CU-Boulder: Profs have no right to cancel classes over gun-carrying students

[TPaine7]

I feel for the phobic professor. I hope he gets over his fears soon. And I hope no CCW permittee gives the anti-gun folks any excuse to condemn CCW laws.

Police officers murder; they've even served as hit men for the mob. But no one tries to paint all police officers with that brush. I fear that at the first school murder or negligent discharge, all the extremists at Brady (and here, unfortunately) will scream "we told you so," though they would never take the same attitude regarding a police officer or federal agent committing a crime or having a negligent discharge.

University of Colorado Chancellor Phil DiStefano notified the Boulder campus faculty Tuesday afternoon that professors "do not have the right to shut down a class or refuse to teach" should they learn that one of their students is lawfully carrying a gun under a concealed-carry permit.

And, DiStefano added, any faculty members who do so will be in violation of their contracts and face disciplinary action.

DiStefano's message comes a day after Professor Jerry Peterson, chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly, told the Daily Camera that, under his own "personal policy," he plans to cancel class if he ever learns any of his students are carrying firearms. A Colorado Supreme Court ruling this spring overturned CU's Boulder campus gun ban, and university officials say that students with conceal-carry permits are allowed to bring guns into classrooms and labs.

"I have the utmost respect for Professor Peterson, who is an old friend and valued colleague, but I want to make clear that if the student carrying the weapon has a concealed-carry permit, the position implied by Professor Peterson's comments directly violates Colorado law and the operating principles of the campus," DiStefano wrote in the e-mail to faculty.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_21366376?refresh=no

[villager]

1. I feel for the phobic students, who think they need to carry guns to class. And the phobic posters

...so completely obsessed, and blind to any of the larger community's needs, that they reflexively defend those phobias, not matter what.

[jody]

5. Be careful is your phobia showing? nt

[villager]

25. Is that a concealed phobia in your pocket, or is class just that exciting to you?

Exactly. Apt metaphor.

[Trunk Monkey]

6. You DO know that CSU has allowed students with a CHP to carry on campus for years

with no issues at all right?

[Starboard Tack]

105. Is that supposed to prove something?

[Jenoch]

116. It apparently proves

that the fear of such students has no basis in reality.

[Starboard Tack]

121. I'd say the fear of a loaded gun always has a basis in reality

as opposed to the fear of some unknown imaginary assailant jumping out of the shadows of a classroom. All it proves is that madness and stupidity prevail over education and common sense.

[gejohnston]

125. law of probability

especially if you have a specific threat that would inspire you be armed to begin with. The chances of a 21+ year old student with no record of violence going off the deep end is slim to none. Chances of and ND are nearly non existent. As someone who has been around guns most of my life, the chances of a gun popping out of a holster and mowing down people are about as likely as being run over by a parked car. I call that irrational.

[Jenoch]

134. It apparently proves

that despite students carrying concealed weapons on campus, nothing noteworthy has happened.

You can tell the families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting that their family members died and/or were wounded because of "...the fear of some unknown imaginary assailant jumping out of the shadows..."

[Trunk Monkey]

118. I think it would tend to disprove the "Blood in the Quad" canard NT

[TPaine7]

7. Says villager, as he defends a common phobia. n/t

[villager]

27. Says "TPaine7," as he vents his outrage that someone, somewhere, might not worship Lord Gun

...to the same unquestioning degree he does.

[TPaine7]

46. That's right, heathen, REPENT!!!!!!! n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Why does the larger community need to have all CCWers disarmed? N/T

[4th law of robotics]

15. On the one hand grabbers argue that the US is a shooting gallery

awash in blood and mass murder every single day.

On the other hand they ridicule people who take precautions to protect themselves (what are they afraid of?).

So which is it: is America mostly safe thus negating the need for self-defense. Or is it a war-zone, thus making self-defense a priority?

[TPaine7]

26. it's like particle/wave duality, except the answer depends on the propaganda function the data

needs to serve.

Extremist anti-gun folks are like quantum physicists—without the intellectual rigor, basis in reality or integrity.

[villager]

29. On the other hand proliferationists argue that guns have no bearing in gun crimes,

but the only solution they can see for them is...more guns everywhere!

It's always the shooter's fault when it's a "bad" shooting, but always "thanks, Lord Gun!," when it's a "good" shooting.

So... which is it?

[4th law of robotics]

37. I see what you tried to do there, but you failed horribly

Pro-2nd amendment folks argue that legal gun-ownership is not a major contributing factor to crime rates (based on reality) and that it may offer some value for self-defense.

There is no contradiction.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Nice sidestep there. However, gun ownership has nothing to do with this thread.

Nor does "grabbers" as you like to call those who don't share your love for carrying loaded weapons around.

[spayneuter]

60. I don't worship my guns, but at least they are real, unlike all the make-believe gods

some people think need to be venerated.

