from the protect-yourself-'cuz-no-one-else-will dept.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Concealed handgun license holders in Texas can carry their weapons into public university buildings, classrooms and dorms starting Monday, a day that also marks 50 years after the mass shooting at the University of Texas' landmark clock tower.
The campus-carry law pushed by Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican legislative majority makes Texas one of a handful of states guaranteeing the right to carry concealed handguns on campus.
Texas has allowed concealed handguns in public for 20 years. Gun rights advocates consider it an important protection, given the constitutional right to bear arms, as well as a key self-defense measure in cases of campus violence, such as the 1966 UT shootings and the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech.
Opponents of the law fear it will chill free speech on campus and lead to more campus suicide. The former dean of the University of Texas School of Architecture left for a position at the University of Pennsylvania because of his opposition to allowing guns on campus.
Officials told the Austin American-Statesman it was a coincidence that the law took effect 50 years to the day after the UT shooting. Marine-trained sniper Charles Whitman climbed to the observation deck of the 27-story clock tower in the heart of UT's flagship Austin campus, armed with rifles, pistols and a sawed-off shotgun on Aug. 1, 1966, killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others before officers gunned him down.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 07 2016, @09:41PM
Surely nothing bad will come from this. Armed society is polite society. No one ever makes a bad decision in college. If good guys have guns, they can stop bad guys with guns...out of range...unseen...100 feet off the ground...yeaaaaah, that's the ticket!
Queue the Darwin Awards nominations.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @09:44PM
Why did something just vreep?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @09:54PM
I'm actually interested in how this will turn out. I don't know how hard it is to get a concealed carry, but I have a feeling it isn't easy so a college student or faculty / work will probably take the responsibility seriously. Most stupid decisions happen off campus anyway where the concealed carry is legal.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:40PM
In Texas? Dunno. Across the river in Oklahoma? Gun safety class, prove you can hit the broad side of a barn, and don't have any felonies that would prevent you from owning a gun.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deadstick on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:38PM
Here in Colorado, even the firing range session is optional. You just have to pass a police record check and sit through a half-day presentation -- most of which is an infomercial for a prepaid legal-services plan.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:25AM
I attended a CC class where a blind man got his permit.
They had to direct him to where to point the gun down range, but he did make the score and was awarded.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday August 08 2016, @02:23PM
Extremely easy, as the Daily Show's Jordan Klepper demonstrated [youtube.com]. As he put it, in a matter of a few hours he went from "gun idiot" to "idiot with a gun". As things currently stand, it's much easier to get a concealed carry license than it is to get a driver's license. Which, seeing how many dangerous idiots out there behind the wheel of a car, doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the people going around with legally concealed guns.
Also relevant to this discussion that is brought up in a report: The percentage of mass shootings stopped by an arm civilian at the scene is somewhere around 1%. Sure, that's better than not stopping the bad guys, but it doesn't seem to be the case that arming the good guys really solves the problem. One example I bring up on this is when Gabrielle Giffords was shot, one of the people present was a Marine reservist with a pistol, and he never drew his weapon, he did exactly what the unarmed people did - took cover until the shooter had to reload and jumped him unarmed. There you have somebody who's without a doubt a good guy, with a gun, who knows exactly what to do in a firefight, and his gun didn't make the slightest bit of difference while his training made all kinds of difference.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday August 08 2016, @06:27PM
Google is your friend on this one... [lmgtfy.com]
FAQ 1: What are the requirements for obtaining a Texas License to Carry a Handgun (LTC)? [state.tx.us]
Texas Government Code Chapter 411, Subchapter H sets out the eligibility criteria that must be met. Applicants must be at least 21 years of age (unless active duty military) and must meet Federal qualifications to purchase a handgun. A number of factors may make individuals ineligible to obtain a license, such as: felony convictions, some misdemeanor convictions, including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication; certain pending criminal charges; chemical or alcohol dependency; certain types of psychological diagnoses, and protective or restraining orders. The state eligibility requirements can be found in GC §411.172. The federal firearms disqualifiers can be found in 18 USC 44 §922.
You must also submit a completed application, pay the required fees, complete all required training and submit required supplemental forms and materials.
FAQ 26: What type of class or training is required in order to obtain a Texas License to Carry a Handgun? [state.tx.us]
An original (first-time) LTC applicant must complete classroom training, pass a written examination and pass a proficiency demonstration (shooting). All classroom and proficiency must be conducted by an LTC instructor certified by DPS. The classroom instruction may be a four to six hour course and must cover the four (4) statutory required topics:
* Laws that relate to weapons and the use of deadly force
* Handgun use and safety, including use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns
* Non-violent dispute resolution
* Proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child
Training material related to the safe storage of handguns may be found on Safe Storage.pdf
See LTC Qualification Course Requirements (pdf) for the proficiency demonstration (shooting) requirements.
To locate a DPS-certified LTC instructor, see Instructor List.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @09:54PM
Don't you know? There will always be something bad coming from every decision, to someone. It's just a question of wether the good outweights the bad. I bet you've never fired a gun, so your passive aggressiveness is uncalled for.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:38PM
You would lose that bet, sir. I have. I liked it. What's that sound? Why, another assumption shattering, of course.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:49AM
Dude doesn't understand the definition of passive aggressive either.
You weren't being passive aggressive, you were mocking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @12:09AM
We saw in Dallas that good guys with guns (not Jack Ruby) sometimes get afraid. Sometimes it takes a bomb-carrying robot. As the post I'm replying to illustrates, campus police need this technology too.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 08 2016, @01:32AM
You mock to hide your fear. Hoplophobia is not a healthy condition. Seek professional help.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:50AM
Neither is hoplophilia. You need to seek professional help as well.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 08 2016, @02:03AM
Thankfully, I am not afflicted with any such thing. About the only time I think of guns is when hoplophobes go on one of their gun grabbing tears.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:59AM
We all know you think of guns anytime you see a black person. You instinctively reach for your gun to feel secure knowing you have equal footing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 08 2016, @10:20AM
Yes and I wank off every night using gun oil. You're getting boring now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @12:53PM
However, my guns are shinier and more expensive than yours.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @04:16PM
Do you understand that hoplophobia refers to fear of soldiers? It's derived from "hoplite," the heavily-armed ancient Greek warriors.
You, O Shitey Uzzard, are *not* a soldier. Not even close. You're a delusional, impotent old civilian firearm-fondler with the morals of a horny hyena and half the foresight. And if you think your veneer of bravado makes people respect you, guess again; anyone with the barest bit of insight into minds like yours can see you for the posturing, pathetic loser you are.
Also, DO point me to where in the DSM-V it lists "hoplophobia" as a psychological malady...I'll wait.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 08 2016, @08:31PM
*looks down at one of the ARMY PT shirts he got in boot camp*
No, I'm not. I'm a veteran. Which means you trusted me absolutely with fully automatic weapons, grenades, and even anti-tank weapons at 18 when I was young, foolish, and drank way too much but are deathly afraid of me with semi-automatic weapons at 40 now that I am calmer, wiser, and mostly sober. I don't think you could possibly take a more foolish position if you sat down and tried to think of one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @09:20PM
You're not paying attention to a single goddamn thing I said, are you?
Number one, you WERE a soldier. You are not now. I don't give a fuck that you're a veteran, you are still a civilian. If you think you're still on the battlefield, go back to where you fought (the Middle East during the Gulf War?) and make it so. Sounds like you never adjusted to civilian life...you wouldn't be the first and you're definitely not gonna be the last.
Number two: While you may be more sober and possibly calmer, having seen your post history I cannot truly call you wiser. Something in your development has stalled out, and I suspect it stalled before you even went out to fight that pointless war. You reek of the early-teenage "fuck you I won't do what you tell me" syndrome that so many Randroids suffer from, and unfortunately age has treated you less like wine and more like a felled log.
Number three: I'm not afraid of you. Not the way you hope, anyway. Mostly I pity you; it may be too late for you to learn anything now, and you're a low-level memetic hazard as you are :(
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:30AM
Keep telling yourself that. Eventually it may help with your phobia. You'll be able to tell it's working when you no longer feel the need to have anti-gun laws enforced by men with guns.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:05AM
...you're completely missing the point here, as usual, Uzzard. SOME people with guns scare me; YOU do not, at least not because you're armed. This is about you, and you alone; don't try to use other gun owners as meat shields, if even metaphorically.
And you might try responding to all of your opponents' message rather than cherry picking one tiny part of it. Of course this would require integrity, honesty, self-awareness, and a conscience, so perhaps I ask too much...as you were then.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:30AM
I only respond to the parts that are worth responding to. Or, failing that and as in your case, mildly amuse me to respond to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:58PM
Jesus, you actually think anyone with an IQ above room temperature is going to fall for that? Anyone watching your post history--and mine with yours--can tell what's going on here. You're not even a competent troll. Go back to the Middle East and kill and/or die, will you? It's clear you haven't readjusted to civilian life and probably never will...and that you peaked in 8th grade.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:58PM
You sound angry and bitter. If you get this upset over something on the internet, I can't imagine how you react to things that upset you in the real world. I'd be more worried about you in the real world than buzzard.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:38PM
Odd thing, that...in meatspace I'm usually very calm. Worst that happens is I get bitingly sarcastic. Somehow it all comes out on here.
Also this shouldn't need repeating but:
1) Being angry does not in and of itself make someone wrong
2) If you're NOT angry at the state of the world you're either fucking retarded or actively benefiting from the state of things, and
3) Tone-trolling is for idiots with no actual arguments
tl;dr: Crai sum moar, your tears are delicious and salty. Probably big and buttery too.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:08PM
Fall for what? Me telling you that most of your words aren't worth the bytes used to store them? Hell, everyone already knows this except you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:16PM
You're not even on the same goddamn planet as the rest of us, are you? What a waste of time...I can see you really want to go to hell, so I won't stand in your way. Have fun, Uzzard.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:30AM
I always do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:04AM
Yeah, I know your type...it's all fun and games right up until it isn't. I've seen dozens of people like you crash and burn, and every single one deserved it. Don't worry; I can play the long game :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:17AM
You? You can't even play the short game. I may come off looking like a troll but you come off looking like a screeching harpy. Guess which of those people would rather read posts from.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:51PM
Keep going, Uzzard. Every single thing you say damns you more thoroughly than anything I could ever possibly do. The Streisand Effect is real, and you're dug so deep in it you'll get burned if you touch the sides of that hole.
Understand something: so long as people like you exist and continue to pollute the noosphere with your self-serving, fractally-wrong idiocy,
I
Will
Never
Stop
Ever
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:32PM
Nice. You don't even know what the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] is. That's some quality humor, that is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:37PM
Moron. You're trying to keep things between us here, and I'm calling you out and encouraging others to look at your posts, through other channels too. Herd immunity; the more people see your idiocy and my responses to it, the fewer people you can infect.
Keep digging, dipshit. You're doing most of my work for me.
Remember: There. Is. No. Escape. The only way you can save yourself is to stop being an idiot, and I know your kind; you'd die first, because MUH FREEZE PEACH. All well and good, but free speech doesn't guarantee you the right not to be ridiculed.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:02AM
You're so cute when you're mad. It's fun watching you flail around just flinging shit randomly. Are you really under the impression that any of it will stick? I mean, come on, this level of lameassedness wouldn't even work on Twitter and we have a much more discerning community here. If you want to insult me, do it well or all you'll accomplish is making yourself look like an idiot.
P.S. Did you click the link and inform yourself as to what the Streisand Effect actually is or do you remain ignorant?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:43AM
Here's a little hint (and it's something Mr. Drumpf would do well to learn, too): saying something won't make it true. At this point people have seen enough of you to make their own judgments; most of them, for reasons I cannot comprehend, don't call you on your bullshit. Maybe it's because you're staff, maybe they can't be arsed, I have no bloody idea.
Whatever the case, your past actions and words speak for themselves, and they damn you far more thoroughly than anything I could ever say or do. I, personally, would do well to attack less and spotlight more, as you've done the majority of my work for me just by being who and what you are.
Remember: no escape. Hell welcomes you with open arms...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:46AM
See, you're even politicianing it now. Not even responding to what was said. It's hilarious to see you foam at the mouth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:16PM
Keep flapping your gums, Uzzard. Maybe it's the propranolol speaking here, but I'm actually rather calm about all this. After all, you already did most of my work for me...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:34PM
Did I? You mean to tell me you were trying to look like a fool?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:44PM
That's it, let the hate flow through you...you've forgotten the First Rule of Holes. Keep digging and you'll end up in Hell where you belong.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 12 2016, @01:41AM
Hate? Sweety, you don't even rate minor annoyance. You in fact mildly amuse me with your pathetic attempts at manipulating opinion. Instead of changing anyone's opinion on an issue you've ended up doing the only thing you can do, ad-hom shit flinging with someone who's been egging you on for his own amusement. You are my toy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 12 2016, @05:45AM
At this point I'm not even reading your posts, just responding with "keep yakking, shitheel." You really do not seem to understand the situation here...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 12 2016, @10:36AM
Right, well if you're not reading I'll not bother with crafting witty insults; I'll just tell you about my week. The sales manager for my buddy's company had a bass boat that'd been sitting in his yard for about twenty years that he wanted rid of and it turns out my buddy was short exactly one bass boat. So, now we have this 17' boat with twenty years of fallen leaves and water needing cleaned out. In the middle of August. The work's coming along nicely, even if it is fucking hot as hell, and it's about a day from looking almost new. Soon it'll be time to get a couple batteries for it and find out what work the 115 horse Evinrude on the back needs. Well besides almost certainly needing a water pump. The rubber bits in those dry rot in like a year if you don't use the engine. After that, it's just tag the boat and motor and put it on the lake.
My garden's coming along nicely as well. I finally figured out the right amount of water to give the peppers so they'll be at least a little hot. Water them every day here and they end up as mild as bell peppers. That's greatly disappointing if you're growing jalapenos and chilis, so I've been decreasing the water they get until they've started slowly losing leaves and the peppers are starting to get at least warm enough to notice.
