“What makes these campus shootings different from minority shootings, or terrorist attacks, Kalish and Kimmel argue, is a sense of cultural entitlement among American males. Women don’t shoot up campuses, men do. Humiliation is emasculation, and an aggrieved man feels entitled to right the wrong by enacting the American heritage of violence . . . Campus shooters feel they have the right to kill and then to kill themselves.” – Kenai Peninsula College Anthropology Professor Alan Boraas in Bill to allow guns on Alaska campuses perpetuates a myth, puts people in danger [via adn.com]
By all means, let’s not put guns in responsible students hands so they can defend themselves against men and women intent on cowardice evil.
Another open season zone for killers.
Humiliation is emasculation, and an aggrieved man feels entitled to right the wrong by enacting the American heritage of violence . . . Campus shooters feel they have the right to kill and then to kill themselves.”
So how often do college males who are flunking out of colleges, come in and shoot the actual campus up?
Exactly. Or even focusing on the supposed super masculine, ultra entitled subset of males who are college scholarship athletes. How many of them shoot up the campus when they lose, when they’re benched, or when they’re cut from the team? These professors sound like they’re just throwing a dart at the wall, then expediently drawing the bull’s eye around it. Instant win! That the target consists of liberalism and academia’s favorite whipping boys of, well, boys, is a bonus.
You know what else an aggrieved man feel entitled to do? Ignore “Gun Free Zone” signs and policies. But hey, you know….muh feelz!
So in short it’s the person not the “GUN” that has these feelings of “cultural entitlement among American males” and “Campus shooters feel they have the right to kill and then to kill themselves”. Again the person NOT the GUN. right?
Can you cite any “studies” “proving” that?
Oh it gets better.
“Colleges are tense places where sleep-deprived students often work a 40-hour week, take care of kids and go to school full-time. Substance abuse is common, anger is frequently just under the surface. Younger tenure-track faculty are under immense pressure to meet expectations or be fired. A loaded gun in a backpack will easily become the means for an exploding psyche to end it all.”
Good grief, in other words, all people at college are untrustworthy, drug addled, stressed out maniacs – including staff (except him no doubt), and cannot be trusted with firearms.
Note well that this is the same basic reasoning that the socialist uses to justify excessive taxation, that the individual is not intelligent enough, not prudent enough, not wise enough, to handle their own finances. The state of course is all those things and taking money from the people and giving it to the state to distribute fairly and equitably will work to the betterment of all society.
Which is observably false, the state is in debt up to it’s eyeballs, ripe with corruption at all levels and what’s worse, really shouldn’t be trusted with firearms at all (Leland Yee I am looking at you).
Their argument is false, their conclusions are false.
And based on this, they want to override the second amendment.
No.
“There will blood running in the aisles!, gushing out the gutters of the ivory towers, staining the shining white walls blood red!!’
And this is the “Intellectual elite” given the authority to teach our young adults.. No wonder we continue to plunge in our academic standings as our flock of sheep continue to be shorn of their parents hard earned money (and our tax money) while the graduates are left naked with a sheep skin not worth the parchment it’s printed on.
Good grief, in other words, all people at college are untrustworthy, drug addled, stressed out maniacs – including staff, and cannot be trusted with firearms.
Well, it takes one to know one.
Jesus, is it a college campus or a prison camp? Maybe “escape from New York”? Talks like he is a prison warden Vs a college professor. Sounds like someone has their own issues about the importance of their job. Project much? They might want to leave the campus every now and then and realize life is hard everywhere and bad people don’t need guns to cause violence but good people need’em To have the chance to defend themselves against it.
Soooo introducing guns to a college campus is asking for someone to snap and shoot up the place? so why hasn’t it happened at any of the colleges that allow campus carry? Seems the good professor is short on research….and a grasp of reality
So, which of the campus shooters included in their study was a) hindered by the GFZ designation of the campus, or b) facilitated by the non-GFZ status of the campus?
Which is the only question that matters – the rest is just noise.
Does having a GFZ help or hinder a potential shooter? Someone who is prepared to kill others, are they stopped because of a sign not to use a particular tool to do so?
Rhetorical of course. The answer to this is not just obvious it is inescapable, no sign has ever stopped a bad actor from committing his crime. And the fact that the sign means that the people in the area will be unarmed as well answers itself.
