Congrats 0
Bible Burning 0
I wonder if so many of the defenders of the infamous Mohammed cartoons will be as quick to defend this action.
My view is the same as it was for the Mohammed cartoons; it’s distasteful, pointless, and hateful, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
McCain on Marriage 1
As best I could find, there’s been crickets chirping on marriage equality from the McCain camp since California’s Supreme Court decision the other day. It took Ellen to get him to speak on it (ever so briefly) on her talk show. So how exactly does one sit in front of a living, breathing human being and tell them that they do not deserve the same civil rights that you yourself enjoy?
Apparently very quietly and mostly into your lap. Reading the comments under the video clip was interesting. Seems some people thought bringing it up went too far because they “watch Ellen because she’s funny, not to find out her politics” (and how dare a talk show host bring up politics while interviewing a politician?). Most of the negative responses boiled down to this: “It was uncomfortable to watch.” And that’s not surprising. It’s easy to attack gay people when they are some nebulous abstract group. Its a very different thing to do so when you’re face to face with a real, living, breathing, and outright likable gay person. When you put a human face on the issue, it forces you to recognize that you are intentionally and seriously harming people for no reason. Because most of us like to think of ourselves as good people, the recognition that we are doing something so evil is hard to take.
Would McCain have voiced his opinion with such visible shame were he giving a speech to a rally of bigots? Not likely. It could be most any gay person, but in this case it was Ellen who acted as a mirror into McCain’s heart and it was pretty obvious he didn’t like what he was seeing. Apparently, many of the “uncomfortable” viewers also didn’t like what they saw of themselves in that particular mirror. If I’d been Ellen, I’d have polished the mirror a bit more. I wouldn’t have allowed any of this “we disagree” crap. I’d have asked McCain to state directly to my face the words “You don’t deserve the same civil rights that I do.”
As a bit of an aside, McCain’s response is yet another reason that this just won’t be that big of an issue in the coming election. The Republican candidate’s position is really not all that different from the Democrats (and shame on the two Democratic candidates for that being the case). It’s hard to mobilize an army of voters on a topic you more or less agree with your opponents on.
One Response to “McCain on Marriage”
NRA: Leave Your Guns at Home 0
While I don’t own or want a gun, I’ve never been one to support any but the mildest of gun restrictions (for instance I don’t think a minor ought to be able to purchase a gun), but it would be delicious irony if the “gun nuts” would launch a campaign against the NRA for prohibiting guns at one of their events (scroll to the bottom).
Only What I Need 0
“We going through a recession right now, so I’m cutting back, whatever I don’t need, I’m just not buying it.”
-Sean “Diddy” Combs
That quote from the same article as this one:
Asked about the fest’s [his Hollywood 'coming out' party] rumored price tag, Combs smiles and responds: “It’s up there, but I can’t confirm it’s $4 million. It’s priceless.”
Now I don’t mind the fact that Combs a ton of money. He’s a big-time celebrity, they tend to have a fair bit of money. And if you’ve got it, and no financial worries, and you want to throw yourself a $4 million party, I say go for it. I really do. BUT don’t claim that that kind of expense can be classified as a “need.” You WANT a $4 million party (or even a $40 party), you NEED food and shelter. Though there was nothing in the article indicating so, perhaps his “cutting back” comment was intended to be tongue in cheek. Even still, it seems a little uncouth to be making jokes about cutting back when most of the population is having to cut back and some of the population really is having to cut back to needs only.
On the Obama/Wright Controversy 2
I have a good friend who graduated from Liberty University (during the time in which Jerry Falwell was alive and heading the school). He is gay, and fairly liberal. I can understand some folks would be upset at him for attending Falwell’s school.
As a Christian, he agreed with much of what Falwell said (alot of Falwell’s message wasn’t particularly controversial after all). He, of course, also vehemently disagreed with the comments of Falwell’s that we’re all too familiar with (from the “Civil Wrongs Movement” to “you helped this [9/11] happen” comments and everything in between). Believe me, nothing in his words or behavior could have led anyone to believe that he agreed with those kinds of statements from Falwell. Such statements were/are antithetical to his world view.
