Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What's the problem with arming Ward Churchill? The man clearly prefers to fight with his mouth.

But anyway, as someone who's stood in those shoes, I have mixed feelings about it. It would strongly emphasize the idea that you're responsible for that sea of young folk in front of you. (My classes typically had 400 students.) That's daunting. Not at all what I signed up for.

On the other hand, it's probably already reality, to some degree. If there had been an earthquake or fire, what then? Wouldn't students, parents, and the public have generally expected me to take some kind of command, establish order, take some kind of responsibility for the students? I don't think I would be considered to be just another random adult on the scene, however true it might be that we were all over 18.

I don't know the right answers here. But it seems to me that a decision by a professor to arm himself in the classroom is complex because he's not just another adult on the scene -- or at least, not seen that way. Perhaps it's like the fact that a decision by a physician to render first aid is far more complex than the decision of J. Random Bystander to do so.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 12:41 PM

The problem with this is if the "armed madman" is the Professor himself.

What if the "odd" Professor was actually beginning to fantasize about taking out the entire class that gave him a terrible review last semester?

Perhaps one could require those university employees who wished to be armed on campus to be subject to a rigorous psychological evaluation on a periodic basis.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 19, 2007 12:46 PM

It's an excellent suggestion. Particularly if the professors don't make it obvious who does, and who does not carry guns. It makes the possiblity that the killer will run into someone with a gun an unknown quantity. I also expect that part of the motivation for this type of behavior is going against unarmed and helpless people. The "quiet loner" is looking to be the one in undisputed power, he doesn't want confrontation even on an equal basis. The real possiblity of that happening makes the scenareo less likely, IMO.

Posted by K at April 19, 2007 01:20 PM

The problem with this is if the "armed madman" is the Professor himself.

Case in point: the professor who went nuts and shot five people at Concordia University in 1992. Of course, he got a gun anyway.

Posted by Paul Dietz at April 19, 2007 02:09 PM

Case in point: the professor who went nuts and shot five people at Concordia University in 1992.

Did he have a permit to carry?

Of course, he got a gun anyway.

Exactly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 19, 2007 02:25 PM

If a professor, or a student for that matter, has been deemed by his/her state to be competent enough to carry a weapon (assuming subject state has a CWP program) at the local shopping mall or any other heavily populated public place why shouldn't this individual be deemed competent to carry that same weapon on his/her university campus?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 19, 2007 02:33 PM

Case in point: the professor who went nuts and shot five people at Concordia University in 1992.

Worth noting is that Concordia University had banned guns on campus one year earlier, after the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre.

That worked out well, didn't it? Yet another near-victory for the concept of a "gun free" zone.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 03:31 PM

That worked out well, didn't it? Yet another near-victory for the concept of a "gun free" zone.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 03:31 PM
----------------------------------------------

A requirement to prove mental competency (via a psychological assessment) to buy a gun and a periodic reassessment to retain that proviledge would have likely stopped Cho and Fabrikant.

In addition such an assessment may have even forced them to seek much needed treatment for their ill functioning wiring.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 19, 2007 04:05 PM

The problem with this is if the "armed madman" is "the Professor himself."

If the professor is an armed madman it won't matter one bit whether or not University policies prohibit weapons on campus. He'll bring the weapon anyway, just like the kid at VPI did.

Posted by KeithK at April 19, 2007 04:22 PM

A requirement to prove mental competency (via a psychological assessment) to buy a gun and a periodic reassessment to retain that proviledge would have likely stopped Cho and Fabrikant.

I dunno, TNT. I hope you're not assuming the only reason people murder is through frank psychosis, the kind of thing that's easily picked up by a psychological assessment (or even just 10 minutes conversation). Do recall that most people who are charged with murder do not succeed with an insanity defense.

That means what you need is a psychological assessment that can pick up homicidal tendencies in an otherwise fairly "normal" person.

If such an assessment existed, don't you think parole boards would be using it already? They've got all the motivation in the world -- very little is as discouraging as hearing that a guy you've paroled has just shot and killed someone -- and no real opposing side. Who would complain if a condition of parole were that you had to pass a test determining whether you were likely to kill someone with a gun?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 04:49 PM

Carl, the technology is coming soon via brain scans. Got to run, literally.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 19, 2007 05:07 PM

"o buy a gun and a periodic reassessment to retain that proviledge would have likely stopped Cho and Fabrikant."

Or it would have shunted them to the black market and they would have done it anyway.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 19, 2007 05:16 PM

When I was an undergrad, it was actually pretty much an open secret that one of our CS professors regularly carried a concealed handgun, even though it was technically a violation of the university's weapons policy.

