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.
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).
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.
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.
[+] [-] nsxwolf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taybin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrMember|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MrZongle2|12 years ago|reply
Too much practicality for the academic class, I fear.
[+] [-] humanrebar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peatmoss|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jw_|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beliavsky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsxwolf|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Tombone5|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawabawa3|12 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] carsongross|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leothekim|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hga|12 years ago|reply
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.