Still, I don’t think it’s a matter of “liberals trying to suppress free speech that takes positions they dislike” as much it is a paranoid professor of the type who reports as dangerous a kid who writes a story about zombies.
Cynical in CA |
February 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Oops. Change VT to CCS. Thanks for the correction.
In terms of modern day university culture, the idea of being able to protect yourself is a subversive and dangerous concept and almost certainly a warning sign of future violence. Ms. Anderson was clearly only trying to head off a tragedy in the making. Letting something like this go unanswered could only lead to a progression of even worse abuses ultimately ending in unapproved student expression, invention of new alcoholic beverages, and experiments in group sex.
‘…the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.’
Add ‘Cuban’ before ‘officers’ and this looks like an outtake from the script in ‘Red Dawn’!
Can anyone give me a reason why having law-abiding citizens in a govt database is a good idea?
Chris in AL |
February 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
This bitch has no business being an educator.
My problem with this is not that this moron called the cops…it is that the cops did not hang up on her. They had no reason to call him in for questioning. Giving a presentation of one’s opinion regarding the law is not illegal. Not only was there no crime, there was no evidence of a crime, there was not even any perceived evidence of a crime. For crying out loud, the number of people that expressed his exact same opinion in the days after the VT shootings was enormous.
“Hello Officer, I just saw another driver turn right while the light was red.”
My problem with this is not that this moron called the cops…it is that the cops did not hang up on her.
They were probably salivating at the prospect of being heroes by breaking up the next VT/Columbine tragedy in advance. I’m actually surprised the kid made it through the process without getting charged with something.
Chris in AL |
February 27th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I think you are probably right David.
Of course, they probably base that logic on how many school shootings have been carried out by people who first gave a classroom presentation on how they think school shootings could be avoided.
I’m so ashamed this happened in my home state. This woman does not belong at a university in any capacity.
How sick is that campus police–not even real police–can interrogate him about all his perfectly legal firearms on this basis at all? I used to think registration was okay (in the scheme of things), but this kind of thing really destroys that idea.
This is pretty moronic. I can’t believe that a college professor would actually take this to the campus police. If she didn’t like the presentation, she should’ve had the guy stop and then reassign him another one.
The quote at the end of the story is money, tho: “If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”
That being said, I would imagine that professors would be afraid of gun-carrying students. If they kick them out of class, fail them on a test, or even look at them the wrong way they might get shot by some yahoo with a gun in his back pack (or so they fear). I guess they feel more secure knowing that guns are not allowed, even though the people who would commit these acts wouldn’t follow the rules in the first place.
As a graduate of the CSU system (not the Central campus), I learned long ago that this sort of thing is common in academia, and in the CSU system in particular.
Do the math: Academic institution (with all the liberal bias that entails) PLUS the added bonus of being a state government institution that accepts federal funds. Result: Accountability for faculty & admin = Nonexistent.
One CSU campus lost the ability to write checks for payroll and other expenses because an audit caught the president (a former crooked mayor) taking money from scholarship funds and using it to create cushy jobs for his political cronies. One CSU campus covered up the rape of a female student by a professor who (falsely) claimed to be a rape crisis counselor and abused his position of trust. Without talking to the victim, they tried to let the professor resign without filing criminal charges!
Speaking from personal experience, professors in the CSU system regularly abuse their positions and stifle differing opinions with the apparatus of university adminstration as their eager accomplice.
A leftist professor of a class I took routinely graded essays with political & profane diatribes, and singled out students who did not toe his line for ridicule in class, and lower grades. When I posed a polite question about his grading policies (a conversation with no raised voices which took place in a crowded public area with many bystanders) I was charged with threatening this professor, singing racist songs to him (!), using racial epithets, and a subjected to a judicial hearing to determine if I would be expelled.
The only factor which kept me from being expelled was the tape recording I made of the entire conversation, which contradicted his claims completely. No shouting, no threats, no epithets, no singing. (Taping face to face conversations is perfectly legal in CT, if one is a party to the conversation). His offensive grading comments were ignored. The faces of the professor, and the judicial officer, were a mixture of alarm, disappointment and fear. I wish I had a picture.