Yet despite the fact that those comments seemed to be a steady flow from Falwell’s lips and not simply four or five incidents over the course of decades, my friend weighed his distaste for some of Falwell’s views with the rest of his college experience. He liked his friends, he liked his professors (even though certainly some of his professors likely shared the very views of Falwell that my friend despised), he liked the education he was getting. He knew where he stood on the issues where he disagreed with Falwell and, though it pained him to hear those words coming from a man who was responsible for an otherwise good thing for him, he decided that it was worth the positive college experience he was having to stay there at Liberty.
If I had held him responsible for the reprehensible views of Jerry Falwell, I’d have missed out on a great friend.
2 Responses to “On the Obama/Wright Controversy”
-
Hmm…you’re gonna find my next post interesting.
-
I wrote an article on my blog you might want to check out. It’s called “Obama and I have Something in Common”. I’d love to get feed back on what you think of my articles. http://theartoffreedom.blogspot.com/
-Sara
Quote of the Day 0
Leave It to the Professionals - Part 2 4
Last week, I objected to the notion that anyone who opposes arming college students on campus was demanding that they leave it to the professionals and not do anything to help themselves. In this post, I’d like to approach it from the other side; that is to say that sometimes it is better to leave it to the professionals and sometimes, sitting back and leaving it to the professionals is the best way to “help yourself.”
Professionals exist as a result of specialization, and specialization is very foundation of human civilization. At one point in history, small clans of humans (or human-like creatures) more or less each doing all that was required to keep themselves alive (though among the members of the clans there was most assuredly specialization taking place, even then). As these groups became bigger, one can imagine that one human said to another something like “I’ve noticed that you’re really good at making clothing, and I’m a better hunter. How about I bring you some meat from the hunt and you stay here and make me a shirt?” (ok, so major over-simplification, but you get the point). Fast-forward a few million years and, as a direct result of specialization, we have cars, houses, medicine, computers and the internet (among infinite other things).
I said in the previous post that, because it’s impossible to train for every situation we might possibly find ourselves in, we must instead train to recognize our options in the moment and select the best one. Sometimes that best option actually is to leave it to the professionals. If there is a trashcan fire in my house, I’ll probably try to deal with it myself; if I wake up and my wall is engulfed in flames, I’m getting myself, and anything else that’s alive, out of the house and calling the firefighters. If I stayed in there, I might be able to have some effect on the fire, but I’d be far more likely to die than to have any significant effect. In that case, leaving it to the professionals IS helping myself. In the same way, if the firefighters need a brochure/poster/website/etc. designed, they’d be helping themselves by calling me (or some other graphic artist) to do it for them. Sure, they could fire up MS Word and throw something together themselves, but it wouldn’t be nearly as attractive or effective as if they simply “left it to the professionals.”
Helping yourself means evaluating a situation, recognizing your options, and choosing the one (or more) that is the most effective solution to the problem. Sometimes that means leaving it to the professionals. We limit ourselves when we take that option out of the equation, assuming it to be “lazy.” Helping yourself sometimes means knowing when it’s time to get help from someone else.
4 Responses to “Leave It to the Professionals - Part 2”
-
I wholeheartedly agree, there are certainly times when it is best to leave it to the pros. The trick is knowing when you can help yourself, and when you need help. Getting some of the training that I mentioned over at TheLineIsHere can help give you the tools and knowledge to know when you have reached your limit and need help, or when not doing anything is actually the right thing to do (case in point, after my motorcycle wreck so many years ago, someone wanted to remove my helmet and check me for head trauma, luckily I was alert enough to tell them NO!, since if a cyclist with a helmet has head trauma, that helmet might be busy holding it all in, so to speak). You may not like my politics, but that does not make the training any less valuable.
While you can’t train to be a master at everything, having a working knowledge can at least equip you make accurate evaluations.
