Thought provoking article

[LSU2001]

I am going to post the article and the link but if mods think this is a political post please delete. I am not asking for debate nor agreement I just wanted people to read and consider.
thanks,
TIm

My column this week:

There's no polite way or time to say it: American college and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregrated dorms, politically correct academic departments, and designated "safe spaces" to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions—while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University's anti-Minuteman Project protesters).

Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.

As news was breaking about the carnage at Virginia Tech, a reader e-mailed me a news story from last January. State legislators in Virginia had attempted to pass a bill that would have eased handgun restrictions on college campuses. Opposed by outspoken, anti-gun activists and Virginia Tech administrators, that bill failed.

Is it too early to ask: "What if?" What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?

If it wasn't too early for Keystone Katie Couric to be jumping all over campus security yesterday for what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and if it isn't too early for the New York Times editorial board to be publishing its knee-jerk call for more gun control, it darned well isn't too early for me to raise questions about how the unrepentant anti-gun lobbying of college officials may have put students at risk.

The back story: Virginia Tech had punished a student for bringing a handgun to class last spring—despite the fact that the student had a valid concealed handgun permit. The bill would have barred public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun." After the proposal died in subcommittee, the school's governing board reiterated its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus buildings.

Late last summer, a shooting near campus prompted students to clamor again for loosening campus rules against armed self-defense. Virginia Tech officials turned up their noses. In response to student Bradford Wiles's campus newspaper op-ed piece in support of concealed carry on campus, Virginia Tech associate vice president Larry Hincker scoffed:

"[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles…The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself."

The nerve!

Hincker continued: "The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again…Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."

Who's scratching his head now, Mr. Hincker?

Some high-handed commentators insist it's premature or unseemly to examine the impact of school rules discouraging students from carrying arms on campus. Pundit Andrew Sullivan complained that it was "creepy" to highlight reader e-mails calling attention to the Virginia Tech's restrictions on student self-defense—even as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rushed to capitalize on the massacre to sign up new members and gather e-mail addresses for Million Mom March chapters. "We are outraged by the increase in gun violence in America, especially the recent shooting at Virginia Tech," reads the online petition. "Add your name to the growing list of people who are saying 'Enough Is Enough!'"

Enough is enough, indeed. Enough of intellectual disarmament. Enough of physical disarmament. You want a safer campus? It begins with renewing a culture of self-defense—mind, spirit, and body. It begins with two words: Fight back.
LINK:
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

[x-y-no]

Ok ... since this is still here, I'll post a little bit of this thought-provoking reply.

Whom do you shoot? Hotlist
by Captain Frogbert [Subscribe]
Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:16:02 AM EDT

There you are, in school (work, on the street, the grocery, at the beach, whatever) and someone pulls a gun and starts shooting. What do you do?

You pull your gun, of course, shoot the guy and you're a HERO! Yay!

Second scenario: There you are when you hear gunshots. You pull your gun and turn to look for a target. Wait! There are two guys with guns and they seem to be shooting at each other! Whom do you shoot?

Third scenario: You turn, gun in hand, looking for a target and there are five people, men, women, black, white, hispanic, all shooting at or towards each other. It's a fire fight! Whom do you shoot?

Fourth scenario: Some other guy is drawing a bead on some guy with a gun and that guy happens to be YOU because he doesn't know who the bad guy is either. Who gets shot?

Given that trained police officers, in several recent incidents, fired dozens of shots at several people and missed most of their shots, and, furthermore, given that no matter how cool and tough and certain and heroic you are or think you are, you CAN make a mistake, what the hell are you thinking?

Life isn't a movie and you're not Clint Eastwood. Target acquisition is a serious problem in any fire fight. The bad guys don't always wear black hats to make them easy to identify. People keep getting killed by mistake in combat (can anyone say Pat Tillman? or Giuliana Sgrena?). How do you identify the "Bad guys?" A few years ago an undercover New York cop was shot dead by a transit cop becasue one of them failed to obey the rules of engagement and know the signals identifying undercover cops.

In any fire fight, you can't always be sure you know the players. That's one reason cops and soldiers wear uniforms. And look what keeps happening in Iraq as the bad guys keep killing people while wearing good guy uniforms.

It's not like on TV. You never really know what's going on. You don't have a handy editor composing the shots so you cam keep track of what's what. Where are the shots coming from? Who's hidden? Who's working together? When six people are shooting and none of them know each other, how do you know whom to shoot?

I think the author overstates things somewhat, but his questions have some merit.

[coriolis]

The opininions expressed above are those of individuals and not necessarily that of staff or management at S2K. S2K assumes no responsibility for the opinions expressed above.

But seriously, These are probably typical of much of the debate that the VT debacle has spawned. I think that we're going to let this thread stay for now and see how it goes. I want everyone to understand that if you have a strong opinion on this issue, others will have an equally strong opinion opposed to yours. Keep in mind that you're not going to win any converts here and we're not going to let you try. Likewise if you have a strong opinion you have to respect the right of someone else to have a differen opinion.