I also wish I had a videotape of the judicial officer when we re-convened the hearing days later, as he told me no action would be taken against me, but spent a lot of time expressing regret that I could not be punished for making the recording. Booting me out of school was the only thing he was interested in. I felt like I was in an alternate reality, where up is really down.
While no action was taken against this professor, he was later let go for making sexually expicit and offensive comments to a female student who was married to a powerful city official. He is still sneaking from adjunct faculty position to adjunct faculty position at other schools around the country, still unable to get tenure. And according to ratemyprofessor.com (which was not around when I was in school), still a bully and a jerk.
Warning signs, People. Warning signs. Everyone must be looking for warning signs. The police can’t do it all. You should ALWAYS be on the lookout for any activities that seem unusual.
The idea that people should be allowed to defend their lives with fire arms is definitely unusual (not to mention scary). What kind of person needs a gun to defend himself anyway, if not a criminal? Regular people do not need to defend themselves with guns.
As a model example, let’s remember the admonition from former drug czar William Bennett who once suggested that anyone in favor of legalizing drugs should be shot. No doubt, this professor was simply following in the footsteps of that great American by trying to suppress a dangerous idea before it does real damage to our social fabric.
Professor needs to toughen up a bit. Debating nutty ideas is a big part of the university’s mission.
That said, I’d like to hear more about how a bunch of students with concealed weapons would have improved the VT situation at all.
In my fantasy world, of course, I find the shooter and gun him down, saving a classroom full of grateful and lovely young co-eds.
I fear that in reality, I’d be mistaken for the shooter myself, by other would-be vigilantes or the SWAT team. Or maybe I’ll mistake another would-be vigilante for the shooter. Imagine half a dozen guys running around the building with pistols, and think about the advantages that the killer has: He’s the only one who knows for sure, instantly, which other gunmen are targets. He’s also the only one who’s been practicing putting bullets into actual people that morning. He’s going to win most of his gunfights.
It’s funny that the police reacted so quickly to this, but when the actual massacre went down they were all sitting outside with their dicks in their hands. The only reason that more people didn’t die is because the gunman decided to shoot himself. The police sure as hell weren’t about to do anything to stop him. I guess police strategy when facing someone that will fight back instead of 92 year old ladies is just to let them run out of ammo. Who cares if a couple civilians have to die as long as no police have to go in the line of fire.
Laertes, what you describe has NEVER in the history of concealed carry happened. No concealed carry permit holder has ever shot another one or been shot by police because of mistaken identity. People that have concealed carry permits are typically people who train and know how to handle a gun. I think they would win most gunfights against a crazy lunatic like at VT or Columbine.
Is the article that’s mostly informing my thinking. I’m very much ready to change my thinking if you’re able to point out some serious flaws in Mr. Hicks’ analysis.
Jim Collins |
February 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Right after the VT incident, one of my professors pulled me aside after class and asked if I was carrying? I knew that at the time the University I was attending DID NOT have a policy addressing Conceled Carry by students and I had all of the proper permits including the same armed security clearance as the Campus Police.. I told him that I was carrying and his reply to me was “Good. Now I feel safer.”.
“On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007″.
Sounds like the topic was relevant, and it was afterall a “Communications” course.
Laertes, that article is pretty poor. He makes a bunch of assumptions about how people will react in that situation without actually citing any specific cases or studies to back him up. In addition to the article that was posted above about by Hyman Roth, here are some more articles about concealed carry holders taking down armed criminals.
If you have any links to actual studies that back up any of the “guarantees” he makes in that post, I’d like to see them, but until then, I am going to go with the empirical evidence.