[Starboard Tack]

104. +100 Classic case of individual fear trumping societal needs.

[gejohnston]

106. depending on the situation

the individual's safety trumps the group's irrational fears.

[Starboard Tack]

124. What is irrational about fearing loaded weapons in a classroom?

Group safety should almost always trump individual safety, exceptions being first responders in rescue situations. Theoretically, an armed individual could save the day, however unlikely that may be, but the group's fear of others pointing and/or firing guns is never irrational.

[gejohnston]

126. he or she is not playing security guard

he or she has it for the crazy stalking ex. The group's safety is not compromised by it being there.

[Starboard Tack]

127. "the crazy stalking ex"?

What would they be doing in a classroom? If this fantasy were true, then the group's safety would be seriously compromised, by two crazies settling their differences with guns in a classroom.

[gejohnston]

130. going from the classroom to the car

If she leave it in the car, he would be at risk in the parking lot, especially at night depending on the school. Since there are no lockers in the building, it would be logical to take it to class with you.

Not so much a fantasy, simply the most probable scenario. It is also about the only reason why I would go through the hassle. Your situation may vary.

[Starboard Tack]

131. Bit of a stretch there GE

Message I get from it is that the 99% of normal unarmed students have to study in the presence of an armed student who is in fear of his/her life from some crazy, also armed, ex. Yeah, that makes it much easier for everyone to sleep at night. God forbid, this armed student should mistake another student for the ex, in the dark.

If that's the most probable scenario, I'm sure we could come up with a better solution, like gun lockers.

[gejohnston]

137. but no one would know anyone is armed

unless the student mentions something, which would be dumb for a couple of reasons. I wouldn't tell anyone anymore than I would mention my multi tool in a conversation.

[Starboard Tack]

138. If he's dumb enough to carry a gun to class, he's dumb enough to let it be known.

Seriously, how likely do you think such behavior is likely to remain secret in a college environment? You don't have to announce something for it to be known, especially in a place where everyone is probably now wondering who has a gun hidden on his person.

[gejohnston]

139. On campuses where it always has been legal

I doubt anyone thinks about it. Once the ranting ends and whatever is accepted either way, no one will care or think about it.

[Starboard Tack]

140. Of course not, until the shit hits the fan. Kinda like buying real estate in California.

How many of those campuses are there? 25? 30? Laissez les bon temps rouler!

[Angleae]

141. "Group safety should almost always trump individual safety"

That's the kind of thinking that gave us the Patriot Act.

[Starboard Tack]

143. Bullshit!

[spayneuter]

145. Hard to imagine how anyone could adequately address -that- amazing logic...

[Jenoch]

115. You must be referring, of course, to the individual

fear exhibited by Professor Jerry Peterson, chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly.

[jody]

2. It will be interesting to watch this play out. nt

[hlthe2b]

4. It will inevitably be tragic to watch this play out.

[X_Digger]

30. How so? Look at the other 20+ colleges in the nation that allow it..

Where's the 'blud in teh streetz' there?

[hlthe2b]

3. How'd you like to hand a "FAIL" grade to a student who may well be armed?

Not to mention under considerable emotional stress--not at all uncommon among college students.

This is as insane as expecting that CCW carriers won't drink when they pack in a bar. Or that CCW holders will appropriately stow their weapons so that they don't injure someone when they carelessly drop it in a crowded restaurant--all events that have been documented recently. (and on threads here in the gungeon--so don't even bother claiming otherwise--go look yourself)

[TPaine7]

8. How would you like to hand a "FAIL" to a marine who knows lots of ways to kill you barehanded

(and has had real-world practice)?

If you're sane, you don't automatically assume that because he has killed, knows how to kill and could easily kill you, he will.

[spayneuter]

61. Operative caveat: "If you're sane". You nailed that one.

..

[Trunk Monkey]

9. it is legal for a permit holder to carry in a bar in Colorado now, don't see a huge number of arrest

for drunken carriers do you?

Has any "well armed student" at CSU shot a teacher over a grade?

[movonne]

36. give it time....you say if everyone could have a gun we are safer..I say

if nobody had a gun we are safer...

[Trunk Monkey]

69. Re: give it time

You do realize that it has been legal to carry a firearm in an establishment that sells alcohol in Colorado since 1876 right? It was legal before that too but we weren't Colorado

you say if everyone could have a gun we are safer

Please link to the post where I said that

I say if nobody had a gun we are safer...

And please tell us how you intend to accomplish this?

[Starboard Tack]

110. Ah, but that's too logical.

If gun carriers were logical, they would carry defibrillators around. Far greater chance of needing one than a gun, but I guess they wouldn't feel as cool.
Seriously, though, this whole carrying thing is a fad, promoted by the NRA, the firearms industry and other fear mongering groups. Lots of profits, but it will dry up eventually and level out with hoolahoops. Then all those fools who went out and bought handguns will have to figure out what to do with them.

