"I don't care if they make a law that says death penalty for anyone caught with a gun. I WILL BE ARMED! My life is more import than any law, rule, policy or ban."
Presented for discussion. I'm not commenting on that one way or another. Those are comments at Facebook on this image:
ADDED: Meanwhile, in Texas:
Economics professor emeritus Daniel Hamermesh will withdraw from his position next fall, citing concerns with campus carry legislation. The law will allow the concealed carry of guns in campus buildings beginning Aug. 1, 2016. Hamermesh said he is not comfortable with the risk of having a student shoot at him in class.Does that make sense? It will still be against the law to shoot at him in class. I guess the argument is that the decision to carry a gun into class is more deliberate. You plan ahead, and might be more rational in making the decision whether to break any laws. But the decision to pull out your gun and shoot the professor is more impulsive and thus less susceptible to contemplation of the legal consequences. So the ban on carrying a gun was protecting Hamermesh in ways that the ban on shooting the professor does not.
“My guess is somebody thinking about coming to Texas is going to think twice about being a professor here,” Hamermesh said. “It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty.”Spoken like an economics professor.
Posts
162 comments:
As I commented on another post a couple days ago, I've read that at least some women carry handguns on campus, believing that it's better to risk expulsion for defending one's self than to be raped and perhaps murdered. This seems to be particularly true for women whose research projects have them working late on campus and walking to distant (and not always well-lit) parking lots.
I don't blame them one bit.
I always thought the point of civil disobedience was to do it openly and be willing to take the consequences (brief stay in jail) in order to make one's point.
On the broader subject, what would happen if someone offered a "States' Rights Gun Rights Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution that said: "The Second Amendment to this Constitution shall not apply to the States"?
That is precisely the correct thinking. It is better to protect yourself (when seconds count, the police are at least a half-hour away), and worry about consequences later. I support this idea 100%! At least a few folks have the courage to look out for themselves, and for the rest of us as well. Power to them!!
Big Mike said...
I've read that at least some women carry handguns on campus, believing that it's better to risk expulsion for defending one's self than to be raped and perhaps murdered.
The "pledge" isn't limited to universities, and some gun free zones are backed by law. So they're not just risking being expelled, jail is also possible.
There are sound (Some by Federal agencies) that show:
1. Armed targets of criminal attacks are less likely to be murdered or maimed than unarmed "sheep" who wait for the "Nanny State" to protect them;
2. Guns, in the hands of citizens, are generally useful in suppressing crime;
3. It appears that the rates of violent crime are INVERSELY related to citizens legal access to guns;
4. It appears that there are many (Millions?) of self-defense uses of guns (Often by "mere" display") every year in the USA;
5. There are over 100 nations who have higher murder rates than the USA with stricter gun control laws than in the USA; And,
6. If Blacks were removed from the "numbers", the USA's rates of such crimes would be roughly that of Belgium (ie Very low).
In addition, it is an individual and constitutional right "to keep and bear arms". Like voting, such a right can only be properly removed by a court and after a "due process hearing" (With a jury trial if demanded). Any other "infringement" on that right is an act of tyrants as addressed by President Jefferson.
"I always thought the point of civil disobedience was to do it openly and be willing to take the consequences (brief stay in jail) in order to make one's point."
Yes, the term normally refers to a form of protest, an expression, an effort to communicate with others about your objection.
If you're breaking the law and hiding it, aren't you just like everyone else who chooses to break the law? You could say that not everyone who chooses to break a law also opposes the existence of that law. For example, many murderers support the law against murder — they're not murdering as a way of saying it's bad that murder is against the law or even feel that they are going ahead and murdering because murder really shouldn't be against the law.
Corollary: do not brag about your wad cutter hydro-shock ammo that obliterates all human organs.
People who feel it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe have serious mental problems and should seek treatment rather than create an unnecessary risk for the public.
I wonder if that kid knew he was going to be shown in this ad, or if the gun group just paid for a stock shot and stuck words on it? I hope the former, since "I am breaking the law" seems like a big thing to stick onto someone who got paid 50 bucks, probably figuring he might appear in ads for back-to-school sales and community colleges.
Big Mike, I happen to know a woman who carries her gun on the UW campus. I told her it was prudent when she asked me my thoughts.
Good for them. There's no shame in ignoring an unjust law. Especially when obeying the law might get you and other people killed.
Do you regularly carry a pocketknife, or a multitool? It's quite likely that you've broken similar laws. Does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth.
Since I have been told incorrectly, but repeatedly, that 1 in 4 college women will be sexually assaulted, the questions becomes, why are not most college women armed?
In fact, why are women going into such hell holes of sexual deviancy and danger at ALL?
So women who fear being raped "have serious mental problems and should seek treatment"? Hannah Graham and Morgan Harrington didn't seem to have any particular fear of being raped, but we can't ask them because they were raped and murdered at the University of Virginia campus.
4. It appears that there are many (Millions?) of self-defense uses of guns (Often by "mere" display") every year in the USA;
The biggest crime deterrent is simply guns being in the hands of citizens and criminals not knowing who has them and who doesn't.
Ann Althouse said...
"I always thought the point of civil disobedience was to do it openly and be willing to take the consequences (brief stay in jail) in order to make one's point."
Yes, the term normally refers to a form of protest, an expression, an effort to communicate with others about your objection.
If you're breaking the law and hiding it, aren't you just like everyone else who chooses to break the law? You could say that not everyone who chooses to break a law also opposes the existence of that law. For example, many murderers support the law against murder — they're not murdering as a way of saying it's bad that murder is against the law or even feel that they are going ahead and murdering because murder really shouldn't be against the law.
10/8/15, 9:52 AM
This is a hard issue to do active, public civil disobedience with due to the fact of it being a "concealed carry permit" as opposed to legal open carry. In many jurisdictions, it is an additional criminal offense to "display" a firearm if you are a concealed carry holder. Florida recently updated its laws to "forgive" inadvertent "brandishing" that sometimes occurs while carrying concealed.
Oh and ARM, you once again show your lack of support for women by attempting to deny them the right to defend themselves from rape and murder. Why do you hate women?
Oh yeah, ARM just stated, as fact, that millions upon millions of his fellow citizens are unhinged. Hey, that plays right into the idea of keeping guns out of the mentally unstable.
Catch-22 (rimfire). If you want a gun for protection it proves you are too mentally unstable to be allowed to own a gun.
Bravo, sir. Your twisted little mind had hit upon a scheme that is sure to gain purchase by literally dozens of similar minded folk.
"If you're breaking the law and hiding it, aren't you just like everyone else who chooses to break the law?"
Some laws deserve open civil disobedience, while other laws just deserve to be ignored.
Historically speaking Americans are pretty successful at nullifying bad laws by acting as though those laws don't exist. Which is why people generally don't worry about paying the neighbor in cash for plowing their driveway, driving without a seatbelt, downloading pirated software, or committing sodomy with their spouse. Despite all those things being "illegal" at various points in time.
Presented for discussion but you're not commenting, Professor? You should comment!
AReasonableMan: "....."
