Professor Takes Heat for Calling Cops on Student Who Discussed Guns in Class

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I must have missed the direct question, TG. Sorry for that. It isn't the wine list question?

Was it in this thread? Duh - anyway, I think deterrence is not that powerful a factor with these folks with current levels of carry.

My view of a stronger argument is that carry will mitigate damage with rampages.

My other point was that we need to understand decision making processes rather than just rant and fume about motivations. Fundamental attribution error is rampant and is counterproductive. I would rather convince than rant.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It isn't the wine list question?

I don't believe you ever justified your choices of red wine and that really left me flat.

However, even if armed as in Israel, (I have spent much time there BTW) the BGs weren't really deterred they just changed tactics to bombs. However, if Israeli civilians disarmed I am sure firearms would make a comeback. Over here might be more difficult for a Cho to get explosives that he could carry around but I don't know that.

I would rather convince than rant.

I would rather drink wine

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BGs weren't really deterred they just changed tactics to bombs.

I agree with that - they changed tactics. So if our suicidal folks were faced with serious numbers of armed folks - would they change tactics? If one says make it harder to get the instrument of killing (explosives) - is that a call for a gun ban or a ban on arms or whatever? We've had much discussion of that before.

They need to kill a sufficient number to make their case for a 'warrior's death' or martyrdom.

With regular suicides, gun bans have been argued to reduce suicides but what happened was you got a small dip and then a return to the average rate with a change in method.

Actually - I prefer to drink Shiner Boch with most meals or to relax sip something stronger.

 

[alan]

ftd:
Re your post 88, perhaps the following will serve to clarify comments in my post, the one you question.
1. Speaking personally, if at all possible, I avoid flying these days, for neither are the baloney routines of "security" nor the antics of airlines acceptable to the writer. I do not subscribe to either the theory ore the practice of the idea that having opted to a particular means of travel, that one accepts the denigration of basic civil rights, through this idea does appear to be in vogue these days. I try not to join the merry mob.
2. During the many years when pilots and co-pilots, perhaps flight engineers too were armed, by government requirement, there were no hijackings, nor were there any documented cases of armed cockpit crew members turning their weapons on helpless passengers, who by the way, at that time, might not have been quite as helpless as they seem these days.
3. It also seems to me that notwithstanding the millions if not billions spent on “security" since 911, that the expenditure of perhaps a couple of thousand dollars, the cost of 8 ordinary handguns, might have brought an entirely different ending to that day. Cockpit crew, be they simply pilot and co-pilot or FFDO's (Federal flight Deck Officers) should have been armed then, and they should be armed today, and to blazes with the anti-gun, anti self defense bureaucrats at TSA and other government agencies, whose chief concern might be described as Empire Building.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

With regular suicides, gun bans have been argued to reduce suicides but what happened was you got a small dip and then a return to the average rate with a change in method.

May I be so bold then to summarize that the availability of guns seem to have little or no effect on those who choose to kill themselves one way or the other? Furthermore, CCW will only deter criminals who wish to live (which is most of the time) and can only stop a rampage killer after he has shown his hand.

Actually - I prefer to drink Shiner Boch with most meals or to relax sip something stronger.

Shoulda known I like Stella Artois.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

With suicide - if you look at overall rates - while some debate this - overall rates are pretty immune to gun availability. Like I said, before - you seem to get a drop and then a rise with some restrictions.

On the individual level - gun availability is a different beast - it is thought access to guns or familiarity with them leads to more successful male suicides than women's. If someone shows suicidal ideation - getting rid of access to guns is a good idea because of the tempting impulse. That gives enough time to help the individual.

So there is the macro effect vs. the micro effect.

And I also agree that deterrence works more on a mind that real engages risk and doesn't want to die.

With suicidal rampagers - I think there is an interplay of whether they can achieve some immediate carnage before their death. Some might not take on a hardened environment with the chance of almost immediate termination. They would rather have a touch of a siege. On the other hand, as we saw with Japanese soldiers in WWII , some may go for even immediate termination.

That's why I think the deterrent argument is best for economically motivated criminals and mitgating damage is best for rampagers.

I must confess that we had red wine last night at dinner. But it wasn't a fancy selection - screw off bottle top.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That's why I think the deterrent argument is best for economically motivated criminals and mitgating damage is best for rampagers.

Well said and I agree. The motivation of rampages also shows the ineffectiveness of gun control I think.

But it wasn't a fancy selection - screw off bottle top.

What's the word? Thunderbird! What's the price? Fifty twice!

 

[bob.a]

Armored cockpit doors with good locks would pretty much end hijacking. We could save all the money that we spend on TSA. which in itself is a pretty disfunctional agency.

A former FAA official told me that the whole security screening process was ridiculous. He said the typical terrorist operation just wants to make a media splash; they'd be perfectly happy blowing up a line of several hundred people waiting to get their shoes checked, and the bad guys wouldn't even have to pass a security checkpoint to do it. Basically we just herded the sheep into the killing pen for them.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are drifting off the professor issue - my fault, I guess.

