…and this is a 
No rambos in the halls of academe, please
Category: Academics
Posted on: June 29, 2007 12:28 PM, by PZ Myers
The Nevada System of Higher Education wants to arm their faculty. That's insane. We have rare instances of students going on a shooting spree; I don't see how turning the classroom into a firefight is going to stop that, and I also have a suspicion that any homicidal maniacs will henceforth simply put "shoot the professor" first on their to-do list. The other concern: how often has this happened at your university?
- Dishevelled, out-of-breath student bursts into the room in the middle of class — he overslept.
- Angry student storms into your office, red in the face and furious about his exam.
- Walking across the campus late at night, a dark figure steps out from behind a building and raises his hand … to say hello.
Those kinds of events are routine, and don't bother me at all. But let's foster a climate of fear of our murderous students, slip a firearm into our pockets, and wait. It won't happen often, but all it will take is one jittery professor and one deadly incident, and try to imagine your university dealing with the parents. And that kind of hasty stupidity is going to be more common than the "vicious gunman foiled by hail of professorial bullets" story, I'm sure. It's trading one unlikely danger for a more common one, and it isn't even going to stop the problem — lone gunmen violating a school must expect to end up dead, and if it's in a gunfight, all the greater the glory.
At the very least, it's going to send the message to our students that they'd better not make any sudden moves around their lethal professors. It's a violation of the trust they should have in us, so no, rather than arming myself, I think I'd rather call the police if there is a violent threat … that's better than becoming a klutzy threat all on my own. My job is to teach, not play Bruce Willis.
Comments
I think we're over due for a teacher going to school and shooting a bunch of people. Bound to happen sooner or later.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 29, 2007 12:34 PM
Or this: student has been riding professor's chaps all semester long -- that student, you know him, the whiny brat in the back row who thinks he knows everything and is actually dumb as a rock? Professor's having the worst semester of his life? Didn't get a pay raise either? Or didn't get tenure? Student appears on the worst day of that worst semester to gripe about his grade and how if he fails, daddy's taking his Lexus away? (Which I had a student TELL me once!)
And the professor is armed?
I'm just thinking it's not such a fine plan.
Posted by: delagar | June 29, 2007 12:39 PM
Not to mention the possibility of a student getting the gun away from the professor.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 29, 2007 12:40 PM
This was mentioned as a theoretical possibility in another forum I read, right after the Virginia Tech shootings. At least three different college instructors popped up to say that if somebody tried to make them carry a gun on campus, they'd quit.
Posted by: mjfgates | June 29, 2007 12:41 PM
IMO, absent-minded professors and guns just don't mix.
Posted by: David Wilford | June 29, 2007 12:52 PM
Bloody typical authoritarian response to a threat. What, people are coming in with guns and causing trouble? Well, give more power to the authority figures on the scene!
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 1:02 PM
if the professors are properly trained and officially deputized (and cannot carry the gun without these criteria), and the guns and ammo are school property and must be accounted for on a regular basis, then the problems most of you bring up are unlikely to happen. campus security is a joke (and they carry guns on campus but nobody seems to rail against this), and by the time real cops arrive, the deed is already done.
if youre perfectly fine with incompetents who couldnt pass the police exam wielding guns and calling themselves "campus security," then whats wrong with competent professors who do the same?
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 1:05 PM
You should get a squirt gun that shoots ink. That would rule.
Posted by: plunge | June 29, 2007 1:08 PM
And who is going to handle the protocols and privileges? I mean if an armed student bursts into a classroom, who shoots first? Associate or Tenured Professors? Or is this a job for Grad students? What about undergrad T/As? I can just picture large parts of the faculty standing around, guns in hand trying to figure out whose right and responsibility it is to fire the first shot.
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | June 29, 2007 1:09 PM
PZ calmly walks into noisy lecture hall, unholsters magnum 44 (stylishly holstered to his underarm), lays weapon on lecture table and says:
"Listen up, people! Today, we're talking cephalopods. Pay attention, OR ELSE!"
Ooooh, yeah!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 29, 2007 1:09 PM
Pistols can be heavy, and professors are not known for their willingness to carry heavy objects they may not need to the classroom. The weapon would typically be left in the office, where it would soon be buried beneath piles of books and papers.
