This article was obviously full of snark, but if the professor is really looking for an answer to his question, he can read up on the relevant law in his state and take a concealed carry class from a licensed instructor, where that information will be covered in great detail.
In a way that actually highlights problems with the proposed policy change, rather than have me scratching my head about what scantron cheating has to do with this.
Concealed carry is already legal on several dozen college campuses in the US, some of them for more than a decade. There hasn't been a single instance of someone threatening to shoot or shooting someone else. It has been a non-issue.
Not to mention the author doesn't even seem to know the circumstances in which someone can obtain a permit to carry. He says colleges are "densely packed concentrations of young people who are away from home for the first time, and are coincidentally the age associated with alcohol and drug experimentation, and the commission of felonies." Which is true. And none of those people can legally carry a firearm, as the minimum age to carry is 21.
Carry permit holders commit violent crimes at a staggeringly low rate. If you disregard anecdotes (as someone will inevitably bring up Zimmerman, etc), you are safer in the company of a permit holder than a non-permit holder.
Exactly. When you're a professor, your students are nearly always adults. Treat them the same way you would treat any other adult customer (or protege, perhaps).
Kinda hard to when you've exhausted your quota of 10 article a month.
But from the opening paragraph (all I can see for more than a couple of seconds) it's clearly an anti-gun, anti-concealed carry attack, for which excusing its verbal brutality as "humor" doesn't work in the least. From someone who's likely grossly ignorant of the relevant details, including at least a couple of nearby states, Utah and Colorado, that allow concealed carry in public universities without any incidents of note.
Heck, when Colorado flipped hard-core anti-gun in the legislature and executive last year, a law to eliminate that was the only gun-grabbing measure to fail.
The entire point was: "Heh, I'm going to make light of this issue while not conveying any helpful insight for thinking about it, and if it's close enough to satire and takes the right position, I'll make it into the NY times."
Seriously, op-eds like this remind me of what my selection of commentary looked like before the internet.
How is it clever to joke about "gosh, the worst we get 'round these parts is cheating on scantrons, shuck-a-muck."
Mass shootings are so rare we may not ever be able to gather convincing data one way or another, but I tend to agree.
Shooters are dismissed as crazy and irrational, but they aren't. In every case, they plan for a successful shooting. They want to go out with a bang, not a whimper. They're going to prefer targets that are unlikely to offer resistance that will reduce or entirely eliminate their body count.
Do you really think that the sort of people who would shoot up a classroom will have second thoughts if they think someone else might have a gun?
Bullies are almost always cowards. So it seems plausible to me.
On the other hand, I think I understand where this piece of satire is coming from. I was a military wife and full-time mom and homemaker for a long time. My dad was career military and grew up on a farm. I grew up with shotguns hanging on the wall of my parent's bedroom. I have been around gun culture but I insisted my husband get rid of the handgun he had for a time because I am clear that if you are not prepared to kill someone when you pull a gun, you best not pull it because you are likely just arming your opponent and escalating the problems.
Escalating the arms race rarely leads to promoting the peace. It is unfortunate that satirical pieces of this sort so rarely follow up with commentary on how on promotes the peace after they lambast the idea of arming people to promote peace. But it seems to me that many people who recognize that more guns is not the solution do not know what would be an effective solution, so presumably they simply cannot offer anything more than criticism of the proposed solution. If you do not have an alternative solution to bring to the table, it usually isn't very helpful to shoot down (so to speak) the solution being proposed. But it happens a lot.
It seems that these shooters seek out soft targets where they are unlikely to encounter armed resistance. Not saying that we should put an armory in every school, just that these shooters aren't looking to get in a shoot out. If they were they'd go try to shoot up a police station.
It's less silly than thinking the sort of people who would shoot up a classroom will have second thoughts if there is a school policy against having weapons, and less silly than believing the police will always arrive at a mass shooting in time to save a lot of lives.
Yes, per my comment above. They will go places where they won't face interference with their plans - they will choose a restaurant with a "No Guns" sign rather than a police station.
You assume there is no rationality behind the suicidal, but there is. Consider the Kamikaze.
I'd say that is wishful thinking. The number of college shooting perpetrators that expected to get away without being killed is most likely zero.