[gejohnston]

113. they can sell them at the nearest gun store or pawn shop

flood the market, and I can pick up some great deals. Hopefully someone will have a Walther TPH.

[hack89]

117. So why the concern over concealed carry laws if it is a short term fad?

why not expend time, effort and political capital on an issue that is getting worse?

[Starboard Tack]

122. My concern is not so much for the law as the practice.

And fads are not always short term. Handguns are not platform boots or bell bottom jeans. Eventual loss of interest will inevitably lead to more handguns ending up in the wrong hands. Ironically, most of the new handguns are probably in the safest hands, but don't expect that to last as interest wanes.

[hack89]

123. Do you expect the criminal class to increase?

what other wrong hands are there that can't get all the guns they want right now?

[Starboard Tack]

128. Not sure what you mean by "the criminal class"

Wrong hands would be those who think handguns are "cool", those who might use them to commit crime and our most vulnerable members of society, children.

[hack89]

129. So more guns will result in more criminals seems to be your logic.

is that because guns are the gateway object that turn law abiding citizens into criminals? Interesting theory there - how many more years of declining gun deaths will it take before you change your mind?

[Starboard Tack]

132. I didn't say that. You did.

More guns will lead to more gun thefts and more gun accidents. More unwanted guns will lead to less care and safety. Declining gun deaths has more to do with first responders and ER teams than law abiding gun carriers.

[hack89]

133. And of course you have actual evidence of this?

let me point in you the right direction.

1. If people are shot and survive then instead of murder or manslaughter the shooter is charged with aggravated assault. Are the numbers of aggravated assaults going up or down?

2. As for accidents, the CDC accounts for both deaths and injuries. Is the combine number of accidental deaths and injuries due to guns going up or down?

[Starboard Tack]

135. Non-fatal gun injuries exceed the fatalities 3 fold. You do the math.

Time to get rid of handguns, period. More trouble than they are worth.

[hack89]

136. Are the numbers going up or down? Simple question.

if all the numbers are declining then you wrong - plain and simple.

[jody]

11. Norlin Library at CU “WHO KNOWS ONLY HIS OWN GENERATION REMAINS ALWAYS A CHILD” by CU President

George Norlin 1919 to 1939

[ileus]

17. You really think carriers are gonna spring into action when they have a bad day?

[hlthe2b]

28. No.. only the unhinged ones that we have no way of detecting prior to the permit being issued

[spayneuter]

146. The solution is simple: just imprision everyone because they might go nuts at some future time

and commit a crime.

[4th law of robotics]

18. How would you like to fire an employee knowing he may own a gun?

How would you like to give a speeding ticket to someone who may be packing?

How would you like to divorce someone that has a CCW?

Life is full of stressful situations. And life is full of guns. And yet rarely do people go "postal" as you seem to expect.

A college student is no more stressed (and considerably less so in many ways) than other citizens.

Deny them their rights and you must deny them to everyone.

/it's ridiculous to assume that automotive license holders won't drink while in bars. Or certified pilots.

[Jenoch]

40. The professors do not

generally hand out the grades in class. You got anything else?

[Glaug-Eldare]

45. How often do these students punch or stab their professors?

Is there any evidence that violence against critical professors is a legitimate danger, and not just a theoretical possibility?

[KansDem]

56. Do we remember the San Diego State University shooting?

I do...SDSU is my alma mater.

Shooting

Davidson, the three faculty members, and three other engineering students assembled in the classroom shortly before 2:00 p.m. The three students were there to support Davidson, and to witness a Master's thesis defense. Liang stood, formally introduced Davidson, stated the purpose of the meeting, and sat back down.[5][6] Davidson then handed Liang a printout of an e-mail, from a prospective employer who was interested in hiring Davidson, that stated that his future employment with the company hinged on a successful Master's thesis defense.[8] Without time for comment from Liang, and without saying anything himself, Davidson turned to the first aid box on the wall, removed the 9mm semiautomatic handgun, and immediately started firing, hitting Liang first, and killing him while still seated at the faculty table. Lowrey and Lyrintzis were also hit. However, Lowrey tried to escape out the only main access door to the room. There were other doors in the room, but only one door led out to the hallway, and other parts of the 3rd floor of the Engineering building. Davidson was between the main door and the faculty table, and shot Lowrey several times, and he died on the floor in the main doorway. Lyrintzis fled away from the main door and Davidson, into an adjoining classroom, and hid under a table. After killing Lowrey, Davidson reloaded another clip into the handgun, and pursued Lyrintzis into the other room. Davidson shot and killed Lyrintzis while still under the desk.[8] Overall, Davidson fired 23 rounds, with 16 rounds hitting the professors.[8]

The three students attending the thesis defense were not shot, and escaped without injury. One of the students did make it out the main doorway, and notified the 3rd floor students and faculty to evacuate.[5] Davidson later commented that he was not angry at the students, and had no intention of killing them.[8]

After the shooting, Davidson himself called 9-1-1.[9] Police arrived to find Davidson in the 3rd floor hallway still holding the handgun. He was reportedly sobbing and begging for police to kill him.[9] He soon surrendered to police without further incident. Davidson had intended to kill himself after the shootings, but could not due to "pure cowardice". Davidson had left a murder suicide note in the hallway for the police to find, detailing the location of evidence and computer files in his house.[8]

--more--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_State_University_shooting

Of course, an argument can be made as to whether or not a ban on guns would have prevented this.