The first accident, rather than a case of mistaken identity in a dark evening, would probably be a clumsy student knocking a pile of books, papers, and a pistol off the professors desk, causing the pistol to go off, and shoot a different student in the office one floor up.
Recall that a large proportion of firearm accidents are due to slips and stumbles.
Posted by: llewelly | June 29, 2007 1:15 PM
Sounds like an especially bad idea for physics class. My physics professors were prone to answering student questions with entertaining ad hoc physical demonstrations. I can just imagine one whipping out a gun to show how something worked.
Posted by: Doug | June 29, 2007 1:17 PM
Well, if Ted Nugent is right that 'An armed society is a polite society,' then our faculty meetings should become a good deal more civil. Of course, if he's wrong ...
Posted by: Tex | June 29, 2007 1:22 PM
wow, these scenarios just get more and more off the wall as the comments section grows.
"well, what if PZ is showing the class a new cephalopod and the squid reaches its tentacle into his breast pocket, pulls the gun out, and starts firing? WHAT THEN YOU CRAZY GUN-NUTS?"
gimmie a break.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 1:24 PM
No, except for yours, the likely scenarios are all about the likelihood of stupid and accidental misuses. They'll happen.
Really, university faculty do not represent a population with a high incidence of familiarity or training with guns. It's not like saying you were going to give guns to a union of Texas cattle ranchers -- it's putting deadly weapons in the hands of a group of people who will mostly be utterly moronic as far as gun use goes.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 1:30 PM
>>PZ>> I also have a suspicion that any homicidal maniacs will henceforth simply put "shoot the professor" first on their to-do list
Which is exactly what Cho did here at Virginia Tech. He killed the professors first with head shots before moving on to the students. We have to remember that these persons deranged enough to go on a shooting spree are still quite intelligent and capable of circumventing superficial solutions. If the professors were armed at Virginia Tech, Cho could have simply gone to a large classroom where there was one professor and 600 students instead of multiple classrooms. He still would have the element of surprise on his hands, and he would only need to surprise one person.
Posted by: Zeteo Eurisko | June 29, 2007 1:31 PM
When I taught I would fairly often forget things (like overheads or coffee) in my office and have to dash right before lecture and grab it. It is fun to imagine that as, "Just sit tight a moment students and review the last lecture, I just need to run back and fetch my gun."
Posted by: cm | June 29, 2007 1:31 PM
if youre perfectly fine with incompetents who couldnt pass the police exam wielding guns and calling themselves "campus security," then whats wrong with competent professors who do the same?
Are you really saying that until we address a problem, we're not allowed to object to a plan that will immediately and obviously make the problem worse?
Or are you saying that you trust the process to vet and manage college instructors carrying deadly weapons will be handled better than the similar process for campus security?
Posted by: jackd | June 29, 2007 1:32 PM
Doug (#12):
Suddenly I find myself warming to the idea!
(-;
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 1:37 PM
OHhh, can I have a gun? There are some history teachers at my school who love to bash the French as people who love to surrender and let someone else defend them. So if the French teacher were the one who was armed, I could defend them! Now wouldn't THAT be ironic.
You notice that these school shootings don't general take place in inner-city schools (like the one I teach at). I guess everyone realizes that the minute someone comes in with a weapon, all the kids will pull their own weapons out of the backpacks, and the homicidal maniac won't have a chance.
Posted by: Heather | June 29, 2007 1:44 PM
Back in the Olde Days of my childhood, some teachers could silence a smartass by throwing a piece of chalk with deadly accuracy. With this tradition in mind, I think that making profs carry small grenades would be much more appropriate.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | June 29, 2007 1:46 PM
Really, university faculty do not represent a population with a high incidence of familiarity or training with guns. It's not like saying you were going to give guns to a union of Texas cattle ranchers -- it's putting deadly weapons in the hands of a group of people who will mostly be utterly moronic as far as gun use goes.
that is why they must pass a training course, be officially deputized, and be able to account for their gun and ammo regularly.
Which is exactly what Cho did here at Virginia Tech. He killed the professors first with head shots before moving on to the students.
this happening would not preclude other professors from hearing the gunshots and doing something about them.
