrooms, buildings and dorms. (AP Photo/John Mone)

The lack of evidence that liberalized campus carry laws lead to more campus violence stands in contrast to the often-heated rhetoric of gun control activists. The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, an activist group partnered with Armed Campuses, has claimed that efforts to allow concealed weapons on campus are “dangerous.” That group says it is working “to protect American’s colleges and universities.”

On its website, Armed Campuses lists a study examining campus crime rates following the passage of liberalized concealed carry laws. The study also looks at state-level and national crime statistics. The report concludes that available data “do not prove that campus carry causes more crime.” Armed Campuses did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday morning.

– Maria Lencki in Following legalized campus carry, universities report no increase in violence on their campuses


  1. avatar LifeSavor says:

    I have never understood the argument that concealed or open carry on campus would lead to more shootings; it does not do so in the public at-large.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Precisely. At UT, one of the inconvenient truths was that concealed carry had been legal “on campus” (outside or in parking lots, just not in buildings) for years with no incidents involving licensed carriers. So no surprise that allowing CC pretty much everywhere on campus didn’t result in rivers of blood, despite all the hysterical shrieking.

      Heck, when I lived on campus at UT in the late 1970’s, I lawfully had my hunting rifle, shotgun, and TC Contender at the dorm — usually locked up downstairs, but occasionally in my dorm room overnight if the personnel with the combination to the safe weren’t on duty when I got back from a day in the field. And there was actually an indoor rifle/pistol range on campus (.22 only, mostly for ROTC and official club use but they did have some “open” days where any UT student could use it).

    2. avatar Shire-man says:

      The people who make that argument also claim it does form the public at large.
      For the “blood in the streets” crowd no amount of data will change their minds.
      They’re anti gun flat earthers.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      I have never understood the argument that concealed or open carry on campus would lead to more shootings …

      Gun-grabbers do not advance arguments based in fact. Instead, they put forth positions that resonate with many people on an emotional and philosophical (e.g. “virtue”) basis.
      And their messaging has largely succeeded over the last 85 years.

      Unfortunately, “might makes right” is a fact of human history. And gun-grabbers have managed to harness the might of our state and federal government’s to enforce their bidding. As a result, the ruling class and the working class don’t even have to get their hands dirty: government enforcers do it on their behalf.

      Now we are trying to play catch up. We would be wise to advance messaging which is both factual AND resonates with people on an emotional and philosophical basis.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:


        “We would be wise to advance messaging which is both factual AND resonates with people on an emotional and philosophical basis.”

        That is wisdom. Now, if only there was a national association advocating for rifle and other firearm owners, with millions of members, and which actually spent its money just as you advise. If only…

    4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘…it does not do so in the public at-large.’

      Shhhhh! They don’t want people to know that either.

  2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    How did Robert A. Heinlein put it, “An armed society is a polite society.” tends to be a truism and the fear mongering Leftards have no place for truth or facts in their arguments.

    1. avatar Ragnar says:

      “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

      1. avatar Karl says:

        Yeah, but these are these people who can’t stand to even hear an alternate viewpoint. Such as a Muslim woman who lived it and wants to tell others…

  3. avatar Prndll says:

    There are differing interpretations of the same feelings and thoughts when it comes to the idea that half the class room of students might be armed. Many are comforted by it. many others experience anxiety to the point of paranoia induced rage which hinders learning. This can be understood from the perspective of someone that has experienced a mass shooting spree in a school.

    There just simply is one aspect of it that continues to go ignored (perhaps on purpous) by those that have no experience or knowledge of guns. Non-politicians fail to see that simply difference between a single armed lunatic hell-bent on taking human life and a group of armed AND VETTED normal people being around them that carry firearms to protect life. Many people only see that gun and never see anything else. So anything that can be refered to as ‘intent’ means nothing. For these individuals, there is simply no such thing as a safe person with a gun. These people are convinced that if you put a gun in a normal persons hand, they instantly become evil killers. No matter who it is. Even if it’s a cop. For them, no one can be trusted and the only solution is to get rid of guns completely…across the board.

    This particular breed of sheep is not likely to ever see the reality the evil does not fill every human heart out there. Some might find help from doctors or from someone that cares about them personally. Most will just live their lives in utter fear. It truly is a shame as it does not have to be that way. For these people, is is inconceivable that there are people out there are will fight back by whatever means possible.

    Live on your knees are on your feet. But understand that human life is special and rare. Freedom is worth the cost of death as we are absolutely guaranteed to die someday. Our mortality is 100%. Evil is out there and must be defeated.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      “…armed AND VETTED normal people…”

      So the 2A only applies to “…VETTED…” people?
      And who gets to do the vetting?