If you want to express your opinion go ahead, but as soon as it starts to sound nasty or accusatory, it will be bye bye.

OK?

[Stephanie]

Right now the streets of Philadelphia is like being in the middle of the Wild West. We have the worst murder rate in the COUNTRY and it's all due to shootings, mostly due to drug related battles. The State of Pennsylvania does not want to tighten gun control laws, and the NRA seems to think that having everyone armed at that school would've solved the whole problem.

I'd like to see one of those cowards tell a mother, father, wife or husband of one of the murder victims in Philadelphia that, TO THEIR FACE.

[MGC]

You can pass all the gun control laws you can but it will not stop the killing. Criminals will find a way to get a gun to commit their evil deeds. Ever notice that all the mass killing are located in places where it is illegal to possess a gun?......MGC

[Stephanie]

I agree, but I have a problem with not checking out why a person needs to buy so many handguns, rifles, automatics, etc. by just looking at their backgrounds. That should HELP, but I agree, there's no such thing as 100% prevention - not for anything. I think being proactive is better than being reactive.

[Dr. Jonah Rainwater]

Regardless of if guns are made illegal or not, there are millions of them already circulating around the US. Say 99% of gun owners voluntarily turned their guns into the government after a firearm ban passes, it would still be as easy to purchase a gun as a rock of crack is because they are everywhere, and the government has very little control over the criminal underworld. There are so many guns in America that the problem is endemic. If you can't beat 'em......join them

[LSU2001]

I know the gun control debate will rage unabated for years with valid points and outlooks on both sides of the debate. What provoked more response in my mind was not the gun control issue as much as the premise that our politically correct society strongly encourges conflict avoidance even in intellectual debates. IMHO people are being lulled into an attitude that it is not "proper" to strongly defend one's position or beliefs in the interest of civility. This culture has permenated every level of socieity and brings to mind the quote "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything" I think the author indicates this attitude in her opening remarks when she says:

"There's no polite way or time to say it: American college and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregrated dorms, politically correct academic departments, and designated "safe spaces" to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions—while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University's anti-Minuteman Project protesters).

Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance."

IMHO, we are constantly forced to hold our tongues about many topics because we don't want to offend anyone or any group. With this attitude so deeply instilled the very foundations of America are fast being eroded. If I feel strongly about religon, or morality, or character, or anything else and my opinion is not politically correct by today's standards I am strongly encouraged to keep my views to myself or risk being labled as an extremist and pushed to the margins of any debate. The idea that I can disagree with someone, even strongly, has become unfasionable today and I personally feel that we no longer desire to defend our beliefs verbally, spiritually, or physically. This idea is not PC but my daddy always taught me that sometimes in life some fights are both just and unavoidable. And please understand that I say this even though I am a professional educator and have participated in this conflict avoidance mantra.

My two cents,
Tim

[coriolis]

Aye.

And I guess that includes weather boards too.

I'm a history enthusiast and I wonder where our civilization is going. The gun issue almost seems like a diversion compared to the deeper trends.

[dizzyfish]

LSU2001 wrote-
"IMHO, we are constantly forced to hold our tongues about many topics because we don't want to offend anyone or any group. With this attitude so deeply instilled the very foundations of America are fast being eroded. If I feel strongly about religon, or morality, or character, or anything else and my opinion is not politically correct by today's standards I am strongly encouraged to keep my views to myself or risk being labled as an extremist and pushed to the margins of any debate. The idea that I can disagree with someone, even strongly, has become unfasionable today and I personally feel that we no longer desire to defend our beliefs verbally, spiritually, or physically."

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[x-y-no]

I know the gun control debate will rage unabated for years with valid points and outlooks on both sides of the debate. What provoked more response in my mind was not the gun control issue as much as the premise that our politically correct society strongly encourges conflict avoidance even in intellectual debates. IMHO people are being lulled into an attitude that it is not "proper" to strongly defend one's position or beliefs in the interest of civility. This culture has permenated every level of socieity and brings to mind the quote "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything"

Well, it's 22 years since I was graduated from university, so I can't speak to what goes on everywhere in academia today. But there seems to be no shortage of conservatives emerging from these institutions, so they hardly seem to be as opressed as is implied. And attempts at suppression hardly run only one way - I've been falsely called a traitor, a communist, accused of aiding our enemies. I've even been physically assaulted for merely asking some penetrating questions. And I'm not even particularly extreme on most issues - and those I am somewhat extreme about it's in a libertarian sort of way.