That the statist uses this argument is itself proof that their motive is other than what they state openly.
The thing is, this course of logic, while simple on its face, takes actual thought and reason to traverse – its not a great leap of logic, but for a population that has difficulty understanding even the basic premises underlying it, the lie is a very easy thing to force upon the majority of people.
People really do like to keep things simple; guns can harm people, remove the guns, remove the harm. How can this not be the case! It’s literally, exactly the same with the argument to vote for the socialist; the rich people have the money, the socialist says he will take that money and give it to me; It’s so simple and attractive for those who seek the easy path to success and happiness, the statist will just give me money. How can this not be the case!
Reason is a rare thing because most men will always accept the simple course.
“Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.”
–Galts Speech, Ayn Rand
And remember, when we are talking about gun control or taxation, these are fundamentally implemented at the business end of a gun, that is to say force. They seek to take your guns from you by using guns themselves; just as they seek to take your money. You may not see the gun at step one, but if you do not give up your money, and you persist, eventually men with guns will appear and take it from you. It’s the same thing – your rights and your lives.
It is possible/probable that most campuses have specific prohibitions against the use of illegal drugs and against underage drinking and against rape. Every student knows this before they even arrive at the school. How’s that working out?
Prohibition does not equal eradication.
You have to understand the Liberal Prof and Faculty mentality. As long as the students are kept in submission and gun free that they cannot impulsively come into the Marxist Prof’s office; and gun him down over an arbitrary bad grade given to the non PC student. Things will be just groovy for the Profs to be their little Bolshevik incompetent selves.
Also there is the Faculty liability for recklessly letting students have dangerous weapons on campus. As long as the courts let students and customers get slaughtered in GFZs with legal impunity, private and public institutions will love their little GFZ signs.
The more states that pass campus carry, the less we will hear this type of heady-theoretical crap against it. Since he is an anthropologist, he should know that thru all history, the human experience has been filled with rulers using tyranny, violence, and repression to control it’s populace. Freedom to rule ones self never happened until America was founded.
The American Heritage is one of freedom and the preservation of it. We like our guns for various reasons. the founders thought way more ahead and we’re likely smarter than this dud.
I’d like to think so, too, but I doubt it. How many states have open carry, 40+? Yet, I heard all the same, stale, long discredited, blood-in-the-streets shibboleths last year when Texas was debating its open carry bill in the state legislature. This, despite twenty years of proof in Texas, that their blood-in-the-street predictions from 1995 when concealed carry went into effect have proven unfounded.
Nationwide, we were up to forty-nine states with concealed carry, with Florida dating back to 1987, if I recall correctly, but Illinois still had to be sued to allow it. Even then, the usual hysterical, hyperventilating anti-gun rhetoric befouled the air.
Maybe the expansion of campus carry and the elimination of campus shootings will convince them. Although, the positive campus carry experience of Colorado and Utah didn’t quell antis’ morbid fantasies of blood in the quad. I just don’t really see these people ever rejecting their bigoted beliefs and accepting reality, let alone embracing freedom.
Washington has had shall issue concealed carry since the early 1960s.
In 1996, a 19-year old reservist woman shot 4 people a Penn State University, one fatally, one wounded, and two who escaped injury because their books in their backpacks stopped the bullets somehow.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_433efbb9-0d6c-57ba-bf6f-a6ba5b54cc70.html
“What makes these campus shootings different from minority shootings, or terrorist attacks, Kalish and Kimmel argue, is a sense of cultural entitlement among American males.”
Ha! That’s f*cking rich. He didn’t outright stay white male, but it was easily inferred.
You know, my fellow honky a$$, white male friends and I were just discussing the other day the free white male only college scholarships we all receieved. And how we all get extra points on the tests for federal jobs just for being white males. And how we are the only ones allowed to start white male only organizations, which solely look our for the self-interest of white males, without being called racist.
Hell, just the other day my buddy was looking to buy a new car and when the salesman realized he was a white male the salesman just gave it to him.
White males keeping getting they told thy are entitled and privileged, but white males are the only people you can openly be rasicst and bigoted towards, anymore. I’m forced to earn everything in my life without question, even when intentionally put at a disadvantage, yet I’m entitled. I guess I forget to feel entitled growing up living in trailer parks and sh*tty apartments and working my way up to the middle-class, on my own accord.