Anything else to say on that?

I agree on TSA and shifting targets, BTW.

 

[tube_ee]

Only problem with this:

were I a parent, I'm not, and any college or university a child of mine might be attending hired people such as this lady in an instructional capacity, freedom of speech not withstanding, she seemingly has some odd views thereon, I would seriously consider moving my kid to another school, and or having a word with officials where he/she was a student.

College students are overwhelmingly over the age of 18. Which makes them adults. They are no longer somebody's children.

College administrators and parents of students seem incapable of recognizing this simple truth.

--Shannon

 

[Evan Thomas]

I do not subscribe to either the theory ore the practice of the idea that having opted to a particular means of travel, that one accepts the denigration of basic civil rights, through this idea does appear to be in vogue these days. I try not to join the merry mob.

Good post, Alan. This is exactly the kind of principled response I was hoping to elicit by bringing up the issue of security in airports...

But I wasn't trying to, er, hijack the thread into a discussion of that specific topic. My point was that whatever position you take on the balance between civil rights and public safety needs to be consistently held. You can argue, as Alan appears to (A. -- correct me if I'm over-generalizing here), that it's never OK to sacrifice civil rights in the interest of a perceived security risk, or you can argue that sometimes it is OK. If you take the latter position, then where you draw the line is open to debate, but you've established the principle. As Bernard Shaw said in another context, "Now we're just negotiating the price..."

What you can't reasonably do is argue that the civil rights of people with whom you agree or identify should be privileged over those of others, or that the fears (security concerns) of people you disagree with are automatically less valid than your own.

Professor Anderson had a security concern based, perhaps, on a negative stereotype about gun owners. (It's a stereotype a lot of people share; otherwise the owners of this website wouldn't be so committed to counteracting it.) If you want to argue that Mr. Wahlberg's civil rights automatically trump that concern, you'd better be willing to concede Alan's point about airport security, as well. If you think it's OK to detain people in airports, when they haven't broken any laws but make someone uncomfortable because of their speech or appearance (more stereotyping), then you should at least allow that there's room for debate about the merits of the Conn. State case.

College students are overwhelmingly over the age of 18. Which makes them adults. They are no longer somebody's children.

Well... their mothers would say they'll always be somebody's children.

But 18-21 is sort of "the awkward age"... can join the military, drive, etc.... but can't legally drink, can't vote in most places, can't buy a handgun in a lot of places... etc. And the chances are fairly good that the parents are footing at least some of the college bills. So college administrations are in a bit of a tough position as far as all that "in loco parentis" stuff goes.

 

[ncpatriot]

Just another example that colleges don't educate as much as they brainwash. Education use to use common sense as a foundation and build up from there, a great thing. I use to work with lots of grads. Some could think & do anything. Others were baking pies in the skies. Sadly, more of the latter than the former. They may have had this professor or one like her.

 

[gretske]

If you want to argue that Mr. Wahlberg's civil rights automatically trump that concern, you'd better be willing to concede Alan's point about airport security, as well. If you think it's OK to detain people in airports, when they haven't broken any laws but make someone uncomfortable because of their speech or appearance (more stereotyping), then you should at least allow that there's room for debate about the merits of the Conn. State case.

NO, you are missing the point. Airport screening is done TO EVERYONE who gets on an airplane, without regard to appearance, name, racial profile, etc. There is no civil rights violation, because everyone is treated equally. You can argue the need to do the searches, but you can't question the equality of the treatment. Everyone wanting to enter an airliner is searched before entering.

In Mr. Wahlberg's case, the police did not question everyone who goes to the school, nor even everyone who entered the class. A misguided and/or ignorant professor filed a potentially false report with LE. Based on the lone piece of evidence that Mr. Wahlberg expressed a political opinion about a LEGAL activity that he believes should be extended, they subjected him to intrusive questioning and (I think) a violation of his civil rights. No one who did not express such an opinion was questioned, and the ONLY reason he was so treated was because of his opinion.

Now, if you really believe that it was a casual, friendly encounter, and that Mr. Wahlberg was not intimidated by uniformed, armed campus police personnel, you are being very naive. As you said, many 20 year-olds are adult in chronology only, so I am quite sure he was intimidated, very intimidated, probably even fearful. Most innocent college students would be.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, in fact, in the entire Constitution, and am a proponent of all our civil rights. This action was a clear infringement of Mr. Wahlberg's First Amendment rights, the Second Amendment rights of the rest of us. It should be condemned and prevented from ever occurring again.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Airport screening is done TO EVERYONE who gets on an airplane, without regard to appearance, name, racial profile, etc. There is no civil rights violation, because everyone is treated equally. You can argue the need to do the searches, but you can't question the equality of the treatment. Everyone wanting to enter an airliner is searched before entering.

