"I’m sure that many professors in the past were uncomfortable about having women, or blacks, or openly gay students in their classrooms, too. But happily, progress marches on and people’s visceral fears and dislikes weren’t allowed to rule."
Writes Glenn Reynolds.
I can see how it's disturbing to know that students might have guns, but I'm puzzling over the way knowing there are guns becomes more disturbing when you know that some of the people who have guns have them because it's not against the law. You might say, it's irrational to be disturbed, since using the gun other than in self-defense or the defense of others would be against the law, and if you're only worried about people doing things that are against the law, the legality of having guns should be irrelevant (or should cut the other way, since it's possible that a law-abiding, gun-bearing person might defend you against the law-violating, gun-bearing person).
But — as I was saying the other day — a professor could be worried about students who impulsively become violent and, because they have a gun with them, do far more damage than if they were unarmed when they suddenly become murderous.
Anyway, a student with a concealed weapon is not like a student who is female, black, or openly gay. For one thing, you don't have the easy option of leaving your femaleness, blackness, or open gayness back at home. It's possible to cover up these things, but for most of us, it's not easy. A gun isn't a necessary component of your physical being, and carrying a gun is behavior that you can chose to engage in or not. Schools impose many limitations on behavior, frequently based on fairly superficial distaste about things that involve essential personal freedom, such as how you dress and whether you can talk and move around. It's not the case that teachers must learn to tolerate students exercising their personal freedoms in the classroom.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९४ टिप्पण्या:
"For one thing, you don't have the easy option of leaving your femaleness, blackness, or open gayness..."
I'll give you the first two, but it's pretty easy to leave open gayness hidden. Unless you have very different sorts of class sessions than I do.
Just how many amok-runners have had legal CC permits?
Very few I'd wager.
An armed society, generally, is a more polite society. But this assumes that the armed folks are stable, polite, responsible citizens. Not sure if this applies to college kids.........
"I'll give you the first two, but it's pretty easy to leave open gayness hidden. Unless you have very different sorts of class sessions than I do."
But Glenn specified openly gay.
"A gun isn't a necessary component of your physical being,"
Neither is being female, black, or gay. Or haven't you been following the news lately?
And what do you know of how easy it is to keep gayness hidden?
"Neither is being female, black, or gay. Or haven't you been following the news lately?"
That's why I said it isn't easy and not it's impossible.
Remember Yentl? She dressed as a boy so she could go to school. I think. I didn't see the movie.
How many people have been "outed" over the years, after keeping their sexuality hidden their entire life?
chickelit said...
Just how many amok-runners have had legal CC permits?
Very few I'd wager.
People with poor impulse control are , generally, self regulating. I doubt many of them could sit still for a CC class.
From that great liberal columnist, Mike Royko, " Nobody ever raped a .38."
Ah yes. Much better that the only firearms are in the hands of criminals. It's not a question of firearms or no firearms. It's a question of legal and illegal or illegal only. Sorry, magic thinking does not trump reality.
"And what do you know of how easy it is to keep gayness hidden?"
Only what I know by its definition and what goes on in a classroom.
If race, sex, or sexuality are not good comparisons, wouldn't a better one be signifiers of religion (i.e., headscarves, yamakas, etc.)?
FWIW, I disagree that those are not good comparisons - the fact that they can be hidden or not is not the point of the comparison; it is the fact that there is a perceived risk or reason for discomfort, that was once considered reasoned and acceptable, but is now not. His point is (obviously) that it is no more rational to feel troubled by guns than to feel troubled by people of different races. I get the point about a person having a gun may impulsively act; however, this leads to some rather uncomfortable comparisons related to race and criminal histories.
Everything must be chopped up in the depraved professor's meat grinder of her "I'm a nigger and my son is a nigger lies."
Jesus Christ, but you are depraved.
That was all pretending. You know, the part about you being a nigger. You're a rich, idle, lazy, depraved white woman.
I'd try to shame you, but you are too ruthlessly self-interested and bitterly greedy for it to work.
"How many people have been "outed" over the years, after keeping their sexuality hidden their entire life?"
That's not a good test of the ease of hiding, since outing is itself socially unacceptable. When you know something someone else is keeping private, how often do you take it upon yourself to make an announcement to the world?
Quite apart from that, why would you impose the burden of hiding on people? What if having red hair made you contemptible, would you say that it's easy to dye your hair and how often is it pointed out that someone has dyed his hair?
I think Glenn was comparing the irrationality and bigotry of the complaints.
We can't have "x" in the classroom because we all know how THOSE people are .
In Texas a concealed carry permit is 21 or over and required a background check. CWP owners are statistically less likely to get in trouble than the general public.
The person in the classroom carrying isn't the hung-over 18 year old it's the quiet 25 year old GI Bill user.
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and predict not one of these CC permit holders commits an act of armed violence on any of these campuses. I'm also going to predict no one else is either and that the psychopaths who might entertain such thoughts will always choose "gun free zones".
How often do professors have students become impulsively violent in their classrooms? In your years of teaching, how often have students started throwing punches in class? You have to figure the people who would use a weapon would be a tiny percentage of the people who would use their fists.
"That's not a good test of the ease of hiding, since outing is itself socially unacceptable."
Continuing commentary on how to maneuver the shithole S&M game of the corporate law firm and academia.
You could find something better to do with your time.
For a brilliant intellectual, you are remarkably fucking stupid. Seems to happen a lot.
I wonder what murdered, Virginia Tech, teachers Livin Librescu, Kevin Granata, G. V. Legauathan and James Bishop would say from "the other side" about their experiences in a "Gun Free Zone" where they law abiding students were not allowed to have the effective means of self-defense and defense of others.
"a professor could be worried about students who impulsively become violent and, because they have a gun with them"
As opposed to those who take the time to go home and get a gun??? With the shootings we've been having, I would think you professors would be screaming for armed guards at the doors to your buildings. Statistically, which is more likely to happen? A student "impulsively become violent" or a student/stranger decide to come in and shoot the place up?
Were it me, I'd feel better knowing that a few students WERE armed and could perhaps put up a fight for the class, instead of letting someone line up the class and pick/choose who to shoot.
Glenn's comparison is apt because the Professors are afraid of what they don't understand.
If one of them would actually attend a CCW class and go through all the hoops to get a permit AND then still felt afraid, well, that's a different story. That will never happen though. It should. It's the equivalent of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."
These people are afraid because normally they see a classroom and assume everyone's unarmed. The idea that some may be armed is unsettling to them.
However, teach enough large lectures and the law of averages tells you some dangerous nut has brought a gun to class at some point, and you probably never had any idea. But do a bit of research on the sort of people who have concealed carry permits and you might discover that these people are less likely to be dangerous than the general population.
Ann, you are law professor, and yet you have not written a single post on Hillary Clinton's apparent gross violations of the law regarding handling of classified materal, FOIA compliance, conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice.
Why is that?
"a professor could be worried about students who impulsively become violent and, because they have a gun with them, do far more damage"
Upon what do you base this anxiety? Perhaps you should work on that.
"Just how many amok-runners have had legal CC permits? "
Yes and the fact that most states require age 21 and a successfully completed course suggests the number will be vanishing low.
I can imagine non-permit holders concealing weapons but that should be easy to check the first day of class.
Well we're talking about college professors. On the whole not a very rational or mature lot.
If I was a Professor I'd have a concealed weapon (with permit) when I was teaching class.
I would make sure every person taking my class knew it too.
"a professor could be worried about students who impulsively become violent and, because they have a gun with them, do far more damage than if they were unarmed when they suddenly become murderous."
We have actual data on this. We've had right to carry in most states for many years, haven't we? How often does what you describe actually happen? Virtually never, I believe (I'm open to correction if I'm wrong).
Professors will just have to get over their irrational feelings against guns, just like they had to get over their irrational feelings against blacks, women, and gays.
Well, if you are not going to allow people to legally carry guns, then presumably you are going to have metal detectors outside of every building to try to ensure that *nobody* has a gun, not just that nobody who respects the rules has a gun. Otherwise your fear is irrational.
I would make sure every person taking my class knew it too
Why? So they will take you out first using surprise?
I don't think the analogies work very well. The fear is over a perception of a disproportionate capability to do harm, which doesn't exist for any of the groups listed.