-
Hey Dolphin — you’ve been tagged!
-
Thank you for the discussion on my blog.
The pros are frequently a false sense of security. You assume a greater disparity between the competence or relevant ability of the pros and the novices than really exists. Relevant ability is key here. Shooting is a novice skill, knowing what to shoot, and when is the hard part. The less ambiguous the situation the easier it is to solve. Active Shooters are not ambiguous, and from the prospective of a potential victim are much more of a marksmanship problem rather than a tactical one.
I would also point out that a “pro” like the average police officer has far less range time than the average avid hobbyist shooter. A hobbyist shooter is totally unconcerned with learning or understanding department use of force policy, traffic law, or the rules of evidence - standard components police academy training. In my state the firearms training block for police officers in the academy is roughly 40 hours. 40 hours is easily surpassed by most people who like to shoot in a few weekends.
I would also point out that based upon the state of world in the last decade that in any in any classroom gathering of students that it is entirely likely that at least one has prior military service and training, and quite possibly extensive combat experience. I would have no problem saying that a USMC vet of Falluja taking advantage of the GI bill is more of a ‘pro’ when it comes to shooting people who are trying to kill them than a cop just out of the academy.
-
I disagree with a number of your assertions, but the key is this: Writing the professionals off as only an option for the lazy, timid, etc, leaves you with one less option and that option that is sometimes the best one to take.
Leave It to the Professionals - Part 1 20
Aunt B. offered a post a few days ago that began (one of many elsewhere, I’m sure) an interesting debate into gun laws and campus policy regarding guns on college campus in the wake of the tragedy at Northern Illinois University. Madrocketscientist, one of the more reasonable “pro-carry” commenters, was inspired to write a post at The Line is Here in which he says:
Now, this post is not about Campus Carry, but rather, it is about this attitude amongst many that “things should be left to the professionals”, which was the thrust of the second campus carry counter argument. Got a crime problem, call the Professional Police. House on fire, call the Professional Fire Fighters. Medical Emergency, call the professional EMS. House floating away and you have no supplies to live off of, you must have forgotten to call the professional disaster people, FEMA. But whatever you do, DON’T BOTHER TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP YOURSELF. Just step away, call the professionals, and hope for the best.
Now, this may be just a little bit of “those lazy liberals won’t do anything to help themselves” nonsense conservatives just like to spout to each other so they can sit around patting themselves on the back. That’s sorta how it reads but, given his reasonableness over at Aunt B.’s, I’ll assume that wasn’t the actual intention of his post. If he really believes that “DON’T BOTHER TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP YOURSELF” is the thrust of the argument against campus carry policy, then I think he’s really missed the point.
If someone were to burst into my office right now with a weapon and the clear intent to use it, I wouldn’t “step away, call the professionals, and hope for the best.” I would call the professionals if I could manage so that they could be on their way, but with my martial arts background, I’d also be doing what I know it takes to disarm and disable the intruder. Could I get shot? Sure I could, but then unless there’s been some new technological advancement I’m unaware of, carrying a gun doesn’t make you bulletproof either. The point is, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that your only choices are to carry a gun or do nothing at all.
The trap Madrocketscientist has fallen into is becoming so fixated on his own position that he’s blinded himself to other options (Sound familiar? It should, it’s the same issue that has led to the “dissent is treason” argument that the Republican Party has relied on so heavily for the last seven years.). My option has the benefit of never misfiring, and never getting left at home (not to mention that when the professionals do arrive, it’ll be much easier for them to determine who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy”). Of course it also has the potential disadvantage of requiring me to get a little closer to the shooter. Another option that might be even better if the situation allowed for it, would be to get everybody barricaded in the conference room where we could easily get out of the trajectory of any bullets fired through the door and therefore, safely wait for the police to arrive. All options have risks and benefits, and which one is right for the moment won’t always be the same. But if we allow ourselves to become so sure that the “right” option looks one specific way, then when another, better option for dealing with a problem presents itself in the moment, we won’t recognize it and will miss out. And just for the record, that applies to alot more in life than this issue.
