Like most campus arguments, however, the debate is much more about feelings than facts. Since so many students feel icky about guns, they can’t bear the thought that the person beside them might be armed. And they definitely feel icky about gun owners. So attempting to ban guns is win/win — not only are there fewer guns on campus (they believe), there are fewer of their filthy owners. But while a gun ban may make activists…feel better, it renders them more vulnerable, and they’ve demonstrated once again that they won’t let reality stand in the way of their own intolerance. – David French in Do Facts Matter in the Battle Over Guns on Campus? [at nationalreview.com]
I think that like most “issues” on campus, it is a loud vocal minority trying to drive an issue most students really don’t care or have much concern about. In this specific case, it is being also fueled by the media, outside groups (MDA, et al) and select faculty using their classrooms and status bully pulpits.
Feelings. If I could have a purely factual interaction with a coworker, family member, etc. in order to solve an issue, life would be so simple. Stupid feelings enter the argument, devolve it to emotion, the facts get stomped into the background, and those same feelings get ‘hurt’. Repeat for the subsequent attempts.
Grow a pair, America.
I feel frustrated and bewildered that some can be so irrational that they think a few signs will stop anyone from bringing a gun into a building or “Gun Free Zone”. Or that allowing the small percentage of students with permits to carry their weapons will somehow cause chaos and death on the campuses. It is amazing that some people that consider themselves “Intellectuals” can be so stupid about this subject. Especially when it is obvious that the facts show the exact opposite of what they believe.
+1000
It’s the gun grabber paradox: they wish to stop shootings and mass shootings, and they don’t want people to carry guns to be able to stop them.
Lewis, is that you?
Here is an armed intellectual.
There is no paradox. Anti-gunner, legislators, judges, police, college campuses want citizens to die by not allowing them to lawfully protect themselves.
It’s a matter of levels. The political elites demand armed guards. They wouldn’t condescend to go anywhere without them. I’m bewildered by the middle class and below gun control disciples. They’ll vote for laws to disarm themselves and face harm completely unprotected in order to bolster a misconceived sense of moral superiority.
Meanwhile the savvy individuals such as ourselves understand that drawing a gun from our own holster is faster and more effective than dialing 911 and hiding under a desk.
Yeah, especially since dialing 911 will get you a cop in at least 10 minutes in most cases.
People are dumb. We all discount the good and focus on the bad from a thing. So they discount the good that guns can do and instead focus on the very low risk that somehow some more guns will cause a problem.
Never mind the fact that armed robberies happen right on the edge of campus (at NC State a least). There is very likely guns near enough to campus every day. But campus carry is the devil because guns! So we’ll just ignore the crap on our doorstep because letting people choose to be safer has the infinitesimal risk of making ME less safe somehow. Even though that hasn’t happened anywhere.
One of my definitions of a liberal is someone who is so afraid of a bad outcome that he will substitute a worse one and turn himself into logical knots to justify that choice.
I find it fascinating that so many colleges are surrounded by ghettos. I guess maybe poor, unscrupulous ethnic people with a disposition toward crime are naturally attracted towards “safe spaces” filled with privileged, disarmed ectomorphs, and the privileged kiddies and administrators think it best politically not to rail against the “disenfranchised minorities” assaulting, robbing, and raping them, or something.
Used to live in NJ and was sent to work in Texas for a few weeks. Took one of my NJ coworkers with me to a cabellas. The guy started freaking out when I took him to the gun section an I told him probably 1/2 the people in the store were concealed carrying. Literally had to get him out of the store he was freaking out so badly over the guns.
I hope that guy made it safely back to N.J.
Maybe his wife can spoon him, stroke his hair and tell him it’s alright, that he is home safe now…
It’s been almost 20 years since I sat in a college classroom so I no longer have a stake in the campus carry debate. If I did, I would have two arguments to make.
I would pick out the smallest person in the class, probably a female around 5 feet and 100 pounds, and the biggest person, probably a male athlete in excess of 6 feet and 200 pounds. I would ask the small person if he/she is afraid of the big person. The likely answer is, “No.” Then I would ask if he/she could win a fight with the big person. Unless, he/she ducks the question, the answer will be, “No.” I can then draw the conclusion that his/her safety is entirely dependent on the good will of the big person. My final question would be, “How is that different from a person, known to have training and a record of good behavior, who carries a firearm?”