Posted by Neil H. at April 19, 2007 06:47 PM

Concealed handgun, feh. I'd carry -- well, drag on a stout cart -- one of these into the lecture hall. Plonk it down on the (suitably reinforced) lecture table.

Never any trouble in that class. In fact, with suitably positioned windows, classes in many nearby buildings would be covered, too.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 07:07 PM

Rand: "Eugene Volokh (who I'm given to understand has a pretty tight pattern at the range) asks "why not at least arm the professors who want to be"?"

A mass-killer would just shoot the professor first.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 07:29 PM

So BS, you didn't bother to read it huh?

"And in any event, it seems to me that this modest risk is worth running, just as the risk that armed security guards would be shot first is worth running in order to provide the protection that armed security guards might offer."

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 19, 2007 07:51 PM

Armed security guards are also trained and several.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 19, 2007 08:34 PM

They are not always several and they are usually minimally trained, far less so than myself. It is not hard to achieve better training than your average rent-a-cop. Most security has very rudimentary training unless they are retired or off duty cops.

On a scale of 1-10. 10 being a Delta Force operator, 8 being an IPSC competitor with three years experience, 6 being a SWAT team operator, 4 you average State Trooper/Highway Patrol and pistol armed .mil crewmember or infantry officer, 2-3 being your town cop, the average rent a cop is a 0.3. Not three but three tenths of one point.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 19, 2007 08:50 PM

A mass-killer would just shoot the professor first.

No, he'd shoot at the professor first. And from a considerable distance, since a professor packing heat is not going to let a guy waving a gun approach real close before taking action.

If he's a marksman, I guess that's that. You've got to hope some student Molly Pitcher scoops up the professor's weapon and takes over.

On the other hand, odds are pretty good if he's no expert than Mr. Scary just missed with the first shot, and now it's the professor's turn.

But this is all moonshine. Gunmen do not target folks with obvious weapons. Cho didn't go downtown and storm the police station, or an Army barracks. No one ever does. Narcissist wackjobs look for "soft" targets who are very unlikely to fight back at all, let alone carry deadly weapons that do a lot to even up the odds.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 19, 2007 09:49 PM

Mike: "They are not always several and they are usually minimally trained"

As opposed to your average Greek literature professor?

Mike: "It is not hard to achieve better training than your average rent-a-cop."

Then why not give that training to the rent-a-cop?

Mike: "the average rent a cop is a 0.3."

And the average guy who spends his days buried in books, typing at a computer, or standing at a podium would be virtually zero. Professors barely have the time to speak to their students, let alone regularly train at a shooting range or get themselves into the right physical shape for a quick response.

Carl: "And from a considerable distance, since a professor packing heat is not going to let a guy waving a gun approach real close before taking action."

Sure, if the professor is a quick-draw artist, is specifically watching the students who walk in to make sure they're not carrying guns, and the gunman is both crazy and stupid enough to make it obvious before he gets in easy range. Basically you're saying the prof could take him out as long as the gunman lets him.

Carl: "You've got to hope some student Molly Pitcher scoops up the professor's weapon and takes over."

As could the gunman.

Carl: "odds are pretty good if he's no expert than Mr. Scary just missed with the first shot, and now it's the professor's turn."

Gunfights are not a turn-based game, and haven't been since the covered wagon days. With a semiautomatic, if someone has it pointed at you and yours is holstered, three or four shots will have to miss completely or hit nonvital areas for you to have any chance at all.

Carl: "Gunmen do not target folks with obvious weapons."

If you're referring only to mass killers, then of course they don't deliberately seek out armed victims, but that doesn't mean the knowledge that one of the people they intend to kill is armed would deter them.

Carl: "Cho didn't go downtown and storm the police station, or an Army barracks."

You're drawing fallacious conclusions from that. He didn't purposely look for armed victims, so you're saying arming his professor victim would have deterred him.

Carl: "Narcissist wackjobs look for "soft" targets who are very unlikely to fight back at all"

I'd say he was a paranoid schizoaffective wackjob, not a narcissist. And the people he wanted to kill were the other VT students and faculty specifically, not miscellaneous victims.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 02:14 AM

Mike: "It is not hard to achieve better training than your average rent-a-cop."

Brian: "Then why not give that training to the rent-a-cop?"

I'd rather a few students/professors carry concealed than have an armed guard standing in every classroom. What a chilling thought.

Posted by MJ at April 20, 2007 06:02 AM

Because they are not going to pay for enough rent-a-cops Brian, that is the crux of the whole issue.