Helmut O' Hooligan |
February 27th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
#26 Euler: “It’s funny that the police reacted so quickly to this, but when the actual massacre went down they were all sitting outside with their dicks in their hands”
That is a major problem. In an active shooter situation, ALL police officers (campus, city, county, state…) should be trained, equipped and ready to make entry immediately, size up the situation and end the threat (ie. kill or incapacitate the shooter) ASAP. After Columbine, my local P.D. began training patrol officers to do just that. It takes to long to assemble SWAT, and patrol officers know this (and joke about it).
Yes, this is a situation that could justify a SWAT call out, but only if it lasts that long (that is, if the shooter takes hostages or barricades himself/herself in a room). And armed citizens could end the event even sooner. If people WANT to take the responsibility to carry (and that is a big IF) then I don’t think we should stop them at this point without some compelling reason (history of forcible felonies, severe mental illness, etc.). We should be having this conversation, and fuck this lightweight professor for trying to criminalize the discussion.
//No concealed carry permit holder has ever shot another one or been shot by police because of mistaken identity. //
There have been cases of police shooting undercover cops who were in the right place at the right time to stop crimes in progress and were holding the criminals at gunpoint; a similar danger would exist for concealed-carry licensees, though trigger-happy police, rather than the licensees, would be to blame.
//I’m very much ready to change my thinking if you’re able to point out some serious flaws in Mr. Hicks’ analysis.
Some people seem to think that, with multiple armed people around, it would be difficult to tell which armed person is the ‘bad guy’. If one guy seems to be targeting many people and another seems to only be targeting the first guy, odds are pretty good the guy who’s targeting everyone is the bad guy.
Even in the worst-case scenario, where an armed person discovers two people who are targeting each other and no one else, and can’t determine who’s the bad guy, the third person could observe from cover while waiting for a sign as to who the bad guy is. If it hasn’t become apparent before one of the shooters is incapacitated, it will quickly become apparent after.
“This is how the new left censors people, label comments threatening and offensive.”
Is that sort of like how students were arrested for wearing anti-bush shirts?
Or maybe how that other student that was suspended for his “bong hits for jesus” sign in the “liberally biased” state of Alaska?
It’s not a matter of “liberal bias” or “right-wing bias”…it’s a matter of anti-liberty bias…to which both the left and right are complicit. Besides, last time I checked, I didn’t see much daylight between the democratic and republican political class.
What student got arrested for an anti-Bush t-shirt? Link please.
And, suspending a student for promoting drug use and disrupting school activities seems within the scope of school administrators. Especially when the student displays the sign at a school-sponsored event where TV coverage for the Winter Olympics was present. If he got suspended for wearing a t-shirt with the slogan on it to school, I would feel differently. The kid was a dumbass, not a 1st Amendment martyr.
While I agree that anti-liberty bias is a problem, the only people that have tried to tell me what to say or what to do have been leftists.
Just the other day, I read an article about a man who was pulled over by the police because he had a sign on his car that said “abort obama”. The officer confiscated the sign, but the police chief made him return it as a clear violation of the man’s 1st amendment rights.
The driver, of course, got a visit from the Secret Service.
Funny, all this concern for the president’s life seems to have skipped the Bush 43 years. There was even a movie about an attempt on his life.
I wonder what will happen if someone throws a shoe at Obama? Will all the people who laughed when it happened to Bush laugh again? Or will they scream for the perpetrator’s head?
Henry Bowman |
February 28th, 2009 at 3:54 am
“I would imagine that professors would be afraid of gun-carrying students. If they kick them out of class, fail them on a test, or even look at them the wrong way they might get shot by some yahoo with a gun in his back pack (or so they fear). I guess they feel more secure knowing that guns are not allowed…”
Right, because it’s impossible for anyone to go home and come back the next day with a gun. And it’s a trivial thing to decide to end the life of a teacher, but it takes a monstrous person indeed to drum up the extreme courage needed to ignore the “no guns” sign at the campus gate.
Hyman Roth |
February 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“gun free zones”: a monument to the stupidity and gullibility of their advocates.
Why not have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid write a law repealing gravity. The Obamessiah can sign it into law, and then no one will have to deal with gravity every again.