[petronius]

57. I'm pretty sure firearms have always been prohibited on Cal State campuses,

so we can conclude that a ban on guns wouldn't have prevented it...

Unless you meant a ban at a level above the campus (state, national)?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. Not entirely

There are exceptions

[Clames]

58. Certainly not in that case.

Unless the law applied to guns held in first-aid kits...

Davidson turned to the first aid box on the wall, removed the 9mm semiautomatic handgun, and immediately started firing,

Even then I doubt it would have made any difference.

[Jenoch]

63. Of course a ban on firearms

would not have prevented that shooting. Remember, the bad guys do not follow the gun laws. What might have stopped the shooter would have been if one of the professors to whom he was defending his thesis had a concealed handgun and knew how to use it.

[Politicalboi]

10. So let's see

Doctor's who oppose abortion can opt out. But a professor who's life could be in danger has to Shut the Fuck Up. This IS ridiculous. If I were teaching there, I would make the school follow it's rules I was hired under which hopefully would NOT allow guns at school. Otherwise, I would sue the shit out of them for breaking their part of the deal. Fuck the law, it's private property.

I doubt this was their contract.

"And, DiStefano added, any faculty members who do so will be in violation of their contracts and face disciplinary action".

Yes we have had school shootings. But there are probably more angry students at professors who they feel are too liberal, or insults "their" god and decides to shoot them right there at school. That is probably more likely than a student school shooting. Although I guess that number WILL rise as well.

[TPaine7]

12. "a professor who's life could be in danger"

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Wouldn't that include a professor who had a SEAL, a Ranger, or other SPEC-OPs veterans taking his class on the GI bill?

What about a martial arts instructor or "The Big Show"—a 7'+ 300 lb+ professional wrestler/actor?

Should he be able to refuse to teach a class any of them were in? Wouldn't teaching them also make him "a professor who's life could be in danger"?

[4th law of robotics]

20. If a student plans on murdering his prof banning CHL holders from legally carrying won't save him

You may have forgotten but look up the VT massacre.

He was certainly not CHL holder and guns were banned on that campus.

[villager]

32. The proliferationists aren't happy until they can explicitly force their sickness on everyone else

n/t

[HALO141]

90. Nobody is forcing anyone to carry who doesn't want to.

And, BTW, putting "n/t" in the body of the post instead of in the reply title renders it pointless.

[villager]

94. It's basic fundamentalism: Their worship signs (the gun) shall be everywhere! Or else!

n/t

[HALO141]

95. Don't be ridiculous

[Glaug-Eldare]

44. It's not private property.

It's a public university, which belongs to all citizens of Colorado, regardless of which civil rights they choose to exercise. If an employee wants to ban guns from their classroom, they're either going to have to get the consent of the Colorado legislature, or suck it up. A private university is a whole 'nother critter.

[Trunk Monkey]

71. It's not private property it's a state owned school

and it's previous rules were found to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as well as article 16 of the Colorado State Constitution

[bongbong]

14. Have pity on the gun-lovers

They need a gun to feel brave enough to venture into sunlight. They'd starve if they couldn't have their Precious, since they would be too scared to go to the supermarket.

Pity the poor, scared, losers.

[TPaine7]

16. I appreciate the thoughtfulness, intellectual rigor and originality that you bring to your posts. n/t

[bongbong]

24. Originality?

I appreciate the hard work gun-relgionists have in transcribing NRA Talking Points from their blast faxes.

[villager]

35. Given the exact NRA rhetoric they use, isn't just really "copy and paste?"

[bongbong]

42. Benefit of the doubt

> isn't just really "copy and paste?"

Yeah, but I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. "Wimpy Liberals" (as scared gun-relgionists call people who are tough enough to walk around without a gun) do those kinds of things.

[Jenoch]

41. Faxes?

How OLD ARE you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. I'm sure he sincerely believes that the NRA sends blast faxes to certain DUers.

Just as some Freepers are certain that President Obama is a Marxist atheist who has secret plans to impose Sharia law.

Same mindset, different imaginary monster under the bed...

[Jenoch]

86. How does one

connect a fax machine to a cellular telephone?