Give me a break.
Yep. My dad made enough to feed us,clothe us and put a roof over the heads of five children, with a stay at home mom. Anything else, like a car, tools, or books, I had to go to work at fifteen to work a part time job to buy for myself.
Started a business, at twenty, no minority loans available, and no credit, so I paid for everything on my own dime, and worked for the first year, seven days a week , 12 hours a day to make it work. It did. I ended up making alot of money.
The rest of my various careers in different fields over the decades have been the same, alot of seven day weeks, 12 hour days on my own efforts, and no government handouts.
I’m back in school to get ultimately my Bachelors, but i’m making too much money and I don’t qualify for minority loans or grants, so It’s all my own dime, again.
But just call me privileged.
You didn’t build that! Or so I’m told.
Just like guns, it’s another narrative, one they’ve been selling for quite awhile.
It really has reached the point of not only obscenity, but cutting our own collective throat. The smartest kids in the country are routinely bypassed by the top tier schools, to let in some idiot who would barely make the grade at a state school, just to “better reflect diversity”. The best candidates aren’t promoted, the most qualified not hired.
Naturally, they never were, there have always been idiots in charge at times, for whatever nepotism. But now, we really try to make sure there are.
Diversity = anti-white, full stop.
You don’t hear about people wanting to bring diversity to Africa, or to the Middle East, or Mexico, or any other typically homogeneous culture.
That made me laugh out loud.
Yet like Certs it’s both a breath mint and a candy mint there’s something you’re missing.
Let’s see. All black people aren’t inner city gang bangers. Some are. Most gun owners are responsible. Some aren’t.
In America and actually in the world a certain group have taken advantage of people for profit and power. In our recent experience they happen to be white males. Generally referred to as “The Man.”
His actions are quite clear if you look at the treatment of the white population of West Va the coal miners. His actions aren’t racial. He uses people particularly poor people the same way regardless of race.
When black people point this out they aren’t on principle accusing all white people of racism. Just like a black Doctor won’t accept that all blacks are gang bangers, whites should stop aligning themselves with whites who are ripping them and blacks off. When jobs leave this country more whites get hurt than blacks. Why? Blacks are only 12% of the population.
As a white male I can own that people with my skin color had slaves, annihilated the native Indians but I didn’t do it. I wasn’t even there. I join with the people who had complaints because really the people who want a good education for their kids and job security are all colors.
You may being unfairly criticized. Take the story by owning what’s yours ans what’s not. Really ask yourself do you have an advantage others don’t. You know as an American you do. Notice English is spoken all over the world.
Statistics show that recent mass shooting/suicides are done by white males of a certain demographic. It’s a symptom. Now the suicide rate of older white males is climbing. Why? The American Dream is appearing unattainable. It’s not Mexican’s fault. Look and see who played games with your mortgage? Who moved our jobs overseas or laid off workers increase corporate profit?
Well H, you’re being some what ambiguous. Does “white privilege” exist that keeps the black man down?
Do I have an “advantage” because I’m an american? You mean the “advantage” provided by the efforts of all the prior Americans that worked hard, saved their money and provided for their off spring in taming a wild continent?
You mean the “advantage” that was provided by the Founding Fathers and all those British citizens in risking their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in fighting for liberty against the greatest military power of the time , and winning, to become Americans?
Do you mean the “advantage” of having an Constitution that acknowledges certain inalienable rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, denied almost all other people in the world, that restricts the government in infringing that right?
You mean the “advantage”, because of the efforts of all those new immigrants over the centuries that embraced being an American, and in the land of opportunity, to become more than just poor down trodden peasants they were back in their “homeland”?
Then, yeah, you could say I have an “advantage” of being an American.
It is too bad the rest of the people in the world didn’t provide that kind of “advantage” to their own people. Instead, people came here so they could also enjoy the same advantage, as my ancestor did. As my ancestors, as good hard working and freedom loving Americans, helped to pass that advantage on to me.
Or is that not what you meant by my “advantage”?
The only problem I have with the government, are the progressive/statists that vote to give so much power to the hands of government, that then those politicians are easily bribed to give favors to those with money. So whether there are republican or Democrats in power, both parties have their hands out to get some of the gold, and both will bow down to protect their golden goose, despite what their constituents want.