Now I think the fear is completely unwarranted, and borne out of ignorance and prejudice, so that part is analogous I guess.
If you have a problem with this then you should instead demand armed police/guards who have guns. Someone has to be able to defend the school.
I wonder how the 'professor, nervous about possible CCW permit holders in class, process the information from Israel regarding Palestinians running amok with knives on Israeli buses etc. stabbing and hacking innocent civilians? What makes him less fearful of an immigrant ISIS/ISIL Islamist cashing in his/her ticket to paradise and virgins with a gun, knife or IED in his classroom? If he believes he is simpatico with an Islamist because he-professor no-nads, armed with a melon baller, hates America will give him a pass. he is deadly mistaken. He is still an infidel and a clueless liberal.
tim in vermont said...
Why? So they will take you out first using surprise?
People when they know others in the group are probably armed as well, will not take the risk.
Pay attention. These shooters are shooting up places that are designated gun free zones.
I can see how it's disturbing to know that students might have guns,
So let's test the continuum:
1. Is the Professor threatened when the College security guard comes in the room?
2. Is the professor threatened by the off duty cop in blues with a hip holstered 9mm, in the 9th row?
3. How about the off duty cop with a concealed service pistol?
4. The retired cop with a CCW permit and a concealed pistol?
5. The retired Army officer (say me) with a CCW and a concealed pistol?
6. Your average Joe with a CCW and a concealed pistol?
etc
at what point is it clear that the Prof is bigoted?
I recall that a retired cop killed a fellow in a theater in Florida (Florida Man) about a year ago. Cop was defending himself against the always dangerous texting in a crowded theater. Not everyone packing is rational. Just saying.
Impulse control is a function of IQ. Its not unreasonable for, say, an instructor in remedial English at a community college with low (or no) admission standards to be worried about students carrying, legal or illegal.
It occurs to me that any professor who is so utterly obnoxious to students in his or her class that they fear violent retaliation, really ought to either rethink his or her pedagogy or resign effective immediately.
The issue of a concealed handgun is irrelevant to the above statement. If anything an illegally carried handgun is the greater threat than a legally carried handgun because having transgressed against the laws and regulations once, the student carrying that gun has a lower barrier to climb to transgress again by using it.
Plus, if you had a gun in the classroom that you were teaching in, and nobody was paying attention to what you were saying, or falling asleep, you could fire a couple rounds to get everyone's attention.
In most states the age to get a CC permit is 21 - and criminally-inclined or irrationally violent people tend to achieve at least one significant conviction by that age, thereby disqualifying from obtaining a CC permit.
As a result of that, and also an intense desire not to lose their ability to carry, CCers tend to be FAR more law-abiding than the societal norm. A recent study showed that CCers commit firearms and other violent offenses at a rate lower than that of police officers.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/
Ann, again, the only function of gun-free zones is to ensure that everyone armed on campus, cops apart, is so illegally. Do we actually want that? Do we want no guns on campus except those deliberately brought in against the law? No guns, except those brought in to commit harm?
I've never bought, or fired, or even held a gun. But I'd feel safer, not less safe, in a classroom where I knew some of my fellow students (and, remember, no one knows which) were armed.
I think smoking in the class room should be reinstated, also in the library. Yay diversity.
I think I remember an incident when a lady in my hometown, apropos of a movie, said she certainly was glad to be living in peaceful Norway with no wild Indians around, being a little discomfited when admonished she should not say things like that when standing next to Mrs. Olsen, who was half Blackfoot.
Maybe professors need to toughen the fuck up. Somebody's rights shouldn't be limited to what a prof doesn't find icky.
And outing is "socially unacceptable" unless it's done to somebody not beholden to the gay activists. Then it's cool.
CCW permits aren't easy to come by.
When Texas passed its CHL law, I too was worried about impulsive use of hand guns, say during bouts of road rage. Well, the science is settled. Not much to worry about.
I can actually empathize with the fear, but the rational approach says that the fear is unjustified, like the fear of flying. School shootings are done on impulse. They are premeditated and preplanned. A professor should actually feel safer with a CHL holder in class.
The analogy is to an irrational fear. Saying that the thing causing the irrational fear in this case is easy to ban (since you can choose not to carry a weapon but you can't choose not to be black, etc) doesn't address the "irrational" part. I recognize that we ban all sorts of behaviors/expressions of rights of students now, but that fact doesn't say anything about whether any particular ban is valid/just/warranted (only that we admit some bans are).
The coverage of this situation illustrates the power of subtle Media/Leftist bias--we're talking about the law and some people's anxiousness at the result of the law. If the law were something embraced by the Left the articles would be framed as "look at these irrationally fearful old reactionary coots, afraid of XYZ when we all know that isn't a valid fear and this new progressive change in the law was made by our duly elected or appointed legislature or judiciary, so if they object they must hate democracy and/or modern America." Instead the issue is one where the Media/Left agrees with the people expressing fears so the perspective is almost entirely sympathetic to their POV, without room for a counter for the, you know, objective facts.
"I'm scared." Are your fears rational? "No, but I'm afraid of something the Left says I should be afraid of." Oh, well, in that case let's give your fears airtime and play up the possible danger.
Do you see coverage about legitimate fears of harm caused by illegal immigrants (crime, disease, etc)? No, it's "oh, a tiny percentage of immigrants cause any kind of harm, so fears about what harm they might cause is scaremongering."
The list of stupid ideas from Wisconsin Republicans is endless. The state economy is in shambles, roads are among the worst in the nation, and they are concentrating on forcing people to pee in cups, deciding where school kids pee, and allowing guns in classrooms. Heckuva job voters. Embrace the suck.
If the first rule of concealed carry is to not talk about concealed carry, the second rule is to brag about how people not carrying a gun are free riding on the protection you provide to other people by carrying a gun. Really?
If a classmate opens fire on the professor, there is no duty to come to the professor's defense. In fact, is that necessarily even likely behavior from someone who is so concerned for their own self-preservation that they feel the need to carry a gun at all times?
You know that if the cops arrive and you are engaged in a gunfight with the active shooter, the cops might shoot you both, and might well be justified in doing so for their own safety and the safety of others. So are you going to draw your gun to protect the professor, or only if the shooter comes after you?
CStanley said...
I don't think the analogies work very well. The fear is over a perception of a disproportionate capability to do harm, which doesn't exist for any of the groups listed.
How about people with AIDS in the mid 80's? People were fearful and didn't necessarily trust reassurances that the disease couldn't be transmitted easily. Looking back those fears were not justified and were probably enhanced by other prejudice, but it wasn't crazy to be concerned at that time. Watch any recent movie set in those times, though: the people who are afraid are portrayed as ridiculous bigots, since the science is now settled and we know the earlier fears were overblown. The fear there was over the capacity of those individuals to do harm--if professors expressed anxiousness over having persons with AIDS in their classrooms (despite the law saying they should be able to be there) would those profs get positive coverage?
So basically, those students with the self control to not carry a gun when it was illegal and the maturity to get a CCW are likely to lose their shit and start shooting in class. Sounds plausible...
Monkeyboy said...
I think Glenn was comparing the irrationality and bigotry of the complaints.
We can't have "x" in the classroom because we all know how THOSE people are .
In Texas a concealed carry permit is 21 or over and required a background check. CWP owners are statistically less likely to get in trouble than the general public.
The person in the classroom carrying isn't the hung-over 18 year old it's the quiet 25 year old GI Bill user.
Look at what happened recently in Oregon. An angry and apparently deranged man came to campus with multiple guns. The school was a "gun free zone" which meant he had easy pickings. One brave man, Chris Mintz, took on the shooter empty handed. He apparently slowed him down but received 5-7 bullet wounds (accounts vary). He was lucky to survive. Now, Chris Mintz is an Army infantry veteran. Gun knowledge is a big part of the infantryman's job description. Imaging how much more effective he could've been had he been armed with more than a great deal of courage (and balls made of titanium). Gun free zones are a sick joke.
I know quite a few people who legally concealed carry firearms. Without exception, every single one of them has told me that they're never more conscious of their responsibilities and liabilities than when they're carrying. These people aren't a bunch of fictionalized cowboys looking for trouble. They are people who've complied with the law, received training, practice shooting regularly, and are less likely to get in trouble than your average person.
