“College campuses are, as they should be, wide-open environments encouraging interactions among students, faculty and staff. So it only makes sense that an institution of higher learning such as [St. Petersburg College] would also want to exercise its in loco parentis due diligence in making sure everyone on its campuses feels safe.” – Daniel Ruth, Guns on campus? What could go wrong? [tampabay.com]
Well apparently people on the campus’s don’t feel safe or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Folks want to carry to protect themselves, regardless of location.
I guess some faculty & students have figured out that there’s a huge difference between “feeling” safe and being safe. Someone should educate Mr. Ruth on that difference.
I’ve got your “feel safe” right here for ya – Signs don’t keep weapons out.
Last week I went with friends to an (unnamed) theater in downtown Seattle. We were on a tight schedule and the theater advertised that they would not seat patrons after the movie had started.
By the time we got to the box office we were very close to the start time and as I bought the tickets I noticed a sign, the familiar red circle/slash, proclaiming “This is a Weapons and Tobacco Free Facility!” Aside from such signs t having the force of law in Washington, I was at least 10 minutes round-trip back to the car, so I, my EDC, and my friends went into the theater.
Well, all those people in the theater may have “Felt safe” in their Gun Free Zone, and in reality they were now actually safer since I was there, but I couldn’t help marveling at what a bunch of crap that whole GFZ concept is.
By the way, NOWHERE in the advertising for the theater was there any notice “This is a Weapons and Tobacco Free Facility.” Until we walked up to the door there was no way of knowing. If I ever go back there again I will still ignore their stupid sign.
Ummm, but I feel safest when I know I have the tools at my disposal that will help me survive. I’m not saying carrying a firearm makes me invincible, just that its one more tool in my bag to make sure I get some safe and alive. Why doesn’t he care about my safety?
“Feels safe”. Why do people think they have a right to feel safe? You have a right to pursue happiness, and to ensure that you have a right that provides a means to protect yourself.
Sorry Mr. Ruth, Florida law out weighs your loco parentis. Guns are allowed in parking lots. And unless I miss my guess, Florida Carry isn’t going to be done until Florida gets campus carry.
I feel safe when I know I can, and other citizens can, carry for my, and their, safety and protection and the protection of others.
Doing that is fine, as long as you do it in accordance with state law.
I’m not exactly a legal scholar, so someone help me out here…since when does in loco parentis apply to adults?
In any case, this is a typical anti-gun civilian disarmament screed:
Deadwood-like mind-set
in case some brigand with evil intent sits in front of you in a movie theater
frothing gun rights groups
won’t be satisfied until all newborns from Panama City to Key West are issued a TEC-9
shoot people just for the heck of it
gun-toting poltroons
since when does in loco parentis apply to adults?
Since the advent of the nanny state….
Bingo. We are ALL children of the great authority…age does not matter.
Sorry, but in loco parentis was the norm up into the 70s; it is not a new development, and it has nothing to do with a nanny state. In fact, in loco parentis is essentially dead on campuses compared to the 1950s and 1960s.
As I understand it, that only applies to children (those that have not reached the age of majority) where their parent isn’t present (i.e. daycare, friend’s house, etc.).
You are thinking of the libtard deities of the 60-70s – sex drugs, rock and roll. Anything that these twits disapprove of is to be banned. In Loco …..
I was amazed to see how much contempt and condescension the author apparently has for his fellow man. Anti-gun bigotry strikes again.
“Definition of POLTROON: characterized by complete cowardice.” I suspect that Mr. Ruth fits this definition perfectly.
So true. [St. Petersburg College] would also want to exercise its in loco parentis due diligence
What? SPC has more than 60,000 students, but not a single resident student. What on earth is there to ‘parenis’ over? No Frats. No dorms. No sex, unless kids find an empty classroom. Absurd. The President of the college doesn’t even know the basis of the old-fashioned responsibility, which universities refuse to accept today for any but resident students.
College campuses are strictly institutions for the liberal indoctrination of our youth. I don’t know what this asshat is talking about, wide open interactions? Try interacting with your political science professor about your pro-life stance and see where that gets you.
