“When the New York Times interviews an academic for a gun-related story, they can’t seem to find one who says guns make people safer.” – John Lott in Guess Who is Pro-Gun? Survey of College Professors Shows Surprising Views on Gun Ownership [at theblaze.com]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: NYT Has Trouble Finding Pro-Gun Academics
That’s because guns don’t make anybody safer. They make you more capable. That’s all.
As a tenured professor, I can tell you that there are many many pro-gun academics. However, due to the position, they are not often vocal about it. In fact, a surprising number o professors are also accomplished preppers and closet survivalists. Often it goes with the territory. But of course you will never hear about it from them.
We do required active shooter response training on campus and the number of colleagues expressing interest in packing heat or storing a .38 in their desk drawer is considerable.
But again, you won’t hear much from them since the closed world of academia is a special case city unto itself. We don’t advertise, nor even admit that we would even consider shooting a student no matter how screwed up and dangerous the situation. It’s bad for business.
I’m sure the NYT finds plenty of them, they just disregard them until they find one with an opinion that fits their narrative.
The term for this is called ‘confirmational bias’; only looking at data that fits your preconceived opinion. Very common today with ‘news’ sources.
Sadly, this is the new “scientific method”, as well.
If the data doesn’t support the hypothesis – change the data, but never, ever, change your mind.
That, and rights don’t depend on data.
Most “scientists” , especially of the human sciences, are the new clergy of the progressive/statist cult. They use their position of “authoritae” to interpret to the ” eaters and breeders”, the commandments from on high.
So if they have to use poetic license to interpret those commandments, (“scientific findings”)for our own good, well, it is for our “good”, after all.
There is nothing scientific about confirmation bias. Accusing any scientist, including social scientists, of confirmation bias is damning.
You know, there was a time when the NYT was pretty pro-guns itself. That was back when they set up a Gatling gun in the paper’s lobby to defend against hooligans during the Civil War Draft Riots. So it’s been a while, but still. That’s the kind of high capacity “weapon of war” that they would decry today, though I bet they still have some form of armed security even today.
That word again, narrative. I usually only hear liberals use it and when they do I think of the word story, then the word lie. I wonder why that is…
Off topic, but this is the stupidest thing this year:
’cause the exhibit has Civil War guns!
The failure is strong there. “The museum is highlighting guns, that we are trying to get off the streets”
How much more off the street can you get? Antiques, difficult to find ammo, behind locked glass. WTF is wrong with this group of “dozens”?
Also stupidest thing this year, it’s only February, I am sure the Anti group can top this before December.
Wow. Must be a slow day at the “find what to protest about ” think tank these boys take their orders from. You know, I’m kinda scared of flying. Anyone care to drive up to DC with me as land protest the national air am so ace museum. I hear that place is chock full of flying thingeys.
Because they are Progressives and those Civil War (War Between the States) guns were used by a Republican administration to free the Negroes from slavery. Neither the guns nor the freedom of blacks by Republicans fit with the Progressive narrative in this election year.
That’s because they are talking to the wrong people, and moreover, they are doing it on purpose…
Academics know about academia – clinicians get sh*t done, researchers talk about getting sh*t done.
Here is a pro self and school defense academic. J. Eric Dietz ,Purdue Polytechnic., Dr. Dietz’s research interests include optimization of emergency response, homeland security and defense, energy security, and engaging veterans in higher education. As a Director in Purdue’s Discovery Park, Dr. Dietz is responsible for the catalysis of the Purdue’s homeland security research, increasing the impact of Purdue research on society, and organizing interdisciplinary projects within the university. Here is his recent study.
“Mitigating Active Shooter Impact; Analysis for Policy Options Based on Agent/Computer Based ModelingBy: Charles Anklam, Adam Kirby, Filipo Sharevskiand Dr. J. Eric Dietz” March 2014 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272747940_Mitigating_Active_Shooter_Impact_Analysis_for_Policy_Options_Based_on_AgentComputer_Based_Modeling
Nobody likes it because it is brutally honest. Not everybody lives; not everybody dies. Good guys with guns reduce the death toll of the innocents.
It s an lost state don t give a fuck to changed that ………
Only way for gun rights is to get out there thats the hard reality, same for hawai, california and the other communistic leader
Grammar…it’s a thing.
“Libertarians don’t belive in grammar……..
You forgot to close your quotation.
Oh, and what is a “belive”, anyways?
The pen is mightier than the sword. But only if it used well.
I don’t care whether a researcher is pro this or anti that. His personal feelings and opinions are irrelevant. What matters is whether he’s honest, objective and competent. Armed with those qualities, he can conduct an inquiry and follow the facts wherever they lead, to whatever scientific conclusions they support.
A pro-gravity physicist or an anti-colloidal system chemist? Doesn’t matter, just do your job. It’s just like the lactose intolerant vegetarian girl down at Subway who’s on a diet. If I order a foot long meatball marinara with extra pepper jack cheese, that’s my business and she makes it, regardless of her personal preferences.