Or are you saying that you trust the process to vet and manage college instructors carrying deadly weapons will be handled better than the similar process for campus security?
campus security tends to be made up of uneducated people who live nearby. have you ever heard of gun accidents by campus security? have you ever heard of them going crazy and shooting people? if the shlubs who make up campus security can be trusted to carry guns, why cant professors be?
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 1:50 PM
"An armed society is a polite society" is one of the greatest lies ever told.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 29, 2007 1:54 PM
Well having a holster on your hip might cut down on the level of grade grubbing that goes on..."You got a C. End of discussion." But the main question is, "How would you add your firing range score to your citation count in tenure decisions?"
Posted by: Jim A. | June 29, 2007 2:00 PM
I'm sure there are colleges and universities that have uncertified security personnel carrying guns. I have to wonder how frequent that is however, as every campus I've ever been on, the only armed people were the state licensed cops.
Posted by: D | June 29, 2007 2:04 PM
Anybody that looks to Ted Nugent as a socio-cultural expert gets the results they deserve. Personally, as a professor in Kansas, if I am told that I am either required to carry a weapon in class or to teach any non-existent scientific "controversies," I will pack my stuff and walk out forever that very moment.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | June 29, 2007 2:17 PM
"The Professorial Bullets" is perhaps the greatest name for a punk-rock band I have ever heard.
Posted by: Damon B. | June 29, 2007 2:19 PM
I can see it now! A new phrase will creep into the lexicon: "Going Professorial"!
Posted by: Sceptical Chymist | June 29, 2007 2:20 PM
Re: #22, "why can't professor's be?"
I think the point is why should they be? Is arming teachers and researchers really a rational response to this problem? I realize that people who really like guns a lot seem to believe that if everyone were armed, violent crime would be drastically reduced, but those of us who choose not to pack heat find that claim rather implausible and need some decent evidence to be convinced otherwise.
The faculty has enough to do without being deputized into some kind of collegiate militia and adding "use deadly force to defend the students body from violent lunatics" to their job descriptions.
Posted by: doug | June 29, 2007 2:22 PM
Good morning class! I'm Professor Sam, but y'all are welome to call me Yosemite! I'm the rootin-est tootin-est PhD ever to slap iron! And if that terroristic rabbit shows up...BLAMMO! Right butween the eyebulbs.
Posted by: mojojojo | June 29, 2007 2:26 PM
Wouldn't this be a heck of the lot easier if they made it illegal to sell guns to court certified lunatics? Cho was declared mentally incompetent by a judge, wasn't he? I suppose that's just a radical, hard left, freedom hating idea. Just because he was voted "most likely to go on a shooting rampage" three years in a row before he did doesn't mean there is any reason to restrict his right to firearms.
Posted by: Bob L | June 29, 2007 2:28 PM
Nothing saves lives like a crossfire. Perhaps we should do the shooters one better and teachers and professors can lecture from a pillbox.
Posted by: commissarjs | June 29, 2007 2:32 PM
Forget the student interaction - can you imagine how lively this would make faculty department meetings?
Posted by: Carlie | June 29, 2007 2:40 PM
Perhaps the biggest thing overlooked here is this, Unless you have served in the military or police and come under enemy fire and have been trained how to respond to enemy fire, the only thing that is going to happen is a lot of bullets (maybe) flying. You do not know how you will or even IF you will react to such a situation. Leave the guns to the professionals-just make sure they come up with a plan and enter to kill the bad guy post haste. Once a terrorist ( or gunman) has shot and killed someone, he/she has been justifiably been "bought and paid for" to think different one is naieve about terrorists and their ilk.
Posted by: Firemancarl | June 29, 2007 2:47 PM
Might make for a useful teaching tool.
Scene: crowded Bio 101 lecture hall.
Enter Mild-Mannered, Unassuming professor with satchel, papers, books, and, of course, his trusty .357.
Prof: "Welcome to Biology 101. Is there anyone here who believes in either of the following: irreducible complexity or the literal truth of the Book of Genesis?"
Students mutter nervously. A few raise their hands.
BANG!
Prof: "OK. That was an example of selecting against an expressed trait: insanity, in this case. Let me repeat the question. Is there anyone here ..."
Posted by: Mr. Mark | June 29, 2007 2:58 PM
"I think we're over due for a teacher going to school and shooting a bunch of people. Bound to happen sooner or later."
Well, the worst school attack in American history was a school board member and custodian...not shooting though.