Quit reading after a paragraph and a half. Too inane for me.
It’s not just social conservatism that’s verboten on most college campuses…just try espousing Ayn Rand to a typical professor and see how long it takes you to get an “F”.
Absolutely, I just picked one issue as an example. I probably learned more in my high school economics class than most students do now at the college level. They taught us Milton Friedman.
The he even think colleges SHOULD be acting in loco parentis is symptomatic of the alarming trend. College students are NOT children that should need parenting.
Well, that he thinks a college should “parent” anyway, regardless of the age of those being parented, is alarming it itself. Statism, pure and simple.
Hey, Danial Ruth, why don’t you just let history teachers teach history, science teachers teach science, literature teachers teach literature and shut the hell up about all this other stuff you know NOTHING about anyway?
What would the world be like if people that claimed to be so open minded, pompously claimed to be so open minded, really opened their minds enough to see what they don’t know.
(Of course, it’s not about any of that anyway…I get that…it’s about control and programming students into knowing “authority figures” are in control of everything, and they do mean everything).
A typical professor’s identity is wrapped up in reproducing their way of thinking in the minds of students. No matter what age the students are that reproduction means the professor is the parent and the student is the child. Some professors don’t even try to hide this and will tell you that point blank or will drop the lecture material if a topic that interests them comes up.
Being a professor in most cases has nothing to do with the material in the class. I’ve had a couple that actually did a good job and kept their own bias out of the classroom but the vast majority of professors wrapped everything around their personal bias and tried to push it on the students at every turn.
Many parents want the university or college to act “in loco parentis” even though their student is of legal age. Is this good for them? I think not. Having a support system for those still maturing students is useful but to act in the legal definition of in loco parentis for those legal adults is not only illegal but harmful.
We’ve been reading and listening to Daniel Ruth’s liberal rants for decades and in all his years of “insightful knowledge” and “enlightenment” he has yet to be right about anything. So, if Daniel Ruth says there will be bloodbaths on college campuses because people exercise their RKBA then you can take it to the bank that it won’t happen.
This guy is a mega anti-gun liberal, one of this recent columns where he oppose a gun range being built in Tarpon Springs he wrote:
“The Reload Gun Range calls for a 57,533-square-foot building that will house 45 various shooting ranges from 100 yards all the way down to 15-yard distances for gun-happy Floridians to hone their “stand your ground” skills bumping off teenagers playing music too loudly or feloniously walking through apartment complexes armed with ice tea and Skittles, or perhaps exacting justice on people who — with full premeditation — dare to text their child’s babysitter while sitting in a movie theater.”
From the Op piece:
“That is how St. Petersburg College finds itself sideways with Florida Carry Inc., one of about 27,867 frothing gun rights groups across the state that won’t be satisfied until all newborns from Panama City to Key West are issued a TEC-9 in their bassinet.”
I know we’re not supposed to call people names…but this guy is a frothing idiot. How does one respond to such a statement? There is NO WAY he will EVER change his mind, and he gets to spew hyper-hyperbolic nonsense…AND!…no comments are allowed on the piece. All you can do is click on an emoticon. If you click ANGRY…are you angry at him or gun rights?
I think the “ANGRY” button was put there for those who feel angry about gun rights.
“Feeling” safe and Being safe are two different things. Come talk to us when you’ve figured that out.
That “feel safe” comment always gets under my skin. I think it’s sad that some folks apparently subscribe to the idea that making all of their fellow citizens be defenseless will make them “feel safe.”
Not that they will actually BE safe, of course.
They would feel safe if guns didn’t exist. Not seeing them is a way for them to feel like they don’t exist. Yes, that’s right, the so-called “educated” and “enlightened” class use toddler logic as their leading argument. That’s what happens when you base everything on your feelings, you revert to a child.