[gejohnston]

88. mobile version of efax?

http://www.efax.com/
or use it with a smart phone.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. So where's the evidence for these "blast faxes"? Or is this simply more hoplophobe CT?

[HALO141]

92. fax?

What is this, "fax" you speak of?


Damn, dude, if you're going to use dredge up insults from the 70's, you should at least try to update them a little.

[GreenStormCloud]

114. NRA uses email, not faxes. N/T

[ileus]

19. Preach it to those people!

[bongbong]

23. boring?

> but now I'm starting to realize something far far worse: you're boring.

Wow, then you must really find all the endless same-as-the-rest odes to gun-love really boring!

[spayneuter]

62. I think you should have stopped at one bong.

[bongbong]

98. Imaginative insult

I've never heard personal insults about my screenname before! You are JENIUS!

Look, I know how little logic goes into the "thinking" of scared gun-relgionists. Don't worry, I understand your problem.

[spayneuter]

144. Well, what is truly roll-on-the-floor laughable is that some people appear to be perambulating

through their control-freakish existence under some weird delusion that they are somehow someway someday going to persuade us progressive supporters of the Bill of Rights to give them up so their widdle feewings aren't disturbed.
Now my turn:

[HALO141]

91. You get one, too.

[spin]

93. It appears to me that some professors are to scared to teach in a classroom ...

that has legally armed students. I suspect you also have an irrational fear of those who legally carry.

Fear has little or nothing to do with legally carrying a firearm. Most of those who do realize that there is very little chance of ever having to use it. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely no danger in our society.Some people simply want to have the ability to effectively defend themselves in the unlikely chance that they might be attacked.

Some people also take martial arts classes. Do you feel that they suffer from fear?

The bottom line is that people differ in their approach to life. Some wish to be prepared for any eventuality and others chose to ignore potential danger.

Those who have absolutely no fear often find themselves as a victim of a predator. That is simply because they fail to practice "situational awareness." They walk around with a cell phone glued to their ear totally oblivious to what is happening around them.

People who have martial arts training or have attended a concealed weapons class usually have been exposed to the concept of situation awareness and many use this technique to avoid danger. The best way to survive ANY fight is to not be in one. Being alert to your surroundings and those in it may be the MOST effective form of self defense.

I would strongly recommend that anyone reading this post would check this link: (I'll post a short excerpt.)

Essential Self Defense Tips: Situational Awareness

According to FBI statistics, there were more than 1,000,000 violent crimes reported in the United States in the year 2006. That's a staggering number. Unfortunately, many violent crimes could be prevented if people (especially women) had a basic knowledge of self defense. I would like to discuss more self defense tips in future hubs, but for now I want to stick to an essential concept known as "situational awareness." It is a concept that we teach our students at our martial arts studio.

We live in a busy society, and often we find ourselves walking down the street with little knowledge of what is going on around us. We text as we walk, or we avoid eye contact with others for fear of seeming rude. The TV show "Fight Science" tests the awareness of an "average Joe" with a pair of glasses that tracks eye movements on a screen. While walking the course, the subject's eyes stay focused on the ground, with occasional glances around. As a result, he missed many potential threats.

Next the scientists on "Fight Science" performed the test on a trained martial artist. The results were very different. His eyes consistently scanned the area, pausing on each potential threat. This means that he was taking notes in his mind, which would enable to him to respond to danger quickly, if not avoid it entirely.

The point is simple, if you notice a potential threat, do your best to avoid it. The best way to defend yourself is to keep yourself out of danger. You don't need to be paranoid, just alert and aware! As an example, consider a mall parking garage. You exit the mall and walk to your car. When you arrive, you notice that there is a man sitting in the van parked next to your car. He is the passenger's side, and can easily reach you if you approach your car. Perhaps this man is simply waiting for someone to return to his van. Or he might have more sinister intentions.
http://sapphirewolf.hubpages.com/hub/Essential-Self-Defense-Tips-Situational-Awareness

The mindset between you and someone who has training in self defense might be quite different. It very easy for you to accuse such people as being fearful but in reality they probably are far less fearful than you are. In many cases they are well trained and armed and feel relatively confident that they can successfully react if attacked.

But if a person does practice situational awareness his/her chances of being attacked drop significantly. A street predator is looking for the weakest and most stupid member of the herd. If you make eye contact with such an individual and walk confidently, the predator will likely chose another victim.

If it helps your ego to claim that people who legally carry guns or have self defense training are fearful and paranoid enjoy your delusion. You obviously lack any knowledge about self defense and the reality of life.

[spin]

99. I notice that you failed to respond to any of my comments ....

and merely chose to attack my spelling. That's fine and you are correct to point out my error. Obviously I need to take more time to proofread my posts. I also believe that you meant to insult me when you used the term "Brainiac." That might work well on some posters here but to me, insults merely make me laugh as I know I am winning the debate. In my opinion insulting another poster is childish. However if you enjoy using such tactics I personally have no objection.