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        Not sure where you go that???

        The 2A applies to all American Citizens.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          If the 2A is a “right”, then why must someone be “…VETTED…”?

          If you screen those that are allowed to exercise a right, who will be the vettors?

          Am I talking to the wall here? You don’t see where this is going?

        2. avatar Prndll says:

          I’m aware of where this is going. I’m not questioning that. I’m not particularly happy with the current way of doing things but I do accept that law is law. I would rather not need a license. But I cannot disregard that the fact that it is law. With that in mind, there are ways of changing laws. Wether or not those ways are very effective is another question.

          My underlying point was to the student that feels uneasy with armed students in their classroom.

        3. avatar Baldwin says:


          I do not “…accept…” unconstitutional laws.

      2. avatar Prndll says:

        In Texas, one must have a license to carry a firearm legally.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          You mean a permission slip to exercise your 2A rights?

        2. avatar Stay on subject! says:

          I understood “Vetted” to mean a person legally carrying not only because of the right granted by the 2A but also a person who is licensed, trained and adhering to the laws in place at the time. i.e. a law abiding citizen licensed to carry. This should not have flowed into a discussion of the merits of the 2A…..

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Not true. You must have a license to carry a handgun. No license is required to carry a rifle or shotgun.

      3. avatar Osprey says:

        Then carry without a license and we don’t want to hear you whine if you get in trouble.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          I did, for about a decade. I only got a license when my boss made it a condition of working there. That was a private agreement between 2 people, and I was good with that. The biggest challenge to passing the original concealed carry law was convincing legislators that it was illegal in the first place. Half of them had guns in their trucks and grew up that way.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      In other words most gun-grabbers are quite simply hysterical. And almost all remaining gun-grabbers (who are not hysterical) know that they are not trustworthy/responsible and assume that everyone else is equally untrustworthy/irresponsible and should be disarmed. (Psychologists call that “projection”.)

      Note: I am pretty confident that many gun-grabbers in the ruling class are not hysterical (although they could be guilty of projection). Rather, they want to consolidate power and see disarmament as a valuable strategy to that end.

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        Your mixing two different groups of people.

        There are the the political ‘ruling class’ that see the US as purely wrong in it’s existence and wish to remake it.

        There is the commoner fool that will believe what they are told without question, perfectly happy to follow the ‘ruling class’.

        It is your use of the term “gun-grabbers” that throws me off somewhat. O’Rourke is clearly a gun-grabber ruling class idiot that can only get anywhere in life with someone else’s funding. But he is quite different from the classroom student not yet in tune with how deep all this manipulation goes.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          Call them civilian disarmament advocates if that makes you feel better.

          Why does it matter if the civilian disarmament ruling class (which includes movie and television actors, directors, producers, and writers as well as politicians) and civilian disarmament advocacy groups dupe a college student into being a supporter? Anyone who supports civilian disarmament opposes our inalienable right to life and we should treat him/her accordingly.

        2. avatar Prndll says:

          I’m not disagreeing with this sentiment. I do see it has the inevitable conclusion given enough time spent in this quagmire.

          There are reasons why people like David Hogg get created. There are reasons why they are so easily manipulated. It’s not always about the dollars that people like Soros and Bloomberg throw at things.

    3. avatar Someone says:

      Unless there are metal detectors on every entrance, the sensitive snowflakes can’t be sure how many guns are in the classroom anyways. Only thing that the carry ban achieves is exclusion of legally carried guns. But they are not the ones we need to worry about.

  4. avatar Barnbwt says:

    I’d wager more injuries were subsequently inflicted with those giant dildos the ugly slags were waving around during their protests, than the guns they were opposed to.

  5. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Remember the “blood will run in the streets”, or the other yet infamous “wild, wild west”…???

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    When Florida passes CCW in 86 they predicted a civil war in the streets. 40 odd states later we haven’t seen that happen.
    What we have see is gun free zone declarations which publicly announce that legally at least everyone present is disarmed or else they are arrested , or at least asked to leave.
    Even those with less than advanced education should be able to figure out that problem.

  7. avatar enuf says:

    The young lady on the left of that photo is well equipped to make one of these concealment options work for her:

  8. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

    The person (don’t wanna offend anyone with assumed gender) on the wall sitting cross legged has quite the meat baton with her. Of course, I’m sure it is only for demonstrating/activist activities.

    I mean, nothing says you want to be taken seriously about your gun control cause like a big ol’ meat baton…….

    It’s a real conversation starter for sure.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The sex toys were their way of making a point, of getting the media attention. Los of students waved sex toys in opposition to campus-carry of guns:

      The point they are trying to make is it is still illegal in Texas to have sex toys on campus.