To achieve the level of training a rent-a-cop receives Brian, would take around one day per year. It could be done over summer break. Even most police officers receive no more than a couple of days training per year.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 20, 2007 07:09 AM

I'd rather a few students/professors carry concealed than have an armed guard standing in every classroom. What a chilling thought.

As you know, MJ, BS is our resident expert in all things Orwellian. He understands that better than letting the people have the right to defend themselves; it is better to pin a tin badge on a few select members of the citizenry and arm them. Better a junior college drop out be armed and responsible for the protection of students than a college professor.

Posted by Leland at April 20, 2007 07:22 AM

Leland,

I would like to dub what you describe as 'The Branding Fallacy'. Kind of a warped derivative of appeal to authority.

Just because something has a reassuring appearance, it must guarentee competence and quality.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 20, 2007 08:06 AM

MJ: "I'd rather a few students/professors carry concealed than have an armed guard standing in every classroom."

Who says they'd be in the classrooms? I'm fine with the status quo, so I'm just arguing this hypothetically, but there's no reason there couldn't be a standard security operation with panic buttons and armed response.

Mike: "Because they are not going to pay for enough rent-a-cops Brian"

I think you vastly overestimate how many professors and/or students would choose to be armed in class, even if given the option. Under most circumstances, in most classrooms, even in most buildings, the number would be zero. Maybe there would be more at some Southern state colleges, but the overwhelming majority of university faculty would be offended at the very suggestion, seeing it as a kind of cowardice in response to an incredibly unlikely danger.

Mike: "Even most police officers receive no more than a couple of days training per year."

Cops have to go through the academy, pass extensive background checks, and satisfy physical and psychological requirements. I'm not saying city police are elite, but your idea that any old schmuck can just waltz on to the force is ridiculous.

Leland: "Better a junior college drop out be armed and responsible for the protection of students than a college professor."

Come on, that's idiotic even for you. Would you rather an auto mechanic repair your car or an art history professor?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 11:23 AM

the overwhelming majority of university faculty would be offended at the very suggestion, seeing it as a kind of cowardice in response to an incredibly unlikely danger.

It's "cowardice" to have the means to defend oneself?

Wow, war really is peace in Brian's Oceania.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 20, 2007 11:27 AM

"but the overwhelming majority of university faculty would be offended at the very suggestion, seeing it as a kind of cowardice in response to an incredibly unlikely danger."

I guess some sheep interpret mindset and responsibility incorrectly as cowardice.

"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. "

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 20, 2007 07:06 PM

Rand: "It's "cowardice" to have the means to defend oneself?"

To carry lethal force in anticipation of a statistically infinitesimal danger? I would merely call that irrational, needlessly disruptive, and a completely unjustified risk, but it's hard to avoid at least perceiving it as cowardice.

Rand: "Wow, war really is peace in Brian's Oceania."

Given that there's a vastly higher chance of being shot in a supermarket parking lot, the next time you shop for groceries carry a .44 magnum in a side holster, put on a kevlar vest, goggles, knee pads, a tooth tray, chin guard, and bulletproof army helmet, then announce to curious passersby that you're merely taking precautions should an armed criminal show up. Now, their conclusion will be which of the following?

(a)You're a responsible, rational citizen taking reasonable precautions.
(b)You should add a rocket launcher and grenades to your ensemble in case the Russkies invade.
(c)You're a neurotic, fear-obsessed prison bitch who should grow some balls and accept dangers normal people, including 10-year-old Girl Scouts, accept as a part of daily life.

If option (c) is the consensus, proceed to regale them with your Orwellian-squared sentiments about Oceania, followed by some creepy Bible verses spoken while crouching behind a payphone to limit your profile for potential attackers.

Mike: "I guess some sheep interpret mindset and responsibility incorrectly as cowardice."

Sheep respond to fear, like hearing about a massacre and deciding to buy a gun. Being close enough to the event to excuse irrationality in the aftermath is one thing, but acting out of distantly vicarious terror with no logical foundation is irresponsible.

Mike: "The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog."

Fortunately, people aren't sheep and this is just a cold-blooded metaphor with limited applicability.

Mike: "or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16."

That we can do without.

"Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog."

Everything is what it is until something happens to change it. Get people used to the idea of guns, sooner or later a part of them get used to the idea of using them, and then everybody else has to get used to it too in order to stop them. It's what I call the Sparta Cycle--become a race of soldiers to keep the slaves under control, but you only need slaves so that you can be soldiers. Society should be smart enough at this point to avoid obvious cycles of misery like that.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 20, 2007 08:56 PM

Post a comment