I will try to also be helpful and point out that one of your comments is grammatically incorrect as it contains two fragmented sentences.

2nd grade, where they teach you how to spell "too". In your subject line, Brainiac.

If you wish to play a spelling and grammar policeman, it would be wise to post complete sentences in your posts.

Do you have anything constructive to say about my comments in reply #14?

[bongbong]

100. More laughs

> I notice that you failed to respond to any of my comments

They weren't "yours"! Hasn't anybody ever told you that cut-n-paste doesn't mean you're the author?

[spin]

103. Here's one of my comments that you failed to notice ...

People who have martial arts training or have attended a concealed weapons class usually have been exposed to the concept of situation awareness and many use this technique to avoid danger. The best way to survive ANY fight is to not be in one. Being alert to your surroundings and those in it may be the MOST effective form of self defense.

Please note that it does not involve cutting and pasting.

Also in passing I should note that I didn't alert on your post above. I'm not bothered by insults in the least and I didn't personally feel that your post was "over the top."

However it might be wise in the future to be more polite with other posters here in the Gungeon. Many here seem to wish the Gungeon was far more polite and respectful. It would make posting here a far more rewarding and educational experience.

[slackmaster]

22. So, how many sock puppet logins does Professor Peterson have on DU?

[TPaine7]

31. Great question! n/t

[geckosfeet]

33. Concealed carry is just that - concealed. No one should ever know. Case closed.

On the other hand, verbal announcements, flashing or brandishing can be considered threats (as well as being against the law in some states) and I side with the teacher.

[Hoyt]

34. Who is likely to carry on campus? -- a loser, a right wing homeschooled kid, someone needing self

esteem boost, the ubiquitous sexually frustrated kid, young republicans, militia kids, and the like.

Fortunately, most kids in college have more sense.

And those that go to right wing schools like Oral Roberts, Liberty U, etc., will likely find the schools don't allow guns, just like the Republican convention in Tampa won't allow them.

They know what kind of folks tote to such events.

[4th law of robotics]

38. Who is more likely to ignore "gun free" zones

law abiding decent citizens with no ill intent or mass murderers who don't care about the law?

[bongbong]

43. Another prize award

You're getting a prize for parroting (a variant of) the NRA Talking Point "criminals don't obey laws so why have them?" for the trillionth time on DU!

A special bonus since you're the gun-relgionist who chided me for not being "original". Well done, Mr. Unintentional Irony, well done.

You're being EXTRA hilarious today!

[TPaine7]

48. I am the one who congratulated you on your originality in post 16. n/t

[bongbong]

51. LOL

You must be losing track of the screen names you post under. I was "congratulated" by another screen alias in post #21.

Try to keep up.

[TPaine7]

54. Hmmmmm...

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I feel bad for you.

The post you're trying to hide behind did not use the word "original" in any form. You know, as well as anyone who bothers to follow your drivel, that you were responding to my post.

Here the post you were allegedly answering:

21. I always recognized you were intellectually bankrupt and devoid of any real debate skills

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

but now I'm starting to realize something far far worse: you're boring.

Really you can copy and paste from a handful of stock sentences together in different orders and generate every single one of your comments.

You have precisely no new material.


If you were a comedian your only joke would be to scream "that's what she said" after every comment someone else made and hope it fits.

Lame.

Post 21 says that you are...

* intellectually bankrupt
* devoid of any real debate skills
* boring
* lacking in new material
* lame

...but nothing about originality. You were responding to my post. That makes your claiming that I should try to keep up all the more pathetic.

[Hoyt]

49. Been in a lot of gun free zones, felt very comfortable -- not just because of lack of guns, but the

people were much more friendly, relaxed, intelligent, beautiful, etc.

[4th law of robotics]

50. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

You have to be doing satire right? People in gun free zones magically become more beautiful?

I've seen some crazy anti-gun nuts in my life but none have made that claim.

You had me going for a while there.

[Common Sense Party]

72. More beautiful? Pehaps... But all the beans give off a strange odor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. I carry on campus and do not fall into any of those groups

[TPaine7]

67. Have you submitted to Hoyt's "psychic, long-distance, reality-free psychological evaluation (TM)"?

If not, how can you be sure where you fall? Hmmmm?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. Well I only carry to my office where I lock it up

Would not want the students to think I am some sort of rude toter.

[petronius]

39. Unstable and/or violent students are certainly a concern, and all faculty

and staff should be observant for signs of trouble (students posing a risk to others and, more commonly, students posing a risk to themselves). And just as important, faculty and staff need to follow up when they observe danger signs.

However, possession of a CCW is not a reliable indication of risk, and there's no reason to believe that CCW-holding students are more likely than others to be unstable or act-out violently (the opposite is true, if anything).

So the administration is correct - professors don't get to develop 'personal policies' for canceling class (affecting all students) based on their own biases. Of course, a professor is certainly free to request that students voluntarily refrain from carrying in their class...