I agree with Madrocketscientist’s assertion that it’s wise to train to be able to help ourselves, but since we can’t train for every situation we might find ourselves in, it might be even wiser to train ourselves to recognize multiple solutions in the moment. Without that ability, we’ll be helpless 99% of the time.
20 Responses to “Leave It to the Professionals - Part 1”
-
Meanwhile, the alternative of letting private universities decide for themselves whether to allow weapons on their land, and letting the markets for “gun-free” versus “gun-toting” campuses sort themselves out, is roundly rejected by both sides. Go figure.
See also, “smoking bans in bars and restaurants.”
(Public colleges are another topic altogether.)
-
letting the markets for “gun-free” versus “gun-toting” campuses sort themselves out, is roundly rejected by both sides.
Actually, nope. If you read the discussion over at Aunt B.’s you’ll see that that is precisely the argument I make.
[edited to add: I didn't mention it in this post, because this post really doesn't discuss the issue of whether guns should or should not be allowed on college campuses.]
-
[...] Dolphin’s Dock waxes on about gun control: If someone were to bust into my office right now with a weapon and the clear intent to use it, I wouldn’t “step away, call the professionals, and hope for the best.” I would call the professionals if I could manage so that they could be on their way, but with my martial arts background, I’d also be doing what I know it takes to disarm and disable the intruder. Could I get shot? Sure I could, but then unless there’s been some new technological advancement I’m unaware of, carrying a gun doesn’t make you bulletproof either. The point is, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that your only choices are to carry a gun or do nothing at all. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
-
First, like many people in this country, I know Martial Arts. I’ve had years of training in Tae Kwon Do and I consider myself pretty good at it. I’ve also spent time learning Fencing (Saber) and Kendo, although I would hardly call myself anything but a spirited amateur in either. I’ve had combat firearms training and unarmed training from the Marines (benefit of being a USMC taxi driver, they want you to know how to fight if you are stuck on a beach with them). So on the whole, I’m mildly badass.
Except for one thing.
When I was 20 (I’m in my mid 30s now), a car crossed the center line of the highway I was riding my motorcycle on and hit me. End result, well, let’s just say I was pretty broken up. I mean, even in full armor, getting smacked at 100+ mph is gonna leave a mark or two. I recovered pretty well, and I even still practice TKD, but I have limitations. I have one arm and one leg that don’t really work all that well, and if it is a bad day, well then they hardly work at all, which means I don’t really have the option of engaging in unarmed combat. Now I’m not looking for sympathy, if I do, I know where it is in the dictionary, but I want Dolphin to remember, despite my training, and my determination, if I engage in unarmed combat, the only way I’d hope to win is if my opponent is in their 80’s and in poor health. Not everyone is as awesome as you, and should not have to be in order to provide for their own defense.
And besides, one of the things my three different Sensei’s all agreed on, is that when facing a man with a gun, it is best to have a gun of your own. Failing that, the ideal thing is to rush them while weaving and hope they either are bad shots or unnerved enough to hesitate until you can close the range and engage to disarm (and some of the disarm techniques I learned against an opponent with a gun had little to do with an actual disarm and more to do with strikes to kill or incapacitate in one hit).
Now, when I was in college, I took a job on campus managing a department, I encouraged all my student employees to get trained in First Aid, CPR, and self defense, since many of them would work until 11PM and would be in charge of the facility after I left for the day. I told them to be careful and safe going home, call a friend for a ride, or me, if they felt unsafe.
I also told them that should anyone enter their work areas that made them feel uneasy to call me, or if anyone made them feel unsafe, they were to contact the police ASAP and then call me. I made sure all of them knew that I would rather have them make a mistake and raise a false alarm, than allow themselves or other students to be hurt. I told them this because across the street from where my offices were, was a halfway house, and we’ve had trouble with them in the past.