Posted by: Hypocee | June 29, 2007 2:59 PM
I support the Right to Arm Bears!...oh wait....
Posted by: Steverino | June 29, 2007 3:12 PM
campus security tends to be made up of uneducated people who live nearby.
Here at the University of Washington, campus police are an actual police force. And at the University of Chicago, they're a branch of the Chicago police.
Really, you think professors are going to take the time to train to accurately hit a moving target? That's not just a couple times at the firing range. It's a crazy idea.
And unfortunately, classrooms are too small to do good physics demonstrations with guns. Damn bullets travel too fast for clear projectile motion. Though maybe I could do conservation of momentum...
Posted by: David | June 29, 2007 3:12 PM
"The Professorial Bullets" is perhaps the greatest name for a punk-rock band I have ever heard.
On the other hand, after comment #30, the Rootinest Tootinest Lutenists is the best name ever for a Renaissance music ensemble.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 3:20 PM
Given the types of people we issue weapons to on a regular basis, I really think that just about all of the arguments people are presenting against here are serious stretches. The simplest reason not to do this is not that professors are somehow unable to handle a gun without killing innocent people. The simplest reason is that it's a stupid idea. Really stupid. Like, "having the taxpayers pay for meteor strike insurance" stupid.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 29, 2007 3:23 PM
Perhaps the biggest thing overlooked here is this, Unless you have served in the military or police and come under enemy fire and have been trained how to respond to enemy fire, the only thing that is going to happen is a lot of bullets (maybe) flying.
do you really think campus security, or even regular beat cops in small college towns have firearms training beyond going to the range every so often? cops in most college towns are no more equipped to handle these types of situations than anybody else with a gun - except for the fact that they need to be called and then respond to the call. somebody already there can respond immediately.
but here is the real issue. no matter what we do, no matter what restrictions we place on gun sales, people will slip through the cracks and massacres will happen. just what is the proposed solution that anti-gun people have? all you do is poo-poo the ideas of people trying to propose solutions, you never have any solutions of your own - and this is strikingly similar to how "intelligent design theorists" attack evolution. we all want massacres like this to have as little lives lost as possible. so just how do you plan to do this? the only "solution" i can infer from the anti-gun people is to just let it happen and wait for the cops to bumble out of the donut shop just in time to clean up the bodies. im sorry, but that is just not acceptable.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 3:41 PM
I do too have a solution! Call the police. Let the people who have had training in firearms and handling criminals take care of the job.
I know, you've got the handy stereotype of the Keystone Kops waddling out of the donut shop, but really -- the worst police force in the world is going to be better equipped to handle this kind of problem than the best college faculty.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 3:47 PM
Snex, so the solution to having a force allegedly ignorant of how to handle themselves in enemy fire situations is to hand out guns to even more people who are ignorant of how to handle themselves in enemy fire situations, and somehow this will not result in preventable deaths and maimings by "friendly fire" in any case where a school shooting event occurs?
If you believe that, I have some beautiful oceanfront property outside of Omaha to sell you.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 3:51 PM
In addition to guns the professors should be issued with Scapels and emergency angioplasty kits in case someone stumbles in while having a heart attack.
Oh, and be sure to include cranial drills in case of stroke.
And maybe some ointment for when someone runs into the classroom after being struck by lightning.
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | June 29, 2007 3:53 PM
The best trained gunman in the world still can't see through the walls. Bullets however have no problem ripping through them.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 29, 2007 3:54 PM
I do too have a solution! Call the police. Let the people who have had training in firearms and handling criminals take care of the job.
exactly how did this help in VTech? the police were called.
Snex, so the solution to having a force allegedly ignorant of how to handle themselves in enemy fire situations is to hand out guns to even more people who are ignorant of how to handle themselves in enemy fire situations, and somehow this will not result in preventable deaths and maimings by "friendly fire" in any case where a school shooting event occurs?
perhaps you should actually read my posts, or even the original article from PZ's post. they would be required to go through the same training that any other member of the campus security must go through. unless you honestly believe that campus security should not have guns either, you are being completely inconsistent to say that professors should not.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 3:55 PM
I made this suggestion the last time you had a similar thread: a lot of lives could be saved if, after a shooter enters a building, the teachers had the ability to lock their classrooms. If the school does not want permanent locks on doors because of other safety concerns, they could come up with a special key or bolt teachers bring to class with them in case of an emergency.