[SheilaT]

47. And of course all CCW holders are always in control

of their firearms at all times. I'm sure that guy in Nevada recently intended to drop his weapon so it would discharge.

All I can say I'm grateful the bullet hit him and not someone else.

[TPaine7]

53. You do realize that not all police, FBI agents, DEA agents, ICE agents, ATF agents, deputy sheriffs,

...etc., etc. are in control of their guns at all times.

If memory serves, there have been several stories about cops not having control of guns, including one where a fully automatic weapon was left on the roof of a squad car and one where an officers toddler son shot himself with his father's duty weapon. And then there was the DEA agent who shot himself in the foot in front of a classroom of students.

Your implied charge against CCW permittees is true. They are human.

As for the guy who discharged his weapon in a movie theater, I agree—better he was shot than anyone else. I also support legal requirements for drop-fire safe weapons if weapons are carried in public. ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/117262233 )

[SheilaT]

70. Supporting those requirements is all well and good,

but the NRA would not doubt oppose them completely, as they do any sorts of sensible controls on guns in this country.

If carrying guns made everyone safer, then this would be the safest country in the world. But it's not. In 2010 nearly nine thousand people in this country were murdered by guns of various kinds. Our death rate by guns is just about the same as in Mexico, which is understood to be in the grip of drug lords who go about murdering people with great glee.

I do not agree that all the gun deaths are merely trivial things that have nothing to do with the many guns out there.

And you're right about CCW holders being human. A lot of them are criminally negligent as well.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Are all your posts that inaccurate? Mexico's murder rate is 4X that of the US:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/08/in-midst-of-drug-war-mexican-homicide-rate-increase-for-fourth-straight-year.html

Amid drug war, Mexico homicide rate up for fourth straight year
August 21, 2012 | 2:02 pm


MEXICO CITY -- A study has found that Mexico’s homicide rate rose for the fourth year in a row in 2011, this time by 5.6% compared with the previous year -- a fact that will come as little surprise to Mexicans who continue to be bombarded each morning with the latest stomach-turning details of the country’s drug war.

What is less clear, however, is what the new numbers say about outgoing President Felipe Calderon’s controversial and nearly 6-year-old decision to deploy the military to battle the country’s entrenched drug-trafficking gangs.

Is this the short-term pain that Mexico must endure in order to achieve a long-term peace? Or are the increased slayings the inevitable -- and ineluctable -- result of a strategy that Calderon’s successor, Enrique Peña Nieto, has essentially promised to continue, with a few alterations?

The new data, released this week by Mexico’s statistics and geography institute, show that 27,199 people were killed in Mexico last year -- or 24 homicides per 100,000 people. The rate in 2007 was 8 per 100,000. Last year it was 23 per 100,000....

http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/Boletines/Boletin/Comunicados/Especiales/2012/agosto/comunica29.pdf


http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm


Estimated crime in United States-Total Year

Crime rate per 100,000 population

Population Violent Crime rate Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate
2010 308,745,538 403.6 4.8

[gejohnston]

76. are murders by other means trivial to you?

If so, most Canadian murders are. So are almost all Russian murders, even though their murder rate is over twice ours.

[Sancho]

52. maybe, but I'm gonna put it in my syllabus that a weapon=F

[TPaine7]

55. Go for it. A smart student would sue, get the grade reversed and perhaps lose you tenure

or even your job.

[spayneuter]

59. Same as pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control because of their idiot religious beliefs.

There is no difference.

[ladjf]

77. Why would a student want or need to bring a gun to their class? nt

[HockeyMom]

78. Get a back grade

and shoot the professor?

[TPaine7]

80. There are several colleges that have allowed CCW on campus for years.

When is the last time you read about a CCW permittee shooting a teacher over a grade? That would definitely make the news, not only the national news in the US, but probably in China.

I will show you five stories where a cop murdered someone for every "CCW student shoots teacher over grade" story. Would you care to take that challenge?

[TPaine7]

79. If you actually didn't know, there have been people who have shot dozens of unarmed students

in schools in the US.

There have also been people who have used guns to stop intended mass murderers at schools. Unfortunately, they had to go to their vehicles to retrieve their weapons. Access is much faster if a student has a weapon on them.

Who knows how many lives could have been saved had there been a sane, law-abiding, legal, 21yo or older, armed CCW permittee in the first or even second classroom Cho entered?

(Cho is one of the shooters who shot and killed dozens of defenseless, unarmed students at Virginia Tech. If you honestly don't know about it, you can look the incident up on Wikipedia or google it.)

That would be my understanding as to why a student would want to bring a gun to class, though I am sure their are other reasons.

[HockeyMom]

81. There is also the choice to NOT GO to a college that allows guns

on campus. I most certainly wouldn't have gone to one, or sent my children there. Or do WE have not choice in the matter? We have to live with YOUR guns all around us???? You people will SAVE US!!!!!