You're right, as regards routine screening, but that's not what I was talking about. And in any case, the equal-treatment argument is lacking: if you believe that, then you'd say to ftd that his example, below, wouldn't violate anyone's rights, yes?

Why even wait for an accuser. Let's just have the police investigate everyone. Maybe we could also get them to search everyone's property for anything that might indicate that they might be up to something dire.

The fact that everyone is targeted doesn't mean their rights are protected. Equal treatment under the law is necessary but not sufficient: it's quite possible to violate the rights of an entire population.

 

[gretske]

My point goes back to the probable cause aspect of this. Mass screenings are no more legal than individual screenings unless there is sufficient probable cause. In the case of airline screenings, while the terrorism (I still believe in this term) threat level is high, there is probable cause to "detain" prospective passengers. Just because something is done to large numbers of people does not make it Constitutional.

No matter how you cut it, the only (underline three times and bold face) reason for his detention and interrogation was the opinion he expressed. And, mind you, it could not, presumably, be construed in any way as a threat. It was a political opinion that a LEGAL right to carry a weapon should be extended to college campuses. That was the ONLY reason he was treated as he was, therefore, it is undeniable that his rights were violated. As pointed out, the campus cops did not even bother to check and see what his address was.

I get the distinct feeling that Mme. Professora called the Kampus Keystone Kops and said something like, "Johny is saying everybody should bring a gun to class." And, Detective Klouseau said, "What! Why, we'll teach him a thing or two. Dano, bring him in for questioning. Now, where did I put my rubber hose?"

I could be wrong as to the names and exact words used, but I bet the conversation was not a lot deeper, leading to the trampling of an innocent student's rights. That's my opinion. I respect your right to a different opinion, but, naturally, I like mine better.

 

[.22lr]

My two cents

1) We have no idea what the student said. No clue. Nada. I cannot leap to the defense of another just because that person either owns or shows and interest in firearms.

2) We don't know WHY the professor reported the student. The assumption that she harbors a gun-hating ideology (not to mention a overwhelmingly liberal brain washer of students) is an assumption that can't be made from the sparse details provided.

3) The actions of the campus police seem to be they asked the student to come in and talk with them. Obviously this is a travesty that cannot be overlooked. If law enforcement and security officers can talk to anyone they please, or worse yet ask people to talk to them, then the country is truly dead.

Just another example that colleges don't educate as much as they brainwash. Education use to use common sense as a foundation and build up from there, a great thing. I use to work with lots of grads. Some could think & do anything. Others were baking pies in the skies. Sadly, more of the latter than the former. They may have had this professor or one like her.

I hold a BS EE that I happen to be rather proud of. I also hold the belief that educated professionals happen to be a very good thing. I would argue that your experience, while valid, is a rather small sample size.

Most vexing of all:

But it wasn't a fancy selection - screw off bottle top.

How dare you sir! I will hold Gem Tree Shiraz against many higher priced and corked wines. Oh, and as a son of Boston, there is but one beer Sam Adams.

PS – Life is too short for white wine. Bubbly included. Though I'd be open to suggestions to the contrary.

VR

Matt

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to thread hijack but I am aware of the controversy that some high end vinters regard metal screw tops as superior for the finer vintages given the problems with corks.

However, I can assure you that this was inexpensive table table wine not fit for the refined gentleman like. I apologize for slumming. I will try the Shiraz.

My campus department is a serious entity and very professional.

 

[SwampYankee]

Every campus is different. Some just have "security guards" but most that have police are actual police. They carry guns, arrest, etc. Some have on-site holding facilities (but not real jails). A really good example is Yale University. Their cops are just a precinct of the New Haven Police department, but restricted to the Yale Campus. I believe the uniform may also be a little different.

Anyway, campus cops are real cops and from my experience, a lot meaner. They get really tired of being constantly abused and ignored by students. The students figure that because mommy or daddy pays the bills, they don't have to worry about getting in trouble while at college. And colleges do not help the situation because they often apply academic sanctions to poorly behaved students, instead of criminal penalties. They want the punishment to be a "learning experience". Personally, I think harsh punishment is a good opportunity to learn, but most colleges disagree.

 

[gretske]

Swamp Yankee

Just out of curiosity, where is "rural" Rhode Island?

 

[n8thegr8]

Glenn, just stumbled on this page, read your article on academics and guns, and registered just to applaud your work. I'm a senior undergrad, soon to be graduate, student in oklahoma. As it's pretty much the reddest state in the union (not a single county went blue in the november elections), it's particularly tough out here for those of us who aren't conservatives, but as I am a firearms enthusiast, it does seem to perplex my conservative colleagues, and I find it difficult to find others that share my ideas around here. I'm glad to hear that they are out there, and that I'm not such an odd bird as those around here seem to believe! I too have noted the defeatist attitude rampant in the community as of late, particularly in my work circles, and it's really getting old.