None of this is new and none of it is ever going to go away entirely. But for the most part it's perfectly possible to strongly maintain one's views without going beyond the bounds of civility. Mostly it takes treating opposing views with the respectful attention one would like to have for one's own views. You have no idea the trouble I gave many of my professors, yet somehow I emerged with a magna cum laude on my diploma. Go figure.

[alicia-w]

You can pass all the gun control laws you can but it will not stop the killing. Criminals will find a way to get a gun to commit their evil deeds. Ever notice that all the mass killing are located in places where it is illegal to possess a gun?......MGC

what does this mean exactly, since i'm not sure where it's illegal in the US to possess a gun.....

[gtalum]

what does this mean exactly, since I'm not sure where it's illegal in the US to possess a gun.....

Most colleges, schools, bars, etc. Also, in several large cities it is illegal to possess handguns. Washington, DC, New York, Atlanta, and Chicago all come to mind.

[LSU2001]

New York City, Washington DC, and almost all college campuses come immediately to mind. Many municipalities have passed ordinances, laws, etc. that make it illegal to posess firearms without special permits and within many areas there are places such as schools, etc that do not allow people with conceled carry permits to have a firearm. It seems that the more restrictive the gun laws in an area the more violent crime is found. I have no stats on this and depending on the source of the stats it could probably be argued both ways but based upon what I have seen it sure seems that there is a trend connecting lack of guns in hands of LAW ABIDING citizens and the amount of violent crime.
JMHO, take it with a large grain of salt.
Tim

[gtalum]

States that have passed wide-ranging concealed carry permit laws generally see a big reduction in crime, too. It's a much bigger deal to rob someone if you think they might have a gun.

[GalvestonDuck]

You can pass all the gun control laws you can but it will not stop the killing. Criminals will find a way to get a gun to commit their evil deeds. Ever notice that all the mass killing are located in places where it is illegal to possess a gun?......MGC

what does this mean exactly, since i'm not sure where it's illegal in the US to possess a gun.....

In Texas, it's my understanding that you cannot carry a weapon into a bar or other establishment (restaurant, strip club) where more than 51% of the income is for alcohol sales or into a state hospital, like UTMB. Not sure about the actual law in KY, but I know we didn't allow weapons (firearms or otherwise) when I worked in the ER. Even law enforcement officers had to leave their firearms locked in their cruisers unless they were there on duty with a patient (suspect or victim) or investigating a case after a patient was discharged. Here in Texas though, LEO's can carry on the premises, regardless of what purpose they have for being at the hospital.

Code: Select all

UTMB HANDBOOK OF OPERATING PROCEDURES

Possession of Weapons

Definition
Premises: a building or a portion of a building. It does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Weapon: a firearm, illegal knife, club, explosive device, etc
 
Policy
The possession of a weapon anywhere on the UTMB property is strictly forbidden and constitutes a violation of state statute. In addition to any criminal sanctions that may be imposed, employees, faculty, house staff, and students found in violation of this policy are subject to disciplinary action which may include termination.

Those persons licensed by the Texas Department of Public Safety to carry a concealed handgun are prohibited from carrying a handgun on UTMB premises.

The University Police Department must be notified immediately when a person is either observed in possession of a weapon or is suspected of possessing a firearm in violation of this policy.
 
Exceptions
 Licensed peace officers are allowed to carry a weapon in this state, including on UTMB premises, regardless of whether the officer is engaged in the actual discharge of duties while carrying the weapon.
 
References
 Texas Penal Code §§46.01-03; 46.035; 46.15

We had a gun threat last year -- http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=80157 . I'm just sorry it ended the way it did.

And we had a doc involved in a shooting last year (but we don't know if he ever carried the gun on campus) -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14062749/wid/11915829/

[kevin]

Clearly Cho didn't belong to a well organized and regulated militia.

[LSU2001]

Clearly Cho didn't belong to a well organized and regulated militia.

Clearly Kevin,
But where in the 2nd amendment does it say that membership in a well organized and regulated miltia is a pre-requisite for keeping and bearing arms. It simply says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. My concern about the gun control lobby is what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so hard to undertand.

Tim

[kevin]

Clearly Cho didn't belong to a well organized and regulated militia.

Clearly Kevin,
But where in the 2nd amendment does it say that membership in a well organized and regulated miltia is a pre-requisite for keeping and bearing arms. It simply says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. My concern about the gun control lobby is what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so hard to undertand.

Tim

Right, but its in the same sentence as the discussion of a well regulated militia. In fact this is how the states justify the right of citizens to bear arms, as their citizens are automatically part of the 'unorganized militia'. But then the question becomes, how can an unorganized militia be well regulated?

[Pburgh]

If stricter regulation on the sale of guns will not affect criminals, why don't we have stricter regulations on the sale of ammunition? When you go to buy bullets for your gun, you show your gun registration and then you can buy amo. I'm sure that true criminals could bypass this system but it would be more difficult than it is today. Would that infringe on the 2nd amendment right?