Here in Germany there are very few guns. Nonetheless, one of the typical places to go on a rampage is the court house, where you have a 100% likelyhood of armed guards.
Also: Didn't the Kamikaze try to crash into heavily armed ships?
Not even close. Official, legally registered guns? Perhaps. But memories are long. Per the Small Arms Survey, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c... you're in 15th place, tied with Iceland, in a cluster of countries at around 30 per 100 residents also including Uruguay, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, and Austria.
For that matter, as of late Western Europe has been suffering more and worse such incidents than the US, and that includes German school shootings in Winnenden in 2009, Emsdetten in 2006, Rötz in 2005, Coburg in 2003 and Erfurt in 2002 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe). 3 of these incidents were small scale, but 2 resulted in 16 and 17 dead respectively, and another miraculously ended with only the shooter killing himself, but 37 injured, 4 students shot, etc.
I always find it ... amusing when Germans try to lecture Americans on this topic.
Ah, have you stopped institutionizing your seriously mentally ill like the US did starting in the early-mid '60s?
Uh huh. Do you know when I last time have seen a gun here in Germany, not carried by a police officer?
Never.
I have never seen a non-official handle a weapon, except on Television. In my life.
Oh by the way. Memories are long, sure. I recently read of a big weapons find, in the village next go mine. They found a lot of handguns and military rifles that somebody stashed in a hidden room of an official building at the end of the war. Do you know where those weapons went?
Straight to the trash. I don't even know if you can still use a weapon that has just been lying around for seventy years.
And what has the mentally ill thing to do with anything? I've been to America. Your mentally ill live in the street. How is that better?
Your first point reinforces the point of the Small Arms Survey as I recall, that most German guns are not in legal circulation. But the numerous shootings I listed, which you completely ignored, show they all aren't stashed away.
"I don't even know if you can still use a weapon that has just been lying around for seventy years."
If it was cleaned properly before putting it away, and in a moderately dry place, yes. Back then corrosive primers were common, so that was an essential and inescapable part of owning a gun (counter-examples are the round the Swiss adopted in 1911 (!) and the US M1 Carbine, a short rifle for officers and others who weren't front line infantry). For that matter WWII ammo is still generally just fine, modulo your having to much more thoroughly clean your gun afterwords.
ADDED: I have used/owned two military rifles manufactured in WWII, a Springfield 03A3 and a Garand. Basically, I'd consider myself well equipped if I had most any originally military rifle starting with the Mauser 1898. Yes, more than a century old....
And the fact that you haven't deinstitutionalized your mentally ill like we insanely (so to speak) have puts a different complexion on your crime, including "gun crime" statistics and incidents.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. I never said mass shooters expect to get away without being killed. I said they want to be successful - kill as many as they can before they're either killed or shoot themselves when they hear the sirens.
My Kamikaze example was merely demonstrating that suicidal people can be rational. In this case, their mission was to attack the battleships, not to attack an unarmed populace.
To play devil's advocate, do people really believe that a person who has made up their mind to go on a shooting spree at their school will change their mind when they realize it is illegal to bring a gun on campus?
As noted elsewhere, these events are so rare and aberrant that it is difficult to impossible to come to firm conclusions.
BUT, we do know these suggestive things:
Of the recent, going back quite a ways shootings (I think back to 1989, but maybe post-1966), only the Arizona Congresswoman's was not in a "Gun Free"---except for the active shooter---location. (And if the people right there hadn't stopped the shooter while he was doing a magazine change an armed citizen who showed up while they were still wrestling with him would very likely have.)
The Aurora, CO movie theater shooter went significantly out of his way to go to a theater that was so hoplophobic that they required the off-duty police hired as guards to go unarmed (!). All the other local options had no such policies.
Utterly appalling that someone who took the nom de plume of cincinnatus would say that.
I'm someone who carries concealed every time I step outside my dwelling, unless I have to go to a "Gun Free Zone". Tell me exactly how my understanding of the world is "cartoonish". Use e.g. my past comments as a base. Other sources on request, but as a hint, my login name is the same one I've used since 1978 (sic), my initials.
You may be level headed and well adjusted by surely you've noticed the large number of people who are CCW proponents who are not? More importantly is this; when a gun is part of the equation there is now a non-zero chance someone is going to get shot.