People who feel it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe have serious mental problems and should seek treatment rather than create an unnecessary risk for the criminals who seek to rob, assault, rape and/or kill them.
FIFY
Also, why is it that Obama insists on having armed guards around? Mental illness?
How many bodyguards does the Hollywood elite employ? Why? Are they all insane? (trick question!)
Why bother living in gated communities? Insanity run amok?
Why bother locking the doors to your car or home? What's the point?
The people I know who do this (carry 24/7 regardless of the law) do not talk about it.
These are lawless times from the President and DoJ down to municipal governments; why should citizens not look at that and conclude they had better take some personal steps for self-protection?
Big Mike: "Hannah Graham and Morgan Harrington didn't seem to have any particular fear of being raped, but we can't ask them because they were raped and murdered at the University of Virginia campus"
Those deaths are not relevant to the point which ARM was making, which was ARM is superior to all of you.
And not crazy at all. Nope. Not in the least. At all. Seriously. Medication? Perish the thought! Why do you ask?
Some might wonder why ARM consistently goes right to the "mental illness" card.
Some others might not....
Hoodlum, She's a liberal elite, her stance on guns goes w/o saying.
The advertising of it doesn't make any logical sense. Also, if you want to do it, fine, but please leave me out of it - I'm not asking for your "protection", thank you, very much.
ARM, people who are afraid of weapons have serious mental health and self-esteem issues, and need to work on acknowledging their problems and fixing them instead of engaging in bigoted attacks on civil rights.
"Corollary: do not brag about your wad cutter hydro-shock ammo that obliterates all human organs."
Weird ignorant stuff like this is a big factor in why liberals will never be trusted regarding gun control. You'll be putting a silencer on a revolver or taking an "undetectable terrorist plastic Glock" through an airport metal detector next.
"Economics professor emeritus Daniel Hamermesh..."
He's already retired. His pension isn't at all threatened. So, instead of teaching a class that he doesn't have to, he will be puttering around the garden, or whatever.
Such a bold and brave demonstration of your beliefs, Daniel Hamermesh.
I don't see how someone carrying a gun to feel secure is a sign of mental illness. When I'm going somewhere new, I double check the directions to make sure I'm going the right way. If I need to build something, I'll measure twice.
I think what it is is liberals imagine someone saying that as meaning that, when they wake up in the morning, they touch their gun. In the shower, they keep the gun on the dry side, just in case. That gun users are like addicts who need a constant high from touching the reassuring gun, like it is a security blanket or a shot of cocaine. That they need the cold metal just to get through the day.
When what gun owners usually mean is that the gun is another tool they like to have on hand, just in case they need it, like a tire jack or a first aid kit. They aren't running around with a tire fetish, hoping that their car will pop a tire so they can show how manly they are in jacking up a car and swapping on a doughnut. But, having the tool, in case they need it, is just another part of a general level of preparedness.
[Note: I am not a gun owner, and have never shot a gun. This is just the impression I get from talking to both anti-gun liberals and people who own guns and trying to understand their positions.]
A Reasonable Man: "....."
People who feel it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe have serious mental problems and should seek treatment rather than create an unnecessary risk for the public. . .
Do you feel the same way about the women described in Warren v. District of Columbia who were serially raped by two men over about 14 hours while the D.C. police did nothing/failed to respond after multiple calls. If after that experience these women perhaps felt for some reason that they needed to have or carry a gun for self-protection, would you have considered them to have had serious mental problems? If not, what about those of us who have merely read the Warren v. District of Columbia case? Are we mentally defective?
"People who feel it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe have serious mental problems and should seek treatment rather than create an unnecessary risk for the public."
People who feel it is necessary to avoid concealed carry holders in order to feel safe have serious mental problems and should seek treatment rather than create an unnecessary risk for the public.
"I wanted to shoot my professor today, but then I realized there's a rule against carrying this gun on campus. Oh, well."
How many murders have been carried out by people with concealed carry permits? I think the number is low, very low.
Matthew, pretty decent insight.
When I was 22 and a construction laborer I never felt the need to go armed. I was big, young, strong and likely overly confidant in my abilities. But I suspect I was in the "let's choose someone else" pile in the eyes of a criminal. Plus it seemed a far, far gentler time.
Now I'm old, slow and grey. The thought of an equalizer is of much greater comfort.
If the professor is this dumb, his retirement is no loss to the University and no loss to the students.
Actually, it's encouraging: If formally "allowing" conceal carry on campus causes libtard professors to resign en mass, that will create terrific opportunities for better professors to gain entry into the profession, allow some adjuncts to move to tenured positions, and help to correct the scandalous left-tard skew in the ranks of academia.
Let's do this!!!!
Hmm, I get the idea, but wouldn't want to risk my CCW, which I assume you could lose if you were caught. (I don't actually have a CCW, though I've thought about it, but if I did, that would be my thinking.) I might carry on a college campus, though, given that it seems like the risk of being caught would be very low, but I wouldn't in, say, a courthouse.
My state enacted a law a few years ago that employers had to allow employees to keep guns in their cars on employer property (called "guns in trunks" colloquially). A European car company had recently opened a large facility here, and management said that they might have reconsidered if they had known that employees might be carrying. I said that if they did not think of that beforehand, they didn't do their research. It's Tennessee; I can assure you that, at any large employer, some employees are carrying, whether they are allowed to or not. Plenty of people are perfectly willing to risk their jobs for that.
There's a certain percentage of the population, male and female, whose goal is to be harmless for some reason. I can't say I understand it myself, but as long as they can't force me to join them I say best of luck.
Some laws deserve open civil disobedience, while other laws just deserve to be ignored.
Complete agreement. This can't be stated too often.
Many many laws should be repealed.
“My guess is somebody thinking about coming to Texas is going to think twice about being a professor here,” Hamermesh said. “It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty.”
I'm willing to bet that the exact opposite happens.
AReasonableMan said...
People who feel it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe have serious mental problems and should seek treatment rather than create an unnecessary risk for the public.
Tell that to the nine dead in Roseburg. Oops, too late.
I don't believe Hammersmith when he writes "“With a huge group of students, my perception is that the risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom and start shooting at me has been substantially enhanced by the concealed-carry law." I think this is a stunt, and a protest against the TX state legislature (who pays his salary) controlling his working conditions. Good riddance.
This will definitely improve diversity with UT's teaching staff.
If he's worried about his students shooting him, it's time for him to leave.
If he is just talking shit, it's time for him to leave.
If he is 71, it's time for him to leave and make room for someone younger.
All in all, he is doing the right thing.
I actually totally get this. But if you're working in national security, I'd vigorously advise against doing it since getting caught even once could easily result in the loss of your security clearance and/or termination from the job. There's precious few enough Americans willing to expose themselves to danger downrange in order to keep people safe at home, we don't need to lose any of them participating in this movement.