      1. avatar RGP says:

        The point they actually seem to demonstrate every single time is that socialists are morally depraved.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Unlikely. Few Americans know what a socialist is, including most self-declared American socialists.

          What depravity? The market for pornography and sex toys is a massive one supported by every segment of society. No demographic is unrepresented. Ownership and use of sex toys is commonplace, especially so among women.

          What these students are missing is that two wrongs do not make a right.

          Citizens should not be prohibited the means of self defense merely because they are on a college campus.

          Likewise the contents of an adult’s bedside night table, be it a sex toy or a pack of condoms or whatever, should not be legislated or the subject of rules by a college administration.

          Both things are normal for humans, nothing about firearms or women’s sex toys are depraved, abnormal or deserving of restrictive legislation.

      2. avatar The Grey Man says:

        Christ! If she uses that I wouldn’t stand a chance! In or out of bed!!!

        1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          If in bed, start stocking up on the Depends and you won’t be sitting down for a while.

  9. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    The College Professors made a very good point. Any subject having to do with politics puts them at great risk in their teaching of such subjects and prevents them instructing with a candid and honest appraisal of the subject. Politics drives mentally ill people over the edge (as evidenced in this forum on a daily basis). Some Professors have not been willing to take on controversial subjects which only degrades the level of education the students will receive and for the large amounts of money they pay for an education short changing their level of education is an obscenity.

    A more sane approach to the problem would have been for a law that would have demanded the concealed carry applicant take a mental test and thorough background check and go through a professional safety course before being given a license to carry and if the State would not do this then a separate qualification for campus carry should have been passed. Of course when do our courts or law makers ever sit down and speak with experts on both sides of the debate and come up with sound logical decisions and compromises that would satisfy both sides of the warring debates. Its always winner take all and fk the other side.

    After such comprises were met satisfying both sides seminars for students in regards to letting them understand the steps taken would have cut down on protests stemming from fear and paranoia.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      The professors did not make a good point at all. They projected a future that has not come to pass and will not likely come to pass and thereby demonstrated that they are fools. They are at no more risk discussing any topic than they were before the laws were changed.

      Your prescription for a “more sane approach” is similarly foolish. What you propose is a large set of additional processes to be completed and hurdles to be cleared to get to a point that has already been reached. You are essentially advocating that people be required to demonstrate the ability to run a marathon to prove that they are qualified to stand still in the location they currently are.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        Wrong I want to weed out lunatics that would have legal access to a college and then open fire on a class room. As it stands the College students were correct in much of what they said i,e, they are far safer with Armed Security personnel than taking a chance that some nut case will get a carry permit and use it as a free pass to walk in and kill people. Even a mental midget can see the logic in this/

        1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          How does a carry permit act as a free pass to walk in and start murdering people? If you’re ignoring the laws against murder, then why would you suddenly embrace the laws against unlawful carry of a firearm by obtaining a carry license prior to conducting murder? A license to carry is not some James Bond 007 license to kill, you know. Why would a would-be murderer even bother obtaining a license? Why not just murder ar will? Hiw does campus security protect people in classrooms when those officers are spread across the campus?

          Your arguments are so pitifully inadequate that even a middle schooler can see clearly the gaping holes and flaws in your logic. Yet, you thump your chest and proclaim your logic is crystal clear and sound. Where do you get that level of haughty confidence, when your arguments are such weak sauce?

        2. avatar MyName says:

          You are implying that I am a mental midget when your counter argument is “Wrong”, followed by a statement about something you want and then hyperbolic speculation? Gee, I didn’t know I was in the presence of such greatness.

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          No, you’re wrong, and you’re one of the lunatics you’re talking about in the first place. As it stands, the students were not correct in anything that they said, and their personal feelings are irrelevant and inadmissible. The last time someone opened fire in a sk00l, the armed security personnel cowered outside while their charges were systematically slaughtered. That IS what you’re going to get under your proposals, and there’s simply no way that you don’t know this by now. The mental midget here IS you, and that’s because you don’t have the intellectual capacity for logic. Shut the fuck up.

    2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      as there has been a complete lack of problems your post is absolutely and totally invalid.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      vlad. You constantly rag on the state of education in America. If America has a poor education system that fact can be laid at the feet of those same professors you are now agreeing with.

      Maybe it wasn’t your fault you washed out of school. maybe it was the sub standard educators you had to contend with? Is that what broke your mind and drove you to fascism?