@AllenS, one of my professors did something like that, but he was teaching playwriting and wanted to illustrate the difference between describing an action textually and writing the action into a script. It was very effective.
I recall an incident a couple of years ago in LA. The popo were involved in a manhunt for a rogue cop. Without stopping the vehicle, they opened fire on a pickup truck (41 rounds as I recall). Presumably, these were rational, well trained, range qualified, police officers. The victims in the truck were an old woman and her daughter delivering newspapers. The truck DID NOT match the description of the truck that was carrying the suspect. OOPS!
Many commenters seem to think that being 21 and taking a class makes one calm, rational, and well prepared (a good shot) to blow-up a bad guy. I'm not so sure! Just saying.
Big Mike,
Some younguns often lose their ever-loving minds when you tell them NO. "Professor, will you raise my grade?" "No"
It really is not about being obnoxious or failed pedagogy.
"It's not the case that teachers must learn to tolerate students exercising their personal freedoms in the classroom."
This speaks to a very fundamental issue in academia: who is the employer and who is the employee? I claim that in a state-run institution, supported and chartered by the government, the primary purpose is to provide education to citizens of that state. The administration and faculty are state employees, and the students are their employers.
As such, yes it is the case that teachers must learn to tolerate...
Of course, artificial constructs such as tenure and "freedom of education" are raised to obscure this relationship. However, given current financial and political realities, I think tenure has lost its tenure. And recall that freedom of education is the freedom to be educated, not the freedom to impose whatever philosophy on students.
This realization is part of what drives academia to support candidates like Obama and Clinton in the hope of pushing off the impending collapse of their hegemony. Of course, Professor Reynolds has already written extensively, intelligently, and rather prophetically on the subject.
I saw the professor on the Kelly File last night. He was the stereotype of a nice, smart professor with little grasp of the real world. He conceded that allowing concealed carry would cause no greater risk of any type of planned shooting. He probably would have, if pushed, conceded that concealed carry might prevent or mitigate such a situation.
He went on to further concede his sole concern was a spontaneous situation where a student got mad at a professor and pulled out his gun to shoot him, i.e., because a licensed concealed carry person was a risk of engaging in such spontaneous violence. He argued it was not unusual for students to get very mad at a professor.
The problem with this theoretical fear is that the professor probably knows of no occasion when a student has become mad and spontaneously shot or otherwise violently attacked a professor. I wish the reporter had been sharp enough to ask him if he knew of any such situations. She allowed him to get away with saying students often get very mad at professors. To me, it was an example of a liberal professor against guns who allowed his political views to shape his thinking on this risk assessment issue.
I can understand how a professor (or anyone else who deals with the public) would prefer his students/customers not to bring guns to meetings with him, but the issue here is balancing the right to carry with the fears of the professor (and others like him). The alleged risk is, at best, mushy. And liberals are almost never challenged to provide facts to support their risk assessment.
In the big picture, there is almost never a report of a lawful concealed carry person "snapping" and pulling out his gun to shoot a teach or other service provider because he got mad. If it seldom happens in the real world, there is not sufficient risk it will happen to the professor to justify depriving students of their concealed carry rights.
Are professors fearful at the grocery store? The park? At the bookstore? People in these places can have guns, and they're much more likely to be impulsively violent, not being limited only to those who applied and were accepted to attend college.
"For one thing, you don't have the easy option of leaving your femaleness, blackness, or open gayness back at home."
What a strange sentence. It's almost like Althouse wrote it without "open" and realized it was nonsense, then went back and corrected it.
Except then that undermines the whole concept, doesn't it? Of course you can leave your "open gayness" at home - that is, in fact, the default for a gay student in class. Unless you're wearing Pride gear or lisping your way through questions, you're just another man sitting in class, his sexual predilections unknown to the professor. And likewise for students carrying guns (in most cases; let's leave aside open-carry). The student's gun is there; he's not going to deny it if you ask him; but why would you ask him, any more than you'd query a random male student in class and ask if he's gay? (Can you just imagine? "Why are you asking me?" "Dunno, you kinda look gay").
And so we see the bigotry, don't we? Because a professor worried there might be a gay student in his class would have exactly the same mindset as a professor worried there might be an armed student in his class. This hypothetical professor would be worrying about the hidden private behavior of her students, since that behavior might correspond to mindsets and attitudes the professor found sinful. What if what of the gay students, overcome by a wave of gayness, started waving around his gayness right there in class? That's about as intellectually deep a concern as the concerns about armed students.
"Many Professors Fearful"
Few are named.
I wonder how many culinary professors are scared of knives.
"[The Professor interviewed on The Kelly File] argued it was not unusual for students to get very mad at a professor."
In 30 years of teaching I don't recall a student ever getting "very mad" at me. I've had discussions where we had a difference of opinion; but "very mad"? No. This is either dishonesty in service of his political agenda or he's not very good with people.
There are certain risks in most jobs and there are steps taken in many cases to eliminate/reduce the risk. But you can't design a "safety" program around fear. If you are afraid, its time to move on. He can sip wine in his little house in the Hill Country and live off his pension without fear, especially now that Rick Perry's out of the race.
You can win the support of your students with a smile and a gun, than just a smile alone.
Are some of these "worried" professors the type who love to treat their students like shit? Perhaps they're afraid that they'll have to change their teaching style. Just a thought.
We all know of several instances in which an armed outsider entered a school or college or law school and shot and killed students, faculty, and staff. I am not personally aware of any instance in which an armed student became angry at a professor in class and opened fire on him/her. Perhaps I'm uninformed; if so, please tell me. However, based on what I understand the facts to be, there is much more risk of death and injury from declaring a school, etc. to be gun-free than in permitting lawful concealed carry.
So the professor's fears are irrational. Irrationality seems to be a disqualifying factor for an educator.
I agree that were I a professor I would have a gun and make sure everyone knew it. This would make everyone more polite.
I was a prosecutor in St. Louis in the 1980's before there were metal detectors at the courthouse door. One judge, a big black middle-aged man, when he took the bench in a courtroom crowded with criminal defendants and their hangers-on, would show his giant revolver and say that he expected everyone to behave. Everyone did.
Once on a float trip on an Ozark river, I found myself surrounded by canoes full of rowdy abusive drunks. As we rounded a bend in the river, ahead was an elderly couple fishing in a john boat. From 200 yards away, the man's pistol was visible on his hip. The rowdies quieted down and wished the couple a good morning.
AvoCat
In 30 years of teaching I don't recall a student ever getting "very mad" at me.
Same (except not 30 years). Student anger is usually partly at themselves too for allowing their grade situation to spin out of control.
I'd be a pretty lousy listener if I allowed someone who was annoyed with me to get super mad.
"Anyway, a student with a concealed weapon is not like a student who is female, black, or openly gay." Glenn Reynolds didn't make this point as a part of his argument. His point was about the professors visceral reaction to something over which they have no control and/or don't really understand. Over time and with experience, people get over their unfounded fears. It's called "education".
"I'd be a pretty lousy listener if I allowed someone who was annoyed with me to get super mad."
Exactly.
Are students punching people in class? Slapping people? Kicking each other? Shivving disliked students in the hall?
It's the university, not the chain gang. Any professor who's worried needs to think it through. The population at a university is very narrow and selected mostly for its lack of impulsivity.
"Irrational fear"? I am once again struck by how much of the SJW blank slate rhetoric Libertarians share. If the human fear response were so pervasively irrational, how would the species have ever survived?
Any adult casually observing the play of an autistic spectrum child would pick up on the fact that such children display a notable lack of empathy for the pain of other children or pets. A parent of another child would not want their child exposed to the risks inherent in playing unsupervised with such a child, whether in the neighborhood or at school. But in the abstract rights-based world of the SJW Left (and Libertarians?), such fears are dismissed as "irrational" because not every ASD child maims or kills.
Glenn's easy equation of teachers' fear of guns in the hands of college age students with bias against women, blacks or gays represents the radical egalitarian style of rhetoric which seeks to win arguments by shaming, at the expense of common sense.
I think Glenn Reynolds' point is that any discomfort felt is irrational, just like the other irrational ones he mentions.
