Texas…. It is high time the Lone-Star State get some rules straight with the out-of-state transplants teaching at its flagship universities. When a law gets passed, you abide by it. And the laws in this country are enacted by the democratic process.
[Scroll Down for Video]
Still, that hasn’t stopped some of the delicate flowers who teach in the universities from soiling themselves over new legislation that allows people to carry concealed handguns on Texas college campuses–people who can legally carry a concealed handgun, that is.
Take this philosophical diatribe excerpted below. This is exactly the kind of pseudo-logic college professors are supposed to rally against. Yet this argument has brought out all kinds of bogus claims.
This is the work of Steven J. Friesen, Professor, Louise Farmer Boyer Chair in Biblical Studies, University of Texas at Austin. The professor in question wrote a lengthy piece he calls “I’m a professor in Texas and I’m worried about students who can now carry guns in my class.”
I’m going to expend a bit of virtual ink dissecting this title. “I’m a professor in Texas and I’m worried about students who can now carry guns in my class.”
The implication is he wasn’t worried about the students who do, did, and will continue to carry illegal guns in his classes. And they do exist. Every one of the campus shootings in this country was committed illegally.
But, according to Professor Logic, he’s just now starting to worry. About students who can carry legally.
Professor–how many gun crimes in the state of Texas were perpetrated by licensed concealed carriers? That number would really help your audience understand the validity of your argument.
Contrast that to the number of gun crimes committed by people without licenses. Then they’ll really be able to judge your argument.
But let’s look at some of the text….
“Until this year, Texas law allowed anyone with a Concealed Handgun License to carry a loaded hidden gun on campus, but not inside buildings. This restriction kept down the number of people carrying weapons legally on campus.”
Yes. Because there are not gun lockers outside of classroom buildings, students and faculty gave up the right to armed self defense on campus. Simple fact. Only, the criminals I mentioned earlier didn’t really abide by those regulations.
“[…] However, in spite of campus opposition, in May 2015, the proposed law, known as Senate Bill 11 (SB 11), was approved. So, as of Aug. 1, anyone with a concealed handgun license can carry a loaded, semiautomatic pistol into most offices, classrooms, hallways, public spaces, cafeterias and gyms at state universities. All that they need: four hours of training and a score of 70 percent accuracy on a shooting test.”
Proponents of armed self defense consider this a victory, though I’m reading a bit of derision into this author’s text.
“Supporters argue that Americans have a constitutional right to protect themselves and carry weapons with as few limits as possible. Carrying guns into classrooms, they say, is part of that right.”
To hell with this “supporters argue” crap. Americans do have a right to protect themselves. There’ no need for it to be a constitutional right–yet it is.
“Let’s consider these two views of education.
“The ideology of higher education in the U.S. has historically focused on critical thinking, and faculty overwhelmingly see this as the primary goal (see especially Table 3) of college and university classes. According to this view, universities and colleges are encouraged to question orthodoxy. In other words, higher education should subject all truth claims to intense scrutiny.
“The goal of this process is not to tear down society but to make it better, to allow us to develop our full potential as individuals and as a nation in the pursuit of liberty and justice.”
Educators and students are “encouraged to question orthodoxy.” Orthodoxy, in this case, is the idea that campuses are safer without guns. Texas upended that orthodoxy. If you don’t believe me, look at the entire rest of the country.
“But here is where the conflict comes in. As the discussion below shows, the campus carry movement has, it seems, a different ideology for higher education. The underlying motivation is that traditional authority must be maintained and, in the end, disagreement is resolved by force, not by debate. For this ideology, critical thinking is a potential threat to authority.”
Bullshit. I’ve got to call him on this one. The campus carry movement has no aim to resolve disagreement with force. Its sole aim is to allow individuals the option to meet force with force when necessary.
This professor is implying that classroom discussions will end in shootings, simply becasue armed students aren’t capable of the reasoning needed to win arguments.
The professor goes on to talk about how some of his informing polling of students support his preconceived notions.
“One student self-identified as having a concealed handgun license and did not have trouble with the presence of guns. But most others thought that it would make them more cautious and less forthright in class. One student said she would be vigilant about how other students were acting. Another said she would censor her opinions.
“The sentiment they expressed was confirmed in anonymous polling I conducted before our discussion. Two students (11 percent) were in favor of concealed carry on campus as demanded by SB 11, while 13 (68 percent) thought guns should be completely illegal on campus except for law officers. Only three students (16 percent) felt that SB 11 would make them safer, while 11 (58 percent) expected that the law would make campus less safe.”
Does he go on to actually teach these students? Does he say to the fragile flowers that having a gun in a classroom, and someone who knows how to use it, would have been a game changer in many instances? Virginia Tech comes readily to mind.
As does The University of Texas, where a gunman shot 49 people, and killed 16 back in 1966.
Again, in 2016, Haruka Weiser was killed on the UT campus.
The screed continues.
“As a professor, I have other concerns for my students beyond the classroom. We work with students at a difficult time in their lives as they work through the transition to adulthood. Some of them also face serious emotional issues. When I have to deal with failed exams, missed assignments and occasional plagiarism or cheating, I sometimes worry about how they will respond.”
Right. That makes sense. Because the students who attack professors won’t attack professors if they’re not allowed to legally carry on campus. Yes, of course. Why didn’t I think of that?
All we have to do to make the world safe is simply outlaw guns. Let’s declare the entire country a gun free zone, and then–by this very logic–we’ll all be safe. We don’t have to confiscate the guns (Texas is full of them, and–until now–the professor has felt perfectly safe.)
Actually, I’m exhausted. Professor Logic can’t really prove his point. He can’t stop committing logical fallacies. And he can’t stop writing, because all he really wants is to dump so much on you that you wither beneath the weight of his argument, even if it is bogus.
Consider this heap:
“Systematic studies point toward other problems that await us if we increase the number of guns on campus. We can expect more accidental shootings, more successful suicide attempts and perhaps even an increase in sexual assaults. In the event of an actual active shooter event, we can expect that an armed civilian will make no difference or even make the situation worse.”
No support. No citations. Nothing.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.