Concealed carry isn't exactly like fight club, but maybe somewhat. Guy here finally told me he was carrying concealed. By then, I think he knew that I wouldn't freak out. Here in MT, open carry is not uncommon, but you need a license to carry concealed in the city limits. Most everyone has guns at home and probably in the truck, so no one is going to freak out like ARM did. Still, concealed carry is not advertised. Gettng back to that guy - the best way to react to finding that someone is carrying a concealed handgun may be to ask them what they are packing. And f you have a license, point that out too.
That prof gives new meaning to the term "libtard". For one thing, inevitably, you typically need a decent understanding of self-defense/use of force laws to get a concealed permit. Much better than he probably has. Shooting the libtard prof would ultimately put the student in the penitentiary for a couple of decades, even if some of the lecture involved micro aggressions without the proper trigger warnings. And, concealed carriers tend to drink significantly less than their counterparts, esp since being legally impaired while carrying will typically get your permit yanked for an extended period of time, if not life (unless you are a cop, which makes being armed and drunk just fine).
Ann Althouse said..If you're breaking the law and hiding it, aren't you just like everyone else who chooses to break the law?
Sure, but apparently if enough people do so then you're not a criminal by default--think about it like music piracy or illegal drug use (pot, say). A pothead breaking the law by buying pot and hiding that fact (as opposed to telling everyone he's a pothead) is a criminal, but there are so many millions of them in the country that just buying and using pot oneself is not seen as being AS criminal as other drug crimes. You'll still go to jail if caught, of course, but lots of people talk about their covert criminal drug use (pot, anyway) as being in some way linked to civil disobedience against unjust drug laws.
AReasonableMan said....People who feel it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe have serious mental problems and should seek treatment rather than create an unnecessary risk for the public.
I keep telling the cops on my street that, but they won't listen and disarm themselves. Weird.
I used to *always* take my weapon to the Wal*Mart near my house when I was shopping.
Not because I was in danger from criminals, but because when they didn't have enough jurors in the pool they'd send the court deputies over to round people up. But because you couldn't even have a gun in your trunk at the courthouse they would have had to let me drive home, etc, etc.
Saved me at least three times
-XC
The Obama Fifth Column will probably have to pivot to avoid the 2nd Amendment and Order a prohibition on ammunition because lead is per se a pollutant and the shooting of carbon based gunpowder is causing the planet to cook.
For reference, here are the eligibility requirements for concealed carry in Texas
http://www.texaschl.us/eligibility.htm
and here are the procedures:
http://www.txchia.org/getchl.htm
Given the hoops one has to jump through - and why a CHL is a valid form of voter ID in Texas while a student ID is not - statistically a professor is more likely to get shot by that sweet little coed his wife made him break it off with than a CHL holder.
Prof. Daniel Hamermesh either lacks a fundamental grasp of the statistics of gun deaths or recognizes he's such an incredible asshole all his students want to shoot him.
So this professor double dipping into a cushy retirement will go ahead and quit? Excellent. Too bad he will be replaced by a like minded academic.
It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty.
Wishful thinking by a progressive professor. In reality they’ll be potential candidates lined up around the block to take his job.
But although I’m licensed I will not carry openly. I do not want everyone to know I have a weapon because in the event of a shooting I’m likely to be the first target. Better to have a nasty little surprise for the shooter after they think they are up against unarmed sitting ducks that they can shoot one by one in the head after ascertaining their religion. Imagine the look on their face after half their skull is unexpectedly blown away. Priceless.
Gladly, mrs.e. If I see you getting raped, I will not in any way interfere.
Also, if you want to do it, fine, but please leave me out of it - I'm not asking for your "protection", thank you, very much.
Yet.
On the broader subject, what would happen if someone offered a "States' Rights Gun Rights Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution that said: "The Second Amendment to this Constitution shall not apply to the States"?
All but about four states already have the right to own guns in their state constitutions.
How far inside your own little bubble do you have to be to not understand that some people carry because they there is real potential danger in their lives?
mrs.e said... [hush][hide comment]
The advertising of it doesn't make any logical sense. Also, if you want to do it, fine, but please leave me out of it - I'm not asking for your "protection", thank you, very much.
10/8/15, 10:39 AM
I understand. So as to afford me the ability to abide by your request, could you please wear a t-shirt with the following on it? This would also be for the benefit of anyone that might be carrying so as to not have them impose upon your wishes either.
Please under no circumstances, come to my aid with a firearm! I do not wish to be associated with them or their use and do not need your "protection". Thank you
"Hamermesh said he is not comfortable with the risk of having a student shoot at him in class."
There's a joke in there to be made about students needing 'trigger warnings'.
But the decision to pull out your gun and shoot the professor is more impulsive and thus less susceptible to contemplation of the legal consequences. So the ban on carrying a gun was protecting Hamermesh in ways that the ban on shooting the professor does not.
He probably does think that. Which is to say, he thinks that a rule against carrying guns somehow prevents an unhinged student who wants to stick a gun in his pants/coat pocket/backpack and go to class from doing so. Or he believes that the sort of people who get CCWs and carry guns are likely to haul off shoot him if he says something they don't like, or even for no reason at all.
It's amazing the things that otherwise intelligent people can come to believe.
“It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty.”
Wishful thinking. You guys are a dime a dozen.
It has never crossed my mind that a student would harm me when I teach face to face.
Very strange to see that thought formulated by another person who teaches.
When I taught I knew perfectly well that most of students had guns in their cars for deer season. Many students lived within walking distance and their off-campus apartments could have had entire arsenals for all I knew.
I never worried about students carrying. I never thought a sign saying "gun free zone" would protect me from any who decided to kill me.
@MadisonMan:Very strange to see that thought formulated by another person who teaches.
It's because he's posturing. He's not actually afraid of any of his students; if they wanted to kill him at any time, any of them could have.
Did you ever have football players try to intimidate you, or know anyone it happened to? Some students don't need to carry guns.
I had Hamermesh as a professor back in the late 90s for an undergraduate microeconomics class. He was one of the best professors I have ever had.
I think he is wrong on this, but the man is an amazing teacher.
Economics professor emeritus Daniel Hamermesh will withdraw from his position next fall, citing concerns with campus carry legislation. The law will allow the concealed carry of guns in campus buildings beginning Aug. 1, 2016. Hamermesh said he is not comfortable with the risk of having a student shoot at him in class.
I am appalled that an economics professor would argue such a thing. Has he ever had a student punch him in the face? I doubt it. I bet students don't even yell at him. College classes are rarely so contentious and so full of low impulse control, violent people that anyone has to fear sudden, physical retaliation.
Considering the history of shootings in gun free zones, and the extremely low incidence of violence otherwise in college classrooms, I think he has a much higher risk of being shot under the current policy. (Of course that's a nearly zero risk versus an even more nearly zero risk, so perhaps he should calm down about the whole thing in any case.)
There was a professor shot on campus here many years ago by a disaffected grad student. I don't think guns were allowed in the building.
Plus, it's Texas. There are guns everywhere. Does he fear for his life as he goes about his business outside the university?
@Freeman: I don't think guns were allowed in the building.
Well, if only they would make shooting people illegal, you would think that would get at the root cause. Why are we legislating against the symptoms?