So I don’t get angry at the corporations, or even the government, I’m angry at the people, (progressives/statists), that voted to give them so much power, that they are then so easily bribed, to our detriment.
You’re conflating economics and history, and leaving out just a bit of historical detail.
Start from the top – I don’t have to “own” anything that my relatives did, or didn’t do. It wasn’t me, I didn’t do it. Give up the insanity of being somehow responsible for the actions of historical figures, you aren’t. It’s not possible, so just stop. Even if they did something wrong and you benefit, it still has precisely nothing to do with you. I don’t hold the Germans accountable for shooting at my grandfather, nor do I hold all blacks to account for spitting at my mother in the ’70s while we waited for a bus.
The fact that “white” men have kinda run the world for the last 2000+ years, is what, something to apologize for? They brought order and western civilization. Sure they did some horrible things. So what? Would you prefer to live in a tent, a cave, or what? Everybody else was here too, yet none of them started the civilization that we have today. Would the world be better as a massive Indian slum? Incans, Mayans? Should we go back to where we evolved from, and live in grass huts and kill each other over tribal sleights? (It would be better for the planet…)
Your grandchildren will learn what a Chinese-dominated world will be like (if we make it that far, and that’s an open question). You have no idea what racism and ethnocentrism will come with that. You will not have any doubts about it, it’ll happen and they’ll tell you it’s happening. Then they’ll look at you quizzically, as if anyone would ever chose you over one of their own.
As a white male I can own that people with my skin color had slave…”
Blacks had slaves, too. So, did Middle Easterners and Asian cultures. Look up the Mors – they conquered all kinds of people and enslaved them for centuries. Slavery wasn’t a white only thing. I just wanted to address that, first and foremost.
Now, as far as, the rest of your comments. I’m half white (Irish) and half Latino, neither culture being readily expected during their immigration to America. The only difference is, in my family, we were raise to not be victims, and to not allow people, including our own, to tell us we are disadvantaged or advantaged. So, do give me some sob story about “the Man” and white culture. I could have easily used my Latino and poor status to gain advantage, but I didn’t…
Why? Because I’m not a f*cking victim and I will progress only by the content of my character and NOT by the color of my skin. You can keep your “#White Guilt, I want no part of it.
The American Indians, raided, traded and owned slaves, before and during when the europeans came to the Americas.
Slavery was the norm for most of the world, for most of history. It was Western Europe first, then America, that ended slavery, and then fought a war with the muslim world to stop the slave trade out of Africa.
True enough, Thomas.
The idea that Western Europeans invented slavery, or were the only ones to have it is BS liberal nonsense. Every culture on the planet Earth had slavery until only the last few centuries.
I bring up the Mors specifically when people bring up the white guilt crap. The Mors (black culture) conquered and subjugated Greece, Italy, Spain, Eastern Europe, and more (white culture.) And the Turkish Ottoman Empire’s stranglehold on large parts of Europe wasn’t released until the 1600’s.
People conquered and took slaves back in the day – it’s the way the whole world operated, not just whites.
The funny part is us ‘evil whiteys’ are one of the few groups that actually, you know, quit.
Africans still have slaves by the millions, and India is the ultimate primitive shithole that bests all comers when it comes to human bondage of the non-consensual kind.
This just seems to continue the narrative that all ‘gun violence’ is opportune. Safe storage laws, magazine capacity restrictions, firearm transportation laws and gun free zones are supposed to be in their minds a solution to this. What refutes this is the overwhelming law abidingness of concealed carriers and the steady increase of licensees.
None of these shootings have been opportune, all were pre-planned and prepped.
Thank God that aggrieved men never join the policy or military!
HEADLINE ALERT
Editon sounds like a french cycling team, sure you meant Edition
I say again, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin have all had campus carry of some form or another for years, and nobody has died at the hands of a legally carrying student. This guy is just doom and glooming because, like most profs, self-reliance makes him cringe.
“What makes these gun control laws possible, is a sense of cultural entitlement among “American Elites”. An aggrieved ‘elite’ feels entitled to right the wrong by enacting the American heritage of violence through gun control . . . ‘Elites’ feel they have the right to put citizens on the sacrificial alter, you know, for their own good.”