The vast majority of the time the only gun in the vicinity is going to be that of the CCW. MOST people go through their entire lives without ever encountering a 'bad guy with a gun'. Ever.
People who CCW think they are bringing a gun to a gun fight, when maybe they are bringing a gun to a fist fight, or a stern conversation.
"You may be level headed and well adjusted by surely you've noticed the large number of people who are CCW proponents who are not?"
Nope. Name names.
"More importantly is this; when a gun is part of the equation there is now a non-zero chance someone is going to get shot."
Add your comment about a fist fight, which it is well established can be deadly. You're on the side of the criminals, while I'm obviously on the side of the law abiding civilians ... not much point in continuing this "debate".
FTFA: "Some of my colleagues are concerned that you are encouraging firearms within a densely packed concentration of young people who are away from home for the first time, and are coincidentally the age associated with alcohol and drug experimentation, and the commission of felonies."
Not only that, but the college years tend to be the age when a number of mental illnesses start to swing into high gear. Schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder come to mind.
The first point is rather diminished by the fact that the people actually (legally) carrying will be over 21 years of age.
I'm not sure how to address your second point, e.g. is that an argument for denying the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms to those in that higher risk age zone?
I'd prefer we counter-reform our mental health system; back in saner days, most of these shooters, like the Virginia Tech one, who was adjudicated by a judge, would have been controlled in one way or another so they weren't dangers. The introduction in the '50s of miraculously effective anti-psychotic drugs---something witnessed by my mother the nurse---allow solutions short of simple warehousing, but that wasn't enough for the powers that be, especially since there were more effective ways to buy votes.
The first point really isn't diminished. How many people do you know did things under the legal age limit in college?
As for the second point - "is that an argument for denying the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms to those in that higher risk age zone?" - well, you're stuffing straw into my comment.
I was adding to the author's point that this is a particularly volatile age. Sure we need to address mental health issues, Newtown etc, but I think allowing guns on campus is fanning the flames. Why is this prioritized over mental health reform?
Curious, if there is agreement on an age limit to legally carrying guns, why not raise that to, say, 25? Or, lower it to 16 which is the legal age to drive cars? Why coincide with the legal age of drinking, or the age of half of all college students in the country? Isn't an age limit an argument for arbitrarily denying the enumerated constitutional right to bear arms?
"The first point really isn't diminished. How many people do you know did things under the legal age limit in college?"
We're talking about Idaho allowing legal concealed carry on public campuses, right? How it illegal concealed carry germane to that???
Indeed I was stuffing straw, and you're more than encouraged to replace my best guess supposition with what you actually propose based on your observation.
"Why is [allowing guns on campus] prioritized over mental health reform?"
Because we can actually do something about the former, while the latter is blocked by the ACLU and the usual suspects. In fact, "severe" deinstitutionalization has a longer history than severe national level gun control (state level gun control has a complicated history, most post-Reconstruction, around the turn of the century aimed at the new waves of non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, or starting in the '70s), the latter starting in '68, and it's been at net rolled back starting in '86, with a nationwide sweep of shall issue laws starting with Florida in '87, now with the Federal courts getting in the act soon to cover 90% of the population.
There have been a very few slight wins WRT to mental health counter-reform, but nothing at all like the RKBA reforms. So while we continue to beat our head against a brick wall in the former, pushing the latter is merely reinforcing success, a sound tactical and strategic principle.
And one check against the public dangers of deinstitutionalization. Not that most of the severely mentally ill are anything but a danger to themselves, but we can't help but notice the solid correlations of severe mental illness and these shootings, and as noted elsewhere, for a long time, except for one, a correlation with "Gun Free Zones". Decreasing those may not help at net, but it will help those in areas where effective self-defense and its deterrent effects are allowed once again. And that's part of why it was the one Colorado gun-grabbing measure to fail last year.
As for your last point, we've been litigating that, going for age 18, and just lost a few days ago with the Supremes. Obviously any line is arbitrary, but it's a well and long established principle that "children" don't have the full constitutional rights of adults, that their parents stand in for them there. And for some time, that the ages of 18 to 21 are where we draw these boundaries; are you old enough to remember the ratification of the 26th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_...)?