Look, the only function of "gun-free zones" is to ensure that everyone armed in one is either a cop or a criminal, and the cops tend to be very few. This is about the silliest idea I've ever come across.
Rick: Right on. The beauty of concealed carry is that you can't know who's carrying and who isn't. Of course, the same was true on Hamermesh's old campus as well, but then you could assume that anyone carrying was a criminal. Now some of the evil nasty gun-luggers might actually be innocent.
NB I've never even held a gun (a real one, I mean -- Dad used to have an air rifle, but it wasn't a lethal weapon), much less owned one. So maybe I'm trusting to "herd immunity." Still, better that than nothing.
Lucien said...
"I always thought the point of civil disobedience was to do it openly and be willing to take the consequences (brief stay in jail) in order to make one's point.". I always thought one of the main points of self defense was to stay alive.
Hammermish must not go out much, if this actually worries him. In Texas does he move in his armored car from one gun free zone to another? Maybe he goes to church a lot. With Unitarians. And gets his groceries at the Food Pantry there.
Or perhaps someone does these dangerous jobs for him?
If someone, anyone, feels uncomfortable going to a restaurant or a theater or just for a walk without a gun, who doesn't think that person has problems with paranoia? Obvious, untreated problems. A gun doesn't fix that, it just makes them more dangerous.
AReasonableMan said...
If someone, anyone, feels uncomfortable going to a restaurant or a theater or just for a walk without a gun, who doesn't think that person has problems with paranoia? Obvious, untreated problems. A gun doesn't fix that, it just makes them more dangerous.
10/8/15, 2:33 PM
I would 100% agree with you if and only IF criminal elements would do me the favor of letting me know at least 24 hours in advance, when they plan to commit their crimes. See if I know in advance, when the "bad things" will happen, I would only carry a gun for those things. As I can not get criminals to agree to give me fair and ample warning of when they will do their criminal things, I need to be ever vigilant.
So, you get them all to agree and verify that they are sticking to their promise and I will modify my behavior accordingly.
Simple, right?
Oh, and ARM, you did have not address why you hate women so much and want them to get raped and murdered by not being able to defend themselves.
old people are cranky
Todd said...
Oh, and ARM, you did have not address why you hate women so much and want them to get raped and murdered by not being able to defend themselves.
10/8/15, 2:49 PM
Sorry, "want" above should read "quite happy" as I believe ARM does not want any persons to be attacked and possibly killed. I just believe he does not care if that happens to women as his "principles" opposing guns outweighs the benefits they might bring to defenseless "others" like women.
MadisonMan said...
It has never crossed my mind that a student would harm me when I teach face to face.
Very strange to see that thought formulated by another person who teaches.
He's probably suffering from mental illness akin to people who feel scared without a gun.
@ARM: Without a gun, small, weak, and old people are at the mercy of the physically stronger.
I know a female professor who was menaced in her office by three football players who didn't want to have to explain to coach why they were getting Ds. They didn't have guns and didn't need them. And since that day she has lived in fear it would happen again and has always arranged her office with that mind. Is she an irrational paranoid?
Until we live in the Harrison Bergeron world where no one has any innate physical advantage over any other, guns will have a legitimate place in the hands of innocent citizens going about their daily lives.
ARM,
Does always wearing a seatbelt in a car make you paranoid?
Todd said...
you did have not address why you hate women so much and want them to get raped and murdered by not being able to defend themselves.
In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
KEEPING & BEARING ARMS IS CRAZY: THE “SOVIET SOLUTION”: As the old USSR developed, a political decision was made to deal with those who “dissented” by considering-and-declaring them, per se, mentally ill for doing so. Such persons were involuntary confined in prison like “hospitals” and subjected to “aggressive” treatment”
It appears that too many (Chiefly, but not universally Democrats) consider anyone who wishes to fully exercise their rights (And, implied duties) under the “Second Amendment” as likewise “mentally ill”. I suspect that many Democrats consider anyone who opposes any of Mr. Obama’s extra-constitutional actions or "Hillary's" crimes as likewise “crazy
@Coupe:As he pulled his gun up
He WAS a violent criminal. Pointing a gun at someone is an act of violence. And he may well have been desperate enough to kill.
If he had killed the teller how would you feel about that? A teller who had offered, mind you, no violence to anyone that day.
@ARM:In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners
It's funny you think they don't need guns. They need them even more then, don't they, if they are in constant physical threat from the people closest to them--who are usually larger and stronger and can kill them WITHOUT a gun.
Sorry, "want" above should read "quite happy" as I believe ARM does not want any persons to be attacked and possibly killed. I just believe he does not care if that happens to women as his "principles" opposing guns outweighs the benefits they might bring to defenseless "others" like women.
Exactly. Their deaths allow ARM and the rest of the liberal handwringers the moral high ground. Which is easy when you stand on the bodies of the dead.
Before little Richie Daley made it a felony I used to have a loaded .45 between the seats when I drove to work. I worked on South Leavitt Street just a block from the Vita Herring plant. On more than one occasion upon leaving the car with the firearm the local youths would find something more interesting to do down the block.
I have an absolute right not to be a victim.
AReasonableMan said...
Todd said...
you did have not address why you hate women so much and want them to get raped and murdered by not being able to defend themselves.
In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
Then more women should be armed. They should also use more discrimination in who they hook up with.
All my girls know how to shoot.
Considering the violent crime rate for holders of concealed carry permits is lower than that of the general population, I question this guy's reasoning.
But frankly this sounds like one of those "faux-cotts" where someone pretends to make a serious, self-sacrificing decision when they're giving up something they never wanted (like Jessica Alba saying she won't visit Arizona because of its illegal immigration law, when she pretty much wouldn't visit AZ anyway. Did she boycott California, where she made her career, because of its illegal immigration referendum back in the '90s? Didn't think so). It's like leftists who said they weren't going to Chick-fil-a anymore because of its owner's "antigay" statements, as if they were regular patrons to begin with.
This guy obviously wanted to take a different job for other reasons, and is using this to get on his self-righteous high horse. He deserves to be mocked, then ignored.
Blogger Gabriel said...
It's funny you think they don't need guns. They need them even more then, don't they, if they are in constant physical threat from the people closest to them--who are usually larger and stronger and can kill them WITHOUT a gun.
So women should wear guns in the bath and the bed and while reading a bed time story to their kids. They should be armed at all times?
AReasonableMan said...
Todd said...
you did have not address why you hate women so much and want them to get raped and murdered by not being able to defend themselves.
In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
10/8/15, 3:18 PM
So you would a) rather they were beaten or stabbed to death, b) still want them unable to defend themselves, and c) what about all of the women that are raped by men that had they had a gun, they could have defended themselves in a more equitable way?
Also, are you still thinking over "our" plan to reduce the number of people carrying guns by your getting criminals to report when they are going to commit crimes so regular folks won't feel the need to carry all the time?
AReasonableMan said...
So women should wear guns in the bath and the bed and while reading a bed time story to their kids. They should be armed at all times?