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        You would do well to educate yourself and look up the meaning of a Fascist. It describes you to a “t”

        a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy , violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
        b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
        2. Oppressive, dictatorial control


        1. avatar jwm says:

          You’re the one, vlad, that is constantly attempting to suppress human and civil rights. You are constantly wanting people to have to jump through .gov hoops to exercise those rights.

          You are a fascist. Because you are to uneducated to understand this does not change the fact. You are a fascist.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          You need to take your own advice, for once, and actually educated yourself. You can start by looking up the definition of fascist — and then look in the mirror, because you’ll see one staring back at you.

          A form of far-left, socialist authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.


          Shut the fuck up.

      2. avatar swampcat says:

        I do enjoy seeing jwm get toasted by a variety of people on this forum. It usually happens to high school drop outs JWM.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Except that JWM is doing the roasting of that highsk00l drop-out above. Seems you and that dipshit Vlad run in the same circles.

    4. avatar Roaches says:

      Then why are professors on many campuses brainwashing students with anti Trump, anti 2A, anti white, anti religious…..propaganda?

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        If you watched other news programs besides Fox State Run News you would realize that your statement is ludicrous.

        1. avatar Kryptonite says:

          Assuming you even went to school, you just proved Roach right.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          If you had ever watched anything other than CNN state-run news, you would realize that the only ridiculous statements to be seen here ARE yours.

    5. avatar Shire-man says:

      This “chilling effect” already exists in high schools and colleges.
      Conservative faculty keep their heads down and conservative students keep their mouths shut lest they risk physical assaults, loss of career, damage to property, destruction of reputation and other various attacks.

      If guns on campus reigned in the 35 genders, all heil Chavez crowd and granted a little more leeway for the “due process is important” and “free speech applies to everyone” crowd I’d view it as a net positive for these supposed institutions of free expression of ideas.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        The only chilling effect is “Racist Nazi’s that think free speech and the 1st Amendment give them the right to promote racism , hate and violence. Wrong, promoting violence is against the law and is not covered by free speech and never has been. No Constitutional right is unlimited and never has been when it endangers the lives of innocent people.

        Conservative thought is not prohibited on Campuses and Class Rooms and never has been. People who are products of higher education can testify to that.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          No. Popular speech doesn’t need protection. All the examples of speech you named ARE protected by the first amendment. Only direct inciting of immediate violence is not. How does it feel to be always wrong?

          We know that you leftists would love to silence any opposition by calling their ideas hatespeech and racism. Sorry, it’s not going to work. Even if it did, god forbid, you should realize that by denying your opponents the soap box, you would only push them closer to the ammo box. Nobody wants that.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          The only chilling effect is that far-left fascists think that free speech and the 1st Amendment give them the right to promote anti-white racism, hate, and violence — even against minorities that disagree with them. Which is why you’re wrong, as per usual. Conservative though IS regularly suppressed on college campuses and almost always has been in living memory. People who have actually been to college already know this for a fact. You don’t because you haven’t.

          Shut the fuck up.

    6. avatar Excedrine says:

      You suffer from the same unfounded fear and paranoia that these so-called “professors” do. They are no more able or unable to discuss anything they please than at any point before or since. They don’t make a point whatsoever at all, they’re lying. You know they are, too, so don’t bother trying to deny it, either.

      There is exactly zero point in adding any additional hurdles to arrive at a point that has, for a fact, already been safely reached. Psychological examinations would yield nothing. Background checks almost cannot be made any more strenuous or thorough than they already are, either.

      There is no assuaging the fear in these people except to totally and completely capitulate to them in every way. Even then, it still won’t be enough. It never will be.

      Shut the fuck up. You know nothing.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:


        Dump your guns now Excendrine or Socialist Thunder will be coming to pay you a visit after the elections.

      2. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        quote to Excedrine Excrement.

        “There is exactly zero point in adding any additional hurdles to arrive at a point that has, for a fact, already been safely reached. Psychological examinations would yield nothing. Background checks almost cannot be made any more strenuous or thorough than they already are, either.”

        Go clean out your outhouse then stick your head in the hole in the floor and rant to the turds , even they will be laughing. Especially your rant that claims psychological examinations would yield nothing. Obviously you have never taken any psychology courses. Tell me do you practice being ignorant or were you just born that way? Really this is too easy. Yawn. Try again.

    7. avatar Barnbwt says:

      The only fear of political reprisals in lecture halls these days is felt by non-leftists. This isn’t even a point of debate any longer.

      It’s beyond disingenuous you would make the claims you did. You’re simply lying like the rest of the leftists who seek to stifle all free speech except their own. Some claimed baseless ‘fear’ on their part does not constitute a burden on anyone else’s part. Especially when they are plainly lying about being afraid. If they were actually afraid, they would be mouse silent, not shouting in the faces of their ‘terror.’