So, if I’d had the option to arm my employees, would I have done it? Most certainly. Why?, because out the 100 or so students who worked for me, only two of them proved to be so irresponsible that I had to fire them. The rest were very responsible, very serious about their schooling, and very well behaved. Now maybe my assistant and I were just real good at hiring people, but I choose to think that by the time a student is old enough to legally be able to carry, they are responsible enough to be able to do so (or have already proven to the courts that they aren’t), and they know themselves well enough to know if they have the strength of character to do so. In short, without any evidence to the contrary, I would give the students the benefit of the doubt.
Second, as to my post at TheLineIsHere, you seem to have missed the point. I was not posting to argue for Campus Carry, but rather, I was encouraging people to prepare to care for themselves and their loved ones should the shit hit the fan. Ask yourself, if you were driving down the highway and a horrible accident happened right in front of you, or happened to you would you know how to help those you could help? Would you know what to do, or, more importantly, would you know what NOT to do? If you got hit by a bad storm, a hurricane, a tornado, a fire, an earthquake, a home invader, or a flash flood, do you have a plan? Do you have the training to implement that plan? Does the rest of your family know the plan and have your practiced it?
If your plan is, as was the case for thousands of people in NOLA, to call 911 and wait for rescue, you are in a world of trouble. As I have been told countless times by the Policemen, the Firemen, and the Paramedics teaching my CERT class, if the shit hits the fan, call 911, but never assume they are going to get there in time to help. Maybe they are busy at an industrial explosion, or busy with a bank robbery, or a 50 car pileup on the freeway. Maybe traffic is real bad. Doesn’t matter, the fact is, they might not get there, and to be honest, they have no legal obligation to save you! Police are obligated to protect the community by investigating crime in an effort to catch a perpetrator, protecting you is merely a side effect of that duty. Same with Firemen, if they arrive at your house and it is busy burning, they will have to decide if they can effectively fight it, and if they can’t, they are gonna let it burn and just make sure it doesn’t spread. Involved in a 50 car pileup? EMS will arrive, triage you, and if you are too far gone, they are gonna let you go.
Community emergency services are obligated to do the most good for the most people protecting your possessions, your home, your ass, is incidental to that mission.
So my point was, in an emergency, call the professionals, but don’t count on them.
-
MRS,
That’s all well and good (and long), but it doesn’t address the point of my post at all. The “thrust” of the campus carry counterargument IS NOT (as you claim) “whatever you do, DON’T BOTHER TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP YOURSELF.” The thrust of the argument is that there always multiple ways to address any problem and ALL options have their costs and and benefits. Reasonable people can discuss and disagree on how the costs and benefits of any given option come out in the end, but only if they first agree that there are multiple ways to handle it. If one approaches the discussion from the viewpoint that one way is the only possible way and the absence of that one way means “whatever you do, DON’T BOTHER TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP YOURSELF” then they are being unreasonable and there’s no point in discussing it with them.
That’s the point of my post. Your post was not a pro-campus carry post, and my post was not an anti-campus carry argument, but I think we need to decide on this issue before any discussion of campus carry can even begin.
-
Good post, Dolphin.
I have no problem leaving *some* things to the professionals, especially where people’s lives are involved and a mistake could be deadly. (Here’s an example I posted last week.) I don’t want my accounting or geography professor to be an expert in who is a threat and who’s not, who requires deadly force and who doesn’t. I want them to know about accounting and geography.
And I think it’s very telling that if you ask law enforcement people, they are almost unanimously opposed to the kind of citizen intervention that the conceal carry folks propose.
Finally, I agree with you that “it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that your only choices are to carry a gun or do nothing at all.”
-
Except my post was not about campus carry, but rather about a growing attitude among people that they are not able to help themselves. That somehow Emergency Services is the be all end all during an emergency.
As for you, I get the feeling that your attitude is that students should defend themselves by any means EXCEPT firearms, whereas I feel that firearms should be available to any person who is legally able to. I fail to understand why we discriminate against college students except out of an irrational fear.