10/8/15, 3:26 PM
Maybe. That would be their call as adults in America. If they feel threaten by someone that has repeatedly violated a restraining order, that may indeed be what it takes for them to protect themselves and their loved ones and to feel safe. Or can they come stay with you?
@ARM:They should be armed at all times?
If they live with someone they are afraid of they should move away. If they can't move away, they should be armed at all times. If someone they moved away from is dangerous to them, they should be armed at all times.
A crazy ex boyfriend or ex husband or stalker on restraining order can kill a woman faster than the cops can get there.
Ann Althouse said...But the decision to pull out your gun and shoot the professor is more impulsive and thus less susceptible to contemplation of the legal consequences. So the ban on carrying a gun was protecting Hamermesh in ways that the ban on shooting the professor does not.
Hmmm, let's see--it's already illegal to sexually assault someone but some sexual assault must happen as the result of an impulse when engaged in legal sexual (or sexually-related) activity. Therefore a ban on all sexual activity (kissing, fondling, etc.) between non-married persons would protect potential sexual assault victims in ways that the ban on sexual assault does not. It's logically sound; I'm convinced.
@ARM: My sister worked in law enforcement and what she saw played over and over was this:
Boyfriend/husband beats up woman
Woman calls cops, dude goes to jail
Dude gets out, beats up woman
Woman calls cops, dude goes to jail, woman gets restraining order
Dude gets out, kills woman
Not everyone is strong enough to defend themselves physically. Not everyone can afford 24 hour protection from professionals.
Gabriel said...
@ARM:They should be armed at all times?
If they live with someone they are afraid of they should move away.
So only some women need to armed at all times?
@ARM:So only some women need to armed at all times?
It's up to them to decide. That's what civil right means.
They don't have to wait for Top Men to evaluate their needs and give them permission.
I own 3 fire extinguishers and keep them handy in conspicuous locations in my home. I've never had a house fire and I've never needed to use a fire extinguisher. I guess I must be some kind of crazy, paranoid nut to waste that valuable space for a potentially life-saving tool I hope I never have to use--probably I should just throw 'em away.
AReasonableMan said...
Gabriel said...
@ARM:They should be armed at all times?
If they live with someone they are afraid of they should move away.
So only some women need to armed at all times?
10/8/15, 3:36 PM
Um, it is call the "right" to keep and bear arms, not the "requirement". If you don't want to own or touch guns, you don't have to. No one will hold a gun to your head (get it) and force you to touch one. Your desire to not have one should not have an impact on the right of others though. See how easy that was?
Gabriel said...
It's up to them to decide.
So a women who feels the need to carry a gun in the bath and in bed and while reading a story to her children and who has no abusive relatives, of any sex, would not be reasonably considered paranoid in your world?
If Leftists believed their own slogans wouldn't it be:
If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one!
If you don't want abortion, don't get one!
If you don't want concealed firearms, don't carry one!
Weird how the whole "keep your hands of my body, keep your government nose out of my affairs, keep your paternalistic rules out of my life" ethos only works for SOME issues, huh?
@ARM:So a women who feels the need to carry a gun in the bath and in bed and while reading a story to her children and who has no abusive relatives, of any sex, would not be reasonably considered paranoid in your world?
Right, she can be perfectly assured of all dangers to herself at all possible times. That's reasonable, in your world, perfect control of all external factors?
She may live in a dangerous area. She might live in the country far from help. There might be bears, for example, places like Sitka have a serious and permanent bear problem.
But you from your armchair knowing nothing about her life are willing to class her as mentally ill for exercising a Constitutional right.
Piss off, troll. I'm bored with you.
AReasonableMan said...So a women who feels the need to carry a gun in the bath and in bed and while reading a story to her children and who has no abusive relatives, of any sex, would not be reasonably considered paranoid in your world?
Let's say I do think she's paranoid. Now what? Should I make it illegal for everyone because some people who might take advantage of the right to carry a firearm are, in my opinion, paranoid? What are you trying to prove?
Some people eat too much candy, get diabetes, make me partially pay for their medical treatment (hooray Obamacare!) and die early. No candy for anyone, then? I mean, you don't haven have a Constitutional right to candy--although there's got to be a penumbra somewhere...
AReasonableMan said...
Gabriel said...
It's up to them to decide.
So a women who feels the need to carry a gun in the bath and in bed and while reading a story to her children and who has no abusive relatives, of any sex, would not be reasonably considered paranoid in your world?
10/8/15, 3:41 PM
Not that it is any of your business (and despite the additional qualifications you have tacked on), if she is not a threat to anyone, what do you care? You don't know her past. You don't know what she has been through. If she is not a danger to herself or others, again, why do you care other than the fact that guns scare you?
Gabriel said...
Right, she can be perfectly assured of all dangers to herself at all possible times.
Let's imagine a women who feels the need to carry a gun in the bath and in bed and while reading a story to her children and who has no abusive relatives, of any sex, and lives in a bear-free zone - would she be reasonably considered paranoid in your world?
@ARM:blah blah blah
Did you miss my last comment? You, from your armchair, knowing nothing about her life, are willing to class her as mentally ill for exercising a Constitutional right.
Piss off, troll. I'm bored with you. You are a revolting human being.
Hordes of college students who need trigger warnings, "safe spaces" to avoid contrary political views, and claim to have been verbally assaulted or harassed when they hear opposing arguments are likewise mentally unsound, I guess--what fundamental civil rights can we strip from them? Voting, surely, what else?
If someone, anyone, feels uncomfortable going to a restaurant or a theater or just for a walk without a gun, who doesn't think that person has problems with paranoia?
Liberals are always projecting their own inane, poisonous neuroses on other people. It's part of a mental illness.
Gabriel said...
Did you miss my last comment?
Would Adam Lanza's mother cross the threshold, for you, as someone who should not have been allowed to own a gun even though she did in fact have a violent relative, her son?
The only case of a student-on-professor murder that comes immediately to my mind could certainly, definitely, have been prevented by a policy and a sign stating "This campus is a hammer-free zone".
Hamermesh may be a great econ prof but he's a fool on this issue.
(and I just googled the case I had in mind. The murdered prof was Karel deLeeuw. The murderer was convicted of 2nd degree murder, served 7 years (!) and was released in 1985.)
[Ah. At least this time captcha made me identify ice cream, instead of forcing me to deny the truth by agreeing that quiche is pie.]
HoodlumDoodlum: Ha! I've got 4! So I'm definitely on the crazy side of the line re extinguishers, can we at least agree on that?
On the hypothetical woman who wants to carry even when she's bathing her kids:
In the aviation biz there's a saying. "The 3 most useless things in flying are altitude above you, runway behind you, and fuel you left in the truck."
The most useless self-defense tool is the gun that's in your nightstand while you are getting assaulted in the front hall.
There was an episode about 15 months ago, I believe was in Philadelphia where a hospital employed psychiatrist was declared a hero after he drew and fired his concealed weapon at a patient who had produced a gun and shot a woman in the clinic setting. The patient had some evidence on him suggesting he had planned a murder rampage but after shooting only one victim, his doctor brought the day's firearm activities to a close.