I wonder if, in their study, they came across even just one school mass shooter who committed their atrocity on the spur of the moment, because of some small perceived slight. Because every single one I’ve ever heard about was a planned event (often fantasized about for years) that was hindered not one tiny bit by rules and signage. The real myth here is this ridiculous “gun-in-the-backpack, got a D on a test, guess I’ll just start shooting” horseshit they’re pushing.
The sweet irony is that these profs argue that any one of us is liable to snap at any moment over a perceived slight when a gun is involved, but it is their leftist indoctrination schemes that have bred these new protest movements in which emotionally defective students have absolutely flipped their toaster over, well, perceived slights.
So the other young men witnessing the “humiliated shooter” acting out his “humiliation” by shooting other young persons of both sexes. who cannot react and defend the innocents being slaughtered, become “humiliated” and become potential new “humiliated shooters” who now need to act out their “humiliation” by committing similar gun-involved violent acts?
Right Professor. Acting out your “humiliation” at having failed Logic Class by writing this idiot drivel, are you?
Another intellectual that can’t think his way out of a wet paper bag. He lacks an ability to think critically and gather facts, in formation, and use reason to develop a conclusion. He is going off of what he “thinks” or rather what he feels than what is reality.
It is interesting that the old professor mentions the concept of “emasculation” in connection to the “problem.” Consider: what have farmers done for centuries to young male bulls so they wouldn’t be as fractious and problematic? They’ve castrated them. Seems herd animals are much easier to control when they’ve had their balls lopped off.
Human males seem much more difficult to control this way primarily because they have no intention of letting someone else decide whether they get to keep or must lose their family jewels.
So what is to be done about the problem of male aggression according to the intellectuals? The current solution seems to be: maintain an endless cycle of war and violence so the really aggressive ones go out and get killed or maimed and don’t breed, leaving the passive and meek behind to breed more docile generations. It’s not a perfect system, so a few leakers get through, and it is this which confounds the intellectuals, who have no idea how to channel and control male aggression without emasculation.
What mythical western figures went on humiliated shooting sprees of random people? In the movies even the bag guys usually shoot someone who at least annoyed them somehow,
So, when the macho shooter is so humiliated that the only way out is to shoot his oppressors before committing suicide, we need a campus gun ban because a guy who’d commit murder-suicide would never violate a campus gun ban to do it…
Yeah, your analysis sounds pretty damn stupid when I put it that way, doesn’t it, Professor?
They can do all the studies they want to about why this happens.
One if not the simplest answer is campuses are for the most part “Gun Free Zones”. As long as academicians cant, wont or refuse to get that through their collective thick heads. These actions by sick individuals will unfortunately continue.
Given his locale I’d expect to see a lot of openly carried .454 Casull and .460 S&W. If I were him I’d be more worried about being eaten by a 1200 pound brown bear than a campus shooting.
I’d be very curious to discuss scientific methods with the good perfesser. How exactly does one quantify “cultural entitlement among American males” and use it as data with which to draw conclusions?
Speaking of being emasculated…projection much, good sir?
S-shut up, s-shitlord!
HA! You owe me a new keyboard…
That’s funny. All the campus shootings and incidents around here have been committed by melanin-enriched individuals..
So I’m from Alaska and I work at a sporting company as a gun salesman and will be attending college later this year. I would feel a lot safer if I could conceal carry since the campus is in a bad part of town. I think that this guy is a ****ing liberal idiot that can’t analyze worth a damn
I can agree with that… I can agree with this… I’m not certain their motives were all the same… But I’m not disagreeing.
Uh…no. Entitled? The aggrieved man probably feels pissed off – not entitled. The aggrieved man already knows that murder is against the law – probably not feeling “entitled” about it. American heritage of violence??? That’s a loaded statement. What nation has a history free of violence?
Uh…no. Campus shooters probably feel pissed off – not thinking of “rights.” Nobody has the right to murder people and campus shooters I’m sure know this. But they don’t care – because they are pissed off or hurt so much that the only solution is to kill a bunch of people and then themselves.
The real question is – is a gun free zone stopping them or limiting them in any way? It appears not. A mass murderer isn’t going to care about the legalities of a sign that says “no guns alllowed” just prior to killing a bunch of people. What the sign does do, however, is disarm people who do follow the law.
“Women don’t shoot up campuses, men do. Humiliation is emasculation….”