In upcoming news, I'm probably going to go see Suicide Squad this weekend. And also get a good bottle of scotch. I expect to enjoy the scotch more than the movie. Either should be more interesting than your posts though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 12 2016, @04:39PM
I didn't read any of that, sorry. I did see the word "jalapeno" on the way down and those are delicious, but...so what? Keep those fingers dancin' Uzzard...the damage is already done.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 13 2016, @01:50AM
Damage? Everyone already knows exactly what I'm like. And now they know exactly what you're like too.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 13 2016, @05:20AM
I never had anything to hide, Uzzard. You, by contrast, merely *thought* you didn't. I can keep this up as long as you can, and probably longer.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 13 2016, @10:30AM
No, you should simply have lurked because you rarely know your ass from a hole in the ground in any given conversation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:38AM
So, I have a hypothesis: projection, as evidenced by people like you, is a result of something akin to the force of gravity at the event horizon at a black hole. Basically, you've got your head so far up your own ass you've become a walking Klein bottle, and can't seem to see that you're accusing others of precisely your own sins. It must be Hell, trapped in an almost-solipsistic void of a mind like that...Sartre may have been wrong.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:37AM
So, you don't know me.
I don't know you.
But I stumbled across this thread, and honestly? Azuma Hazuki? You are clearly an asshat of the first water. I mean, just wow. And not even the gun thing, you ...
You're like a monument to dickheadedness. It would be beautiful, except for the whole dickhead thing. Now granted, Buzzard could stand to drink less. Or maybe more. Whichever. But you're special.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:50AM
Oh, hi. You'd do well to read our post histories on here rather than judge from one thread, if you're actually curious. And not, now I think of it, some kind of sock puppet. Up to you of course; I could probably care less about what you think, but not much. Have a nice day :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 14 2016, @01:04PM
Told you so.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:56PM
Ok, I did as you suggested.
Buzzard sounds like most veterans: crusty, cranky, with limited tolerance for mealy-mouthed bullshit. Not always congenial, but you know where you stand with him, and what his priorities are. I can handle that.
I checked your post history, and you come across as a one-note nut. Except for this thread; in this thread you look like the crazy just came bubbling to the surface and the condom broke.
If anyone in this thread needs therapy, it's you, not Buzzard.
I certainly know which one I'd rather have a beer with, share a massive plate of ribs with, and maybe go fishing with, and it surely isn't you.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 14 2016, @10:45PM
What in Cthulu's unholy name makes you think I care? I don't drink beer, prefer vegetarian food or chicken, and think fishing is useless and cruel unless you're going to eat what you catch. We're just different personalities; I wouldn't want to spend time with you even if we were neutrally-disposed toward one another. Not to mention all of those things tend to be male-only bonding activities anyway; wouldn't wanna get in the way of your precious sausage-party social rituals, ye gods, no.
Besides which, if the only thing you took away from Uzzard's post history is "oh, he sounds like most veterans, he's just cranky," you're either willfully blind or precisely the same kind of evil he is. I've learned this is something people either understand or don't. You don't seem to, and I won't waste my virtual breath trying to make you. Someone you disagree with is not automatically wrong or crazy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @05:27AM
I don't know that you care. Just trying to point out to you that from an outside perspective, you look crazy (even if you aren't) and Buzzard doesn't (even if he is).
Perhaps you need to work on your communication style? And the point above, since you missed it, had nothing to do with beer, ribs or fishing, nearly so much as congenial companionship rather than being harangued by a one-note scold. Nothing about Buzzard strikes me as evil as opposed to cranky. You, on the other hand, sound genuinely disturbed - and that's the charitable interpretation, because the alternative is that you're lucidly spouting this nonsense. Seriously. Take a chill pill, drink your beverage of choice with the meal of your choice, and perhaps meditate a while. Stop assuming that Buzzard is evil, as opposed to just not in agreement with you. As you yourself point out: "Someone you disagree with is not automatically wrong or crazy."
Let that universal love flow through you.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 15 2016, @04:32PM
It doesn't actually sound like you've gone through his entire post history, then. Understand that we are dealing with someone whose entire political philosophy begins and ends with "Taxation is theft," basically a walking embodiment of the Gadsden Flag, with little or no willingness to analyze beyond the dogmatic bedrock of his positions.
This is the same kind of mind we have millions and millions of here in the 'States, which I liken to a pine barrens forest that hasn't had a burn in a long time. It's a tinderbox of egoism, shortsightedness, resentment, and aggrieved ignorance, just waiting for the right spark...which, in recent history, has been Drumpfasaurus Rex, banging on the same old populist drum Mussolini and Hitler used.
I wouldn't mind if it were just him in isolation; problem is, especially in the modern internet-connected world, he's basically a memetic plague-carrier. Bad ideas are very much like viral contagions, in that they spread quickly and grip their victims hard. The fact that they tend to die rather quickly too due to their virulence does not help, because by the time an epidemic of, say, race-hate or fascism dies out, it could destroy nations. THAT is why I'm both so persistent and so permanently all-guns-blazing when confronting people like him; I'm tired of people pissing in the meme pool, and the results of the same.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @05:24PM
In other words:
You disagree with him. And you really, really, REALLY dislike what he thinks. And you believe that him believing that Bad Stuff (tm) will lead to a situation you dislike.
And you think that there are millions of people who disagree with you in the same way, and that that is bad and evil.
And you think that acting like the kind of nut that gets dismissed as a nut is the best available option? I'm pretty sure you can do better.
But, you know, don't let me stop you. For all I know looking like the net.equivalent of the crazy guy on the street corner shouting about the CIA replacing his brain with a computer is your idea of a good time. Just don't, y'know, expect to persuade lots of people.
Maybe you'd be better off agitating for a repartition of the US of A to keep the bad, evil, crazy, walking Gadsden Flags away from you? Or at least isolated in their own abscess states?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 15 2016, @06:03PM
*siiiiiigh*
The fact that you think pointing out something I've seen happen over and over and over again throughout history, each time with disastrous results, makes me the equivalent of one of Icke's disciples, says a lot more about you than it does me.
This isn't difficult. I hate seeing people repeat history. I understand that the internet is a force multiplier. And I also understand that, unfair as this is, people lend less weight to an idea that gets ridiculed. The egoistic thing to do would be, as you put it, trying to contain these people to their own "abcess states." That's neither realistic nor constructive, though; *everyone* is prone to this sort of hijacking of the R-complex. What are we gonna do, isolate every single person in their own little bubble? No, the cure for bad ideas is better ideas for those as can handle them, and memetic containment for those who can't.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @10:48PM
You still don't get it.
The problem isn't that I think you're wrong.
The problem is that even if you're right, you're being right in a way that makes you look crazy. Even if you're so right that it burns with a fierce vengeance, if you can't persuade everyone, you lose.
And if you're right, when you lose, we all lose.
So find your inner lunatic, strangle that sumbitch and leave the corpse in the ditch, and start making sense.
I mean, really.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:21AM
Tone-trolling is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If any of that sounds crazy, that is down to people refusing to get out of their comfort zones and THINK. It's deliberate, willful ignorance. How can that possibly be fixed? Nothing I say, in any way I say it, will get through to people like that for the simple reason that they don't WISH it to.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @02:35AM
Ok, you know what?
You're right, I'm wrong. You can keep sounding as crazy as you want, and that's going to convince everybody of all the things. Stuff you want to communicate? Crazy it up, my friend, because that will surely work.
Buzzard: you need to work up a book of the Assembled Wisdom of Prophet Azuma. It will be both eye-opening and mind-blowing. Maybe start a tumblr to get some buzz.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 17 2016, @05:23AM
You'd be funnier if you were right about this. I don't see what's crazy about pointing out that the same patterns have repeated over, and over, and over again through human history, always with the same results, and one person in a hundred million is a Siddhartha or a Mo Tzu or a Florence Nightingale who for one brief moment can get people to open their damn eyes and THINK.
I wouldn't compare myself to them, of course; they're better people than me, and their methods reached more people in better ways. I'm working with a much more limited mind and scope of experience, and my only real weapon is snark. But it's got to be better than just standing by and watching this fucking cycle repeat itself on a hundred different scales of size...
Seriously, WHAT is so crazy-sounding?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @04:36PM
You. You are crazy-sounding.
... and that is just a quick selection from this thread.
I don't know what part of any of those was supposed to get anybody to open their eyes to anything other than "This Hazuki-person seems deeply volatile..." but maybe some other posts are more informative about the World According to Hazuki. Let's check, shall we?
... and every time you call Donald Trump "Drumpf", as if you want to do some kind of Ellis Island purity test on the names of everyone in the USA.
Here's a mental exercise: picture someone on a street corner in Flatbush, wearing a sandwich board warning about chemtrails and alien rays, and shouting these things. It seems just about right, doesn't it?
That's what sounds crazy.
Hope this helps.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 17 2016, @06:20PM
Not a single piece of that is crazy. Angry, yes, but not crazy. Or is that the new definition of insane in the (post)modern world? If it is, well, screw it, this world is beyond saving then :/
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17 2016, @10:22PM
Not crazy? I'll take you at your word that it's a limpid pool of purest sanity - with one exception.
It doesn't look sane. Some of it look angry, but it sure as hell doesn't look sane.
Consequently, it's not very persuasive. If someone starts screaming around me about people going to hell and the lessons of history damning all who follow the wrong path based on hatred and how they will never stop and .... yeah, it sounds kind of like some of the truther rhetoric around 9/11 or JFK's assassination or the Bilderberg Group. Most people will assume that the crazy is too strong to illuminate the truth, and move on.
So, how about, in a calm, lucid fashion specifically addressing a problem that you can identify and illustrate, with clear references and proposals?
Or you can keep screaming on your street corner. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I'm all about personal empowerment and self-actualisation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:52PM
Looks like the shrieking, name-calling, poo-flinging harpy gave up despite promising to never, ever, stop. Not surprised. I know their type.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 12 2016, @01:41AM
Not yet but she really, really should.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 08 2016, @11:52PM
No. You are not automatically trusted. We trust you because we have to. Who the fuck are you anyway? AQnswer: like me, a partly anonymous nobody. I don't know you, therefor I don't trust you.
You must be joking. Again, who are you and why should we trust you?
You should really follow your own advice.
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Monday August 08 2016, @02:37AM
You're a walking, talking logical fallacy; nice job.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @04:13PM
Then point the fallacy out, Mr. Ad-hom. And yes, that WAS an ad-hominem (ad-feminam?); you offered no argument, just an insult. At least when I insult people I offer an argument along with it: it's not "you're an idiot," but "you're wrong because X Y and Z, and that means you're an idiot."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday August 08 2016, @06:10AM
S'funy, I live in a country with no concealed carry, or any kind of carry for that matter. It's OK to own guns if you want, but most people don't feel the need. We had a shooting, oh, uh, about fifteen years ago I think. Or twenty. Can't really remember.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 08 2016, @03:31PM
Queue the Darwin Awards nominations.
Its Cue. Jeez.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 08 2016, @03:34PM
Although, I suppose if there will be lots of them... maybe Queue isn't so inappropriate.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 08 2016, @04:08PM
Yes, that was precisely the intended effect. It's a grim piece of wordplay...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 08 2016, @06:20PM
In that case, sadly, well done.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Informative) by Walzmyn on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:08PM
As a graduate of a college in the South, I can tell you firearms are already carried concealed on campus. It's good to be making it legal.
I wish our pansy governor here wouldn't have overturned our law. Not sure about the Texas law, but the Georgia one would have only allowed 21 year olds with CCLs. There's already a plethora of laws 'stopping' people from carrying guns when consuming alcohol or if convicted of a felony so most of the hoop-la about kids on campus carrying drunk is just blather. It's already illegal, it will be after the law, if people do it now or then nothing will be changed.
And the legal history of people who go though the effort of getting a CCL is pretty damn good. Inappropriate use of a firearm is minuscule compare to population as a whole.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:15PM
Most people serious enough to go through the trouble and expense of getting a carry permit aren't going to do something that gets them a felony conviction and forgoes their gun rights forever.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by deadstick on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:41PM
the trouble and expense
My trouble and expense was half a day and fifty bucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:13PM
Why would college students only in the South need guns? Are they threatened by education? Are they insecure and scared to death so that they must have either medication, or a soothing hunk of metal that can spew hot death, if need be? Or are the involved in dangerous and illegal activities, blood feuds, or insurrection? Or it is all of the above? (Since this is a question to Southern College Students, it would have to be a multiple guess question!) Why do not college students elsewhere in the USA and the rest of the world have similar needs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @12:12AM
Fear is a good motivator. Also, wanting to exercise their constitutional rights. Both are kinda silly in the day to day of a college campus, but I'm pretty sure those are why.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Walzmyn on Monday August 08 2016, @10:25AM
Who said anything about only in the South. Texas, from TFA, is in the South. I'm in the South. Never lived up North, don't want to, can't say anything about it. I just know that down here, they are already carrying them.
That's not only personal experience. I heard some Sheriff's being interviewed while our Governor was being a whinny who said they knew kids were carrying them and it wasn't something they were pursuing, because our campuses weren't having a problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:57PM
Are they threatened by education?
Well, you are talking about the South! (*bad-da-bing*, I'm here all week...)
Although I'd have to admit I had some calculus and physics classes were I would have loved to take the book out and fill it full o' lead.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday August 08 2016, @06:37PM
Texas also has 21 as the minimum licensing age. (reference) [state.tx.us]
There's an exception in there for military types; if you're older than 18 and serving in the armed forces you can be licensed to carry in your civilian life. That may end up with a few students who are also members of the Texas National Guard carrying concealed on campus who otherwise wouldn't due to age.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:20PM
What's telling is that private colleges and universities in Texas [dallasnews.com] have almost unanimously opted out of this law. I recall reading that only one private college in the entire state decided to let guns in.
You'd think in the land of Texas -- full of conservative gun-toting god-fearing folk -- that some of those private conservative colleges would feel obligated to go along with the law, if for no other reason than to not appear completely hypocritical. And yet, the vast majority of schools of opted out when given the chance. To me, that says a lot about how unpopular (or at least unnecessary) this idea must seem to many Texans.
(What's also bizarre is that the article I linked above noted the awkward coincidence with the date of the UT tower shooting, and that article was written back in February. It's rather disappointing that the legislature, with that amount of notice, didn't move the date -- if only just to avoid the bad symbolism.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:29PM
What's telling is that private colleges and universities in Texas have almost unanimously opted out of this law. I recall reading that only one private college in the entire state decided to let guns in.
Given that the law was just passed half a year back, it's not significant. Universities have notoriously long decision making times. We'll see in a few years when colleges have had time to think about it, including crafting rules specific to the situation should they opt in. I expect most such schools will still have opted out, due to academic culture, but not due to the general Texas culture.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:40PM
The point is that private schools have the option to opt out, but Texas State institutions do not, per the legislation, have this open to them. The inference is that public schools would also choose to disallow firearms, if they could.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:49AM
Considering that some professors at the University of Texas at Austin are suing in an attempt to overturn the rules, this is a safe assumption. Given the liberal/Democratic bent of academics, though, I'm not sure it actually means anything in particular.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday August 08 2016, @01:57AM
Given the liberal/Democratic bent of academics, though, I'm not sure it actually means anything in particular.