I never heard any reporting about the gun carrying policies of that hospital, but I suspect if that doctor had been caught with his weapon on the premises in any other situation than halting a murder spree, he would have been in some serious trouble, and the "hero" would not have been involved
AReasonableMan said...Would Adam Lanza's mother cross the threshold, for you, as someone who should not have been allowed to own a gun even though she did in fact have a violent relative, her son?
So the hypothetical mental illness screening you'd have as a part of your firearms purchase and ownership law includes a provision for not only the owner/purchaser, but also for anyone in that person's immediate family and/or living in the same house? How would that work, exactly--is that self-reported? "Check here if you're mentally unstable, check here if anyone in your family is mentally unstable, check here if anyone who lives or might in the future live in your home is mentally unstable (or will become mentally unstable)?" Or will that info already be in a database, a comprehensive database of everyone you've deemed unstable or likely to become unstable, and it'll just be a crosscheck against addresses? Oh, and what happens if I live with someone who's not unstable when I purchase my firearm, but later becomes unstable--I guess I have to turn my firearm in to you or move out? Or do the cops just come and take the firearm presumptively? I mean, anything could happen, and we all know that there's no way the definition of mental illness would ever be manipulated/abused for the purposes of denying firearm rights to disfavored people...
Minority Report wasn't supposed to something to emulate, dude.
ARM wrote:
"Would Adam Lanza's mother cross the threshold, for you, as someone who should not have been allowed to own a gun even though she did in fact have a violent relative, her son?"
Ah! The time machine criteria!
@ ARM -
"In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers."
Do you just make this stuff up?
Referring to the 2014 UCR's, the latest crime stats, 1,305 women were murdered - not shot - by a suspect identified as familial or acquaitance out of over 2,600 total females murdered, or less than 50%. You conveniently forgot that big 'unknown' number, didn't you?
By the way, firearms represented only 67% of all murders, although the UCR's do not specify by weapon by gender.
So, imprecise too.
If only I had known she was paranoid and mentally ill, I could have refused to teach the woman in my personal protection class, but in fact I taught her to shoot left handed. Her husband had snapped her right arm. I taught her to crouch from the knees because her back was stiff. He had cracked some of her vertebrae.
At seven yards she got a group I could cover with my palm. I did cover it with my palm, looked at her, and put my palm over my central heart-lung area.
I am perfectly willing to accept a policy that would proscribe ARM from owning any weapons due to his.....deficiencies.
JCC said...
You conveniently forgot that big 'unknown' number, didn't you?
Unless you can provide evidence that the distribution of relationships to the murderer within the unknown group is substantially different to the distribution in the known group then it is reasonable to ignore this group.
Unless you can provide evidence that the distribution of relationships to the murderer within the unknown group is substantially different to the distribution in the known group then it is reasonable to ignore this group.
Speaking as a mathematician, no it isn't.
Drago said...
I am perfectly willing to accept a policy that would proscribe ARM from owning any weapons
What would be your criteria for this decision and would those criteria apply to more than one individual?
Big Mike said...
Speaking as a mathematician
First, it is data analysis not mathematics, so your expertise is of limited value. Second, and I repeat, what evidence is there that the distributions differ? In the absence of any information the assumption of uniformity is the most reasonable assumption. Not always correct, but there is no reason to assume a bias in this case.
ARM: "What would be your criteria for this decision and would those criteria apply to more than one individual?"
I would be happy to extend the law to anyone who exhibits similiar...peculiarities..as yourself.
Mind you, I'm simply trying to abide by the now well established "ARM Rule Of Diagnosis", which, unsurprisingly, seems to align neatly with techniques well practiced on the left throughout time of classifying as "mental illness" disagreements with leftist shibboleths.
ARM: "First, it is data analysis not mathematics..."
Bam!
And we're done here.
Next up for ARM, imaginary numbers don't exist!!
Those goal post heavy, ARM?
Whether to be armed or not is a personal choice.
What one does in their own home with their own possetions is none of your, mine or anybody elses business.
Lanza?
woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Too late.
Drago said...
I would be happy to extend the law to anyone
I am glad that you can see the value to some limits on the 'guns everywhere' mania. This alone makes you more rational than most posters here.
@ARM, if words like "Netezza," "Exadata," "Hadoop," "Cloudera," "Hive," and "R" have meaning for you, and if you understand the difference between support vector machines and naïve Bayes classifiers, and what the acronym kNN is all about, then we might be on the same footing when it comes to data analytics.
Anyway, it's not up to me to prove that your assumption of a common distribution is wrong; it's up to you to prove that your assumptions really are reasonable.
ARM: "I am glad that you can see the value to some limits on the 'guns everywhere' mania."
Oh ARM, back to your old tricks with quotes.
Not like a leftist at all.
No sirree!
Let's see how this works:
ARM said...Adam Lanza's mother should have been allowed to own a gun
Wow,I am glad you are in complete agreement with the NRA and see some value in not inhibiting the free exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights.
"Meanwhile in Texas..."
Oh, you don't know the eighth of it.
The students may already be armed with a gun, or worse, a scalpel.
Life is an exercise in risk management.
I think its sweet that programmers think that they can make a meaningful contribution to the analysis of noisy and incomplete real world data analysis just by citing package names.
AReasonableMan: "I think its sweet that programmers think that they can make a meaningful contribution to the analysis of noisy and incomplete real world data analysis just by citing package names"
It's even sweeter that some faux intellectuals believe data analysis does not involve mathematics.
Drago said...
believe data analysis does not involve mathematics.
Physics involves mathematics. Is physics mathematics.?
Biochemistry involves mathematics Is biochemistry mathematics?
Sociology involves mathematics. Is sociology mathematics?
Sudoko involves mathematics. Is sudoko mathematics?
@ARM, please go back to your advisor and tell him or her that you need to start over again because you learned nothing about data analytics.
For the record, if your data is noisy then naïve Bayes would be among the first tools you'd consider.
Also for the record, Hadoop is a file system and Netezza (which was renamed by IBM when they bought the company) and Exadata are machines targeted at petabyte data sets. Sort of like IBM's Blue Gene, but commoditized. Your blunder is like confusing a Cray 2 with a Cobol compiler. SVMs, NBC, and kNN are mathematical tools for analyzing very large data sets. They aren't packages at all. You can't possibly be doing a good job analyzing data if you aren't at least aware of them.
Unless you can provide evidence that the distribution of relationships to the murderer within the unknown group is substantially different to the distribution in the known group then it is reasonable to ignore this group.
Aaaand once again ARM shits the bed!
(Slow clap)
Big Mike said...
Also for the record, Hadoop is a file system
You apparently have never installed it or R, since they both come as a packages. And, the point remains, citing package names is meaningless in this context other than to confirm that you are a programmer and not a mathematician.
But let's not take my word for it, from Wiki:
The term "Hadoop" has come to refer not just to the base modules above, but also to the "ecosystem", or collection of additional software packages that can be installed on top of or alongside Hadoop, such as Apache Pig, Apache Hive, Apache HBase, Apache Phoenix, Apache Spark, Apache Zookeeper, Impala, Apache Flume, Apache Sqoop, Apache Oozie, Apache Storm and others.