They are also employing projection in their argument. The University can only employ in loco parentis over students because someone is maintaining in loco parentis over the University, and that’s what they want, someone to take care of their every need because they are more special and important to have to take personal responsibility. They feel they are the elite and their work is too important to be bothered to think about taking care of their own needs, and they want their students to think the same way.
In loco parentis? Is your university full of minors?
It just supports their superiority complex and blatant paternalism.
In loco parentis is a ridiculous argument and fails on multiple levels. Once a person reaches legal age to carry, a parent cannot restrict that right. By enacting a carry ban the university or college is infringing on a legal age to carry student’s right in a way that the parent cannot. Also, every law or proposed bill I have seen only allows people of legal age to carry to do so. A minor is still not allowed to carry. Since it is already the law, there is no need for the university or college to step in on the parent’s behalf. This is stepping past the right and responsibilities of the parent and is therefore not in loco parentis.
It seems we mostly hear about students on campus. What about the rest of the world that is also on campus, including faculty and staff? Even if you buy the in loco parentis argument why are the people working on a college campus restricted? We don’t restrict parents’ rights just because we don’t allow their children to carry because of their child’s age. Restricting faculty and staff rights because you think Johnny is too immature to be trusted with a gun is also ridiculous. Johnny is old enough that if he wants to get a gun he will do so and carry on campus no matter what the legislature or administration says.
People like Daniel Ruth are deluding themselves if they think these rules make any difference. They are deluding themselves more if these rules are what makes them feel safe.
I guess Ruth’s illusion of safety is more important than the natural rights of others. Such revolting elitism.
Oh the irony. They wan’t to deny people safety in hopes of making them feel safe.
“Wan’t” is a contraction of what two words? Oh my god, you’ve contracted APOSTROPHOSIS!
You DO not
Well, my editing skills stink.
You DO NOT have the right to feel safe, any more than you have the right to be protected by someone else.
Safety is a lie, anyway.
http://theblogaboutguns.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-lie-that-is-safety.html?m=1
Liberals love to pretend that every effort to allow the presence of firearms in (insert sensitive area here) is a new idea. Idaho is now the seventh state to allow concealed carry on public university campuses.
Ignore his repugnant hyperbole, present him with data on campus violent crime, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Data and facts mean nothing to a closed mind.
To him, this is not about safety or violence anyway..that’s a red herring. This is about who gets to decide what in our lives. His problem is not guns, per se, it’s that someone might choose for him or herself to be responsible for their own life.
And, if responsible for self in regard to life, then it will come in other ways.
If he cared about facts at all, he would not have said anything with which to argue with facts.
Curtis –
Please list the states. I need the info. Check my post way down yonder V.
Thx.
College students should not be infantilized. They are legal adults. in loco parentis is not an obligation of the college. It is not welcome and should not be tolerated.
First FL gun rights people can’t be a “public” & now they can’t be an “everyone”. A decent citizen there is safer with an MP5, not disarmed. Oh well, it looks like the courts will need to splain it to them again.
Feelings may be more important to him than reality but not to me.
I love the collective bed-wetting from the supposed collegiate intelligentsia when campus carry is brought up. Those that preach the full support of the 1st amendment are so quick to trample the 2nd.
Why is the concern more about people “feeling safe” than it is about people actually being able to make themselves safe?
And if we’re going to make “feeling safe” the standard to base our laws on, then everyone had better get ready to give up a whole lot of rights.
So let’s not.
Doesn’t *in loco parentis* apply to *minors*? And have not the vast majority of college students reached the age of majority?
Also, “College campuses … *should be*, wide-open environments encouraging interactions among students, faculty and staff”…BUT THEY ARE NOT.
18 is the new 8.
Kinda like “Dog Years”, eh?
To fine tune my understanding of loco parentis, I went to the mecca of libtard definitions: Wikipedia! It specifically refers to colleges and says to act as a parent in the best interest of the student WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS! Weeeelll. Civil rights include those in the 2A.
Cool! So he obviously has no objection to my carrying the means of my own self-protection. Awesome!
The guy is marketing to the pansy parent generation. During campus visits with my son, I about puked due to the amount of time spent on that subject: feeling safe.