If we had evidence of campuses allowing CCW and having problems with responsible use, or with weapons being stolen, or with an increase in suicide with a firearm, I would be more willing to agree with you that maybe college students are not responsible enough, or that the academic environment is just inappropriate for some reason.
But since we are lacking any such evidence, I hold my position, that denying responsible users the right to carry is legislating through fear, which is exactly the wrong way to legislate (re: the US Patriot Act).
-
Except my post was not about campus carry, but rather about a growing attitude among people that they are not able to help themselves.
Which in your post, you explicitly cited as “the thrust of the second campus carry counter argument.” How exactly does that make your post “not about campus carry?”
As for you, I get the feeling that your attitude is that students should defend themselves by any means EXCEPT firearms
Regardless of what your “feelings” are, my position is and continues to be that college administrators ought to be able to weigh the risks for themselves and make the decision on gun policy based on what’s best for their campus (and if you don’t like whatever the policy is, then you’re free to attend a campus that holds the opposite policy). As for the students (and this is really the crux of this post), I think we offer them a great disservice by teaching them a specific solution to a specific problem in lieu of the critical thinking skills necessary to discover and evaluate solutions to any problem they encounter.
-
First off, from the very quote you took from my post, it is obvious I was talking about an attitude of “don’t help yourself, just call the pros and wait. Please tell me where, anywhere, I specifically said use a gun, or don’t do anything. My point about campus carry is that in posts against it, one of the prevailing arguments is “a CCW student would be useless, or would only be a danger to others, so don’t allow them and call the pros.” This is an attitude that transcends responding to violent crime and extends to disasters and other emergencies. It is a dangerous attitude as it fosters a dependence upon government, a government that can not provide such services to everyone consistently.
And in no place did I ever advocate for teaching students that firearm violence is the only way to settle any situation, only that there are situations where it is important and students should have the right to exercise that solution. Our kids spend 12 years in public school learning ways to settle disputes non-violently, and yet, the real world occasionally presents us with situations where deadly force is necessary. As wonderful as it would be for everyone in our society to know martial arts, the reality is they don’t, and firearms offer a way for a shy 110 lbs girl to repel a 250 lbs man intent on rape, despite her best efforts to avoid the situation in the first place.
Maybe you could stop treating the adults who are in college as children.
-
Oh, one more thing, I agree with you that a campus should be allowed to govern themselves and set their own policies regarding weapons on campus.
I also think that a campus should be held to account for that decision. If a campus chooses to disarm its students, it should be held open to lawsuits should a student be subjected to a violent crime while on campus. Of course, such a policy would worry me as campuses report crime shoddily enough as it is (I’ve had friends who worked for, or had experiences with, various campus police organizations, and the level of pressure to under-report crime is significant).
-
First off, from the very quote you took from my post, it is obvious I was talking about an attitude of “don’t help yourself, just call the pros and wait.["]
I agree. That’s exactly what I’m responding to. That is an INCORRECT summation of the campus carry counter argument.
Please tell me where, anywhere, I specifically said use a gun, or don’t do anything.
You said that the counter argument to having a gun on campus is “whatever you do, DON’T BOTHER TO DO ANYTHING TO HELP YOURSELF.” Can we agree on that? It’s your own words for chrissake.
What I’m saying, is that you don’t have to have a gun to “do anything to help yourself.” If you don’t disagree with that statement but you do disagree with the campus carry counter argument, then CLEARLY that is NOT the campus carry counter argument (as you stated that it was). You can’t simultaneously agree and disagree with the same position.
And in no place did I ever advocate for teaching students that firearm violence is the only way to settle any situation
Nor have I suggested you did. Strawmen won’t work here, because I’ll point them out for what they are, then ignore them.
Firearm violence is a specific way to settle a specific situation. I’m arguing that we’d be better to learn the overall principles and critical thinking skills to uncover solutions to our problem in ANY situation. When we focus on a specific application instead of overarching principles, we limit ourselves to only being able to act when the criteria for that situation are in place. It’s the difference between memorizing that 2+2=4 and learning addition.