1. It had already been the case that there could have been students carrying concealed weapons. They would have been breaking the law and taking some risk.
2. It is likely, now that it is legal, for the number of students carrying will go up: There may be some who carry without a permit, but one would expect the bulk of the new armed group are the legal ones.
I would be a lot less apprehensive about CC permit holders around me than people who are knowingly breaking the law.
I think the real agenda is that professors are generally pretty left-wing, don't like the idea of guns being legal at all and are just making a fuss.
Ben Carson thinks the gun bans are Nazi activities. So just fire the Nazi teachers.
PHD Hansen was Muslm Insane so he killed Disarmed A
US Army fighters being deployed to battle insane Muslims who are today's Nazis.
Their being armed to kill Muslim Killers sure would have made Major Hansen nervous.
I remember a professor who liked to choose easily cowed students to berate on and on until they broke down in front of the whole class. I have no doubt that he is strongly against anyone being allowed to concealed carry in his presence.
"I think Glenn Reynolds' point is that any discomfort felt is irrational, just like the other irrational ones he mentions."
Yes, but the need to overcome irrational fears varies, and the need to overcome the fear of women, black people, and gay people is on a different moral level, so it doesn't make good enough leverage for arguing that all rules based on irrational fear should be abolished.
The school (in Texas) wanted to ban guns, and the state legislature took that away. The question is what level of authority should control. The legislators are also motivated by their emotions and there's no assurance that they're behaving with complete rationality. Whose mix of rational and irrational should govern?
Stupid wimps. They are safer and they don't even know it.
How's that "gun free zone" working out for ya?
Did you that little shit at UConn the other day? He wanted his jalapeno bacon mac and cheese real bad. It turned into a thing. Just saying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/holly-wonneberger/why-uconn-mac-and-cheese-attack-isnt-funny_b_8281882.html
"The question is what level of authority should control."
Sounds like a question for the courts. I imagine there will be lawsuits and the question will get decided, assuming it's not clear cut now.
"Any adult casually observing the play of an autistic spectrum child would pick up on the fact that such children display a notable lack of empathy for the pain of other children or pets."
Talk about irrational bigotry!
"... it doesn't make good enough leverage for arguing that all rules based on irrational fear should be abolished."
Huh? Rules based on irrational fear shouldn't be abolished? That's your reasoned position?
Armed law students would not be a good idea especially when some prof gins up the Socratic method and bears down on an unprepared student.
I got angry with a philosophy teacher at Olympic College in Bremerton in 1984.
He was a military hating commie fuck hippy type with a mearschum pipe and wiry grey hair. He made absolutely no sense to me when he'd sit there sucking on that thing slurring out his words. After a couple of times asking him after class what the hell I was missing, he got really snotty, questioning my interest and/or aptitude.
I really woulda liked to have kicked his ass I remember thinking. Saying anything other than yes sir (It's a southern thing, from
What I've learned in 55 years, nobody else does) however was not an option. My mom woulda been pissed.
I took the class cause I was a different kinda cat in them days.
My research shows the vast majority (All?) of the USA's notorious/mass shooters as being members or supporters or beneficiaries of the the Democratic (sic) Party---With a little help from a Socialist BUT NO ASSISTANCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE NRA.
It might be best to forbid Democrats from "keeping and bearing arms".
But would the Socratic method would allow bowls of Hemlock to be placed on the Professor's desk? Kind of like a dead fish from the Sicilian Students Association.
OK, we need to pass an exception to Assault Weapon bans that allows full automatic for all Professor's weapons. That should restrain the students from shooting.
I guess having a student with a concealed knife never bothered the Professors.
This isn't about the professors right to have an irrational fear, its about CC holders right to have their guns to protect themselves. Thank God the leglistature in on the CC side.
Next step, there will be a lawsuit and some Judge will rule. As always.
Hey, did ya'll hear about Florida Man Michael Dunn. He was a 45 year old software developer with a concealed permit. Turns out he lost his cool when threatened by the always dangerous loud music, "rap crap" he called it. He might have been called a "cracker". He killed that SUV and 17 year old Jordan Davis with 10 rounds. Didn't get the make, model and caliber for all the gun enthusiast.
I'm positive he took the class and didn't have a record. Probably very level headed guy, all things considered. Responsible gunman Dunn did not call the police. Drove home. Police tracked him down the next day.
Anecdotal evidence, I know. Just saying.
Let's stipulate that the professor does not want to be armed, and she does not want any student in her class to be armed. What then is her strategy for dealing with a shooter who shows up in her class? Does she have a strategy? Does she run practice drills with her class so they will be at least somewhat prepared in the event a shooter shows up?
The legislators are also motivated by their emotions and there's no assurance that they're behaving with complete rationality.
OK, I guess democracy has been tried and has failed, so what is your solution then Althouse? Nine philosopher kings, obviously.
As Winston Churchill, I think, said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
For some professors I'm sure the fear is not irrational at all. They hate the students they teach, make no bones about it, and welcome the students' hostility in return. They'd be doing something else with their miserable lives, but (1) they have tenure and on the outside they'd be at perpetual risk of being fired, because (2) they've never done anything useful with their lives since demonstrating against some cause du jour and have no plans to start now.
I presume that doesn't include yourself, Professor Althouse.
Anecdotal evidence, I know. Just saying.
Repeal the 2nd amendment. It is certainly not impossible. Go for it! 2/3 of legislatures, you don't even have to convince those in the very worst states, you get a pass on 16 states.
Shooting of Jordan Davis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shooting of Jordan Davis
Duval County Florida Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Jacksonville Highlighted.svg
Map of Jacksonville, Florida
Location 8251 Southside Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.
Date November 23, 2012
7:30 pm
Weapons Taurus PT 99 AF[1]
Victim Jordan Davis
Assailant Michael Dunn
The shooting of Jordan Davis occurred on November 23, 2012, at a gas station in Jacksonville, Florida, United States over loud music.
Jordan Russell Davis, a 17-year-old African-American high school student, was fatally shot by Michael David Dunn, a 45-year-old white male software developer from Brevard County who was visiting the city for a wedding.[2]
I cannot find any articles that claim Dunn had a concealed permit, jacksonjay.
Should be concealed "carry" permit.
Yes, but the need to overcome irrational fears varies, and the need to overcome the fear of women, black people, and gay people is on a different moral level, so it doesn't make good enough leverage for arguing that all rules based on irrational fear should be abolished.
...says who?
You think it's morally imperative because you're a woman.
I'll ask a simple question: Who is a bigger risk, your average CCW permit holder or your average black student? Looking at stats, one of your moral imperatives to get over the fear of is measures more of a risk than the other.
The school (in Texas) wanted to ban guns, and the state legislature took that away.
As they should. If they opted to ban speech and lost that, would you criticize? I imagine not, yet both are equally protected by the Constitution.
The question is what level of authority should control. The legislators are also motivated by their emotions and there's no assurance that they're behaving with complete rationality. Whose mix of rational and irrational should govern?
The ones accountable to voters. That was actually really easy.
You know, if the university didn't want to abide by the rules --- then don't take the money. It's a simple solution.
Many commenters seem to think that being 21 and taking a class makes one calm, rational, and well prepared (a good shot) to blow-up a bad guy. I'm not so sure! Just saying.
And point to one incident, several years ago, involving a group Progressives state they don't want to disarm (yet) to prove whatever point you're aiming for here?
Are professors fearful at the grocery store? The park? At the bookstore? People in these places can have guns, and they're much more likely to be impulsively violent, not being limited only to those who applied and were accepted to attend college.
Do people that paranoid really need jobs educating others?
Did you that little shit at UConn the other day? He wanted his jalapeno bacon mac and cheese real bad. It turned into a thing. Just saying.
So, we should ban alcohol, eh?
"The population at a university is very narrow and selected mostly for its lack of impulsivity."
If we're talking MIT, sure; but Umpqaa Community College? Not so much. Judging the irrationality of a teacher's fear should take that reality into account. But in the abstract rights-based worldview of the SJW Left--and the Libertarians--that kind of common sense reasoning is rejected, indeed demonized as irrational.
Pretty funny that jacksonjay has to go back three years in a country with over 300 million people.
Maybe marijuana is a larger problem?