Keep trying, dude. Keep trying.
Meanwhile go back to your advisor, as I told you to, and start over from scratch.
Hamermesh is an embarrassment to the Economics profession and he will not be missed.
Big Mike said...
Keep trying, dude. Keep trying.
So you lost the package argument and have still not made any useful contribution regarding alternative approaches to the incomplete murder data set, beyond just assuming uniformity, which is what anyone with practical experience in data analysis would do as a first approximation.
ARM,
Is it paranoid for a careful driver, who follows the laws, to wear a seatbelt?
"My guess is somebody thinking about coming to Texas is going to think twice about being a professor here,” Hamermesh said."
There's a downside here somewhere. I'm sure it will come to me.
ARMeltdown: "Physics involves mathematics. Is physics mathematics.?"
LOL
Rocketry involve mathematics. Is Rocketry mathematics?
Orbital mechanics involves mathematics. Is Orbital Mechanics mathematics?
Quantum mechanics involves mathematics. Is Quantum mechanics mathematics?
Mechanical/Civil/Electical engineering involves mathematics. Is mechanical/civil/electical engineering mathematics?
Ok now ARM, see if you can complete the thought.........what is it about mathematics that makes it, mathematics, intrinsic to those disciplines? What is it about mathematics being the "language" of those disciplines that makes mathematics........
I can only do so much for you. You'll have to take the next step yourself, assuming your medications are nondebilitating.
Oh, the sociology thing? The way the left abuses mathematics in that "discipline" definitely qualifies it as a "No, not mathematics"
ARM: "So you lost the package argument and have still not made any useful contribution regarding alternative approaches to the incomplete murder data set, beyond just assuming uniformity, which is what anyone with practical experience in data analysis would do as a first approximation."
LOL
"...first approximation."
Gee, that sounds awfully quantitative. But we all know that can't be, since ARM has already informed us that mathematics is not involved.
@ ARM -
Well, forget for the moment your cherry-picked numbers, if checked, still don't get anywhere near to - what was you claimed? - a 6 to 1 disparity, homicides committed by friends and family represent those which are solved most easily. These are the murders wherein the suspect is waiting at the end of the driveway for the cops, and says "She's in the kitchen. I got tired of her (whatever)". It's pretty hard to lose your temper with your spouse, kill her in the home, and get away with it. Those unsolved murders? Those are the stranger/in the course of another felony murders.
But you knew that, as any reasonable consideration of the subject would suggest this. You're just, as usual, making up stuff to rile up your constituents. It's like click-bait, isn't it?
In this country, one definition of 'stupid' would be to fail to recognize the danger in many locales, which often share some common characteristics. Carrying a firearm doesn't necessarily negate that risk. It may, depending on a number of things, but failing to carry a firearm is guaranteed to have no chance of relieving the risk. So, apparently, you do not frequent any such areas in your life, or you're an idiot. In either case, good for you.
As for ignoring laws and carrying a firearm in a gun-free zone, I do it on a regular basis, and tell no one (who could identify me, since I just blabbed it here). I don't do it to make a point, ala Walden Pond, but rather, so I have a firearm in case I need it. If I don't have the need, then no one else needs to know it was there. Kind of like wearing a bullet-proof vest under your clothing, rather than outside. The whole point is that it's hidden and discrete.
@ARM, I lost??? In what universe?
Go back and read what I wrote at 9:30, you ignorant louse. You just labeled two (quite large) machines at "packages" and further disgraced yourself by labeling mathematical techniques the same way. I think any "conclusions" you draw from your "analysis" would be what Richard Feynman labeled "cargo cult science" in his famous Cal Tech commencement address (and which today we'd call junk science).
For the record, if you were installing software you must be the most junior member of the research team. That's the sort of job they get stuck with. (There's a slight chance you're a system administrator, but it takes brains to be an SA.)
Re this assertion: "It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty."
No, it will make it more difficult to attract potential faculty who, apart from their qualifications, have an irrational fear of living amidst licensed, trained, screened citizens who've demonstrated a commitment to law & order. They prefer to live somewhere instead where essentially everyone who carries a concealed firearm is, indeed, a criminal.
Viewed in this light, the bug becomes a feature, the impediment to hiring becomes an effective screen for people we Texans would just as soon didn't move to Texas.
“It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty.” Well, that's an interesting hypothesis. A contrary hypothesis is that CC will make it easier for Texas to compete because applicants will perceive the campus to be safer. There's no point in arguing about which hypothesis is correct, because we are about to conduct an experiment. In a few years, we'll be able to look back and see what actual effect, if any, CC had on recruiting faculty at Texas.
This guy is not the only UT faculty member having conniptions over this - a couple of history profs have been maybe as vocal. This is interesting to me because UT has had a mass shooting (the tower shootings by Charles Whitman in 1966), 14 were killed and 32 were injured. It is interesting because several students apparently got their rifles out of their vehicles and engaged Whitman in the tower until the police were able to confront and kill him. This may have saved some lives. Interesting that these history profs seem to be ignoring the history made on their campus almost 50 years ago.
ARM just wants "reasonab;e" restrictions.
Big Mike said...
@ARM, I lost??? In what universe?
The universe of logic and rationality. I mocked your listing of package names as a response to an issue of data interpretation. I did not say every name you used was a software package name, as is obvious to anyone with a decent reading comprehension. You have conceded that, yes many of the names you randomly listed are in fact the names of software packages. Furthermore, you have contributed no actual useful argument other than a listing of these package names. So, I also win on the broader point.
For the record, if you were installing software you must be the most junior member of the research team.
Almost anyone with any knowledge of data analysis has installed the R package on a computer at some point. I guess that group excludes you.
JCC said...
homicides committed by friends and family represent those which are solved most easily. These are the murders wherein the suspect is waiting at the end of the driveway for the cops, and says "She's in the kitchen. I got tired of her (whatever)". It's pretty hard to lose your temper with your spouse, kill her in the home, and get away with it. Those unsolved murders? Those are the stranger/in the course of another felony murders.
You make a reasonable point but it involves a large and I believe unjustified assumption. The simplest explanation for the incomplete data set is inadequate reporting. As you know, Republicans have been hostile to the collection of data on firearm deaths and/or treating the problem as a public health issue. They have responded with non-compliance and a failure to keep adequate records. There is, therefore, a reasonable explanation for the missing data that is independent of the status of the perpetrator.
JCC said...
As for ignoring laws and carrying a firearm in a gun-free zone, I do it on a regular basis, and tell no one (who could identify me, since I just blabbed it here). I don't do it to make a point, ala Walden Pond, but rather, so I have a firearm in case I need it. If I don't have the need, then no one else needs to know it was there. Kind of like wearing a bullet-proof vest under your clothing, rather than outside. The whole point is that it's hidden and discrete.
This strikes me as paranoid. Sorry, but this behavior is not legal, as you note, or justified by any rational proportionate assessment of risk.