Maybe you could stop treating the adults who are in college as children.
And maybe you could stop treating the adults who are college administrators as children.
-
What I’m saying, is that you don’t have to have a gun to “do anything to help yourself.
I agree, students in that lecture hall at NIU could have thrown books, or chairs, or anything at hand, at the the shooter to take him off kilter long enough for a tackle, but instead they all hid or ran because none seem to have been taught how to properly act against such violence. Discussions of CCW on campus afterwards tended toward the idea that armed students could have done nothing and only the police would have been able to stop the shooter. I merely parroted that argument as indicative of a greater problem. Your discussions with me at AuntB’s was not the only place I sourced from.As for the students (and this is really the crux of this post), I think we offer them a great disservice by teaching them a specific solution to a specific problem in lieu of the critical thinking skills necessary to discover and evaluate solutions to any problem they encounter.
Seeing as we are discussing firearms as a solution to a problem on a campus, your statement here implies that somehow those who are advocating campus carry are advocating a single solution, rather than a final piece in an entire mindset of self-protection through situational awareness, avoidance, preparedness, and self-reflection. No strawman is being built here. If you feel, as I do, that students should learn how to protect themselves as I described above, how to critically evaluate a situation and work to extricate themselves from it before violence is needed, then we agree to a point. I hold that if we are to give them the tools to protect themselves, we give them ALL of the tools they desire within the scope of the law. If a campus chooses to ban weapons, then that campus should be held liable for it’s failure to protect it’s students from violence. If a campus permits weapons, then that campus puts the onus of protection on the student, and the student must choose how they would provide for their own defense.
Now, most states only issue CCW to persons over 21 with no criminal background. That means after a student leaves High School, a campus has 3 years to help students learn to protect themselves. Most campuses pay a good amount of lip service to the ideal, but fail to really deliver. It was one of the things I did like about my campus, it offered numerous martial arts as elective classes, and hosted even more free clubs for students to continue practicing with, along with regular seminars, and a couple of programs to provide students a safe way to get home. It was not perfect, but it was at least an effort.
As for College Admins, I’ve followed campus politics for most of my adult life, and most admins are more worried about their own asses and reputations than they are the students.
-
crap, what tag do you use for quotes?
[editor's note from dolphin: You can use <blockquote> </blockquote>. I fixed it in your comment.]
-
Thank you very much sir, sorry about the mess, I’ll try to be neater next time.
-
Here are my problems with your campus liability argument. First, you say that you are not arguing that the student has either the option of a gun or nothing at all, yet, can’t you at least see how it sounds that way when you say something like:
If a campus chooses to ban weapons, then that campus should be held liable for it’s failure to protect it’s students from violence. If a campus permits weapons, then that campus puts the onus of protection on the student, and the student must choose how they would provide for their own defense.
How that reads to me is: “If the school permits guns, then they shouldn’t be liable, because the student can do something. If the school prohibits guns, then they should be liable, because the student can’t do anything.”
That sounds like a guns or nothing argument to me.
Second, a student with a gun can get shot, if one even happens to be around. You want to hold schools liable for a policy that 99% of the time is completely irrelevant to the outcome of the situation. Would you be so fast to hold a gun-permitting school liable for the results of and accidental (or worse, an intentional) shooting with a legal gun? I suspect not. You’re not talking about making things fair and just, you’re talking about legislatively punishing schools that disagree with you and rewarding schools that agree with you. That’s social engineering.As for school administrators, you may or may not be right (I happen to know a few who are very concerned about their students). Either way, they are in the positions they are in. If you don’t like the way they do their jobs, then gather your reasonings for why they are doing a bad job and present it to the board that hired them, or better yet become one and show them how it’s done.