Columbia University researchers performing a toxicology examination of nearly 24,000 driving fatalities concluded that marijuana contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010, tripled from a decade earlier.
In 2013 there were 32K traffic deaths, so probably around 4 thousand of them due to pot smokers. I wonder what the statistics on duly licensed gun owners killing people...
But we need less guns and more pot.
Allen S,
I not sure about Huffington Post as a source, but here you go:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/michael-dunn-verdict_n_4796068.html
Hell, ban alcohol and the "rape culture" crisis evaporates instantly.
Got sand in your vagina Jay?
Ever read the constitution?
In you're defense, I bet you could come up with about a hunnert or so instances.
Which what with about 300 million people and spaced over I'll be generous 25 years really ain't shot compared to the illegal ownership of weaponry while committing crimes.
But you rave in with your bad self boy.
How many people can you kill with your fists or a knife in five minutes? How many can you kill with a semi automatic weapon in five minutes?
tim in vermont,
Concealed carry might very well be the answer. I'm arguing that getting a permit doesn't mean that person is going to be able to take down a bad guy. I think there are studies that suggest that police officers are oftentimes not a good shot in the heat of the moment.
I had an idea you got that information from some left wing wacko source. NBC, CNN, and everyone else that I read that reported on Dunn and the incident said nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing about him having a concealed carry permit.
You got nothing, and neither does the Huff Post.
Learn how to make a link.
White males only make up 36% of the population but commit 75% of mass shootings. Isn't time that we admit we have a white male problem? It would be called terrorism if the shooters were a different skin tone.
I work in a gun free building, but I take heart in knowing that an ex-Marine who works in the same has his Glock stored in his truck. A little too far away in case of emergency, but better than nothing.
damiskec,
So, you think all those concealed carryiers are teetotalers?
No! I don't want to ban automobiles either.
jacksonjay said...
I'm arguing that getting a permit doesn't mean that person is going to be able to take down a bad guy.
There are no guarantees in life, other than death and taxes.
My only point, jacksonjay, is that you had to go back 3 years. Surely there are outrageous cases like this every day.
It would be called terrorism if the shooters were a different skin tone.
Hassan's attack was "workplace violence", so you're wrong there.
So, you think all those concealed carryiers are teetotalers?
That you've yet to find an example of a CCW permit holder doing anything is evidence that you have little proof of your claims.
No! I don't want to ban automobiles either.
Why not? Way more drivers drive drunk than CCW permit holders shoot people drunk. Magnitudes more. If your concern was safety and not "guns are icky", you'd back that.
Concealed carry might very well be the answer. I'm arguing that getting a permit doesn't mean that person is going to be able to take down a bad guy. I think there are studies that suggest that police officers are oftentimes not a good shot in the heat of the moment.
How well do people do in gun-free zones when shootings occur?
Allen S,
The Huffington Post link is an AP story. Is the AP left wing wacko? Maybe in your mind.
From the AP story:
Dunn told jurors he feared for his life, perceiving "this was a clear and present danger." Dunn, who has a concealed weapons permit, fired 10 shots, hitting the vehicle nine times. Davis was the only person hit.
Maybe you could learn how to open a link. Right click, highlight, open.
I sure hope you don't have a permit.
So, you think all those concealed carriers are teetotalers?
In Virginia it is illegal to drink at all if you are carrying concealed, probably true of Texas as well. Like DUI being under the influence will get your license pulled, unlike DIU is there is no lower threshold, anything above .00 will do. It was only recently that the law was changed so you could even be in a place that served alcohol.
All we can do is arm teachers and students and hope for the best. It only makes sense that more guns should keep us safer.
damikesc,
Maybe you missed the examples of concealed carrys that I gave.
I would never let a prof know about my legal ccw. I don't want that prof to give me a lower grade.
Monkeyboy,
So you think all these concealed carrys obey the law?
"So you think all these concealed carrys obey the law?"
Statistically they're more likely to obey the law than the general population. Logically, you should feel safer in a room filled with concealed carry permitholders than in a room filled with random people.
Playing devil's advocate here, just for hypothetical's sake.
Let's assume that colleges now allow CCW permit holders to carry guns on campus. Taking as static the number of CCW permit holders before that rule change, very few of which are 18-22 year olds: won't the number of permit holders now increase, causing a larger percent of either accidents, or disgruntled students possibly using their weapons?
"So, you think all those concealed carryiers are teetotalers?"
No, but in most CC states it is a felony to drink alchohol while carrying your firearm in public. Although in some cases you're allowed to bring your weapon into an alchohol-serving establishment, you are not allowed to drink while you have it on you. I'm sure some CC holders violate that, but I'd venture to say that they are less likely to do that than a random person. The sort of person who goes through the trouble to get a CC permit isn't likely to risk a felony because they want to be armed and drinking at the same time.
I found out after my wedding (which was in VA) that one of my guests had his gun with him, which was why he didn't drink the whole time (which wasn't surprising--he was never a drinker anyway, as he drove everywhere). He's scrupulous about that sort of thing (as he also holds a security clearance) and I don't have anything to fear from him being armed at venues like that.
The people to watch out for are the ones who don't get those permits.
@Althouse: On what basis do you claim that the legislators, in permitting concealed carry in the class room, are "motivated by their emotions", just as the fearful professor is, and "there's no assurance that they're behaving with complete rationality"? As I (and others) have shown in this discussion, and as I think you yourself admit, the fearful professor has an irrational fear of being shot by an angry student. The legislators, in contrast, have acted rationally (a) to support the constitutional rights of the citizens, and (b) to reduce the risk that the school will be attacked, as gun-free zones have been attacked in several well-known instances.
Of course it's true that all human beings have emotions, and those emotions do operate when we make decisions, but I hope you aren't suggesting that this means that there's no basis for distinguishing between well-founded decisions and ill-founded ones. I'm sure in your law school classes you wouldn't be satisfied if a student explained the ruling in Roe v. Wade on the basis that the emotions of the justices in the majority led them in one direction, and the emotions of the others led them in the other direction, "and there's no assurance that [either group is] behaving with complete rationality". Would you?
Brando,
You make a very good point. I guess I would say that most of us are not law abiding in the strictest sense. We feel that we can and should break laws if they are inconvenient or misguided. But, you are right, theoretically concealed carriers should be more law abiding than the general population.
"Hey, did ya'll hear about Florida Man Michael Dunn. He was a 45 year old software developer with a concealed permit. Turns out he lost his cool when threatened by the always dangerous loud music, "rap crap" he called it. He might have been called a "cracker". He killed that SUV and 17 year old Jordan Davis with 10 rounds. Didn't get the make, model and caliber for all the gun enthusiast.
I'm positive he took the class and didn't have a record. Probably very level headed guy, all things considered. Responsible gunman Dunn did not call the police. Drove home. Police tracked him down the next day.
Anecdotal evidence, I know. Just saying."
Well, I'm convinced. If one CC holder committed a gun crime, then obviously CC holders are more dangerous than everyone else.
Reading Brando's wedding story made me think of all the Secret Service stories that have been in the news lately. Holy Guano! How safe is Barack Hussein Obama with the world's best security detail?
Let me repeat my comment from 12:40.
Concealed carry might very well be the answer. I'm arguing that getting a permit doesn't mean that person is going to be able to take down a bad guy. I think there are studies that suggest that police officers are oftentimes not a good shot in the heat of the moment.
It's not the case that teachers must learn to tolerate students exercising their personal freedoms in the classroom.
Since the Left took over the institutions Constitution freedoms have been generally more disrespected than tolerated, that's what PC means in application.
If it's a personal freedom like free speech teachers don't need to tolerate it because school administrators will wink at their intolerance if not actively encourage it. However, if it a person freedom within the penumbra of sex/gender, like a male student dressing like a cartoon version of Jayne Mansfield or a female wearing a dildo, then the prof is treading on quicksand if he strikes an intolerant pose.
traditionalguy said...
Ben Carson thinks the gun bans are Nazi activities. So just fire the Nazi teachers.
Nice try. Dr. Carson correctly pointed out that the Nazis disarmed German Jews and other groups. That made killing Jews and those other groups (e.g. homosexuals, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses) much easier. It was the same tactic that Democrats used against blacks. Gun control laws made it much easier to enforce those odious Jim Crow laws that Democrats enacted, not just in the South but elsewhere. It's harder to fight back when the tyrants are the only ones allowed to be armed.