  10. avatar Nate in CA says:

    Sometimes I’m amazed I make it out of the public shooting ranges alive – so many guns, and every time I’m out just target shooting, someone decides to do a mass shooting simply because there are so many guns lying around. It’s a battlefield just trying to get back to my Honda in one piece!

  11. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Of course its always going to be the dumbass Libitard with nothing to back them up. Telling you the sky is falling.
    Personally I don’t pay one wit of attention to any antigun anything.
    I know better and will scream it in the face of any Dimwit I see tiring to tell decent folks otherwise.
    Easiest way to shut up a dumbass libitard.
    Flood them with facts.
    Then watch them go to the same old tired lies and utter nonsense.
    They have zero recourse to the truth.

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      I had a conversation this afternoon. I said I strongly support the 2A. She said I have nothing against it, but we need to pass more laws to keep guns out of criminals’ hands and to reduce violent crime. I said it is very illegal already for criminals to possess firearms and for anyone to use a firearm while committing a crime; how do you believe that making it illegaler will stop someone with no hesitation to breaks the laws we already have? The only result would be to violate the rights of those of us who follow the law while having no effect on those intent on breaking the law. No reply from her, but I think she saw a new perspective today she had never imagined.

  12. avatar jwm says:

    Those sex toys are a good teaching moment. No sex toy has ever raped anyone. No gun has ever killed anyone. They are both tools.

    1. avatar Nate in CA says:

      Well you have to be careful not mixing them up, pulling a sex toy for self defense or using a loaded gun as a sex you might not end well

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I don’t know. If I’m confronted in a parking garage by a street thug demanding my wallet which would be a more effective deterrent? A j frame or a black, 16 inch long dildo?

        1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          I think the thug would be running for the hills faster than you can say “Boo” if you pulled out the dong and had that je ne sais quoi look that conveys that you had every intention of using it.

        2. avatar Barnbwt says:

          “So, you want that up your ass?” –perfect reply to anyone wielding a club threateningly

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “More guns equals more crime.”

    Repeat after me: “More guns equals more crime”.

    Repeat “More guns equals more crime” until you believe it.

    Keep repeating until someday fantasy becomes reality.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        No. There is more firearms in this country than ever before. The violent crime rates are down to half of the ’80s level. More guns may not automatically mean less crime, but it sure as hell doesn’t mean more of it. Even mental midget should understant that.
        How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        Actually, Vlad, even though you’re too ignorant to realize it, real studies show that states with the most do guns don’t have more crime and violence. This refute the idea that more guns makes you less safe. That’s what the stats actually prove. More than 100 studies showed violence and homicide decreased in areas with more guns. Below, actual experts in criminology spells this all out in something called a “book.” You might have heard of them. They have words and some even have pictures in them. You’d have to actually be able to read, though, so that might count you out. Not that it’d be a big surprise.

        Shut the fuck up.

        1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          30 studies prove your ridiculous right wing references are a joke.

          And by the way
          Robert Bernard Reich (/raɪʃ/;[1] born June 24, 1946) is an American economist,[2][3][4][5] professor, author, and political commentator. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. He was Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997. He was a member of President Barack Obama’s economic transition advisory board.

          Shuv your Hillbilly references where the sun doesn’t shine Jethro.
          And after 2020 it will be Komarade.

  14. avatar Viper1313 says:

    Why do we have to have license to exercise a Right given to us by the Constitution? If we followed that rule, then shouldn’t we have to apply for license, to free speech, religion, to print speech or words, or any other Right the Constitution Guarantees Us?….So why have we allowed all sections of the government to License a Constitutional Right??

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Close, but the Constitution doesn’t give us any rights. The right to keep and bear arms was preexisting; the Constitution enumerates it and protects it from being infringed by the government. (Theoretically anyways.)

  15. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Well, the predictions were made by academics.

    Like most of their predictions, it didn’t pan out.

  16. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “…if you pulled out the dong and had that je ne sais quoi look that conveys that you had every intention of using it.”

    On whom?

  17. avatar Sam I Am says:

    ” No reply from her, but I think she saw a new perspective today she had never imagined.”

    Anyway to do a follow-up to learn if she altered her thinking?

  18. avatar Dan W says:

    That’s disappointing. Most Universities need some serious house cleaning.

  19. avatar Lauren Cotter says:

    I think that shootouts in colleges and universities are simply unacceptable, students should think about education and about their future. I will pad help them, you can read the book “The Crucible” and my analytical essay at , this book is a classic of world literature.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email