-
Actually, most campuses prohibit weapons carry of any kind. For example, at times, when carrying a firearm is not a good idea (like when I got to a bar), I carry an ASP (Collabsible Baton) along with my walking stick. Many campuses would prohibit this, along with devices like Tasers and Pepper/CS Spray. If a campus denies students the right to devices that act as force equalizers then that campus should potentially be liable for students who are victims of violence while on campus property.
See, it is not a question of guns or nothing, it is a question of percieved versus actual safety. A campus is, by denying adults the right to carry legally (guns or otherwise), making a statement that the campus is accepting responsibility for the students safety while on campus, therefore the campus should be liable for failing to provide that protection.
Offer the students access to any and all means of self defense while on campus, and the campus relieves itself not only of the responsibility of protecting students, but also relieves the responsibility of an accident with a weapon, as a person who carries concealed legally accepts all responsibility for that weapon. So, say I carry my sidearm at the mall, and somehow I get trampled by a herd of children, which causes (somehow) my weapon to discharge and injure someone. Legally, the mall has no liability since it was only following the law by allowing me, a legal permit holder, to carry. Now, a mall may prohibit CCW, but it does so not out of fear of losing a lawsuit, but rather out of fear of having to bear the cost of defending against one.
So it my scenario, the school that allows CCW is not held liable for any violence on campus. As it stands right now, most campuses prohibit students the means to protect themselves (except certain half measures), yet bear no legal responsibility for failing to protect them.
The right of a person to provide for their own self defense trumps any right others might think they have to “feel safe”. And remember, I don’t think the solution to every conflict or situation is a sidearm, but I do feel that adult students have the right to make that choice for themselves (and bear the consequences of that choice themselves), and an open campus should either allow these adults their rights, or risk paying for the privilege of limiting them.
Regarding admins, might be the difference between small private versus large public campuses, I could believe a small private campus would have a leadership that really cares and is invested in the quality of the campus for the long term.
-
I’m not allowed to alter my townhouse by installing bars on the windows (even if I wanted to). If someone breaks in via window, should I be able to sue my landlord for not letting me protect myself?
I think the onus is ALWAYS on the student to protect themselves. College attendance is not mandatory, and not all colleges have the same policies. If a given student feels that they require a weapon to be safe, then they are free to not attend a school that would prohibit them from carrying one. In the same vein, many students feel they require a weapon-free campus to be safe, and they are free to choose a school which prohibits weapons. A weapons-free campus is that way in order to keep students safe just as much as a weapons-allowed campus is.
Anyways, we’re quite a way off the original topic now, and I think we’re at a point where we should simply agree to disagree.
-
Quite right, we shall have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for a stimulating conversation, been a pleasure!
-
Oh, one more thing, I agree with you that a campus should be allowed to govern themselves and set their own policies regarding weapons on campus.
Wouldn’t most people pick a gun-free campus?
Dolphin really boiled down the whole argument to it’s core. You have to be willing to kill or seriously harm your antagonist. Are you going to carry a gun at all times until you finally have the chance to use it heroically? Maybe you can have a brief Hollywood style stand-off if you’re lucky. If four or five guys in the cafeteria all had guns, wouldn’t even more people get shot? I wonder if any of the bad guy psychos might sign up to carry one.
-
[...] that is as good a response as anyone needs to the thinking displayed here: If someone were to burst into my office right now with a weapon and the clear intent to use it, I [...]
Search Terms 0
I only share the funniest ones:
obama might be a goa’uld
Recent Comments
Recent Comments
- Henry: I like it. Good job!...
- Henry: And slightly amusing....
- KipEsquire: SS also withdrew from producing the Beijing Olympi...
- Quasi: As if the Republican ticket wasn't bad enough alre...
- dolphin: It's not your ISP that making it slow. It's somet...
- Southern Beale: Sorry, realized too late you already had the link ...
May 22nd, 2008
“It’s hard to mobilize an army of voters on a topic you more or less agree with your opponents on.
Not to mention the fact that California is not competitive in the Electoral College race, so the broad-based conservative advocacy groups will not devote resources to it — only the gay-specific ones like FoF will.