Carry and conceal for Virginia professors up for Senate debate
The Virginia State House is considering a bill that would allow college professors to carry guns on campus.
Manassas Republican Delegate Bob Marshall believes the law would prevent violence but opponents worry such a law would backfire.
"Virginia needs to protect its students on campus and police cannot be there at all times," said Marshall.
After the Virginia Tech massacre, Marshall says a professor at George Mason University asked him to support allowing concealed weapons on campus.
I understand that gun rights/control can be a touchy subject with some people but here's something to keep in mind. Proffies may already have guns at home, in their cars, carried on their hip around town. I gather there's not too many proffie-initiated violence. Extending this right to carry into their workplace is just an extension of rights, not the creation of a new class of rights.
ReplyDeleteWell, to answer the question in the title (which I do realize was rhetorical), there's this.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I can see the pro-gun lobby using Amy Bishop as a poster child for "guns don't kill people; people kill people" -- and with more than a little justification. All the same, it's not clear to me that another armed faculty member (or three or four) would have improved the situation; Bishop might well have been killed, or at least disabled, but so might some more of her colleagues who ended up in the line of fire (or ricochet). The colleague who crawled under the table and tried to grab Bishop's leg probably did as much good as anyone with a gun could have. All, in all, I think that colleague may have said it best: there is evil in the world, and well-intentioned but extreme measures to make everyone as safe as possible may have equally bad unintended consequences.
All in all, I prefer to work on a campus with a minimum of armed people (and good mental health services, though that's no panacea either).
Every day I hear more reasons never to cross our southern border.
DeleteI also would prefer to work on a campus with a minimum number of armed people.
I favor concealed carry permits for those who have passed background checks. It's the implementation of background checks and enforcement of permits with which I have a major problem. A gunshot to the leg is probably going to do more good than a grab to the leg. I could probably squeeze off a few rounds even with a leg-grab that takes me down; I doubt I could keep firing for more than a millisecond with a gunshot wound to the leg. I'm with BB on this one; if you have a concealed carry permit, I don't have a problem with you bringing your firearm to campus, or to work, or wherever you happen to be. (I myself would never carry a firearm, though).
ReplyDeleteRGM, erase my Friday Thirsty ... I don't need to find a kinder, gentler way to phrase student feedback. I want a gun!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, every time I hear about efforts to encourage guns in more venues I want to know where people have arrived at the conclusion that the armed citizen will be able to repel any sort of gunman. This isn't a leisurely afternoon in a duck blind. Or the controlled environment of a firing range. You are now looking for someone who will likely shoot at you first.
I would venture a guess that a significant number of "law abiding gun owners" have never had to use their weapon in a situation when someone was shooting AT them. Due respect to military veterans, but most of their training is not relevant to a situation like the Virginia Tech massacre. (Not for nothing, but the Fort Hood shooter was taken down by a civilian police officer.)
Even police officers who DO receive specific "shoot, don't shoot" training make mistakes. Is it really wise to increase the number of potential shooters by adding those who do NOT have such preparation?
I agree with Cassandra that upping the gun count is not the solution. Neutralizing the anger/delusion of a troubled individual before taking up arms should be the goal.
I seem to remember another conversation on this. "Shoot to wound" is only something that works if (a) you are a trained sniper firing from a bench rest, with plenty of time to pick your target or (b) you are in a movie.
DeleteCenter of mass, people, because if you aim center of mass you will still incapacitate when you miss (not if you miss).
Sorry, my reply above was meant for PP. My reply to A&S:
DeleteI agree in principle, but reasoning with someone who is in the act of shooting you seems rather futile. Incapacitate them first, then they are in a position to listen (or at least to give you time to say your say).
Also, to be fair, military personnel (apart from military police) aren't authorized to carry loaded weapons on post except on the firing range.
Thanks for the clarification about military carry rules.
Delete(Been awhile since I was on base).
But I never suggested anything like reasoning with a gun-toting assailant. I don't know if I'd go so far as to declare it futile, but, I agree, similar to "shoot to wound" the likelihood of success would be minimal.
My concern is the assertion that the average citizen gun owner would be competent and capable to neutralize someone wielding a gun.
First off, there is the simple issue of probability. We aren't talking a liquor store owner in a crime ridden neighborhood. Given that most unis are the size (if not actually) small cities, what are the chances the gunman is going to walk into Professor Glock's classroom?
That means, Professors Smith and Wesson are likely going to hear a lockdown order and then ... what? Go looking for the gunman?
Now we have armed amateurs on the hunt.
Yeah, nothing likely to go wrong there.
No one expected a hail of bullets at the Tucson Safeway. There WERE armed citizens there and they were not the ones to neutralize Jared Loughner.
I was merely pointing out that, given a choice between cowering under a table and grabbing a murderer's leg and cowering plus shooting that leg, I'd venture that shooting is more effective. I was taught to shoot to the torso - the head's too small a target and there is a psychological aversion to shooting even a mass murderer in the face that can cause subconscious misdirection. This was documented during the Vietnam war; soldiers shot high, even when they were themselves under fire.
DeleteIt's not the aim that's the problem; many gun owners practice at the range. It's aiming while being shot at, which causes almost everyone to be so terrified of imminent death that any previous training is promptly forgotten. But I still question whether the leg-grab from under the table is as effective as a shot. Stabbing with a letter-opener or other sharp instrument might be as effective, but grabbing the leg? I don't buy it.
Oh man, I can't wait. Profflake packin heat. Bang! Bang! But I really worked *harrrd* to shoot that assailant! But I spent *sooo* much time aiming. I really *feeeel* that this aiming system is unfair. Can I get *pleeeese* some extra credit for hitting the bystander?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever noticed that these excuses (whines, really) are almost always lies? They might have spent lots of time, but it was obviously multitasking between who knows how many other activities, with the class work clearly being the bottom priority.
DeleteSilverback McGraybeard for the win!
DeleteHey, I'm all for it. I sure wish I taught in VA: I could soon say, "Flaky, quit texting in class, OR ELSE..."
ReplyDeleteIn (slightly) related news, I bet this is the door to Strelnikov's office:
ReplyDeletehttp://boingboing.net/2012/02/02/soviet-pistol-door-handle.html
I am of two minds on this one. On the one hand, I'd never own a weapon. On the other, one of my colleagues habitually packs heat -- a no-no in our campus. If anything is going to make her feel safer when she walks through the parking lot after evening class, good for her.
ReplyDeleteHere in Arizona, our demented legislators are making a second run on legalizing concealed-carry for all students, faculty and visitors on college campuses, after having been vetoed by an only slightly less pea-brained governor last year.
ReplyDeleteEventually they'll get it through. Matter of fact, this vary day I posted ruminations both at FaM and at Adjunctorium about whether to continue teaching at all, once this fantasy becomes law.
oops...make that "very"... ;-)
ReplyDeleteI think shooting someone at least once a semester would tend to have a negative impact on my evaluations.
ReplyDeleteMy students can't even figure out the cultural reference "...you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?".
ReplyDeleteSome of the smarter ones might catch on if you point your Magnum at their head and say, "WELL? DO ya FEEL LUCKY, PUNK?"
DeleteBut seriously: wasn't Dirty Harry in the cinemas in 1971? That's as ancient to the current undergraduates as WWI was to me. I might recommend you take a look at Beloit College's Mindset list, here:
http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/
If profs are allowed to carry guns, then all grants for research into educational methods and ways of learning would cease. What prof would care about the findings of said research if he or she were allowed to carry a gun to class?
ReplyDelete