I find it tragically hilarious that some professors fear students who legally carry arms into the classroom, but are blissfully unafraid of students who are illegally armed in the classroom.
So you think all these concealed carrys obey the law?
Well, no. In July of 2014 John Lott calculated there were 11,113,013 Americans with concealed carry permits. Obviously not all are law abiding.
This is his report on Texas specifically.
"In 2012, the latest year that crime data are available, there were 584,850 active license holders. Out of these, 120 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent, with only a few of these crimes involving a gun." The rate of all crime for police officers is .124%
So 11 million people can't have guns because of Dunn, police can't have guns because the cop in the theatre...so who can have them?
"I'm arguing that getting a permit doesn't mean that person is going to be able to take down a bad guy."
I don't disagree--one part of CC training (I got a permit when I lived in VA) is to drive home the point that you don't try and be a vigilante as you're far more likely to accidentally kill an innocent person. I suspect most CC holders are responsible enough to understand that and use good judgment, though there are also some scenarios where drawing the weapon can be the least bad option (e.g., someone armed with a knife is advancing on you).
It's unfortunate that some gun owners (legal or otherwise) take incredibly stupid or criminal actions that make gun ownership look bad. But considering how many gun owners there are in the country (and we are the third largest country in the world) the terrible actions of a few should not condemn the rest.
"Dr. Carson correctly pointed out that the Nazis disarmed German Jews and other groups. That made killing Jews and those other groups (e.g. homosexuals, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses) much easier. It was the same tactic that Democrats used against blacks."
Carson would have been much better off focusing on how blacks were denied gun ownership in the Jim Crow era and gun control laws originally were meant to disarm blacks. It would have been far more awkward for the Left to rail on him for that--telling a black man he's wrong about that would have sounded like "whitesplaining".
The problem with the Hitler reference is that most people think it's irrelevant to compare America today to Nazi Germany.
@jacksonjay
FWIW, I was 10 years in the military - mostly Reserve with 1.5 years Regular, though like the majority of folks in the military, my primary duty was not using small arms. As a result, unless I was preparing for a deployment overseas, I probably got to put live rounds down range twice a year, which isn't a lot.
Since becoming a full-time civvie and CC permit holder, I make sure to get my butt to the range at least once a month. I'm not a naturally gifted shot, but I practice and I know my strengths and weaknesses. I certainly spend a lot more time and rounds on training than the average NYPD cop (ESU shoot more of course). IMHO, I am better than most cops, and a lot better than I was when I was in the military. I'm certainly not SAS/Delta material, but within a reasonable handgun range I can hit what I aim at. If you want to get SAS/Delta good, you need to shoot most every day - and only they have the time and budget for that.
FWIW, I think your contributions to this thread have been reasonable and respectful, though not always correct.
The question of the armed citizen reminds me of Charles Whitman and his infamous sniper attack on UT back in 1966 (In 1975 Kurt Russel finally broke free of his Disney G-Rated shackles by starring in a made-for-TV movie called The Deadly Tower,, viewable on Youtube at no charge. Inaccurate in some details, but hits many of the salient points squarely.) The Austin PD officers on duty that sweltering afternoon were armed with their service pistols (.357 revolvers, mostly) and 12ga. shotguns, useless against Whitman, who was barricaded on the Tower's observation deck, nearly 300 feet above the kill zone. Seemingly out of nowhere a number of rifle-armed civilians appeared and began to fire back at the sniper. They didn't hit him, but they did save dozens of lives by forcing Whitman to take cover. Without the spontaneous response of armed civilians many of the wounded who were saved would have bled to death where they fell, and the many of the EMTs who came to their rescue would have been killed or wounded themselves.
(Third time's the charm)
Bringing guns to school is cowardice. You have to be willing to die for freedom.
Not sure how this logic works. To be free, I have to give up my freedom to defend myself?
"Sure, losing your loved ones to a massacre, or even to a highway system, is painful. But if we go overboard to try and prevent it, the impact is too great on freedom."
Any measure designed for safety has to be weighed against its cost--for example, we could require that no auto sold in this country is allowed to be built with an engine that could take it above 25 mph--no doubt that would save lives, as far fewer deadly accidents would occur. Spying on all citizens without limit would likely catch more potential killers and terrorists. A lot of things could prevent tragedy, and yet the cost (either in dollars, freedoms or tradeoffs) is often too great.
As for the gun control debates, the biggest issue I have with them is that a lot of these proposed measures are as likely to stop another killing as banning the confederate flag is likely to stop another racial attack. Maybe some of these measures are worth discussing, as they may be good ideas on their own, but the idea that say closing the gun show loophole or limiting magazine size will prevent another Sandy Hook or Columbine is irrational. Chalk it up to "we must do something! This is something, so let's do it!"
"Bringing guns to school is cowardice. You have to be willing to die for freedom."
As a proud coward, I've never brought a gun to school but can almost guarantee I'd hide under my desk if some nut started shooting up people at work. I don't see how that makes me less cowardly than someone who tries to take a shot at the gunman.
"The school (in Texas) wanted to ban guns, and the state legislature took that away."
This is a really bizarre statement. The "school in Texas" is wholly owned by the State of Texas; State owned schools are (surprise) subject to State law. (BTW, it doesn't apply to private schools.) The legislative body in Texas represents the citizens of Texas, and the change in the law meets approval of the population. The fact that some of the State workers don't like how the owners are doing business generates little sympathy, suggesting only that they feel little responsibility to the owners.
Living and commuting near campus frequently carries some risk. It's not unreasonable that someone might want to be able to protect their own safety. The students who hold permits that I've talked to have deep misgivings in locking up their weapons in their cars when they go to class because it is no longer under their control -- school parking lots are usually/generally safe, but not the most secure storage for valuables. And if a weapon is stolen, it is frequently by someone who conducts criminal activities.
damikesc said...Not sure how this logic works. To be free, I have to give up my freedom to defend myself?
You're only thinking of yourself. Does arming classrooms make the whole society free to enjoy happiness, or does it limit freedom to living with fear.
No, the right way is to round up the enemy and deal with them. Slaughter them if we have to, but deal with them and leave society to the happy people.
Les gens heureux...
An armed society is a polite society. If large groups of armed people were truly dangerous, we'd hear stories of mass shootings at gun ranges. Limiting rights because some people find them scary is a bad idea.
Quaestor, you beat me to it. The first thing I thought when I read the post was, "Remember Charles Whitman!"
Ann Althouse said...Yes, but the need to overcome irrational fears varies, and the need to overcome the fear of women, black people, and gay people is on a different moral level, so it doesn't make good enough leverage for arguing that all rules based on irrational fear should be abolished.
I'll leave aside requesting your detailed explanation of the different moral levels (with charts and graphs illustrating each one) and simply point out that this isn't much of a criticism of Prof. Reynolds' point. He pointed to historical examples where irrational fears were overturned by force of law. You're arguing that these irrational fears might be different enough that they shouldn't (in a moral sense, for a moral reason) be overturned/overcome by the force of law, but the law nevertheless exists. If your argument is "not all irrational fears should automatically be seen as no basis for a ban on the thing feared" I'll bet Prof. Reynolds would agree, but that doesn't really say anything at all about this particular case.
Prof Reynolds gave examples, you argue that those examples don't prove that the rule is universal--granting you that, what have you shown about whether the rule should apply in this case or not?
I thought colleges were rapist colonies. Shouldn't people have the right to carry equalizers in such places?
"An armed society is a polite society. "
Everyone always remarks how polite the Taliban are.
Ooh, I almost forgot, I think we're supposed to say "personal opinions or moral judgments about other people's rights are irrelevant, this is the law of the land and it must be respected."
Taliban don't tend to shoot one another. And they have few qualms being violent and have a bit less of a hassle in getting CCW licenses and all...
Ann Althouse said...so it doesn't make good enough leverage for arguing that all rules based on irrational fear should be abolished.
