When May I Shoot a Student?---A must-read masterpiece of weaponized snark.
This op-ed in the NYTimes this morning by Prof. Greg Hampikian, Boise State University in Idaho, has written a must-read masterpiece of weaponized snark. The Idaho legislature has a bill pending that would allow students on campus to carry guns. A taste...
By GREG HAMPIKIANFEB. 27, 2014
BOISE, Idaho — TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?
...
I have had encounters with disgruntled students over the years, some of whom seemed quite upset, but I always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil. Since I carry a pen to lecture, I did not feel outgunned; and because there are no working sharpeners in the lecture hall, the most they could get off is a single point. But now that we’ll all be packing heat, I would like legal instruction in the rules of classroom engagement.
...
I assume that if a student shoots first, I am allowed to empty my clip; but given the velocity of firearms, and my aging reflexes, I’d like to be proactive. For example, if I am working out a long equation on the board and several students try to correct me using their laser sights, am I allowed to fire a warning shot?
...................
While our city police chief has expressed grave concerns about allowing guns on campus, I would point out that he already has one. I’m glad that you were not intimidated by him, and did not allow him to speak at the public hearing on the bill (though I really enjoyed the 40 minutes you gave to the National Rifle Association spokesman).
the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/when-may-i-shoot-a-student.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/28/1281076/-When-May-I-Shoot-a-Student
= new reply since forum marked as read
a word or phrase by using the word or phrase... Just saying... 
are living in A twilight zone. 
which is understandable. 
you're still missing the point. oh boy! sigh. 
if you need to have access to your gun everyday. I'm saying guns under the cover of a CCW don't belong on a college campus. I don't care how many guns you have, how many time you've used the 2nd amendment to justify your gun fondling. We don't need anymore students pulling out weapons like some wild west movie. I respect that you love your gun. But that's it. Too many guns makes for chaos and mayhem. I don't care about your logic and your shooting down any part of my argument. Have fun.
Guns and kids. How could our gangs manage without them?
All said and done, it's not that hard for minors to get a hold of guns.
Look at the statistics. Look at the numbers of minors who die from gunshot wounds. In a large percentage of the cases, the kids got their guns from their parents. In fact, kids who die from gunshot wounds before the age of 10 almost always have either their own or some other kid's parents to thank for access to the death weapon.
And with university students, you are dealing with a relatively mature demographic. We aren't talking about the really young kids in high school like, say Trayvon Martin. We are talking about kids with the maturity to live on their own away from home. We are talking about kids who had the grades and the SAT scores to get accepted to college. Almost grown-up.
I wouldn't worry too much about how the kids will get possession of guns. Parents buy their college-bound kids' cars, computers, clothes and alcohol. Why not guns? Just another necessity for the college-bound crowd. Like a seasons' ticket for the football games.
Besides, if other kids on campus get to have guns, how could a loving parent refuse to buy one for his kid? Doesn't have to be in the kid's name. Is there any law against loaning your gun to your offspring? If there were, when would kids learn to shoot? Or do you think that should be a course taught on campus once the kid is old enough to buy his own? Hey! Another profit stream for the universities. Charge extra for the marksmanship classes.
When all is said and done, what responsible parent would want to send his 17-year-old daughter to a campus without a gun? If the other students are allowed to shoot their way to their college degree, wouldn't you seriously want your child to have the opportunity to do the same?
And? If teachers can be trusted around children, what's the problem? If they can't then why are they teachers?
By the way, I'm perfectly capable of grasping sarcasm but crappy sarcasm that relies on half-truths (read: half-lies) isn't sarcasm and barely rises to the level of polemic. It's a crappy op-ed pretending to be deep-seated intellectual wit.
For example, take his ridiculous point about being of advanced years with diminished reflexes. He claims that should raise the impetus for him to get the first shot but that would be unlikely in the event of an active shooter. Dr. Redonkulous conveniently ignores the fact that he's not the only one around; yet, he imposes his personal circumstances upon all other possible actors in the scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be younger, healthier and better trained.
He also presents his scenario as if a shooter would first be going for him to the exclusion of all others. Most mass-shooters simply start shooting -- and continue to do so until confronted by equal or greater force.
And, at the expense of sounding John Rambo-ish (I'm not) a good person should never want to be the first person to start shooting in a confrontation but they should always strive to be the last.
He also ignores the fact that shooters wanting to perpetrate mass shootings are looking to inflict most harm possible. That means they want to be left uninterrupted for as long as possible. That is why they choose schools and other such venues. I promise you'll see more mass shootings at gun-free zones than you'll ever see in places known for people carrying weapons.
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a self-defense expert (or "NRA apologist" ). The technical discussions in the RKBA forum tend to leave me behind. But I even I can see the glaring fallacies in his presentation, so much so that I have to assume the only people who would actually buy into it are those who want to do so at the expense of a half moment's contemplation.
What "managing that protection as they see fit" sometimes looks like:
?itok=OeV4oAzD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
...The Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations said that "police violence" was used against non-violent demonstrators throughout the state of California:[6]
" This week, we have seen excessive force used against non-violent protesters at UC Berkeley, UCLA, CSU Long Beach, and UC Davis. Student, faculty and staff protesters have been pepper-sprayed directly in the eyes and mouth, beaten and shoved by batons, dragged by the arms while handcuffed, and submitted to other forms of excessive force. Protesters have been hospitalized because of injuries inflicted during these incidents. The violence was unprovoked, disproportional and excessive.[71]"
Lets make everywhere safer!!
It's a tiny but welcome source of income for them.
Stop and think how that tiny income could explode into big bucks if we instituted a guns sales and rentals on campus movement nationwide.
We could use the money earned from those university sponsored sales and rentals of weapons for scholarships. I can see it now: "The survivors funds."
Compared to the mark-up on books, the mark-up on weapons would really make a dent in the costs of education and the recipients could be chosen based on their marksmanship skills.
And, let's be realistic. Kids are going to drink in college. Why not set up bars and saloons right on campus with all profits going to the university to ensure an even bigger profit stream for that college scholarship fund?
One advantage to this concept is that the drunk kids with their guns could have fun and puke and sprawl out drunk right on campus, right in front of their dormitories and frat houses. Not only would all the mess be concentrated in a smaller area, but the campus police could get a paddy wagon, drive it around the campus, pick up the drunk but breathing, deliver them to their classrooms, dorms and frat houses and grab the corpses and take them to an on-campus morgue. Think of the profits that could be made if you charged students for the taxi, ambulance and embalming services! Hey! We are getting into real money now.
The benefits of this plan for a sufficiently entrepreneurial university are incredible. Think how the money, in addition to the establishment of a scholarship fund, could be used to attract better football players and coaches.
Best of all, the university would be in the financial position to give its administrators a big raise. After all, the success of the program will depend on the quality of the university's leadership, and we all know that to attract the best and brightest top dogs, you have to pay well.
Another benfit: the university would be able to charge and retain the tuition money paid by the students who lose their lives in the on-campus wars without having to pay faculty to administer tests and complete grade forms .
Win, win, win, win all around. Guns and alcohol are profitable. And why shouldn't universities get their share of the money?
Finally, think beyond the university box and consider what this could do for our national GDP. Wow! The upside on this just does not quit.
Innovation. That's the key. That's the word.
The Second Amendment absolutists are absolutely outraged that anyone would seek to deny them an opportunity carry their guns anywhere, and everywhere. But of course that was to be expected wasn't it?
With a Howitzer, it's always Open Carry.