A college’s enrollment consists of full grown men and women who can make their own decisions and who, should they be inclined to consult them, already have parents of their own. They don’t need, and the college doesn’t have the authority to inflict, anyone’s homemade paternalistic hovering and nannying.
Never mind making anyone “feel” safer through superficial measures and unconstitutional infringements. Focus instead on actually making them safer by removing yourself as an obstruction to the exercise of their God-given right to defend themselves.
Be the change you want go see in the world. Failing that, at least quit being the thief robbing people of the rights and freedom you claim to support.
In loco parentis? 18 year olds act like children because society treats them like children. I was in the military at 17, and i had adult expectations placed on me.
I get tired of these types talking about coddling people.
To say that “in loco parentis” applies to adults age 18 and over is legally loco.
I live in tampa and Daniel Ruth has been writing lame articles in the local paper here for decades. This ass hat couldn’t be more ignorant and only chooses topics to write about that are controversial in the hope that people will read it even though his writing sucks
Apropos ?
http://youtu.be/Xq8CtJSQFL4
POTG,
Howdy.
Campus carry is on the upswing. The states are finally figuring out that the colleges/universities/tech schools are overstepping their legal authority by creating “rules” which ban campus carry.
I have been attending the Board of Trustee’s meetings since I took up this cause, and at the last one I showed them my previously submitted petition for changing the “rule” which is codified in my state’s administrative code. This “rule” is in direct opposition to the laws of the state regarding firearms in prohibited places, as well as the state firearms preemption law. The infringement on my 2A rights is also an issue, but it’s too politically ambiguous (Colorado) to put effort in that direction. After they deny my petition, I have a legal right outlined in the petition process where I appeal directly to the governor. I shall attempt to bypass the red tape and request a personal meeting. The ball is in their court.
I am also working with my local state legislator to put together a bill which would allow campus carry on ALL public post-secondary campuses, such has been done recently in other states.
I’m not trying to pat myself on the back or whatever cliche’ y’all are thinking of. My point here is to ACT. Organize. Take the high road and use the political process to your advantage. Fight irrational politics with logic. Don’t just snipe at issues on the innerwebz, Be the solution.
/ steps down off soap box and dons flame proof anti troll soot /
@RF – your mobile site is darn near impossible to edit pre publish comments on an iPad.
Anybody else have the same? Just sayin’.
I assume that St. Petersburg College is a private institution. Shouldn’t it be able to institute its own policies on its own (private) property?
You assume incorrectly.
Matt, if St. Petersburg College is a private college run with no taxpayer or government funding, I disagree. Private property is private property, whether it’s Mom’s local pie shop with a “no guns” sticker in the window and she tells you to leave, or a privately owned non taxpayer funded university and any associated property they own.
Even if I go to my good old friend Harry’s house, and he says I don’t want you here with your firearm, good to see you Harry, gotta go. I even keep my weapons on the D/L because I rent a condo, which is considered my landlord’s private property, not mine. If he decides he doesn’t want my guns in his condo, 30 days and I’m gone, even though there are no weapons restrictions in my lease. I do have a source on that one, but if you call BS give me some time and I’ll back research it, FWIW.
If I misunderstood, correct me. If I’m wrong, show me.
Thanks – D.
John said he assumed that St. Petersburg College is a private institution. It’s not, it’s a state school, part of the Florida College System. Therefore, I said he assumed incorrectly. The rest of what he said (and what you said), while correct, is irrelevant in this situation.
Thanks Matt. I mistook the assumption part. Even though the rest was irrelevant (mea culpa), I’m glad my facts got me by unscathed. I hold your opinions in high regard.
SPC has two campuses with the Gibb’s campus being the larger of the two. Anyone that is leaving a firearm in their vehicle now just uses off street parking, which is readily available.
This article is just a bunch of pants-wetting liberal nonsense. The paper is going to become irrelevant since it’s heading into bankruptcy:
http://tbo.com/news/business/tampa-bay-times-finances-strained-20140301/
Comments are closed.