This seems to be assuming Prof. Reynolds is making an argument he didn't explicitly make, and as such is a bit of a strawman. Reynolds doesn't say ALL rules based on irrational fears should be abolished, and if you demonstrated that ALL rules based on irrational fears should be you haven't really refuted the argument he is making. It seems like the burden is more on you to show WHY a particular rule based on irrational fears SHOULD be upheld, and other than asserting that concealed carry status (ability?) is different from gender, race, and sexuality--which most people probably grant--you haven't really given an argument.
Perhaps you can give some other examples of irrational fear-based rules (that is, rules based on irrational fears) that you believe ARE valid and should be upheld and point out what makes those OK and others not OK? You mention other restrictions we place on students' free exercise of their rights but I don't know which (if any) of these restrictions you think are based on irrational fears (and yet morally valid/permissible).
In reply to Ann's comment. "The school (in Texas) wanted to ban guns, and the state legislature took that away. The question is what level of authority should control. The legislators are also motivated by their emotions and there's no assurance that they're behaving with complete rationality. Whose mix of rational and irrational should govern?"
That question was settled by the Constitution that was signed and agreed upon when the United States was formed. The United States Constitution and the 27 amendments, including the 2nd answers your question.
Althouse: what if having red hair made you reprehensible?
Whaddaya mean, "what if?"
Liberal: Someone terrified that a CCW holder might snap and shoot up a classroom but who is totally fine with gay Boy Scout leaders.
Oh, and they'll cheer lifting sanctions on Iran while boycotting Chik-Fil-A.
To be honest, if I had dumbass libtard professors, I'd be getting very mad at them, too.
Hey, dumbass libtard professors: you're right. The classroom is very dangerous. You're going to have OK Corral shoot outs every other week. You should definitely quit.
The Huffington Post link is an AP story. Is the AP left wing wacko?
@jacksonjay, does the brown bear shit in the tall, green woods?
Why is an armed society a polite society? (And, yes, most of those who go legally armed tend to believe this). Partly, I think it comes from understanding the laws about use of deadly force. For one thing, if you show someone your gun, and they haven't escalated to threatening to use deadly force, you just did, which, in itself can be a crime, and maybe even a felony. The track to being able to successfully use deadly force in self defense is to be the obviously innocent party. If you engage in road rage, use or threaten to use a firearm when impaired or drunk, etc, you are not going to be seen by the jury (or prosecutors) as the innocent party. Plus, one of the requirements for self defense is a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Harder to make that argument if you were impaired or mad from rage. And, yes, if you screw this up, you are likely to be banned from possession of any firearms for the rest of your life as a felon. Not just banned from concealed carry, but also banned from even having a gun in your home. And not just handguns, but also banned from possession or ownership of rifles or shotguns too.
Seems like pre-school teachers will soon have the same problem.
Tim in VT,
Not just metal detectors at the entrances, either--you need security equivalent to a county jail or minimum-security prison: metal detectors with armed guards running them, plus either overwatch in case someone decides to shoot their way in, or else an "airlock" like most jails have, plus roving security to respond to any alarms when someone tries one of the alarmed fire exits (remember how Holmes got his weapons into the theater?)
Who wants to go to school in that kind of environment?
MDT,
"I've never bought, or fired, or even held a gun. "
You might want to work on that sometime.
damikesc,
"CCW permits aren't easy to come by."
As always, blanket statements are problematic. Here in gun-friendly WA, permits are indeed very easy to get. The sole qualifications are:
1. 21 years of age.
2. No felony or domestic-violence misdemeanor convictions.
3. No involuntary mental-health committments.
Yes, we have no training requirements, and I like it that way! Not because I'm against training--I've volunteered a fair amount of my time to train folks at various levels--but because I don't like the government putting up roadblocks to people exercising their right, and because the track record shows we have as low a rate of accidental and deliberate misuse of firearms by permit-holders as do those states who do have training requirements.
As far as this clown professor in TX, I might as well just reproduce what I said about him on FB:
Hammermesh says in his resignation letter that he's taught over 8,000 students during his time at UT. What ghastly contempt he must have for those students to think an administrative rule is all that kept them from murdering him.
And what a stunted capability for logic he has, if he thinks someone bent on *murder* is going to be deterred by a mere legal restriction on possessing a firearm. And this guy was teaching *Economics*???
AReasonableMan: "Seems like pre-school teachers will soon have the same problem."
We can only hope and pray that pre-schools outlaw the holding of classes in autos that are owned and being actively operated by friends or acquaintances of pre-schooler grandmothers.
Thanks for staying on point ARM.
I think that you first need to look at whether the fear is rational. The UT profs assume that their fears are rational, but I don't think so. Why not? Licensed concealed carry licensees statistically tend to be high on impulse control and low on law breaking - one of the most law abiding segments of the population, up there with white university profs. Despite dire reductions, the floors of academia have not run red with blood in the schools where licensed concealed carry is legal, just in a few of those where it is illegal. As for drinking, we are mostly talking seniors, grad students, and faculty, not the freshmen and sophomores who are out of the house for the first time, and are most of those binge drinking (since you typically need to be 21). In short, there is little, if anything, excluding liberal orthodoxy, supporting the profs fears, and much to classify it as unreasonable.
And, if the fear is unreasonable, or at least unprovable as being rational, these UT profs are essentially asking for special treatment solely based on their being UT faculty. They think of themselves as special little snowflakes and want everyone else to treat them that way.
Finally, someone has to make the determination for state colleges and universities whether they are safer with licensed concealed carriers carrying, or not. This decision was made by the owners of the school, while the faculty, as employees, wanted to make it themselves. Sorry, that isn't how it works.
"Seems like pre-school teachers will soon have the same problem."
You have a point?
Why is an armed society a polite society?
I'd argue that, assuming rationality, MAD is a very effective strategy. Criminals don't target the armed because they know that they can make them suffer mightily for their transgressions. They choose the unarmed specifically.
EverlyBro,
"How many people can you kill with ... a knife in five minutes? "
Well, the knife never needs reloading, right? And it will eventually dull, but in 5 minutes of hacking probably not enough to matter, so you do that math
garage mahal (12:43pm) gives a clinic on how to misuse statistics: "White males only make up 36% of the population but commit 75% of mass shootings. Isn't time that we admit we have a white male problem? It would be called terrorism if the shooters were a different skin tone."
Of course, 97% of mass shootings are done by men, so we should ask what percentage of men are white, not what percentage of the general population. To do otherwise is dishonest or grossly incompetent. If white men are 36% of the population, they must be right around 72% of men: if those 72% are doing 75% of the shootings, that's well withing the margin of statistical error.
Of course, you can't trust garage mahal's numbers, either.
This site gives handy breakdowns by race, gender, and other factors. The only problem is that some of the circles are hidden by others until you click on the right place. However, here is a quick-and-dirty calculation, using the Wikipedia article on Demographics of the United States for ethnic percentages:
Whites, 63.7% of the population, commited 62.5% of the mass shootings (40/64). Sounds about right.
Blacks, 12.6% of the population, committed 15.6% of the mass shootings (10/64). A bit over-represented, but possibly within the margin of error.
Hispanics, 16.4% of the population, committed only 4.7% of the mass shootings (3/64). Are you surprised?
Who does that leave?
Asian, 4.8% of the population, committed 7.8% of the mass shootings (5/64). Sometimes a driving urge to excel is a bad thing.
Native Americans, 1.1% of the population if you include native Hawaiians, committed 4.7% of the mass shootings (3/64), including one of the two by women, putting them way out of line.
Finally, "Others", an unknown percentage of the population, committed 4.7% of the mass shootings (3/64): clicking on the three dots, we find two Middle Eastern Muslims who attacked military targets (Major Hassan in Texas, Mohammad Abdulazeez at the Chattanooga Recruiting Center), plus the Umpqua C.C. shooter, who was half-black and half-white, which means he'd be counted as black if he ever did something admirable. By the way, both Muslim shooters were of Palestinian ancestry, like Sirhan Sirhan.
To conclude: anyone who claims (as so many do) that mass shootings are a "white thing", that other races don't participate, is ignorant or dishonest. The vast majority of mass shooters are male, but all races participate, and only Hispanics are much underrepresented in the totals, while Asians, Native Americans, and Palestinians are overrepresented.