It means what it always means: the most highly educated in American society for some inexplicable reason tend to be liberal and vote Democratic. Maybe you had a gun you could figure out what it means!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:24AM
OK, let's unpack this a bit.
"the most highly educated in American society"
Measured how? The usual answer I've seen is based on advanced degrees held, then baccalaureate, then some college, then no college. Does that constitute all forms of education? No. Does that constitute the broadest available education? No, although it may correlate with broad education. Does it guarantee a broad education? Certainly not; I have known many a professor who was a total expert on some intensely narrow aspect of their chosen field, but floundered like a puppy in a pool when presented with questions on fairly closely related issues. The people who run those polls go for something that is easy to measure, not reflective of the breadth and depth of someone's exposure to divergent information in diverse fields. Of course, there are a few people who have a broader view - for example, I know one professor who has an international reputation partly because of his interdisciplinary work, and his movement across specialised fields - but sadly for you his political leanings are rather on the knuckle-dragging end.
"be liberal and vote Democratic"
Those two are most certainly not the same, and as of the last couple of decades don't even relate well to each other. Democrats tend to be progressive, and see solutions in terms of the rallying cries of their late victorian progressive forebears. They look for top-down imposed structures based on the one-size-fits-all theories of social organisation that emerged based on early successes; and make no mistake there were early successes, but those successes in questions such as public sanitation don't necessarily guarantee that enforced uniformity on other questions is a particularly strong approach. For example, the idea that one can have a single national formulary to meet national medical needs has run aground on the biological reality of varied populations with varied needs. Another example is that of trying to impose uniform educational standards, where those demonstrably don't serve the top or bottom of the bell curve well, and mostly don't serve the middle all that well either.
It gets yet more sticky when you examine the magic word "liberal" more closely. Democrats are certainly not, as of recent years, liberal. Their approaches to things have been prescriptive, restrictive, and frequently counter to the idea of individual liberty. You don't even have to be a doctrinaire, Ayn Rand reading Cato Institute fellow to conclude that their approach to things like mom-and-pop cake shops baking cakes for gay weddings is radically opposed to freedom of conscience and/or religion. (For the record, I'm not religious, I think Ayn Rand's writings were as dull as ditchwater, and she needed to study economics.) In fact, it's so restrictive as to be bad public policy. If you basically determine that the right answer to people objecting to gay marriage is to offer them the choice of living by their consciences (however benighted) or not participating in the economic life of the country, you're setting up a classic opportunity for the creation of shadow economies, black markets and similar ills. Progressive, yes. Liberal? Not even slightly.
"for some inexplicable reason tend to be"
It's not inexplicable at all. I have had the pleasure of living with a (recent) college student (who graduated successfully) and saw what was going on. The reports clearly tended to a picture where people in the community are browbeat, shamed, harangued and pestered (with official connivance, if not outright support) into supporting the dominant narrative, which is that left is smart, right is stupid, compassion trumps pragmatism and anything that you can't learn in a college textbook is simply the superstition of hidebound racist rednecks and the hapless victims they have bullied or abused into supporting them. There is an active joiner cult style of recruitment for progressive causes, and virtue signalling is done in terms of how victimised one is, how much one sacrifices for some progressive cause (getting arrested is small potatoes, these days) and how outspoken one is in the service of some notably progressive cause.
Given an environment like that it would be actively amazing if universities weren't a fairly successful recruiting ground - and they are. I've had students in my house pronouncing crystal clear counterfactual statements from their professors as if they were holy writ, and with similarly scandalised expressions of horror when I call them into question or bring up contrary evidence. I've had them announcing ideological statements as plain fact, and come unglued when I propose alternative explanations. Seriously, tear-filled weeping sadness.
Now bearing all this in mind, we have to ask ourselves how things look elsewhere in the educational scale. It turns out that the democrats also have a strong majority in the least educated in the country. Why? Basically, that's where their client populations are. The union members who identify with the democrats, and the underclasses that depend upon government largesse. It's the middle that tends to side with the republicans - and the wealthy. Again, I'm not a republican supporter, but I asked one fellow who was a visible minority and a vocal republican why he was, and his answer was revealing:
"The democrats want me to stay poor. The republicans want me to be rich. I want to be rich."
Regardless of whether or not you agree with his sentiment, it's an incisive response to an entrenched patronage system run by the democrats as a political group, and given ideological air cover by people they're keeping as a client group. It turns out that being the party in favour of handing out lots of government money to identifiable groups is a potent electoral strategy. Again, please observe that this in no way implies a general policy of liberalism, and in fact the democrats tend only to be liberal in any identifiable way by accident. Even the ACLU has a very spotty record in terms of picking and choosing liberties to support, rather than toeing the conventional line.
But maybe it's all coincidence, and the most highly educated are very liberal, and vote democratic, and those two facts are not supposed to be connected? If that were the case, wouldn't they be doing their best to wave the flag for explicitly liberal causes as a matter of priority? Well, no, they're not. They're usually talking about things like dictatorial schemes to run the country the way they like, and by the way, levy more taxes to afford more grants. Occasionally they stake out some liberal ground, but it's hardly a pattern.
Let's face it, liberalism as a position in itself is basically dead in the USA, in academia. The libertarians will have a lot of very heavy lifting to do to get that kind of bully pulpit in their favour.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Monday August 08 2016, @06:32AM
So, GED instead of a real highschool diploma? Yes, it shows.
Let's face it, liberalism as a position in itself is basically dead in the USA, in academia.
As an ancient Greek, and a philosopher, the anti-intellectualism of Americans has always surprised me. Yes, we should discount the claims of the upper classes to greater knowledge, since obviously they do not have it, and the Donald is the most recent example of the correct response to the "If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?" question. So it should be the case that Americans, having repudiated a class-based system of higher education and instead having gone with a meritocracy, should at least respect the opinions of those who have risen through said meritocratic system. Not the fact that most of these are liberal should also not be a cause for surprise. John Stuart Mill once said, "While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that all stupid people are conservative." We add to this that William F. Buckley is dead, George Will has left the Republican party, and all the right wing in America has left is Paul Ryan and Bikers for Trump, it looks really bad for the less educated. Oh, did I mention Donald Trump?
Now you may think that academia is a conspiracy to exclude conservative thought, and of course that is your right. But I submit to you, and all persons capable of rational thought, could it not be that conservatives are excluded precisely because they are not all that great on the "thought" issue? I have known several academics who identified as "conservative". This was mostly after the Bush disaster, when they could no longer identify as Republican without major embarrassment. But the consensus of the colleagues was that they were stupid, not that they held politically incorrect positions. I can see how, if you are not too bright, that these can seem like the same thing. But bear with me, since the right to bear on is right there in the Constitution.
The one thing that Universities teach is freedom. In fact, that is the entirety of the curriculum! So if you find anyone not able to think for their self, someone mimicking the pronouncements of some idiot on Right-Wing Douchebag Limberger Radio, they by definition have not achieved the ability to think for their selves. They actually call themselves "Dittoheads". So much for that. No if you find that those with some education lose patience with the idiots who also have a vote in America, and think that we really need to round up all these Mormon Sovereign Citizen Militia High-Colonic types into special re-education, or really, remedial education, you should not be surprised.
But the point still stands. The most education. How are you going to measure it otherwise? The ones with the most Pokemon? The ones with the most Green Stamps? (That's dollars, to you Yanks.) Or the ones who can recite, from memory, from all the works of Ayn Rand, especially the sex scenes, and , and, and.
Yeah, fucking losers. We in academia see your type every single day. But after the first semester, not so much. So go an vote for your grandson of a Gold-rush brothel manager, and see how well that services you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @05:02PM
I'm probably feeding a troll here, but what the hell, trolls need love too.
In terms of social class, the academic world (at least at the senior professor level) is generally regarded as being upper class as well. If you're only speaking of upper income class, the point is obvious but it doesn't particularly suggest that lower economic classes are smart either, or we'd be recruiting policy advisors from the alleyways of Detroit. Similarly, there isn't enough evidence to equate wealth with stupidity.
If the meritocratic system you suggest were truly meritocratic in any broad sense, that might have been true. There is a huge range of problems with this. First, we can consider that the typical Ph.D. has a soda straw narrowness of expertise; an expert in the reproductive cycle of yeast might be completely hopeless when asked about public health, let alone tax policy, international negotiations, energy policy, infrastructural design or any one of a number of concerns that come up on a daily basis in the business of government.
Another big problem is that the ability to get a Ph.D. has a lot more to do (in this day and age) with persistence than intelligence. Oh, to be sure, you need to have some intelligence to be able to construct new poetry in Ancient Greek, but that neither directly implies general intelligence, nor suggests that someone who devotes themselves to one tiny field might be capable of succeeding at many others.
A further problem is the observation that a lot of people in academia appear to have developed advanced skills at navigating the publish-or-perish waters, and demonstrated skills at writing grant applications, but their ability to communicate with a class of (presumably intelligent) undergraduates, let alone the general public, is obviously lamentable. The quality of typical academic writing is also hideously opaque; why should people at large respect a group that may be frightfully intelligent but hopelessly inarticulate?
Yet another problem is that whereas we might wish for, or expect, a strictly meritocratic academic social structure to be utterly open-minded and uncompromising in its defence of open-mindedness, the opposite is manifestly the case. Why should people in general trust the even-handedness of a group that is obviously not?
If you're trying to suggest that academia merits the respect of the population at large simply because its members did a lot of studying, that's about as sensible a position as suggesting that Donald Trump should be respected because of all the money he made - arguably less, since there's no requirement for the studying to have produced anything of any practical worth, whereas Trump can hardly make money in a complete vacuum (recognising here that his acumen has been called into question anyway).
It's not at all clear that Trump is a conservative, any more than it is that the republican party is the only institutional guardian of conservatism, or that conservatism is the only (or even defining) position of right wing adherence in the USA. Given the calls for substantial changes coming from the republican electorate, and the stay-the-course institutionalism coming from the democrats, one could make a strong case that the republicans are the more radical of the major parties, and the democrats the more conservative. Given, on a longer scale, the history of the democratic party as opposed to the republicans, and this should not come as much of a surprise.
If one wants a vote for business-as-usual right now, that vote is certainly for Hillary. Trump's biggest problem in that sense is that people who want to vote for radical changes have quite a few choices other than him; but he's not the institutional candidate. The republican establishment are running from his as quickly as they can without spilling their martinis.
I don't think there's a conspiracy. It's more like tribal marking. Dismissing those who hold contrary positions as stupid is common enough, but usually it comes down to a question of personal values, and the financial structure behind academia strongly promotes a pro-government stance while the regulatory structure promotes a pro-authority stance. It is interesting that the pockets of less progressive thought in academia are generally in those fields where experts are more capable of getting lucrative jobs in their own right; engineering, financial fields and computer science spring to mind. It certainly fits the pattern that they are less beholden to government and its largesse.
In my (many years of) experience, universities do not teach freedom. They don't teach freedom of thought, and in fact they often discourage it. Making a strong case against a professor's preconceptions, even as a devil's advocate, can result in a failed course regardless of how right one is proven by subsequent events. (Real life example: arguing for multicore/internally parallel structures for performance as Moore's law runs out of steam and the speed of light becomes a major restriction in single execution stream architectures.) So no, advocacy for intolerance doesn't surprise me in the least. I will say that it disappoints me, but given that we already know that academia does not really constitute a meritocracy except as a degenerate case, it can hardly come as a surprise.
That's the pollster's conundrum. But you could insert other questions, intended to determine correlations, or do deeper analyses of a small subset of your polling population. Or you could do an in-depth analysis of academics to find out how broad their education really is, and compare and contrast that with academically trained professionals such as engineers and lawyers, and then with people whose fields of work suggest some academic as well as other sources of training such as composers, horticulturalists and nurses, and then with tradespeople of varying degrees of attainment, and then with businesspeople of varying degrees of attainment, and so on and so forth. If you really care to find the answers, they are out there.
I'm not quite sure how you got here, or how you determined that I might be a supporter of Donald Trump. I'm not - I don't care for him at all. Both major party candidates are about as appealing as rotten meat to me. Since I live in a safe state, any presidential vote I might cast would be supremely irrelevant anyway. Still, given your clear partisan hostility, don't you suppose it's possible that you are contributing to a reduced level of institutional education on the part of those you despise, and thus contributing to the (supposed) problem you deplore? It looks, from where I stand, rather self-defeating, unless your goal is to exclude them in an attempt to retain some kind of tribal position of superiority? This hardly seems to be a beneficial approach, as far as broader society is concerned.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 08 2016, @10:58PM
Feeding? Are you attempting to make troll foie gras? Such verbosity in response to a simple point can only mean one thing!
In my (many years of) experience, universities do not teach freedom. They don't teach freedom of thought, and in fact they often discourage it. Making a strong case against a professor's preconceptions, even as a devil's advocate, can result in a failed course regardless of how right one is proven by subsequent events. (Real life example:
I will not question your experience. But a major part of your experience is your interpretation of the experience. Most "conservatives" tend to think they fail university courses just because they failed to regurgitate the professor's opinion, because they were independent enough to buck the "echo chamber" of the ivory tower. This is not the case. There may be teachers like this, but usually the student fails because they do not understand the material. And not just not understand, but they do not understand even enough to comprehend that they do not understand, which makes scholarship seems to be mere opinion, rather than something objective. You cannot teach freedom of thought to those who fail at the level of thinking at all.
So why should we take your opinion on weapons on campus, when you so egregiously misunderstand what higher education is at all?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:31AM
So let me get this straight: if you echo back what you're given well enough to get an A on the test, you're being taught freedom of thought, whether or not you agree with it, or think about it at all beyond the effects on your GPA. If you challenge the professors and make them actually make their case rather than merely state it, then you're - what, disruptive? And if you use their own arguments to construct a path to a different conclusion, that they don't like but for which they have no counterargument save appeal to authority (their own) then learning freedom didn't work on you because you're too stupid. Am I more or less on the right track here?
I'm not a conservative, for what it's worth (on the conservative-radical axis I'm fairly middle-of-the-road), and I won't pretend to speak for them, but I find it deeply instructive that you aren't even addressing the question of how one could tell, even theoretically, that one's authority figures are wrong - and dogmatically so. And yet apparently that's the position that some (presumably conservative-minded) students find themselves in? What if (and I know this sounds insane) they're not all wrong all the time?
As for what higher education is, at this point the available evidence strongly suggests that it is a credentialling system, rather than anything involving education. In point of fact that I work in education. It is what puts food on my table, and I have a personal, day-to-day involvement with questions such as how to address different levels in Bloom's Taxonomy (yes, I know, it's not really a taxonomy, that's just what it's called) and I am deeply aware of the problems involved in fostering higher order comprehension of difficult points. I even spend quite a lot of time in front of classes of very dedicated people, helping them understand really tough stuff.
So, in summary, I'm not even right wing, I'm not a frustrated exile from the ivory tower, I'm not ignorant of the complexities of education, I have direct recent exposure to the situation of undergraduate students, and it's crystal clear to me that what is being delivered in the USA, under the heading of a university education, is really a sort of extended high school with a strongly preferred progressive slant. Given the nature of the incentives, it's hardly a surprise that this slant exists, or that it's deliberately fostered by the favoured party of the orthodox left.
I haven't (so far) taken up the question of weapons on campus, I merely took up the question of the link between educational level (inasmuch as it can be determined) and political leaning, because not only is the unspoken assumption that a (relatively) left wing stance is the probable outcome of education, as opposed to exposure to a dogmatic environment, not well supported by the evidence, but there's a solid case to be made that the bias has other foundations. Several of your utterances on the question (such as that universities teach freedom) are similarly ill supported by the available evidence, where not actually contradicted.
What is yet worse is that many academics, supposedly deeply educated people (but in reality often deep but narrow in their learning) feel somehow supported in their inclination to make political and economic proclamations far outside their field of expertise. Frequently the same people who publically heap scorn on physicists or mathematicians for voicing opinions on the topic of climate change are only too happy to express their views on the balance of payments, or international trade relations, or the meaning of supreme court judgements despite having no real background in any of those fields and getting many of the key concepts wrong - and worse yet, they demand to be taken seriously because of their years and years in academia, regardless of relevance.
This is a syndrome. It's a combination of arrogance, willful blindness, dogmatic fostering of a creed, all topped off with political patronage. The fact that right wing professors tell me of being hounded out, marginalised or given consistently cruddy duties, until they move into the private sector, is simply further evidence of the orthodoxy at work - since they made it all the way through postgrad and postdoc and all the other hoops you can hardly call them brain-damaged jetsam in the academic path. They made it through the engine that's supposed to teach them freedom - and somehow arrived at different conclusions. Is the filter not working, or is it indeed possible to come through and somehow think differently about the state of the world?
You can of course sneer at ineducable undergraduates. There's no shortage of those, even with our deliberately relaxed standards, but by the time someone has made it through the mill (and I've seen how undergraduates who have the temerity to disagree get treated - or rather maltreated) you can be pretty sure that they at least have higher order thinking up to, at a minimum, the rudiments of analysis down. The examinations usually test at least that much. Synthesis and evaluation generally are not requirements for an undergraduate degree (which is rather disgusting, when you come to think of it). What is your explanation for them? Just an anomaly in the process? Or they could fake it until they made it?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:52AM
So, in summary, I'm not even right wing, I'm not a frustrated exile from the ivory tower, I'm not ignorant of the complexities of education, I have direct recent exposure to the situation of undergraduate students, and it's crystal clear to me that what is being delivered in the USA, under the heading of a university education, is really a sort of extended high school with a strongly preferred progressive slant. Given the nature of the incentives, it's hardly a surprise that this slant exists, or that it's deliberately fostered by the favoured party of the orthodox left.
Ah, young paduwan! Who is the troll now?
Yes, all of my assertions are unfounded, groundless, without any reliable statisitcs to back them up. But none of that matters, since you clearly are incapable of understanding any evidence I could provide. So I say again: is it not amazing, in fact profoundly counter-intuitive, that the most highly educated, knowledgeable, and wise persons in American society are predominately liberal and Democrat? Wow! How can this be? Of course it must be, since the conservatives of which you do not claim to be one are constantly complaining about how they are being oppressed. Maybe they are just bonehead stupid, the ones you mentioned before that get a PhD out of pure stubbornness.
I will give you a bit more leash, since you do seem to be a persistant troll.
So let me get this straight: if you echo back what you're given well enough to get an A on the test, you're being taught freedom of thought, whether or not you agree with it, or think about it at all beyond the effects on your GPA.
if you are echoing, you have not understood. Education is not about information, a common mistake of Information Technology types.
If you challenge the professors and make them actually make their case rather than merely state it, then you're - what, disruptive?
You are doing it right now. When a student does not understand the point of the lesson enough to comment intelligently in a way that helps further the understanding of the entire class, yes, it is being disruptive.
And if you use their own arguments to construct a path to a different conclusion, that they don't like but for which they have no counterargument save appeal to authority (their own) then learning freedom didn't work on you because you're too stupid. Am I more or less on the right track here?
I am detecting the beginnings of comprehension. I suggest you work on it. If you think your Professor rejects your argument only because they "don't like it", you have very much to learn, especially in regards to respect for your teachers. I suggest you get a job in IT support, and take up a nice hobby, like fishing, or "rolling coal".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:35AM
Just from curiosity, why the respect for the teacher is a prerequisite for education?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:13AM
Oh, c0lo, you tread on dangerous ground! You call me "magister", and yet you ask this question? If a student does not respect a teacher, the teacher has no ground upon which to teach. If I say "this is the way", and you think that I am an imposter, a fraud, a Republican, why would you follow? So indeed, a student with no respect for his teacher is no student. This is why our AC fails. It is why all conservatives fail. A failure of respect for that which they do not understand. That is why they are conservative, they stick with what they think they understand, and respect it because of that, not realizing that what they do not understand is much more deserving of respect. This is why we are called φιλόσοφοι, lovers of wisdom, who, because they love, do not claim to possess.
This is what those not suited to higher education cannot understand. They think that knowledge is what those with the power to punish believe. And they believe that teachers punish. But this is not the case. Knowledge is what a free person understands for their own self, and they stand in an attitude of respect to those who have helped them on the way. I thank my teachers, I respect them, even the ones who were wrong! Why? Because they helped me to understand on my own. It was not what they taught, it was how. Secure this deep in you bosom, in your heart. Never forget. If you cannot respect your teacher, it is because you never learned. And whose fault was that?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:39AM
Of course. Like always.
It is raising questions that keeps one alive and getting answers that kills one mind. Thus, by asking you, I'm put myself in front of you in my most precarious position - give me answers which don't raise any further questions and you kill a bit of me.**
If all you give to your students are answers, then you are not a teacher, you are a trainer ("tamer" if you ask for respect of authority in return for your training) or a mystical guru. You don't build your students, you just shape them in your mold.
Indeed, if you do so, you are no better than that false prophet named BF Skinner and his "operand conditioning" preachings.
I won't follow because the authority of the professor, no - at most, I'll choose based on her/his authority on a probabilistic type of reasoning (better chances that s/he'll know what I want to understand).
I'll continue to follow based on quality of the arguments that s/he put on the table and how well I'm understanding them.
'cause there is a thing called "zone of proximal development" [wikipedia.org] - if the professor cannot adjust his teaching to the level of my understanding, then it's useless as a teacher for me.
I might respect her/him as a person, but at the same level of respect as anyone else. Mind you, I might respect more the janitor that brings the toilet I'm using in a squeaky-clean state - I'll be having more benefit from his work than from a brilliant mind which doesn't want to lower itself to a level which intersects my zone of proximal development.
Of course, if I'm really after that knowledge, I'll search other teachers and do my part of work to extend my ZPD.
One on top of the other, IMHO, respect and learning/education are orthogonal.
I see you got your answer.
How well does it serve to keep alive your understanding of them?
Are you still willing to engage a discussion with them and learn what they may be knowing better (or believing deeper) than you?
You know what? Me to.
Except that I'll put this extra bit: they get my respect after they taught me.
But of course!
(and, magister, uttering truisms is not teaching. D'you care to go one step more and tell what exactly respect for a teacher mean? Like... I don't know, an example... how does it manifests in your case?)
Huh! Fault you say? Strange choice of a word - it's like you are assigning a blame for failure to learn.
(look mate, take it like that: we may do business together - teach/learn - and again we may do not. What's the problem, isn't the world large enough?)
The cause of failure to learn will rest with both sides, as I argued above.
Note: me not respecting a teacher doesn't automatically mean I disrespect her/him - there a lot of people in this world that contribute to my life, most of them I don't and will never know. They get my gratitude for their contribution, but it doesn't mean they get my respect or that I disrespect them.
---
** don't worry. Fortunately, your answers bear a lot of subtle flaws for me to uncover.
This makes your posts on SN quite attractive to me, in addition to your talent with words (my hat off in front of you for that).
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:07AM
Ah, first the responder becomes the troll, and now the student become the teacher?
And all this brought about by Texas allowing guns on campus! Who would have thought?
But, c0lo, point well taken. I have a hard time trying to get through to some here on SoylentNews. As for failure, indeed it could be mine. But then, teachers have to be solicited. And I mean real teachers. Someone may have knowledge you want, and you may enter into a transaction to get that in exchange for a gift of dried meat (Analects, 7:7), but it is only by making the way yourself that wisdom is won. Yes, more truisms, but Confucius, not mine.
Teachers are vulnerable. They wait upon good students. But they cannot coerce them. Even in an institutional situation of power, a teacher cannot force, she is at the mercy of students. But the students have to want to learn, to solicit the teacher, and indeed they take a risk in doing so, for truly a student does not appreciate a teacher until after they have learned, and often then it is too late for thanks, and respect is not enough. But enough about my experience.
Confucius is a model here. He was the first teacher of China, no small thing. But he had the tragedy of seeing his best student, Yan Hui, die before he could become a teacher as well. So to all those who think that they have wasted their time with teachers who they could not learn from, I say you have no idea what it is like to have a student who did learn, and then is lost. But again, enough about me.
Thanks, c0lo, you make SN worthwhile to me as well. Ἐπαινῶ
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:06PM
Life's wonderfully surprising, isn't it?
True. The teacher also bear responsibilities in the game. She must dance this minuet by the rules...
One of the rules: don't lift the entire curtain (Analects, 7:8) over the coffer holding your truths... Some/many of your truths may be valuable antiques. Others may well be, in their nature, chamber pots used by Louise-is-good-to-be-the-king-XV after getting to know - again and again - Madame de Pompadour; as unique and decorated it may be, it's still a piss pot, fer God sake.
And it's inevitable that you'll get some** of these no matter how hard you tried to avoid them in your own journey.
To put it in another way: the greatest teachers are the ones who make their students want to ask relevant questions.
Knowledge and skills delivered/acquired in the process are secondary (and perhaps perishable), they are just means to reach the goal - a mind capable of looking the reality in its face and asking pertinent questions.
Far from my intention of acting as a teacher.
Take it as a view from outside of you (my view, as such it may be wrong, most probably is) : both AH and you have from time to time... mmmm... let's call them "temperamental reactions".
The kind of those originated in hypothalamus, mediated by hormones, dressed by the cortex in some words of irreproachable taste, but still an instinctive reflex and devoid of any rational/critical substance; in your case, it mostly happens in reaction to what you, the usians, call "conservatives".
Ok, so, what we had here... in one corner, a "conservative" AC pours his poor soul over pages (must have been an effort to do it, perhaps s/he felt is important enough to make the point) and raises a question. Perhaps not the most relevant, highly probable not even framing the real problem in correct terms (there is a real problem***)
In the other corner, we have our Greek philosopher on-duty... who does what? Weelll, he takes the answer of "Forget maieutics, enough with those stupid questions, read my lips while I'll be reciting from John Stuart Mill and Stephen Colbert". Then he uses this answer as a club and hits the AC guy... repeatedly... for the sin of asking a question.
Thanks (wow, surprising. It feels it really meant a lot to me).
----
** One example of "unique, well decorated but still a piss-pot" idea - that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Reality doesn't give a f..k about what the liberals or conservatives think they understood about the world.
Of course some models of reality are in a better agreement with the reality, but pretending one is sooo muuuch better than the other is like saying the Voyager space probes are sooo muuuch closer to the galaxy centre than the Earth.
*** a real problem in tertiary education
- "you don't get a job without a degree, so go get a degree" is a poor motivation towards learning for the student. S/he's not there to learn, s/he's there to get a fucking piece of paper which seems to matter to a clueless recruitment agent
- as the demand for graduation papers (thick enough to be useless even for wiping one's ass) climbs, of course the modern Confuciuses (read the title of the current thread) don't accept just dried meat anymore. What's worse than that: those Confuciuses start confusing education with graduation, because... you see... "if you question our academic authority, you are wasting our time. Look, young padwan, we don't have time to deal with your anxieties, there are lotsa sheeple out-there willing to pay their silver for that paper and the silver of others are as good as yours. Believe us and respect us. Our way or the highway... you have the freedom to choose".
Call this a "reality with a liberal bias" if you dare.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:51PM
In the other corner, we have our Greek philosopher on-duty... who does what? Weelll, he takes the answer of "Forget maieutics, enough with those stupid questions, read my lips while I'll be reciting from John Stuart Mill and Stephen Colbert". Then he uses this answer as a club and hits the AC guy... repeatedly... for the sin of asking a question.
So, too harsh? I do not recall the AC asking a question. And you far underestimate the danger of the anti-intellectualism manifesting in the US of America! Remember, this thread is about allowing firearms to carried on campus.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:37PM
(is this the day the magister started to ask questions? Given what follows, it may be a rhetorical one, but it is a question anyway and I always treat questions with respect)
Harsh? Yes, it was.
Too harsh? What do you think it happens (today) if you club him with your answers and he clubs you with his answers and there's no a trace of intent to find any alternative explanation for what happens in reality?
Are you so sure about your thinking as being infallible, so that you have the ultimate undeniable answers? Aren't there any bits of truth in what the other party says? Maybe they are misguided and their questions (or questionings) are deeply flawed, but what makes them raising their point? How come they got (yesterday) to raise this point?
If the answer is so ultimately human and inscrutable, why does it happen in some places (America) and it does not in others (say, Finland. Or Switzerland. Or Iceland)?
Where this answer-clubbing leads to? Assuming the answers of one party (your party) win, then what happens (tomorrow)?
Are those answers going to hold water forever? If not, will the winning party be able to shed them aside and come with others or will they transform in the "new conservatives" and defend them to death?
Let me assist [soylentnews.org] you [soylentnews.org]:
and respectively
The way I see his point (however malformed): can education be measured? Is there a single best way in which education can happen and we are already doing it? (if so, how come I still have questions? Where is my freedom to raise them?)
Could Skinner have been right, education is just about reflex training, stick and carrot, thinking doesn't/mustn't happen because it cannot be measured and what cannot be measured doesn't exist?
And what was/is the error of intellectuals that caused (or allowed) the others to attack them? Are the intellectuals blameless?
How come it happens in America and doesn't in other places?
Ah, magister, but of course... one mustn't go outside the bounds of a given context, otherwise anything that s/he says becomes irrelevant and can be ignored.
After all, S/N is not a site on which we come to waste our time in learning what happens around the world; we must stay relevant in the context of the posted news and show some kind of results.
My apologies for daring to do something different.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:09AM
This is the question?
The way I see his point (however malformed): can education be measured? Is there a single best way in which education can happen and we are already doing it?
That is not a question, it is a trap. He is asking to measure what he does not understand. This never ends well, but is currently what all the cool kids are doing. Accountability, because "I am not being taught what I want." Spoiled children.
And what was/is the error of intellectuals that caused (or allowed) the others to attack them? Are the intellectuals blameless?
How come it happens in America and doesn't in other places?
Ah, but it does! You have heard of Turkey? Germany? Spain? Italy? Don't make me half-Godwin again, I think I hurt my back the last time.
Are you so sure about your thinking as being infallible, so that you have the ultimate undeniable answers? Aren't there any bits of truth in what the other party says?
Infallible? Me? You have the wrong philosopher! But yes, the other party is disingenuous, so the truth is laden with poison. Best to just hit it over the head so it can feel justified. Next time you hear someone saying something like "I learned nothing in collage, it was a waste of time" (the mispelling is a dead give-away), or "My professor failed me just because I would not toe the party line", please hit them over the head for me, OK? And if it is in a place that authorizes weapons, against the better judgment of the faculty, well, better safe than sorry.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:40AM
Yes, it's a trap. Not for the reasons you mention, though.
And high chances you are already inside that trap together with the poor unhappy conservative troll (which may feel genuinely unhappy about the educational system failing him; and he'd be partially right).
Did I say "happens only in America"? If so, I'm in error.
What's so special about Switzerland/Iceland/Finland that it doesn't happen there?
Good to see you are able to notice the poison.
Not so good seeing you unable to get the poison aside and see the tiny fragment of truth which perhaps is valid (and maybe, just maybe, could hold the clue for the education system's mistakes towards them).
I promise I will not do as you asked me to, my apologies for that (see Analects 7:8 why).
What I can promise is that I'll say: "Really? Are you sure?... I can't believe it, maybe we'll chat about it one of these days, but now I'm busy. Sorry, gotta go". Because, you see, I'm only a software developer, what do I know about teaching and education?
(unless that person is dear to me, in which case I can promise I'll use a keisaku. Vigorously if necessary)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @03:56PM
Not accurate. That is a subsidiary point to the central question of that part, which is related to the implications of the observation that (supposedly) better educated people (by a measure of questionable value, with little bearing on education in the policy-relevant disciplines) tend to (at a roughly 2:1 ratio) align themselves with the democrats, and whether or not there might not be alternative explanations to the implied analysis that it's smart to agree with the democrats about the issues of the day, such as that a prevailing dogma has found fruitful recruiting grounds and that the people in those grounds don't know enough about the broader scheme of things to pick the dogma apart (which is consistent with the credentialing as measurement, deep but narrow educational attainment, client politics shaped environmental factors).
Again: not conservative. Pretty neutral on conservatism vs radicalism. Not reactionary either. In fact, pretty cool with much of the current democratic platform. Actually, I usually think they don't take it far enough.
If a teacher can not or will not establish a foundation for the purported truths they intend to communicate, or can not or will not analyse and correct counter-arguments, or can not or will not accept supported contrary ideas, that is not a teacher but a vessel of dogma. In a drill sergeant, this is generally satisfactory. At a tertiary level of academic study, where analysis, synthesis and evaluation are (supposed to be) the whole point of the course of study, these are fatal flaws. An erring student can of course be held to the same standard with respect to ideas held in error, but "That is not what my book told you." is not a competent response to "Reality doesn't work this way." This goes double in STEM fields where objective analysis is actually feasible.
I can't speak for others, but I attended universities for well-nigh a decade, and learned a lot. It was highly revealing that I learned more, in more detail and with greater breadth, outside the classroom (often in the library) than was ever taught in it. However, I often saw (rarely in my case, because I learned my lesson that parroting what I was told offered greater returns than actually pointing out the errors of professors) students getting failed, shouted down, mocked and driven out for pointing out professorial errors, inadequacies or simply raising questions that the professors did not feel like answering. Given that I ended up tutoring no few of these people (hence my own segue into education) I can warrant that many of them were highly intelligent and frustrated and that the needs of academia and society at large were ill-served by this regular exercise of academic ego. The case was in fact worse in the humanities where you'd find an A student, passing with flying colours, receiving consistently crummy marks from one professor, and that one professor only, with a history of animus between them. I wish I could say this were rare, but in actual fact what I saw amounted to a long lesson in learning not to challenge, but neither to respect petty tyrants.
Mercifully, not all professors were like this. I remember kindly one professor, busy with a full class schedule but also with an international reputation in his field, who was a shining example. He had the confidence in his material to answer objections keenly, the humility to accept when an alternative idea was coherent and consistent with available evidence even when the textbooks did not agree, and the generosity with his time and skills to assist students in their pursuit of knowledge. Would that they were all like that. To this day I regret that circumstances did not enable me to enter postgraduate studies under his guidance, rather than elsewhere.
But let's return to the specific point of a correlation between advanced education and support for the democratic party: As I earlier observed, there's also a correlation between impoverished education and support for the democratic party, whereas median education levels tend to correlate with support for the republican party. Moreover, the level of support among the highly educated for democrats is greatly reduced when you look at those fields where academics are not financially beholden to the state, and as a client body, to the largesse of the democrats. These observations are consistent with the hypothesis that you have a self-propagating client group, fostered by the democrats as a tool giving them ideological legitimacy, especially in the light of the observation that most of the client group's members are not educated in fields that would enable them to evaluate the public policy implications of supporting one party over another. Even if we accept as a foundation for the argument that advanced credentials are clear and sufficient evidence of both advanced intelligence and broad education (in actual fact very dubious positions) are we to assume that the third of professors who do not support the democrats are all wrong? Or are they right on weekends, while the majority are right during the week? Or they're the sinister fifth column supporting a diabolical rearguard action by the forces of fascism? At best, the analysis appears to suggest that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on points of policy, and that on average people who have spent much time in academia tend to find the democrats more congenial. Claims to the fundamental rectitude of the position that academic support for the democrats is sufficient evidence of the value of their policy prescriptions need to, at least, give a cogent explanation for the dissenters.
And, since aristarchus made the plea above to consider the case of firearms on campus (not my original point), we can take a quick look at that. Given that available evidence doesn't really support a claim that the outspoken left wing supporters of academia are invariably right about things in general, let alone public policy, any more than that the outspoken right wing (a beleaguered minority in most institutions) are right about things in general, we end up having to decide what the particular merits of the case are in Texas. It would appear that the state has decided that the right to keep and bear arms can not be logically withheld from qualified individuals, under the state's definitions, on a college campus. Fair enough; that is a governmental prerogative. Given the attitude in the USA that the states are the laboratories of democracy, and campus carry bans are more common than not, if it is to be permitted anywhere, even as a trial of the policy, then Texas seems to be a logical place to do so. The fact that this happens to be an area where the prevailing orthodoxy militates against permitting firearms at all does not render the policy fundamentally untenable, and I could see a reasonable position to the effect that the attendant risks are relatively minor, given the nationally recognised statistical finding that permitted concealed carriers are massively unlikely to actually commit felonies, and that it makes more sense to openly permit something that is known to quietly occur anyway as a matter of rational policing. The fact that this disappoints or alarms some academics has to be balanced against the policy, policing and constitutional arguments in the other direction. In my view this is as unsurprising, but also as irrelevant as the reactionary resistance in Colorado and Washington to legalising recreational marijuana. Both sides have passionate adherents (such as the city fathers of tiny rural settlements who despise marijuana and the filthy hippies who smoke it) who are swept along by a larger policy shift. If we permit a professor of poetry's plea for disarmament on campus to be the last word on the matter, then we must similarly allow the big dogs of backwater hamlets to declare their zones of control somehow untouchable, or be hypocrites ourselves. So even taking the strongest plausible interpretation of aristarchus's original observation strictly for the sake of argument, it does not follow that college campuses should be excluded from otherwise rational statewide policy-making. This then reduces the case to whether or not permitting concealed carry of weapons is a good idea in general. It might very well not be, but any attempt to apply that judgement to Texas would again have to be balanced against the validity of democracy in policy-making as implemented within that jurisdiction, as opposed to a majority of academics making determinations for the whole state. If the majority of academics made the determination, Texas might well be a gun-free zone, or at least very heavily regulated, but that's not how things turned out.
I suppose my position amounts to: wait and see how it all turns out. But I'm really not expecting the end of the world. Even if the policy shift is a bad idea (which remains to be seen), poorly constructed arguments such as a veiled appeal to authority are poorly constructed regardless of the conclusions they purport to support and should be rejected as such. If aristarchus has a well-supported argument against concealed firearms on campus then by all means let him make that case. Telling us that Ph.D.s are statistically more likely to support Clinton for president is not that argument.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 11 2016, @11:57PM
I like that plural which I emphasized, let's keep it this way.
So far, we have 3 - roughly sketched:
Of course the above are reductionist and of course many other hypotheses need to be generated and assessed before getting to the point of answering "what is the minimal source code change in the education program to put it back on track". There's no silver bullet, but there is a bit of positive feedback acting inside education, positive feedback which can be used.
I can't assess the validity of your observation, are you sure they are data and not anecdotes?
Besides, consistency with a hypothesis doesn't guarantee that hypothesis actually holds true (even if it may be so). Setting a single hypothesis on the table is a risky business - make you blind to other factors that don't fit your sole hypothesis.
Challenge for a start: a brief (20 words or less) description of the role of education (formalized as school or not) valid for any kind of society or social group large enough to need it. Hint: use words such as "propagate skills knowledge moral values generation next exclude undesired traits"
Then, re-examine and relate it with "self-propagating client group, fostered by the democrats as a tool giving them ideological legitimacy,". Do so by enlarging the time/history and geographical context see how it applies if you substitute the "democrats" variable with other values (e.g. enlightenment age exponents, present Talibans, surrealist/cubist/impressionist styles of painting, etc)
My apologies for being blunt, but I'm not interested on that**.
The same process of "sliding into dogmatic education" can be observed in other countries as well, countries where "democrats/republicans" and "the second amendment" does not exists - therefore I consider them irrelevant to the problem in general. There may not be common causes for this (and every country may be absolutely specific), but I have a hunch there is a common factor acting in all those countries particular contexts.
---
**(and the "look at that" doesn't seem to be as quick as you promise. Hint: make your point quicker, put in the minimal analysis that still support it "in the below" - there is a reason for which the sciency papers have an abstract and the news people shun the bury the lead [wikipedia.org] style)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @03:13AM
Lots of hits on Google. Here's one from the first page: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/higher-education-liberal-research-indoctrination [motherjones.com]
Yes, exactly. I provided a reasonable alternative explanation. One ostensibly consistent with the salient facts, insofar they could be determined - and a reasonable explanation why you might have lots of left-leaning academics without having to assume that they were right about much of anything outside their fields.
Education: prompt behaviour changes in the student body. (A common definition in the instructional design community, in case you were wondering. It covers everything from dog training to medical internships and research fellowships. In the particular context in question, you might expand it to specifically inculcate abstract reasoning skills or something along those lines depending on where you want to draw the line.)
Examining and relating to "self-propagating client group, fostered by the democrats as a tool giving them ideological legitimacy,": orthogonal concerns. The position of academics as simultaneously privileged with respect to ideological power while needy with respect to fiscal power simply fosters a quid pro quo relationship with whoever will pledge to support them. However, there's a long history of educational groups being either co-opted or suppressed (take your pick from religious schools, official credentialling for imperial exams in China, greek instructors in ancient Rome).
If you're curious about the analysis of fiscal power, ideological power and political power, I'd refer you to the field of political economics. There's a lot written on the topic, and analysis of sub- and supranational groups with respect to sources of power.
On the front of academics being tempted into being petty tyrants based on their ego and ideology, that's nothing new in human nature. If instead they were uniformly dedicated to a mission of dispassionate academic monasticism, that would be an anomaly in human conduct.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 12 2016, @04:57AM
I reject this as a definition of education. This apply to training, conditioning, taming dogs, but not education.
And this is what I see as one of the main reasons for the today's lame approach to education. It heavily relies on Skinner's dogma: in psychology (and learning) what cannot be measured does not exist - because we cannot manage it. The fact they grafted Bloom's taxonomy [wikipedia.org] into their "belief" doesn't alleviate their fault, on the contrary.
A very convenient model of learning for instructional designers, but a model and, as such, reductionist and incomplete**.
Reason I blame the behaviourism [wikipedia.org] and operant conditioning [wikipedia.org] approach: it sells the illusion that trainers can be in (total) control of the education, that they can do education with stick and carrot and nothing else matters.
Do you see in what you describe the "stick and carrot" wielded by what you call "liberal teachers"? Do you think if these were administered by "conservative teachers" would make education better? "Free-er" in your terms?
This is why I suggested aristarchus to look in other countries as well. Read a bit about education in Finland.
Just in case you aren't aware of alternative pedagogical currents, see constructivism [wikipedia.org].
You may also be interested in William G. Perry [wikipedia.org] - for the moment, both your and aristarchus' positions seem to be on a quite low level, towards the "dual thinking" (I'm right, therefore you are wrong").
--
** Even more, a risky model to be adopted, it makes the things actually harder due to "tell me how you measure me and I'll tell you how I'll behave" - see Cobra effect [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @05:58AM
Sorry, you're kind of wrong about a lot of stuff here.
First, modern education (and what I do) has nothing whatsoever to do with operant conditioning nor anything that derives from it. Even dog trainers have moved past that. Not even low stress herding of wild animals depends on that. Arguably some brainwashing techniques do, but even then the link is tenuous.
Bloom's taxonomy isn't part of an instructional design theory as such, but is a means of classification of levels of intellectual effort and capability (i.e. what you're attempting to help your audience achieve) that helps you figure out how to approach your instructional design.
Constructivism (of which I'm well aware, and which has some of its own deficits) does not inherently contradict the classification of mental endeavours outlined in Bloom's Taxonomy (or any of the competing organisational approaches) but is a parallel approach that is compatible in planning.
None of this has any bearing on my discussion of the problems visible in the political capture of our intellectual systems - political capture that would be problematic if achieved by radicals, reactionaries, conservatives, progressives, liberals or authoritarians. Currently progressives hold the dominant position, and that is not a good thing.
I'm actually curious now: where did you get the idea that a mention of Bloom or of modern instructional design would imply involving operant conditioning or any of its intellectual children? That's so badly wrong as to appear insane. Who's spreading that crap?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 12 2016, @08:04AM
Nothing wrong with Bloom's taxonomy, it's a powerful instrument in itself, everybody can use it, even the constructivists.
Correctly used, it will amplify the outcome of instruction (and education requires instruction, but is not limited to it).
Also measuring what you can measure in education has nothing inherently wrong. It becomes wrong:
- when you don't use your measures only to adjust your teaching specifically towards individual students (and mix statistics over large groups)
- when you use the results of you measure as reward/punishment
- when you start to believe what you cannot measure does not exist.
Isn't US one of the countries that has national/state standard tests? Isn't (federal/state) funding bound to the results in the test?
But of course it is [wikipedia.org]. Carrot-stick?
So, what the school must do to survive? Teach to the test. Don't tell me it isn't happening.
Today's teachers are yesterday's students. Taught to the test, were their mind able to outgrow the mould they were forced in?
Of course it's insane, but there's your answer in regards with who has done and it's doing it. It's called "standard based education".
Have you read anything about the education in Finland yet?
It doesn't? Really?
To me, it's irrelevant who captures politically the education, but it is infinitely bad that the education system can be politically captured.
And I blame standard based education for allowing this to happen - everything that doesn't fit the standard must/will be killed, everything conforming to the standard will flourish.
Don't tell me the above isn't the operant conditioners wettest dream.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @04:18PM
Whether the US has standard testing or not has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Bloom's Taxonomy is tied to Skinner's theories, in educational practice, nor even whether it's in use in the US. And, as you say in your first paragraph, anybody can use it. Even constructivists. Even folk educators. It's simply a framework for discussion of cognitive complexities.
I'm no fan of the USA's primary and secondary educational system, but it's not skinnerite, either. Just the fact that they use standardised tests is not a sufficient criterion for describing what they do as being skinnerite in nature. In point of fact, even when Skinner was making some of his more grandiose claims he already received some criticism because nothing he proposed suggested how people could create new ideas, as opposed to fitting conditioned reflexes to stimuli. It was an inadequate explanatory framework from inception, and any hints of applying it were left well behind by at least the 1980s, to my certain knowledge.
Finally, I'm afraid that I must contradict your final proposition: followers of Skinner have no stake inherent to their position in the political capture (or susceptibility to political capture) of the educational system. After all, it could just as easily turn against them, and the mere existence of a punishment/reward dynamic is not inherently skinnerite. There are competing approaches to explaining psychological processes that also incorporate punishment/reward elements; in fact cognitive psychology addresses them when planning how to break people out of negative cycles.
As for Finland, yes, I've read a lot about it. And Germany, and Singapore, and so on and on.
You're trying to ascribe the ills of american education to a particular framework, and then misattributing the origins and nature of that framework. There's a lot going on that is wrong with american education (political capture at the tertiary level arguably being far from the greatest) but you seem to be out of touch with what's really going on under the hood.
If you really want to break the cycle of political capture in academia, you'll need to break the cycle of money, and strengthen academic freedom - in particular the freedom of professors from the interference of administrators. However, you would also need to restructure it so that students had a voice in their relationships with professors, so that professors had a metric of success related to the choices and successes of their students. I've toyed with the idea of a structure based on a library plus tutors rather than the current lecture based system. How that would work in detail I haven't completely sorted out, but it would also help to defuse the confusion between education and credentialling.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 12 2016, @10:34PM
I didn't say otherwise, we have noI'm no fan of the USA's primary and secondary educational system, but it's not skinnerite, either.
In intentions, maybe it s not. In fact, even unintendedly so, I argue that it is.
Ah, OK. We are quibbling over terminology.
I'm saying that stick-carrot makes them skinnerites even if they have absolutely no intention to follow Skinner.
You say as long as they don't follow Skinner formalism and the stick-carrot is incidental, they are no skinnerites.
Ok, then offer me a term that I can use to designate those peddling stick-carrot as the norm in education (no matter what other shiny wrapping they put on it).
Because funding based on the results at standardized tests is stick-carrot and pushes the same to the lowest level on everyday life in education. Do you contest that?
Ah! The emphasized is exactly my point: I wouldn't worry that much about the political capture of tertiary education by liberals, there are other illnesses that are going to cripple/kill it before.
But then, what do I know? I'm just a software professional, living down-under, who grew up under a communist regime somewhere in Eastern Europe.
I may know a bit about forced and persuasive indoctrination, education under such conditions, the role of critical thinking in keeping your mind as your own in spite of indoctrination, how this thinking leads one to admit there aren't absolute truths in life, etc. Of course this doesn't make me knowledgeable about the internals of american education, all I can do is to come up with hypotheses.
I'm all ears (well... eyes) if you want to list some other wrongs in american education or what's going under the hood. Just don't expect me to swallow them as you present them, I didn't for aristarchus, I promise I won't for you.
Almost perfect. I would be interested to hear what it needs to be to reach "If you really want to harden academia against political capture of any kind, etc"
Don't just break the cycle once, without protection against a fall-back.
My only question: why did you tabled the capture of academia by liberals as a major problem?
To my mind, it doesn't matter who performs this capture, the results are equally bad.
---
** yes, I did say that the use of Bloom's taxonomy makes the matter worse.
The sense I intended: wrapping a piece of rotten meat in a nice pastry and cooking it to perfection will still let the dish toxic if ingested, but increase the chances of people willing to ingest it.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13 2016, @12:11AM
If you want to call things skinnerite that have nothing to do, structurally or philosophically, with Skinner's theories, just because they involve (positive or negative) incentives, feel free.
Just don't expect anyone else to know what the hell you're talking about without a lot of prior explanation. Bear in mind that anything involving an intelligence (human or not) also involves motivations and as such the whole world involves the satisfaction and frustration of those motivations - voila! Life is skinnerite! Except when it's not, which is basically all the time.
Yes. I agree that a funding incentive is ... well, incentive-based. However, the results are far from uniform. One of the things that has resulted from this is massive resistance against standardised testing, to the point that entire jurisdictions have simply tossed it aside and refused to cooperate with the federal level. Another result is a huge growth in private schools, charter schools, alternative schools such as Waldorf schools, and homeschooling. Putting it bluntly, both parents individually and entire communities are voting with their feet and their wallets as well as their ballots. Incentive-based structures are only powerful as long as there is engagement, and people are actively disengaging.
I didn't actually say that liberals had captured academia. I said that progressives had, and in fact I pointed out that they are often markedly illiberal. I mostly brought that up as a source of perspective on the purported preference of academics for ever tighter firearms regulations, especially on campus. It's a problem for the theory that academics are smart, and right, and insightful, and that as such their specific policy preferences should hold sway.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 13 2016, @12:46AM
Just as education will always involve not only the transfer of the positive values (knowledge, skills, moral value) from one generation to the other, but also repressing what the societal group sees as negatives.
Voila - imperfect freedom of thought is inherent to education.
So, in this imperfect world, what's the best one can expect from education as a system?
Why getting aside the punishment side resulted from lack of sufficient funding?
(this wasn't evident for me - at least until now.
I suspect aristarchus - bless his magisterial-authoritative soul - didn't see it either)
Would you mind to explain what you mean by 'progressives'? What's their specific difference when considering them and liberals?
By the same measure, maybe it would be good for me to see the specific traits of what you call conservatives?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13 2016, @04:45AM
That's a moral question. Tell me what you find to be good, and I can answer what the best possibility is that I can see within your moral axioms.
I'm not ignoring it. It's implicit. If a resource is an implicit good, then the absence of that resource is an implicit evil. It's a symmetrical situation. Either way, carrot/stick combinations can deal with one resource being supplied or withheld, or two different reactions constituting reward and punishment - the nature of the situation is largely unchanged.
The definitions I use are pretty familiar in the field of political science.
Conservative is the opposite of radical. Radicals wish to make radical (i.e. striking at the roots) changes, big changes at once, and attach little value to continuity or consistency or the status quo. Many of Trump's proposals (assuming he actually means them) are in no way conservative, but rather radical. Conservatives tend to make small, incremental, carefully justified changes, and assume that the status quo has intrinsic value if only because large changes are dangerous, disruptive and hence costly. I, as I said above, sit between the two. Disruptions are costly, but there are circumstances where they are justified, or where a clean break is more efficient than incrementalism.
Liberals contrast with authoritarians. Liberals tend to maximise individual choice, favour personal responsibility and avoid dictatorial approaches to policy-making. Authoritarians are comfortable with dictating conduct, attach little value to individual liberty and instead value conformity, usually on the grounds that security and efficiency are easier to guarantee where conformity is assured; and thus also to justify oppression of nonconformists on the grounds that they put the efficiency and security of society at large at risk.
America's constitution is a pretty liberal document, because it outlines a lot of things government can not (or isn't supposed to) do. The official position of Singapore is quite authoritarian, and they justify it by referring to the blessings of a carefully managed society which has large and deep divisions.
Progressives are those who seek to implement and benefit from the insights and advances of the enlightenment and the industrial era. Notable progressives include Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill (a lot of people think of him as an imperialist - and he was - but he was also instrumental in things like disability pensions and similar workers' benefits, and in his writings he was quite clear about the benefits he saw in Progress as a social good) and Tony Benn. The opposite of a progressive approach is a reactionary approach perhaps best summarised as "old ways are best". Please note that progressive isn't anti-conservative, any more than reactionary is conservative. It's quite possible to implement a progressive platform in a conservative way, or to be a radical reactionary.
It's also important to observe that progressivism is often orthogonal to liberty as a value, or often antithetical to it. There are times and ways in which progressives and liberals were in agreement (constructing a classless society is one of those ways, hence the alliance of progressives and liberals in the civil rights movement in the USA) but there are times when progressives and liberals are completely at odds with each other (such as the debate around the CDA, or Tipper Gore and the PMRC). At these times it's quite possible to have a conservative, authoritarian progressive standing in opposition to a radical, reactionary liberal.
Since you say that you're in the computer field, you can doubtless see that there are three different axes of political description in play here. If I were to classify the broad sweep of american academia, politically, it would be radical, authoritarian and progressive. The progressivism is often bound to their optimism about their studies, the march of progress in diverse fields and so on, the authoritarianism appears to be a habit of telling others what to think and how to conduct themselves, and I surmise that the radicalism stems from being divorced from the immediate consequences of their own pronouncements. After all, academics mostly produce papers, and rarely are judged on their ability to carry extensive projects through. But that is only surmise on my part.
Hope that helps clarify it. If you want to know more, I recommend reading up on the foundations of political science. You could do this before or after your checking up on the three types of power I referred to above, as analysed in political economics.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 15 2016, @12:03AM
Thanks. Really.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:36AM
Replying to aristarchus is like teaching a pig to sing.
If the circumstance was reversed, aristarchus would be carrying on about the inherent classism and racism of the college elite*.
And that certainly doesn't describe liberals at all.
*In fall 2013, of all full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 79 percent were White (43 percent were White males and 35 percent were White females), 6 percent were Black, 5 percent were Hispanic, and 10 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Monday August 08 2016, @08:29AM
Reversed?
if ignorance was in charge of the academy? Is stupid people were smart? If Republicans weren't? I do not comprehend the scenario.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:46AM
This has not been shown to extend into the STEM fields. The desire to be able to protect yourself does not correlate with education across all fields. You can take your bigotry and shove it along with whatever Arts or Sociology degree you think makes you better than other people.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:52AM
STEM? The Deuce, you say! Explains a lot. The Trades, not really college level. Suitable for servants. Thus your experience.
(and before you get all high and mightly, I am not better than you, it is just that you keep thinking that your ignorance and lack of education makes you equal. This is not so! Any educated person knows mostly how much they don't know. Only the ignorant could think that firearms have any place at an institution of higher education. The ignorant, the militiary (ROTC), or Texans.)
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday August 08 2016, @06:31AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 08 2016, @07:28AM
Either way, we now have a situation that will (and, sadly, it is almost certainly "will") eventually put the idea that people with a penchant for slaughter with a firearm pick soft targets to the test, don't we?
Probably not. It's a small sample size and mass shootings are very rare even in the US (though at a higher per capita rate than the rest of the developed world).
If that theory holds water then there will never, ever, be a mass shooting incident (I'm excluding suicides and "crimes of passion" because concealled carry or not, people will still bring a gun on campus for things like that) at one of the schools where concealled carry is permitted.
Why does that theory have to perfectly hold water? I think there's still the possibility of a mass shooting at a concealed carry school, if only because that's where the shooter's target or grievance is. Second, you are missing a second important effect. An armed person can intervene in an ongoing attack. That changes the behavior of the shooter. There's a fair number of mass shootings where the killing stopped once someone with a gun, including law enforcement, started shooting back, even in the situations where the shooter wasn't injured by the return fire.
Concealed carry at that point is an immediate deterrent (rather than merely the threat of one) to violent crimes including potential mass shootings.
Obviously it will need to be a proof by exception, which is hardly ideal, but how long do you think it's going to take - or are people *really* that confident?
We might see an effect that reaches statistical significance in a few decades. The whole situation is overblown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:11AM
Mass shootings are rare in the US. Getting a utility bill is also rare in the US apparently.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 08 2016, @01:56PM
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday August 08 2016, @10:44AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday August 08 2016, @03:18AM
What it really illustrates is that fear of liability rules private schools and universities more than anything. Some day a shooting will occur on a private university and the law abiding students will have no recourse but to wait for Sheriff Buford T. Justice to arrive.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:06PM
There's another big difference between public and private institutions. Insurance. Private schools have to buy their own, while public schools can rely on the State. Since risk affects premiums and allowing students with guns increases risk, you don't need to be a MBA to figure out why these private institutions are all so quick to opt out.
If the law had extended some sort of liability shield to private schools, then you might see more of them willing to allow guns on campus. But as long as they are paying their own freight, they're not going to take the hit to their budgets.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Entropy on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:21PM
Terrorists are not idiots. If there's a choice between shooting people on an armed campus, and an unarmed campus I'd bet they would choose the one without guns..who wouldn't? They are not making a passionate in the moment decision: They are planning, preparing, and executing their intent. What if 20 of the 50 people killed in the Orlando massacre had guns? How many lives would have been saved?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:11PM
The club had an armed guard, who did exchange gunfire with the attacker. However, he gave up because he deemed himself "outgunned."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-shooting-inside-club-20160613-story.html [orlandosentinel.com]
Some commentators have suggested that poor lighting and the use of alcohol could limit the ability of shooters to defend themselves in a night club. Of course, those factors don't obtain in a college setting.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:55AM
They'll just use bombs on an armed campus you fucking moron. You admit that terrorists aren't stupid but clearly you are.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:56AM
I'm sure if a group of people, or an individual plant a bomb it's MUCH WORSE if people on campus have guns to defend themselves, right? Also if they have bombs they certainly don't have guns..right? No shooting of people that run away from the explosion, either. If you don't want to have a gun I welcome you not to...someone needs to be a victim, I suppose.
(Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Monday August 08 2016, @02:15AM
What if 20 of the 50 people killed in the Orlando massacre had guns?
They all calmly pull out their firearms take measured aim at the terrorist in the middle of the club and drop him. They all hit, and none of them hit any one else despite all the good guys being in a loose circle around the bad guy. And then as soon as the terrorist falls everyone puts their gun away. You know because they are all highly trained and sober professionals, with full situational awareness, and communicating effectively.
er... wait...
Have you ever been in a night club? Its loud. Its dark. It's full of intoxicated people. You walk in as a terrorist and start firing, and half the crowd pulls out a gun to return fire... nobody will know what's going on, and people 5 feet from the terrorist won't know who started firing... and they'll be as likely to shoot at each other as they will at the terrorist. They'll see another 'good-guy' with a gun drawn, maybe turning towards them... or maybe they'll see them shooting in-turn at a 3rd person... and assume THAT must be one of the bad guys too. Many will probably miss (hit other innocent people), what with being intoxicated. Neither their best judgement nor their best aim can be relied upon. The terrorist could probably leave after firing a few shots and the crowd might simply shoot among themselves for the next minutes until all the scared and intoxicated idiots run out of ammunition...
If there's a choice between shooting people on an armed campus, and an unarmed campus I'd bet they would choose the one without guns..who wouldn't?
Goes both ways. It simplifies my plan to shoot people on an armed campus, if I can just walk in with my gun. Or maybe I'll just switch to explosives and bombs, its not a written rule that, as a terrorist, I have to shoot people, I could drive over them with a big truck, or set off a bomb, or any number of things.
They are not making a passionate in the moment decision: They are planning, preparing, and executing their intent.
I really couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you.
So you agree that arming a bunch of idiots in a club, would at best caused the terrorist to simply plan a different attack, and at worst would have led to a paniced crowd of intoxicated people shooting at each other?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday August 08 2016, @04:48AM
This is actually one thing I will never understand about those who stand on the side of strict gun bans. This constant, unwavering, unquestioned (and unsupported by any evidence), assertion that another firearm on the scene will always (I SAID ***ALWAYS***) make the situation worse. Oh, unless the other firearm is in the hands of a person wearing a badge and a uniform. Then it's totally cool.
This attitude unfortunately blatantly ignores the fact that many of the people around you who bother to carry concealed firearms are not "crazy gun nuts" but are actually likely to fall into several other categories of people who are quite well-trained and unlikely to simply whip out an UZI and start "spraying the room with bullets" (a phrase that is used far too frequently among strict gun control advocates). They might be:
- Former military
- Active military on leave
- Former law enforcement
- Current, off-duty law enforcement
- Or, simply private citizens who have taken the responsibility to train themselves just as well or better than any of the people in the above categories.
Are there crazy gun nuts, who would make any situation worse instead of better, out there carrying concealed firearms? Sure, there are a few real idiots out there. Is *everyone* that carries concealed firearms a crazy gun nut who would make any situation worse instead of better? Uh, no. That is not a supportable assertion. Does even the idea that there are people wandering around any given location who are armed give hesitation to someone wanting to go there and start trouble? Uh, yes. What finally stopped the Orlando shooter's rampage? Police officers, with firearms. Did the armed security guard inside the club have at least a chance to stop the shooter? Yes, he failed, but he at least had a positive statistical chance to stop the shooter before he killed 50 people and injured 50 others. Did the armed security guard end up killing a bunch of innocent bystanders while attempting to stop the shooter? No. Is it logical to worry so much about a bystander or two being injured when you're dealing with someone attempting to kill as many dozens of people as he can get away with? No, that doesn't seem logical to me. By the way, it's actually not that difficult to identify which one is the real bad guy in these situations. He's the only one carrying a RIFLE and wearing an outfit that's quite out of place, typically.
As I have done in the past, I assert that the problem with nearly all these gun related conversations is that *both* the pro-gun arguments and the anti-gun arguments are full of holes and nobody wants to admit they might be at least partially wrong.
No, I'm sorry, but it really doesn't.
This assertion might make some sort of logical sense if you believed that everyone who enters a campus is searched thoroughly, both vehicle and person, for firearms. But that isn't what happens on any campus I've ever seen. That's the logical fallacy in this viewpoint that an armed campus is somehow less safe than a campus which bans firearms. On the campus which bans firearms, you can drive a vehicle full of firearms into the center of the campus and just start shooting people. There are many people who have concealed firearms on campuses where they are restricted. They just ignore the rules, and bring them anyway. There's literally nothing to stop you on either an armed or unarmed campus, unless someone searches you or your vehicle, which is illegal without a warrant (or probable cause). The only difference is that on the armed campus when you start a rampage a few people might shoot back, and prematurely end your rampage. The same applies if you brought explosives. There's really nothing stopping you from doing so on either an armed or unarmed campus, but on an armed campus if you are seen attempting to set off a bomb or identified in the aftermath as the bomber, armed citizens will try to stop you. Will this *always* result in something wonderful happening? No, but it also can't *always* result in an epic disaster that will be far worse than just letting bad actors do whatever they want. It's insanely neurotic (and authoritarian) to believe that a person has to have a uniform and a badge and some mind-numbingly inadequate academy training in order to make a positive difference in a dangerous situation. Law enforcement are frequently even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens you are so fearful of.
At this point you are convinced that I am totally pro-gun and anti-gun-control. But I am not. I am only countering the ludicrous and frequently unchallenged assertion that an armed citizen (who isn't wearing a badge) will always, without question, be so useless and dangerous that they will make any situation worse. It is illogical that this can be true. How can such a ridiculous assertion be true if many of the citizens carrying concealed firearms are fully trained ex-military or law enforcement, or private citizens that have literally chosen to put themselves through the exact same training (or even more thorough training)? There is logic in many aspects of gun control arguments, like requiring background checks and waiting periods, and requiring the passing of written and practical skill tests. But this portion of the gun control argument, that a few more armed citizens will cause nothing but imminent and ongoing disaster, is very weak. And it's very sad how frequently this is the primary or even the *only* argument put forth for strict gun bans.
The one thing I've learned in life is that reality does not conform well to most of our pre-conceptions.
tl;dr: Not everyone carrying a concealed firearm is an "idiot" who will empty their firearm in random directions with their eyes closed every time they hear a car backfire.
(Score: 3, Touché) by vux984 on Monday August 08 2016, @08:13AM
It's insanely neurotic (and authoritarian) to believe that a person has to have a uniform and a badge and some mind-numbingly inadequate academy training in order to make a positive difference in a dangerous situation. Law enforcement are frequently even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens you are so fearful of.
Juxtapose that with:
but are actually likely to fall into several other categories of people who are quite well-trained [...] They might be:
[...]
- Former law enforcement
- Current, off-duty law enforcement
So... law enforcement is barely trained and even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens; so we should allow the ordinary citizens to carry guns because ... wait for it... hidden amongst those idiots will be quite well trained active/former/off duty law enforcement -- which are even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens.. GOTO START
Those two arguments pretty much cancel each other out. ;)
There is logic in many aspects of gun control arguments, like requiring background checks and waiting periods, and requiring the passing of written and practical skill tests. But this portion of the gun control argument, that a few more armed citizens will cause nothing but imminent and ongoing disaster, is very weak.
Without the former, the latter WILL cause nothing but ongoing disasters. You want to arm more people in public, I'm in principle fine with that if its the right people. But you need the background checks and waiting periods and to take away the privilege when people abuse it; and you need to require them to demonstrate some training. Otherwise you are just arming the idiots. And it doesn't matter if half the people walking around with guns are responsible citizens, if the other half are idiots they'll do enough damage by themselves.
I'm not actually anti-gun -- but I don't think "wanting a gun" and "has $50" is sufficient criteria to carry a loaded gun around in public.
Further, you are changing the venue for your argument to 'campuses'. The scenario I wrote my post about was 'night club'. Those are very different scenarios, don't you think? Do you think your argument applies equally well to night clubs? I don't.
The other part of your argument I want to look at:
What finally stopped the Orlando shooter's rampage? Police officers, with firearms.
Police officers with firearms, acting pretty cohesively, all sober, and in communication with eachother.
Not 20 randos at various stages of intoxication from all walks of life who just happened to be in the building.
Did the armed security guard inside the club have at least a chance to stop the shooter? Yes, he failed, but he at least had a positive statistical chance to stop the shooter before he killed 50 people and injured 50 others.
No disagreement with this part. It would have been better if there had been a couple more guards but there wasn't.
But again, that bunch of randos isn't really adding anything to the picture either except a lot more guns in the chaos.
Did the armed security guard end up killing a bunch of innocent bystanders while attempting to stop the shooter? No.
He had some training, had some procedures, and so forth.
Is it logical to worry so much about a bystander or two being injured when you're dealing with someone attempting to kill as many dozens of people as he can get away with? No, that doesn't seem logical to me.
Yes, that's precisely the logic I'd expect a semi-intoxicated rando to take when he sees some other semi intoxicated rando with a gun turn his way...
By the way, it's actually not that difficult to identify which one is the real bad guy in these situations. He's the only one carrying a RIFLE and wearing an outfit that's quite out of place, typically.
The attack is adapted to the parameters of the situation. This goes back to the previous poster who argued that the guy has the advantage to plan and adapt; why can't he be dressed to blend in? why does he have to have a rifle and try to mow people down? As soon as you change the parameters, you have to assume the attacker will make suitable adaptations.
I am only countering the ludicrous and frequently unchallenged assertion that an armed citizen (who isn't wearing a badge) will always, without question, be so useless and dangerous that they will make any situation worse. It is illogical that this can be true.
Fair enough. But you also have to allow that many of them will be so useless and dangerous that they WILL make any situation worse. And further, that without any sort of control on which people have guns, many of the people choosing to carry them are PRECISELY the people that will be useless and dangerous. And STILL FURTHER, that they will be useless and dangerous even when there aren't any terrorists attacking. So they'll just generally raise the level of useless and dangerous to everything.... from road rage incidents, to being cut in line at starbucks. They'll lose the guns to pickpockets on the subways and leave them on the bar when they go to the can, they'll scratch their back itches with them, and shoot at their exes when they've been jilted. And the idea that Orlando would have been better if a bunch of people had taken their guns out drinking?? WTF??
And since they can't know a terrorist attack is coming the premise is that we'll be safer if everywhere everyone takes there gun out drinking... that's ridiculous. Even if it actually deterred orlando (and the terrorist simply couldn't think of a better attack??!) their'd be 50 dead in a week in 50 separate inicidents from all the useless dangerious idiots just being useless dangerious idiots to eachother after too many drinks.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday August 08 2016, @09:10AM
[...] if you are seen attempting to set off a bomb or identified in the aftermath as the bomber, armed citizens will try to stop you.
Do you know of an occasion when that has happened? It sounds improbable.
You seem to be describing an operation in which an attacker places a bomb somewhere, performs an activation procedure of some sort, then attempts to walk away before the explosion in the hope of remaining uninjured. I would think that in such an attack, the attacker would take care not to be seen setting up the bomb, and would disguise its nature. You seem to envisage , that could be interrupted by a good citizen. I imagine that a bomb could be detonated electronically with a timer or by radio control. Observers wouldn't see the attacker pressing a button or lighting a fuse. Your premises appear to be that (1) if the attacker can be caught in the act and interrupted, the attack can be foiled; (2) if the bomb explodes, the attacker can be captured brought to justice, and that firearms are helpful in getting the upper hand. It seems to me that such a bomber would take pains to be inconspicuous, so the opportunity for your scenarios to happen is tiny. Also, someone placing a bomb could also have firearms, or could respond unpredictably when looking into the barrel of a gun. For example, the attacker, outgunned and facing the prospect of serious criminal charges, might detonate the bomb immediately.
I have the impression that most bombs are dropped from aircraft. Car bombs and suicide vests are also common types of bombs. Your scenarios would be even less likely to prevent those attacks, in my estimation.
One example that was in the news recently was the bombing at a concert in Ansbach, Bavaria. Until the explosion, all people observed was a man wearing a back pack. He may have initiated the explosion by changing his posture.
http://whnt.com/2016/07/25/suicide-bomb-rocks-ansbach-germany-in-third-violent-attack-in-bavaria-in-days/ [whnt.com]
Bombings and mass shootings make for exciting news stories, but far more people are killed one at a time in suicides and homicides. I've heard that suicide attempts using a gun are more likely to result in death, as compared to other methods. I would assume, too, that those who survive may often suffer severe injury.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:48AM
I agree. It's possible, but highly improbable. The point was only that an armed campus will not be any less safe from a shooter or bomber than an "unarmed" campus (which are never actually completely unarmed). Nor will it necessarily be more safe.
I just believe it's important to stand up and make a statement to counter people who imply that a disaster is happening when there is no actual disaster happening.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:39PM
I found some support for my statements regarding suicide. The public health people at another college seem convinced that lessened availability of guns could result in fewer suicides:
In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others.
[...]
Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. [...] About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.)
--https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-suicide-the-hidden-toll/ [harvard.edu]
The National Review (https://archive.is/PdjAy [archive.is]) offers the counterpoint that some countries where guns are rare nonetheless have high suicide rates. Without using the word seppuku they note that culture could be a factor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:35PM
This is actually one thing I will never understand about those who stand on the side of strict gun bans. This constant, unwavering, unquestioned (and unsupported by any evidence), assertion that another firearm on the scene will always (I SAID ***ALWAYS***) make the situation worse. Oh, unless the other firearm is in the hands of a person wearing a badge and a uniform. Then it's totally cool.
This attitude unfortunately blatantly ignores the fact that many of the people around you who bother to carry concealed firearms are not "crazy gun nuts" but are actually likely to fall into several other categories of people who are quite well-trained and unlikely to simply whip out an UZI and start "spraying the room with bullets" (a phrase that is used far too frequently among strict gun control advocates). They might be:
- Former military
- Active military on leave
- Former law enforcement
- Current, off-duty law enforcement
- Or, simply private citizens who have taken the responsibility to train themselves just as well or better than any of the people in the above categories.
What percentage of those skilled people do you think there are versus random people who got a gun because "they think it's cool?"
I really don't have a number, but let's say for the sake of argument there are 40% people who are former military/former police/highly trained, 40% of people who are smart and responsible amateurs, and 20% idiots.
Now an attack happens. Those 20% (say, 4 people in the crowd of 20 armed people) start shooting at random because they've been dreaming of being a hero for years and they finally have their chance. What happens next?
Even if you assume a relatively low percentage of idiots, you can see the situation escalates poorly. This is mode more clear if you believe, like I do, that there are more idiots and fewer trained people than the numbers I sketched out.
(Personally I happen to think that the costs of gun ownership outweighs the negatives of a crackdown... but I also do think that there is a cost to gun ownership which should not be ignored.)
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:59AM
What you've just done is called "pulling numbers out of your ass to support a personal opinion". Even if I agree with you completely, and I'm not saying I don't, no intelligent discourse can follow from this kind of unsupported BS. I could only agree or disagree with your expressed personal opinion.
I was only arguing against the common assertion that I see put forth that all (100%) of those in a room who happen to be carrying a personal weapon are automatically "idiots" simply because they chose to carry a personal weapon. It is a logical fallacy that this can be true, which was my entire point. How many of them are well-trained former military/LEOs? No idea, but it's not zero percent. It can't be. That was the point I was trying to make.
I also disagree with the constant idea that even people with little training will *always* just start shooting "at random" and in random directions. This is another very hyperbolic idea that is far too frequently used by gun control fans. Like the "spraying the room with bullets" phrase I mentioned earlier. Phrases like this hurt the gun control conversation by making gun control advocates just sound like hyperbolic idiots who have little contact with reality. The hyperbole needs to be toned down or no progress can be made on gun control.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:05PM
I was only arguing against the common assertion that I see put forth that all (100%) of those in a room who happen to be carrying a personal weapon are automatically "idiots" simply because they chose to carry a personal weapon.
But I *didn't* assert that. I only asserted that there would be idiots in that group; not that 100% of them are idiots all the time.
Further, almost nobody ever asserts that 100% of citizens carrying a gun in an 'incident' is a liability. As you say, its illogical. But at the same time, nobody is going to bother disclaiming that some percentage won't be a liability everytime they raise the issue of the 'idiots'.
I also disagree with the constant idea that even people with little training will *always* just start shooting "at random" and in random directions.
I remember the very first time I fired a hand gun, I took careful aim through the iron sight at the target at the firing range, squeezed the trigger as I'd been shown, and missed. another try another miss. The range staff observing me stepped in and advised me that I was shooting the floor; and corrected me. I literally was sighting through the rear sights and because I was pointing slightly down couldn't even see the front sight; and I didn't even realize it was missing. As I lifted the barrel and the front sight came into view and ... I felt like a complete idiot. Lesson learned. And I've come a long way since then. But it stuck with me... just how useless one could be without sufficient training.
Some random idiot -- Do they know how to hold it properly so it won't move in their hand? Are they actually holding properly? Do they know how to sight properly? Are they sighting properly? How often have they practiced? Have they EVER practiced? After all, bullets aren't free. When was the last time they zeroed their sights? Have they ever used the sights properly? Have they ever been to a range? How good is their aim going to be if they are scared, semi-intoxicated, their heart pounding the adrenaline through their veins... will they wait until the sights are properly lined up...with they apply all their training? Will they even remember their training? Did they even HAVE any training? Have they ever shot at a moving or living target? Or will they just start pulling the trigger as soon as the barrel of the gun is in the right general direction?
Are they assuming the same stance they used at the range or are they crouched behind a table shooting with one hand poking out?
Are they going to be shooting "at random in random directions"? No...I'm sure they'll be trying to hit something... but they may as well be firing in random directions if they are poorly trained and running on fear and adrenaline.
Is that everyone with a gun? Of course not. Nobody thinks that. But lots of those people are out there.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:45PM
In regards to nightclubs being crowded: Yes, then some islamic terrorist pulls out a rifle and starts shooting people. I would venture to say the people on the dance floor will be moving away from the terrorist, hiding behind things, and generally running away. I would also venture to say less than 50 people would have died if 20 people were armed. It was a terrible, terrible slaughter against completely unarmed people...do you seriously think it would have been worse?
In short the sheep will hide, and the wolves will fight the terrorist. Could some innocent sheep be hit? You bet! But the overall death rate would have been far, far lower.
armed v unarmed campus/nightclub: Pretty sure the guy would choose the one filled with helpless victims. Terrorists are often smart, but not really after a good fight.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 12 2016, @06:15AM
Pretty sure the guy would choose the one filled with helpless victims. Terrorists are often smart, but not really after a good fight.
So the terrorist attacks a club in Orlando with a bomb instead of a rifle; or does something else somewhere else what with him being 'smart' and 'having time to plan' and 'choosing his target'.
Meanwhile this nightclub and every other nightclub is filled with randos at various levels of intoxication, who have all taken their guns out drinking; so 'drunk idiot with gun' incidents of every kind go up around the country.
Net result: terrorist attacks aren't really affected - they just adapt to the circumstances; and gun violence overall goes up because a bunch of "wolves" taking their loaded guns out drinking with them was poorly advised.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday August 12 2016, @11:16PM
Yeah that's easy. He's either found on entry wheeling in a bomb, carrying a big backpack, or other suspicious package or the bomb is small enough that it kills less than 50 people. It would, in short, be a less effective approach.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday August 13 2016, @03:37AM
Or he hits the line up outside the club. And since its not a suicide run, he can do it again... next month...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:24AM
You cannot bring any weapons or even mace inside. This is to prevent the inevitable drunken fights that break out from escalating beyond fists and protect the bouncers who then kick them out.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:09PM
Let's have a little chat about the 'F' you gave me on the last exam.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:33PM
As a Professor, I find that when you have students named "Greedo", sometimes it is better to just . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @12:15AM
I'm guessing you were going more for the joke aspect, but I don't think allowing concealed carry is going to increase the chances of homicide.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 08 2016, @01:29AM
That would be a good guess since it has never been shown to previously. The converse is in fact often the case.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:36AM
but I don't think allowing concealed carry is going to increase the chances of homicide./quote?
Obviously you were never obligated to flunk lazy, entitled, right-wing college students. They do not take constructive criticism well, and are prone to violent O'reillys.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 08 2016, @01:48AM
This did happen, [foxnews.com] by the way -- in Los Angeles, California and carried out by a Pajeet.
You know, that politically-correct place that hates guns, in an institution for affluent students, and by a model minority?
I'm noticing a lot of gun-hate in this discussion, and gun-haters are free to dislike guns, but they're being retarded in their single-minded zeal of conflating gun violence with Rednecks. As another example, this Whitebread Redneck. [wikipedia.org]
Stop being dummies, you racist anti-gun folk.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday August 08 2016, @06:00AM
California's crack-down on gun rights can be traced to the 1960s, when gun-carrying members of the Black Panther Party were feared.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG01/barillari/pantherprologue.html [virginia.edu]
http://prospect.org/article/ronald-reagan-not-fan-guns-rallies [prospect.org]
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:42PM
I'm tihnking... green organic decomposing one-use bullet proof fashion wear in vending machines all over campus. Also, vending machines with gun accessories, i.e. silencers, kydex holsters, pink lanyards for the girls, etc. Think of the profit! You heard it first here on SN!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @12:34AM
Bullet vending machines in case you need to reload.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:13AM
reloading machines :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @02:52AM
Here in Texas, you can buy a gun at a drive-thru liquor store.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @02:56AM
Come on guys, are you all asleep??
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Monday August 08 2016, @04:48AM
Honestly, the gun debates are trite. Everyone reads from the same script, no one is convinced of much of anything, and it concentrates on the thing rather than the idea- what rights should you have towards self-protection?
Put it in that context, and this becomes a very different debate.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 08 2016, @12:18PM
Honestly, the gun debates are trite. Everyone reads from the same script, no one is convinced of much of anything
OK I'll bite and throw in some possibly interesting possibly unique ideas
1) Plenty of gun clubs in the civilian world and competitive shooting and all that. Not seeing a problem with students in dorms having a school marksmanship club and the law making life enormously simpler for them WRT going to and from the dorm and the on campus ROTC range or to and from any range.
2) Speaking of ROTC I was never in but surely there's some kind of benefit somehow? I went to a school with an on campus range, I would guess they did the unit armory thing like my reserve unit did and had a bank safe door and annoying security system and weapons racks adjacent to the range. Probably. But now a guy "we" trust to carry and shoot a govt issued 9mm, can carry a privately owned 9mm to and from pistol practice if he wants with less police problems. Even if he's not in a formal marksmanship club. WRT the students I knew in ROTC it seemed to be more of a PT club and social club anyway, but I'm sure some marksman would benefit.
3) The humorous assumption is your stereotypical frat bro will spend $200 of weed / beer money on a class and then $500 on a pistol and $$$$ on ammo because they don't like weed/beer as much as they like a .45. Which sounds idiotic having been 19 yrs old once. FAR FAR FAR more likely the instructors will be at the financial and lifestyle stage of life where they'll be the ones carrying. An infinite number of historical news reports indicates that carrying has no correlation with social signalling about gun control or politics in general, so even the leftie SJW gun control profs will carry. Honestly if the "police science" profs aren't carrying at least occasionally for training/educational purposes I'd wonder WTF is wrong with them. In summary most of the people carrying are going to be PHD level professors and administrators and admittedly a hell of a lot of staff. Not kids. As if there's anything wrong with giving a 19 year old kid a M-16 and dumping him in Vietnam or Afghanistan anyway. If there were a problem which there isn't, then it wouldn't matter anyway because the people carrying are going to have titles like "Dean of Diversity Studies Department" not "Freshman".
4) I wonder how this will interact with hunting seasons. I live in an area with extremely rural state U system and extreme amounts of recreational outdoor hunting and the two problems you're going to have are students hunting too close to the uni (just because there's a cornfield across the street doesn't mean its legal to hunt there) and kids missing class and missing study time because they'd rather spend 3 hours hunting in the morning because they have their rifle in their dorm (which is very common today) and the police are not going to F with them if they carry their rifle and CC-permit around campus or to class. Also students are going to do things like take their hunting rifle to SJW class before heading out after lunch to hunt and that will trigger the F out of people with weapons phobias, like bringing a noose to black studies classes. So I predict wild freakouts during hunting season by people suffering from mental illnesses about guns. "omg omg he's going to shoot bambi I have to cry for the next 16 hours now" Basically college students as a group are wimps and are not going to tolerate this as well as the general population, they're defective on a group average level compared to normal people.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 08 2016, @04:43PM
I'm on holiday in Cornwall... Fat, unfit man in a wetsuit...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @05:12AM
Here's an idea-- No one should be above the law, right? So what's good for the people should also be good for the lawmakers.
Have you tried to take a gun or even a pocket knife into the capital building or any federal building at all, including courthouses? Can't do it.
We need another new law: if guns are required to be allowed somewhere (such as college campuses), they should also be required to be allowed in every state and federal building too, including the state senate and courthouses. If the state and federal buildings can exclude guns and other weapons, then the colleges should be able to as well.
If the second amendment gives me the right to bear arms, then who the hell am I defending myself from if not a corrupt government? THAT is the intent of the second amendment. It's the balance of power between the people and a corrupted system. If we can't take weapons into any branch of government, then the second amendment is effectively gutted anyway.
Seriously, Abraham Lincoln said the fastest way to repeal a bad law is to enforce it strictly. If you are in favor of gun control and a more civilized, less "wild west" society, then let's make the second amendment apply to congress too. Get a few guns in there, a well armed militia, and let's see how fast things change...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:45PM
Well regulated militia. I see you've never actually read the second amendment either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @05:19PM
That is all new since the 1970s and fear of Palestinian terrorism. Policies used to vary between place to place. At most you might be asked to check your weapon and they would hold it for you until you left. They would not dispose of it or deny you entry for carrying it in or imagine you to be a threat for carrying. Lots of people carried.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday August 08 2016, @07:55PM
The state of Texas allows private carry of firearms in government-owned buildings. [dallasnews.com] The logic is that since your tax dollars paid for it, it's your house and the "castle doctrine" applies. This state law preempts local laws as well, so it applies to every government building in the state, down to the city level. You could open carry to a meeting with the Governor if you so chose.
Pro-tip - don't try to carry in open court, or in a legislative session/town council meeting/etc; that's still illegal for the safety of the participants. Also, the Dallas Zoo is apparently an "amusement park" for the purposes of trespass law, despite being owned by the City.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:19AM
That's some kind of bullshit. I recently had to hide a pocket knife in the bushes outside the courthouse of my small town. The cop at the metal detector just inside the door told me to do it or he's have to confiscate it. Why was I at the courthouse? To file a DBA so I could open a restaurant. No guns allowed, period.
(Score: 2) by EQ on Monday August 08 2016, @01:15PM
You still have to be 21, you still have to have qualified with the weapon in use, you still have to pass the background check, you still have to follow the law on safe storage, you still have to follow all the laws on not carrying in places like hospitals and posted private property.
I am an adult, and there are many of us that do attend classes and seminars. And every major mass casualty shooting in recent history has occurred in a "gun free" area. Why should we not be allowed to carry in an area where mass shootings seem to be more likely? And now that these are areas where a mass shooter might meet armed resistance quickly, and from an unknown source (it is concealed carry), these shooters will find targets in other places where they can make headlines. Remember the "Batman" shooter dorve pas multiple crowded cinemas to get to that one in Aurora which banned concealed carry. So this may actually increase the safety of formerly "gun free" areas in the law.
But most importantly, on the question of rights, please explain what justification you have to deny me my rights in public areas as stated by the constitutions (US and state) and laws. I am an adult, a veteran, and I have a permit and I do carry when possible. Why should I be disarmed when I am going to a seminar at a community college that is in a high crime neighborhood? Why should I be forced to leave my firearm locked securely in my car, walk across a poorly lit campus unarmed?
The opponents are simply fearmongering, irrationally. It is pretty evident here from most of the posts to the contrary that all they have is an appeal to fear and emotionalism.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:45PM
Remember the "Batman" shooter dorve pas multiple crowded cinemas
I did not know this! Yes, I have pulled a Francis. And I am not sure it is true. But mostly I have no idea what "dorve pas" means. Is it French?
Mostly, sounds like the poster is too scared to go to school. Guns are no solution to agoraphobia, son!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:59AM