Well, men generally don’t cut off men’s penises, either. That’s more of a an emasculating act committed by women. Right, Lorena Bobbitt? Men generally don’t run over their cheating spouses with a Mercedes with their daughter in the car. Again, kind of a chick thing. Exhibit A: Dr. Clara Harris.
There are many examples of humiliating, emasculating acts of violence that women have committed against men, but I’m not here to tally up offenses. Once you’re talking about violently, criminally taking a human being’s life, you’re on the worst part of the path of dehumanizing them. That’s far more important and relevant than any supposed gender-denying motive.
How about you lay off the male bashing, Prof, and the firearm hating, too, and instead focus on the root cause of human beings committing atrocities against each other? While you work on that, I’ll stand armed and ready to defend myself and my family.
So, Professor Boredass, who emasculated Tashfeen Malik?
Methinks the professor is projecting much…
Oh, by the way, if studying 40 hours a week and raising kids is a formula for violence, what the hell does the rest of the world that works look like? Maybe doing actual work makes us too tired to work up all that angst and righteous indignation this idgit thinks is the precursor to mass murder?
This guy doesn’t think much of his students, does he?
I don’t know what these bozos want to prove or what gets their jollies off but off the top of my head:
***Just school shootings, that I recalled reading about in my relatively short lifetime, so we’re not counting the DC Sniper, and this list isn’t meant to be all inclusive, etc. I did google to get the particulars and fact check about each event***
Females:
1979, 16-year-old Brenda Spencer committed a sniper attack at Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego.
1988, Laurie Dann, age 30, shot young children in Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Illinois. 1996, Penn State, 19-year-old Jillian Spencer, trained in the Army Reserve sharpshooter, opened fire on random students.
2008 Latina Williams, a 23-year-old nursing student at Louisiana Technical Institute, killed two classmates. 2010 Professor Amy Bishop shot six colleagues in the biology department at the University of Alabama.
There have been at least nine notable shooters of Asian heritage:
1991 Gang Lu, Chinese international student, University of Iowa.
1992 Wayne Lo, Chinese immigrant, age 18, Simon’s Rock College in Great Barrington, Mass.
1994 Phu Cuong Ta, a Vietnamese Canadian, Toronto.
2003 Biswanath Halder, Indian immigrant, age 62, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
2006 Kimveer Gill, Punjabi Indo-Canadian, Dawson College, Montreal.
2007 Seung Hui Cho, South Korean, Virginia Tech.
2009 Jiverly Wong, Vietnamese immigrant, American Civic Association in Binghamton, New York (he took citizenship and English Language classes there)
2012 One Goh, South Korean immigrant, Oikos University in Oakland, CA.
Latino shooters:
2006 Alvaro Castillo, Hillsborough, North Carolina, parents were from Spain and El Salvador.
2001 Jason Hoffman, El Cajon, California, mother was Denise Marquez.
2002 Robert Flores, University of Arizona,
“African Heritage”:
1984 Tyrone Mitchell, Los Angeles.
1989 Marc Lepine, Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.
2002 Peter Odighizuwa, Appalachian School of Law in Virginia.
2008 Latina Williams, already mentioned.
Native Americans:
1997 Evan Ramsey, Bethel Alaska
1999 Seth Trickey, Fort Gibson OK
2005, Jeffrey Weise, Red Lake, Minnesota
Also interesting to note, that while Cho at Virginia tech was by far the most deadly, 32 fatalities and 49 victims overall, Jiverly Wong himself killed as many victims as Harris and Klebold at Columbine, but whereas Columbine became the “epitome” of school shootings, Wong’s attack is virtually unknown.
But that’s what happens when Anthropologists want to play Psychologists.
Hey now, don’t bring facts to a propaganda fight…
Even if his profile is accurate, a campus ban will not prevent a shooting. I guess that’s where one’s emotional biases overcome any ability to reason – in a professor no less. Whether terrorist, criminal, or mentally ill, these people do not obey laws.
Nah, this guys logic sucks. He is all “it’s more complicated than gun free zones breed mass shootings” which I agree with, but then makes the same fallacy of simplifying mass shootings to some other pet cause. Here he chooses the “poor bullied kid snaps and goes crazy” trope, which is rare as far as I can tell.
Academia has this knack for making lies sound eloquent.
Really had to emphasize I’m just relieved that i came on the internet page!.
Comments are closed.