[TPaine7]

82. I absolutely agree. You have the right to attend a private school whose policy is that you

and all of your classmates and all of the instructors will be unarmed and without effective means to resist a mass murderer. You have the right to send your children to a school where they and all of their classmates and all of the instructors will be unarmed and without effective means to resist a mass murderer.

Your right is unquestioned.

[hack89]

83. And how exactly does that stop a killer illegally bringing a gun on campus? Forgotten Va Tech?

any of those gun less schools are in cities where there are plenty of guns in off campuses apartments. So how are you any safer from a mass killer?

[HockeyMom]

84. Site me the last mass shooting in a campus

in NYC or NYS with very stringent gun control laws. Do you know that in NYS to go to just the DMV you have to go through a METAL DETECTOR? Jury duty? Same, even for lawyers. Many private businesses have these also. Yes, METAL DETECTORS. I guess gun advocates wouldn't like that but it has worked for AIRLINES, now hasn't it? Debate that point.

[hack89]

85. Being so rare, I can cite states with extremely high gun ownership rates and no mass shootings ever.

by your logic University of New Hampshire should be a shooting gallery.

Metal detectors and guards at every building at every school? Is that your solution? Care to think how much that will cost the taxpayers? Do you really think they are willing to pay for it in a time of rising tuition and shrinking state aid to education?

Here is something to consider - alcohol abuse or mental health issues leading to suicide are what kill students. By orders of magnitude over violent crime of any kind. Take a fraction of the money you wish to spend on metal detectors and security - spend it on mental health and alcohol awareness and you will save many more lives. You need to gain a perspective on what the real dangers are.

[ladjf]

119. I don't know the exact odds of getting shot while in a college classroom. But, it would have to be

in the one out of 400,000 range or even less likely. Everyone on travels in America has about 1 out of 5,000 per year of being killed in an accident. In other words, if one is fearful enough to carry a self-defense weapon to class, they most definitely would be too afraid to travel in any vehicle if they know the odds.

[gejohnston]

120. depends on the individual situation

in mine at the moment, you are correct. Someone with the stalking crazy ex, not so much.
In that case, the threat is not so much the classroom, but the parking lot. It is not a matter of fear, a matter of prepared for the worst.

[Trunk Monkey]

96. Google Va Tech NT

[DWC]

87. How would he find out????

Professor Jerry Peterson, chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly, told the Daily Camera that, under his own "personal policy," he plans to cancel class if he ever learns any of his students are carrying firearms


The real irony is, if he does learn any of his students are legally concealed carrying firearms, it will probably be because they use their firearms to stop some lunatic who is violently attacking people on campus. That probably would be reason enough to cancel class that day.

Semper Fi,

[spin]

89. It amazes me how educated people can fear honest gun owners. ...

For example in Florida you have a lower chance of getting shot by a person with a concealed weapons permit than you do getting hit by lightning despite the fact that over 800,000 resident Floridians have such licenses. (Of course that assumes that you do not attack a person who is legally carrying a firearms.)

People who legally carry a firearm on a regular basis are often accused of being excessively paranoid or fearful. They often seem to total ignore their own irrational fear.

I don't imagine that these professors are unduly fearful of armed police officers. I could be wrong. Perhaps they would also like to see unarmed police.

[Agnosticsherbet]

101. A classroom should be a safe place to learn.

If students and the teachers feel unsafe because someone carries a firearm to the class, then that person is a disrupting the class. The right to carry a weapon does not mean it is the right thing to do.

[gejohnston]

102. if it is properly concealed

nobody knows. If no one knows, there is no disruption.

[Starboard Tack]

107. Good for Prof. Peterson.

If more teachers stood up to this kind of madness, maybe our schools could get back to teaching and those who like carrying guns around could sign up for a stint in the military.

[gejohnston]

109. education is supposed to be about open minds

and challenging assumptions. How would he know who is and isn't carrying?

[Starboard Tack]

111. I've no idea how he would know.

[DWC]

142. Is that a gun in your pocket

or are you just glad to see me?

The real irony is, if he does learn any of his students are legally concealed carrying firearms, it will probably be because they use their firearms to stop some lunatic who is violently attacking people on campus. That probably would be reason enough to cancel class that day.

Semper Fi,

[petronius]

112. The only impediment to teaching in this story is Prof. Peterson himself

And it look like he hasn't yet cancelled a minute of class. So "get back to" doesn't apply, nothing has been left.

The whole hooplah is misdirected, IMO. There's nothing to suggest that student CCW in class poses any meaningful risk or chance of disruption. And while student safety is critical, faculty and staff need to be alert to a range of signs within the student population, for those posing a risk to themselves or others; having (or not) a CCW isn't a meaningful indicator and is really a waste of energy...