Note: There are 72 links in the right column of the linked site, but I've only found 65 spots on the map, and one of those lists the shooter's ethnicity as unknown, so I've omitted it from my total. Anyone who wants to spend a little time tracking down the other seven is welcome to see if they can improve on my calculation).
No fair, Dr. Weevil, who said facts were allowed in this discussion?!
Where are all the moderate white males denouncing these horrific slaughters
Where is garage mahal's conscience? Why does he not apologize for his dishonesty and/or incompetence in claiming that white males are committing a disproportionate share of mass shootings, when it is in fact males of all races except Hispanics?
Where are the pre-schoolers denouncing the shooting of nana's?
Self defense is a NATURAL right. Full stop.
Re: this,
Kirk Parker said...
EverlyBro,
"How many people can you kill with ... a knife in five minutes? "
Well, the knife never needs reloading, right? And it will eventually dull, but in 5 minutes of hacking probably not enough to matter, so you do that math
10/13/15, 4:55 PM
Please Google: amok, as in to run amok. Wiki will have it of course.
Ha ha ha! Dr Weevil used a stats term in the same paragraph as "garage"!
Too funny.
ARM: "Where are the preschoolers..."
Note: ARM is more demanding preschoolers than Muslim adults.
Isnt that bigotry?
I can't believe "hard to hide your open gayness". Race/sex, sure.
The original's point, and a decent one, is that we have professors uncomfortable with an expansion of students-in-classroom liberty. And that maybe we shouldn't consider their mere discomfort as evidence of their rightness. The callback to early-1900s discrimination is just to prime that "wrong professor" in our heads.
You can carry a gun to class if you can guarantee me at one point you won't go crazy.
Here comes Drago saying slaughtered babies is just fine. Sick.
garage mahal:
You've been accused of grossly misusing statistics. An honest man would either forthrightly admit he was wrong, or try to defend what he wrote against an accumulation of pertinent evidence. Are you going to do either, or shall we just put you down as neither honest nor a man?
So are college students adults or aren't they? It seems that they are when it is convenient for administrators and faculty, but not when it isn't.
I ask again: where are the moderate white males denouncing these slaughters of Americans?
And let us not forget the failure of moderate two year olds to denounce the shooting of nana.
"Here comes Drago saying slaughtered babies is just fine. Sick.
garage, I think you're mistaking Drago for Planned Parenthood.
Ann is using female "logic." Don't try to use logic to change her mind.
Garage believes everyone is stuck at the 7th grade level with him. Hence the hilariously ineffective projections.
It would be cute watching him try so hard but then you remember: oh, thats right, garage is an adult...sort of.
ARM continues his demands for toddlers to show shame for the actions of other toddlers.
Interesting that these little ones have already learned lessons that have passed ARM by.
It no doubt helps that the toddlers are less medicated than ARM.
It's always heartening when folks grow up and realize that personal safety and well being is ultimately an individual responsibility that cannot be out-sourced.
But frankly I find the "Cocks-not-Glocks" folks' choice of personal defense accoutrements to be ... bizarre.
It's not the case that teachers must learn to tolerate students exercising their personal freedoms in the classroom.
I keep coming back to this sentence, and asking why not?
Big Mike: Not that I'm not sympathetic with your point about the employer / employee relationship in the college classroom, but - every business eventually learns that sometimes you you just have to fire a customer. (Colleges probably won't want to follow that idea, though, because there's usually a refund to the customer involved...)
"you don't have the easy option of leaving your femaleness, blackness, or open gayness..."
In my experience, folks who can't learn to leave their femaleness, maleness, blackness, whiteness, straightness, or gayness outside the office door unless it's professionally relevant, eventually destroy the work environment.
But then, I have clearly led a deprived life, since it's been mostly outside academia. Maybe inside academia, those ARE the important things about folks.
Unasked question: how do the professors know that they haven't had students in class with concealed weapons?
The only way to really enforce a gun-free zone is to have a secured perimeter and have security check everyone who comes in - kind of like they do at courthouses, sporting events, and the like. For the most part, a college/university campus and their main buildings are open and freely accessible. Their gun-free zone is enforced mostly with the power of words and the hope that everyone will obey. In the years I was at college, absolutely nobody would have ever been the wiser had there been a gun hidden in the backpack because there were no metal detectors, no security guards asking to search it, and no occasion where it would have been withdrawn.
If professors are really worried about the possibility of students coming to their class with guns, they would be better served to petition for security upgrades, because no "gun-free zone" notice is going to work if they've got an unhinged student who has resolved to murder people with a gun. Their employer isn't exactly investing many resources into making sure that student never gets on campus or into that classroom with that weapon.
"Yes, we have no training requirements, and I like it that way! Not because I'm against training--I've volunteered a fair amount of my time to train folks at various levels--but because I don't like the government putting up roadblocks to people exercising their right, and because the track record shows we have as low a rate of accidental and deliberate misuse of firearms by permit-holders as do those states who do have training requirements."
I don't really have a problem with a training requirement or test, just like we do for drivers' licenses (and I realize the right to drive isn't a constitutional right, but note that even constitutional rights are not absolute). Such a test would probably be redundant for an educated gun owner, but useful for a newbie, and can prevent dumbasses from getting into trouble for pulling their gun on loud teenagers or drinking Jagerbombs at the bar while armed because they didn't know that's illegal. I'll take some reasonable regulations for gun ownership and carry provided they relax some of the more egregious ones (such as not being allowed to carry at all in many major cities, like the one I live in).
"I thought colleges were rapist colonies. Shouldn't people have the right to carry equalizers in such places?"
The key here is to put yourself in the mind of the campus leftist. It's all about oppression and identity. They see gun ownership as a white male thing, and rapists as white males (it gets muddier when a black male is the one accused of rape, unless he's raping a black female in which case throw the book at him). The idea of an armed woman doesn't add up to them, so guns are bad as they're just arming the rapists.
Remember, the way to understand leftism is to remember that certain groups have the mark of Cain as oppressors, and others are blessed as victims, and that is the lens through which all their beliefs work. We are not individuals, we are not sentient beings. It's a bleak, depressing outlook which is why leftists are generally unhappy people.
I don't really have a problem with a training requirement or test, just like we do for drivers' licenses ...
@Brando, well I have a problem with it. I can picture liberals announcing that people like Jerry Miculek or Julie Golob or Kim Rhode have failed the test, along with lots of more ordinary gun owners. There is precedent, unless the stories about Democrat election judges in the Jim Crow south failing black college graduates on the literacy tests were apocryphal.
Something that has come up, and missed most of this thread. There is a cultural war going on, and part of it is that the right, believing in personal responsibility, is arming, and the left, believing in cmmnal action, is getting more and more paranoid. This latter was on full display last night as the Dem candidates lied through their collective mouths, each trying to be more draconian about their proposed gun control measures. Esp egregious were Clinton and Sanders who had come from more moderate gun control backgrounds.
UT Austin is the flagship of progressive thought in Texas, Moscow on a/the Colorado river. Faculty there were fat, dumb, and happy, having gotten high paying, secure, jobs in such a nice progressive location. And then their employers, the citizenry of Texas, were rude enough to impose, in a very small way, their more conservative preferences on their universities and colleges, including UT Austin. And a lot of the special little snowflakes that make up the UT faculty had a meltdown. But it is probably more the imposition of a more conservative Coulter on the faculty than any real increase in danger (actually, it is more likely more safe) that is driving their reaction. And the horror is that they might even see a gun some day on campus, with the recent legislation that provides for open carry for those with valid CC licenses. And the citizenry of Texas don't care if this traumatizes the little snowflakes who predominate on the UT faculty.
Brando,
"Such a test would probably be redundant for an educated gun owner, but useful for a newbie, and can prevent dumbasses from getting into trouble for pulling their gun on loud teenagers or drinking Jagerbombs at the bar while armed because they didn't know that's illegal."
What part of no-training WA State has as low a rate of these misbehaviors as do the states with stringent training requirements did you miss? Heck, forget strict scrutiny, in this situation a training requirement doesn't even qualify under intermediate! (In a sane world, it wouldn't pass rational-basis, either: when the choices are (a) do nothing and have a 0.001% problem rate, or (b) have an expensive, time-consuming, and intrusive training requirement and have a 0.001% problem rate.... well there's absolutely nothing rational about choosing option (b).)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा