The mind of an academic anti-gun professor

[rawhide]

Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom

Read this article posted in a Linkedin discussion in the Teacher's Lounge a couple of month's ago. It prompted me to spend a couple hours reading anti-gun articles and "research" results.

I found it interesting and disturbing at the same time. I think it reveals much about the mind set of those who oppose gun and self-defense rights. The author listed several links touting evidence that guns do not make us safer and the "more guns, less crime myth."

 

[Glocktogo]

They do tend to embody the whole "educated idiot" thing.

 

[rawhide]

Some samples:

Every morning as I head to my office at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, I have to drive past two armored military vehicles aimed in my direction: an M60 tank and an M42 Duster anti-aircraft gun. The vehicles are on display in front of the National Guard Armory, which happens to sit beside my academic building, and the campus and the armory share an access road. While the armored vehicles may be an appropriate symbol for the armory, they create an unfortunate and unwelcoming entrance to campus. Each day students, faculty, and staff are greeted with an image of violence and aggression that is unsuitable for an academic setting.

It [higher ed] is an environment that is meant to encourage conversation and the exchange of ideas, without censorship, oppression, or intimidation, and that is precisely why guns have no place here.

My goal is to get them to see the issue from every perspective, to work through contradictions, to recognize inconsistencies and flimsy arguments based on nothing more than ideology or emotion.

But introduce guns to this environment and debate is compromised, because allowing guns onto a college campus, even with restrictions, can diminish people’s sense of safety.

As a professor of professional and creative writing that employs issues based lessons I question whether or not he understands the the same fallacies of logic I learned from my literature and speech professors.

In the discussions he is respectful to opposing views and encourages the citing of evidence as long as the source isn't the NRA.

 

[DeeJay]

I used to periodically find myself in the company of a bunch of education professionals, everyone else was one but me. I found it quite beneficial and amusing to keep my mouth shut and listen.

 

[Bearly]

Dee Jays got it right. Know what the opposition thinks so you can best react.

 

[68mustang]

I wonder if he also dismisses sources from anti-gun literature?

 

[turkeyrun]

Academidiots are always respectful of opposing views, as long as you agree with them because they are educated and professionals, clearly your superior.

 

[Rod Snell]

Since going from student to college instructor, I've enjoyed sticking pins in inflated "I've got a degree so I know everything" jerks by comparing degrees and acquainting them with facts.
Yes, I have advanced physics degrees and am a vocal constitutional conservative.

One thing to watch on anti-gun academic rants is that they LIE, and quote each other's bogus made-up "facts" endlessly. I tell them that quoting a lie 3 times does not make it a fact, no matter whose lie it is. (cf Mein Kampf Adolph Hitler, the great socialist)

 

[Poke78]

As a professor of professional and creative writing that employs issues based lessons I question whether or not he understands the the same fallacies of logic I learned from my literature and speech professors.

In the discussions he is respectful to opposing views and encourages the citing of evidence as long as the source isn't the NRA.

Thanks for pulling those particular quotes as they expose the writer as the type of person he says he doesn't care for in the final quote, one who is ruled by ideology and emotion. Especially telling is his upset at the visuals upon his entry to campus with the de-milled defense equipment on static display. Wonder if he has any connection in his mind between the existence of the equipment (and the people to use it effectively) and his right to exist in his academic ivory tower where he can write his drivel while expressing his unsupported opinion? Somehow, I just doubt it.

 

[rawhide]

One thing to watch on anti-gun academic rants is that they LIE, and quote each other's bogus made-up "facts" endlessly. I tell them that quoting a lie 3 times does not make it a fact, no matter whose lie it is. (cf Mein Kampf Adolph Hitler, the great socialist)

In the Linkedin discussion he is adamant that empirical evidence proves that the presence of a gun makes one less safe, that John Lott's research is discredited and that the gun restrictions do not lead to assaults with other weapons like knives. Hard to give respect to the position of a "professional" who teaches others to recognize diverse points of view by removing emotion when his own article begins with a position based on emotion rather than rational thought.

My own unscientific research online found that the debunkers were debunked and that while a couple of researchers did disagree with Lott's conclusions, a couple dozen did agree with his research. One even changed his own position and joined Lott in further study.