Educators are supposed to be just that not opinionators.
Interesting article. Criminology is subset set of sociology. Criminologist see the effects of gun more proportial than economist. It’s natural to assume criminologist would have a negative view of gun use.
Still doesn’t matter though. Every citizen has the right to lawfully protect themselves regardless what anyone says.
It’s been said that even a parrot can be taught to be an economist. Just teach him to say “supply” and “demand.” Perhaps that’s a bit of an oversimplification, but if you taught the bird to say “scarcity” and “marginal utility”, you’d be considerably closer.
Economists know that resources are finite. You simply cannot have or do everything that you want. Therefore, decisions must be made. Because every choice carries an opportunity cost, economists constantly think in terms of the trade-offs, the rates of change, the net benefits and how these evolve.
Criminologists, on the other hand, are focused on crime. Crime as an outcome naturally begets a cause and effect mindset for criminologists, as opposed to the judgment-free, marginal utility mindset of an economist. So it’s much easier for a criminologist to see guns, see crime, and to see the problem as one causing the other, instead of seeing a much more dynamic interaction between the two.
What about the elephant in the room; John Lott! His book, “More guns, less crime,” is one of the few scientific/statistical looks at honestly dissecting this issue. John didn’t start out pro-gun (to the best of my knowledge, from several interviews I have heard with him) but started out wanting to find out the truth. He recognizes and proves in his book (IMHO, of course) that limiting gun rights hurts citizens in the aggregate.
John is a bright, honest man, who reports the data, not his desired outcomes.
It’s worth reading the article. It’s short but contains some good data.
Hiring/promotion/tenure/”Better-School” employment opportunity decision are very subjective for almost all academics. So it is tactically and strategically wise to shut up and “stick to your field”, rather than offer up minority opinion on highly contentious issues.
At least on the record. The anonymity of the Internet, as broken as it is, does help alleviate concerns over potential repercussions. But, being progressive, what the NYT trades in, is not opinion or arguments, but the supposed “authority” of the source. Regardless of whether anything he/she says, is in any way well reasoned backed by evidence or logic, or not. Well indoctrinated NYT faithful, have been told “professor” means “smart.” And “gun owner” means ignorant. And the NYT is more than happy to keep their captive audience hence “informed.”
Well, finding them and interviewing them is two different things.
Slightly off topic a pro gun control “criminaloligist” phd Dr. from NZ but who mainly worked at Australian and US universities has been charged with indecent dealing with a young girl here in Australia
Somehow not surprising behaviour in that type
Why can’t they find and pro gun professors?
Because they’re are none.
If they’re any, They’re just fake ones put on by the NRA and Gun manufacturers.
Ahhhh yes, it’s always the monolithic NRA’s fault isn’t it? Secretly training those pro-gun professors in underground bunkers to *GASP* be anything other than progressive Marxists and sending them off to terrorize colleges and universities nationwide with their seditious ideas. Never mind the fact that the NRA gets its money from millions of American citizens all over the country and their annual membership dues. Get real.
Why can’t they find and pro gun professors? Because they are Bolsheviks. Silly boy, academics are Institutional Communists. Look at their statist environment.
Joe Wilson has two words for you NYT: “You Lie!”
No shit, maybe that’s because the vast majority of academics are about as friendly towards liberty, a government bound by constitutional limits, and capitalism as Josef Stalin was towards Poles and Ukrainians.
Most academic PHDs are usually Red Bolsheviks. I have been to college and done that.
I’m a tenured prof. Have been on faculty at the (objectively) best universities in the world. You can believe that or not. At Ivy league places, there are a few gun people who are “out.” Mostly outspoken libertarian types. There are a few more who are righty or gun-liking lefties, but the smart money keeps it on the down low. Even letting your kid play with a finger-pistol is grounds for suspicion. The lefty gun people are the guys who appreciate that weapons are nice tools to have. And yeah, they think there are some idiots out there who own guns and they probably don’t mind a bit more regulation. I don’t agree, but whatever.
I like firearms mostly for the mechanical beauty and the self-defense utility. I have a .50BMG, a can for my HK45, a SCAR 17, a bunch of nice pistols and rifles, and I keep a 9 hidden in a very clever place while I am at work on my gun free campus. Like so clever I wish I could brag about it but then I’d get caught.
Some really good economists I know have collections that would curl your toes. They (and I) think that if you look back through history, our current warm, civilized existence is an anomaly. The Pax Americana has spoiled us into thinking we all live in 1990s Norway. 70 years ago most people in the civilized world had a non-zero probability of being raped or killed by invading armies or by their own government. I have a reasonable number of good friend academics who have FA stuff (legal) and serious iron for if stuff goes sideways. We just never talk about it. It’s like being a gay dude who works at an Evangelical church. You’re just better off not talking about it.
Has anyone considered organizing pro-gun (or whatever term is appropriate) faculty to simultaneously make their presence known, and then attempt to influence the discourse?
There aren’t a lot of academics who live in the real world.
Bet they cant find many that can teach either.