My other tactic would be to show that everyone in the room has some sort of weapon. The most prevalent example is a pen or pencil that could be used to poke out another person’s eye. I would add that blinding someone is a serious injury against which the law authorizes the victim to defend himself with deadly force.
I only have a single shot .22lr bolt action rifle. So that’s all I care about. I’m ok ignoring, even forfeiting, elements of firearms freedom that don’t impact me personally; regardless of the effect on you.
People insist on gun free zones because it makes them feel better. This is pure symbolism and nothing more. You can see how this operates when, after a spree killing, people demand more gun free zones.
Do facts matter anymore in any national debates? They’re all drowned out by smug journalists, political vote buying and hyperbole.
These really are end times for western powers, Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky have won, all we are fighting is the inevitable.
No its only inevitable if you fail to fight. The left may push be we push back harder. The Chicago way.
If we do nothing we lose, all we have to do is push hard enough so the left exposes itself as traitorous tyrants
They claim to be so tolerant while rejecting gun owners as disgusting, subhuman hicks with subpar intelligence and no morals. The lack of logic hurts.
Do Facts Matter in the Battle Over Guns on Campus?
No, because gun-grabbers view firearms as evil incarnate — as well as anyone who would carry a firearm around. Since anyone who owns/carries a firearm is by definition evil (according to gun-grabbers), there is no point in a gun-grabber hearing or discussing anything.
Nicely done. This. Take it to them.
I happen to believe that the extracted quote is true on its face – “bitterly clinging” and all that – but IT DOESN’T MATTER.
You’re just trying to get rid of people different from you. Make them defend themselves. There is no move after that.
“No, no it’s about the violence!”
“Oh, well, you’re wrong about that. Which statistic would you prefer, where mass shootings happen, what tends to stop mass shootings, “almost” mass shootings that get stopped in their tracks and how, aggregate statistics on gun violence, or what I really prefer, stats on violence over all, and successful self-defense.”
“BTW, armed women defend themselves more effectively against larger, stronger, aggressive men, than unarmed women … there’s stats for that, too. Why do you hate women, or maybe only smaller people?”
Put them on the back foot and make them defend their proposal – to take guns away from everybody, including the people who could use an equalizer in a dangerous situation. Make them make the argument: “Hey, what’s a few sacrificial lambs in aid of the greater good, right?”
If you have the right to “feel safe” (which you don’t) what about MY right to feel safe? Doesn’t your right end where my rights begin.
I feel the best answer to this crap is a Federal funding freeze for any institution that prevents people from exercising rights
Are we talking abou guns on campus or pocket knives on airplanes?
Students are paying huge money and incurring enormous debts to have their brains turned to jelly by American universities.
And according to professors, administrators and assorted feminazis, a gun on campus carried lawfully is a clear case of white microaggression rape privilege hypermasculinity warning trigger culture or some such bullsh!t.
Is there any wonder why recent grads are under-educated, barely literate and unemployable?
Would a trigender transracial Inuit woman be okay carrying as a political statement about the oppression of the whales?
Possibly only the gay whales…
*cough*
What’s “trigender” person? I can only think of two.
This is a millenial speaking. I didn’t go to college. I entered the workforce debt free at age 18. Took an apprenticeship, learned a trade, (electrician), and read books about subjects of interest to me to round out my education. At age 28, my house is 3/4 paid for and my land will be paid off this march. no crushing debt, and thankfully no leftist indoctrination to shed. Think about learning a trade kids. I’ll be retired at 55. Your liberal arts degree won’t even be paid off by then.
+1000
The phrase, “young and impressionable” was born of reality and wisdom. The adults are the ones who should be wise enough to calm the troops, yet many seem to feed hysteria. For this they are to be shamed and rightfully so.
What must be understood is firearms have always likely been around them, they just don’t know it. CC would not change this. Well okay it would with the fact more responsible legal people would be the ones in possession.
The other issue which needs to be repeated over and over again until absorbed is this; gun-free zones give the advantage to the assailant making innocent lives 100% more vulnerable. In an institution of learning I am baffled as to why anyone would support a position whereas the bad guy is given an advantage greater than what they already automatically own through ambush tactics.