AReasonableMan said...
JCC said...
homicides committed by friends and family represent those which are solved most easily. These are the murders wherein the suspect is waiting at the end of the driveway for the cops, and says "She's in the kitchen. I got tired of her (whatever)". It's pretty hard to lose your temper with your spouse, kill her in the home, and get away with it. Those unsolved murders? Those are the stranger/in the course of another felony murders.
You make a reasonable point but it involves a large and I believe unjustified assumption. The simplest explanation for the incomplete data set is inadequate reporting. As you know, Republicans have been hostile to the collection of data on firearm deaths and/or treating the problem as a public health issue. They have responded with non-compliance and a failure to keep adequate records. There is, therefore, a reasonable explanation for the missing data that is independent of the status of the perpetrator.
How so?
The FBI and the BATFE both collect data that is free for anyone to use. John Lott did a the most comprehensive survey of firearm violence that up to that point had ever been done. I'm sure Bloomberg would be more than happy to fund some research. I know he spends no small amount of treasure trying to restrict gun ownership.
As far as non-compliance and a failure to keep adequate records goes......perhaps they are treating firearm ownership as a right that needs to be protected.
How are you going to treat it as a public health issue? As I've seen here you seem to think that just owning a firearm makes someone mentally suspect. Which begs the question. What is your end game? What is the end result of the ,"reasonable restrictions". Who are you going to define as "responsible gun owners"?
"My guess is somebody thinking about coming to Texas is going to think twice about being a professor here,” Hamermesh said. “It’s going to make it more difficult for Texas to compete in the market for faculty.”
Althouse: "Spoken like an economics professor."
You look at a statement that contains the words "guess" and "think" and you think it's about economics? Holy shit.
Spoken like a professor.
ARM in asserting that JCC is a law breaker ignores that many such concealed carry bans are themselves illegal. Heller and McDonald called fr increased scrutiny of any laws restricting the enumerated fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Outside the ultra liberal 9th Circuit, and maybe one or two others, many such restrictions would fail. How would a campus concealed carry ban for state universities survive even intermediate scrutiny? They mostly won't, because the feared harm is irrational, based here on some morbid fear of guns.
Which brings me to a second point - ARM and these UT profs are the ones acting irrationally. It is irrational to fear a demographic with a significantly lower rate of committing violent crimes than the general public who have successfully undergone background checks (CCW permit holders, which also includes those openly carrying in TX). If they want to rationally fear someone on campus, it would be far, far more rational to fear gender studies faculty and students (which are very typically given a pass for their violence due to political correctness). In the greater society, it s far, far more rational to fear young black or Muslim males.
Continuing my previous point - how rational is it to depend on unionized government employees for one's safety? The police have no legal obligation to protect you or save your life, and the stories are legion of them standing around while innocent people died. Yes, many of them are heroic, but many are not, putting their priority on coming home to their families alive and uninjured. Remember - they are unionized government employees. Is it irrational to want the same thing, to come home alive and uninjured? ARM, and apparently those UT profs, appear to think so. As do a lot of other people with armed security.
Beldar writes: "They prefer to live somewhere instead where essentially everyone who carries a concealed firearm is, indeed, a criminal."
Fantastic. I don't think I've ever seen the hoplophobe's attitude toward legal concealed carry skewered so neatly. I never say this, but you sir, win the Internets today.
I am a Texan with a concealed carry license. To get that license I had to make a written application to the state, undergo and pass a criminal background check, pay for and take and pass a course in laws regarding concealed carry which included successfully shooting a test series at targets on a range, have my fingerprints taken and submitted for filing by the state, wait for the license to arrive, and get it renewed by repeating most of the above after only 5 years.
My license is revoked automatically if I am accused of domestic violence, if I commit a felony, if I take my concealed weapon into any of several "no gun" zones - from Post Office parking lots to bars to that part of the University of Texas on which my daughter lived in a dorm - that don't need to be marked as such.
The prof is much more likely to be killed by a non-licensee than by a licensee, who nationwide are more law-abiding than police officers.
He is an idiot using his idiocy for political advocacy, and as such can be ignored by anyone with more thoughtfulness than fear.
Bruce Hayden said...
How would a campus concealed carry ban for state universities survive even intermediate scrutiny? They mostly won't, because the feared harm is irrational, based here on some morbid fear of guns.
I think you are confusing a fear of guns with a rational concern over idiots with guns e.g. our latest example of white on white violence.
Doesn't mention that had a concealed carry permit.
Probably not.
How so?
ARM - hard to keep up with your meandering threads, but if we just look at the UT profs, I would assert lack of rationality on their part, since they are in fear of a demographic with a crime rate and rate of illegal violence significantly below that of the general public. Rationally, they should feel more secure, not less so, in the presence of legal guns and people who can legally carry such in public. Mikee points out how hard it is to acquire a carry permit in Texas, and each person legally carrying in their classrooms has successfully gone through that process.
Of course, progressives run almost completely on emotion, instead of logic, which is what is going on here. These profs are essentially saying that they need everyone catering to their irrational fears because they are special little snowflakes, and need such entitlement in order to properly teach all the special little snowflakes who come their way at UT.
But to go on with increased scrutiny - an irrational fear of guns would probably not pass a rational basis test, and almost assuredly wouldn't pass either intermediate or strict scrutiny, both of which put the burden on the state to prove that it will (probably) solve real problems in a least restrictive way. And fear is not a reasonable government goal, in view of the enumerated fundamental right to keep and bear arms (which includes the right of self defense).
ARM -
Although this thread is dead (and past the current threads now) for all intents, I'll add this:
Uniform Crime Reports, UCR's, are mandatory crime reports filed by every law enforcement agency in the U S with the Justice Department and then compiled and reported semi-annually and annually. They are completely and distinctly separate from any reporting sought by, say, the CDC or state medical associations and, as you pointed out, resisted mainly by conservatives.
UCR's are subject to manipulation by the individual agency in the raw numbers, as for instance, was widely reported about the Chicago PD hiding large numbers of violent crime and even murder for political reasons. However, calling murders "solved" which of necessity means identifying the relationship between victim and offender is something every agency wants to do, because it makes the agency look good, efficient. You're reference to "incomplete data" confuses UCR's and the efforts by anti-gun groups to call gun violence a medical problem or a public health issue. if anything, the only "incomplete data" in UCR's actually works in your favor, as it means police agencies fail to report raw murders which are unsolved.
One can make a reasonable argument for not carrying a firearm. You don't have to resort to fabricated, off-the-cuff BS to make that case. I'd suggest something like: morons driving cars kill almost three times the number of murder victims every year. Autos are simple machinery, benign and fairly easy to understand. Firearms, on the other hand, are intentionally designed to cause death or damage to animate things. If we licensed and periodically tested the same morons who demonstrably can't operate a motor vehicle - to the tune of about 30,000 fatalities a year - for firearms, what do you suppose the pass/fail rate would be?
See?
But none of that testing regime would have anything to do with mass shootings or criminals with guns. It would affect only a very small segment of the supposed "gun violence" demographic.
Post a Comment