E. Zach Lee-Wright |
February 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Laertes commented about the futility of a permitted concealed weapon holder taking out a shooter.
Actually the first big time active shooter incident was the tower sniper at UT in Austin, TX. The guy was a vet, a very good shot, and spent hours shooting people without much that the police could do about it. They sent a plane up with a police sniper. After taking a few rounds they retreated. The Austin sniper was finally taken out by three men who happened on to each other as they made their way up the inside of the tower. Two were cops and one was a regular Joe. All came armed of course. As they made their way around the balcony of the tower one would provide cover as the other got in position to shoot. The sniper was killed by one of the police officers while the citizen covered him.
Laertes does have a point however. A constant problem for the three was ground fire from others trying to kill the sniper while they worked their operation. BTW, this incident combined with campus unrest over the Vietnam War gave rise to SWAT teams and the Austin incident is considered the beginning of SWAT.
E. Zach Lee-Wright
Jim Collins |
February 28th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
If I am ever in a situation where I have to use my weapon, it won’t be to hold someone until the Police arrive. The person will either have run away or be on the ground dead. If it is serious enough to pull my weapon, it is serious enough for me to fire that weapon.
The Great Pumpkin |
February 28th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The only appropriate response to these officers would have been, “I am waiting for my lawyer, now please take a seat on the nearest stick and have a spin.” When they read the list of my firearms, I would have given them an extra load for their panties by saying things like, “Oh, good, the .50 BMG isn’t on that list.” Remember the civil rights leaders of various epochs in our nation’s history: be peaceable, but DO NOT COOPERATE. Cooperation is collaboration with these thought police at this point. The more of us that resist, the more press these incidents will get, and we will grow stronger. Whether you agree with this young man’s views or not, you should be horrified that the arm of government was used to bully him. And if you contribute money to this university, you should be calling the administration right now, or withdrawing the money. We have concealed carry on campus here in Colorado at CSU, and there has never been an incident. In the state of Florida, 1.5 million concealed weapons permits have been issued since the shall issue law went into effect, and only a tiny, tiny, percentage have been revoked for any crime after the fact. Statistics, which are available for every state, show that CCW permit holders are more law-abiding than the general population; they are ON YOUR SIDE. Regardless of the issue, however, the bullying of students with state powers is horrifying.
So, what did ;
Seung-Hui Cho, Kip Kinkel, Charles Carl Roberts, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Patrick Purdy, Jeffrey Weise, Mitchell Johnson, Andrew Golden, and Charles Whitman all have in common? Two very distinct associations here people. Number one, they are all mass murderers, school shooting mass murderers. And number two, they were all freaking nutball psychotic freaks. There is no connection between these mass murderers and CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES! Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
to view a list of documented school shootings.
The common denominator is each killer was experiencing some type of crisis. These killers aren’t your every day middle class worker that obtains a CHL to protect his family. These killers are people that were on someone’s radar screen for being creeped out, or just on the fringe of totally loosing it. People should be more concerned with all the mental time-bombs here in Lane County due to the cuts in mental health services. We should all hope there are more people with CHL’s around when the next time-bomb goes off here in Eugene.
What I want to know is why this fuckery isn’t all over the major news outlets. I have checked MSNBC, Fox, and CNN, and there is nothing. I have found it on a bunch of blogs, but quite frankly, I don’t think that it’s getting enough attention.
This professor needs to be fired or shipped off to Cuba or China, where her ideas would fit right in. She is a sheep, an idiot, and has no idea what being an American actually means. My family fought long and hard to escape Cuba and make a new and successful life in America to escape idiots like her.
When I lived in the States (I am American), I had two guns, and I luckily never had to use them. I only gave them up to move to England, where only criminals carry guns and knife crime is an ever growing problem. I always tell my husband that as much as I love it here, I do miss the right to bear arms.
Wahlberg was harrassed and his First Amendment rights were raped. This university and the local police should have to pay dearly, with at the very least their reputation for basically pissing all over the Bill of Rights. The professor should be charged for filing a bogus police report.