Deaths from school shootings I think are now exceeding deaths from school fires, yet all schools have fire drills. This should be treated like a similar public safety issue with prevention and safety training as the best way to save lives.
Posted by: Sonja | June 29, 2007 3:55 PM
By the way, snex, just because people do not agree with handing out guns with the same careless abandon as handing out dental floss does not make us "anti-gun". I know at least one person here has firearms experience--me--and I doubt I'm the only one.
What I do know is that nothing in my experience with firearms teaches me how to defend a panicked group of people running chaotically against a moving target with his or her own firearm. I'm a pretty good shot, but even I might inadvertantly hit and perhaps even kill people who would not have suffered but for one of my bullets going astray.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 3:56 PM
The best trained gunman in the world still can't see through the walls. Bullets however have no problem ripping through them.
and this applies equally well to police and campus security bullets. if you trust them with guns, you should trust anybody else with the same training.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 3:56 PM
What I do know is that nothing in my experience with firearms teaches me how to defend a panicked group of people running chaotically against a moving target with his or her own firearm. I'm a pretty good shot, but even I might inadvertantly hit and perhaps even kill people who would not have suffered but for one of my bullets going astray.
once again, this argument applies equally well to small town police forces and campus security officers with guns. why are you not demanding that they lose the ability to have guns?
does anybody have an argument against professors who are properly trained carrying guns that would not also apply to campus security and/or the police?
does anybody have an actual solution on what to do if some crazy kid comes into the classroom and starts shooting? seriously, i want to hear an answer to this. how do you save as many lives as possible?
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 3:59 PM
perhaps you should actually read my posts, or even the original article from PZ's post. they would be required to go through the same training that any other member of the campus security must go through. unless you honestly believe that campus security should not have guns either, you are being completely inconsistent to say that professors should not.
Since you're the one who's telling us how bad the training of campus cops is, it still doesn't answer my question. Or perhaps it does, and you're indicating that yes, somehow no deaths or maimings by friendly fire will occur when you give ignorant people guns.
In which case, you're quite insane.
Furthermore, even if I accept your characterization of campus cops as a bunch of idiots not fit to be let off the lead, the fact is that if you limit the ones with guns to a smaller number of ignorant people, then you will have less of a chance of stray bullets wounding someone than if you had more ignorant people shooting guns. Therefore there is no inconsistency. Got it?
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 4:01 PM
Since you're the one who's telling us how bad the training of campus cops is, it still doesn't answer my question. Or perhaps it does, and you're indicating that yes, somehow no deaths or maimings by friendly fire will occur when you give ignorant people guns.
as incompetent as campus security is, can you name any instances where anybody died from friendly fire by campus security? can you name any instances where a campus security officer himself was the murderer? if you cant, why do you think professors would be more likely to fall prey to these problems?
Furthermore, even if I accept your characterization of campus cops as a bunch of idiots not fit to be let off the lead, the fact is that if you limit the ones with guns to a smaller number of ignorant people, then you will have less of a chance of stray bullets wounding someone than if you had more ignorant people shooting guns. Therefore there is no inconsistency. Got it?
im not arguing for arming everybody, but i certainly think the option should be available to anybody that wants it (and passes the relevant training, of course).
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 4:04 PM
once again, this argument applies equally well to small town police forces and campus security officers with guns. why are you not demanding that they lose the ability to have guns?
According to you. However, you have provided no evidence that what you claim is accurate, and, as I have previously pointed out, even if it is accurate there is something to be said for having less ignorant people running around firing off weapons.
does anybody have an argument against professors who are properly trained carrying guns that would not also apply to campus security and/or the police?
Does this mean an argument against professors carrying guns that does not apply to police, or an argument that you will accept does not apply to police? Those two things do not map 1:1 onto each other.
does anybody have an actual solution on what to do if some crazy kid comes into the classroom and starts shooting? seriously, i want to hear an answer to this. how do you save as many lives as possible?
It's been reiterated in these comments multiple times: call the police. In addition, one can direct students away from the shooter, and perhaps if one is daring enough even use the confusion to try to disarm the shooter.
Perhaps you could explain to us how creating a multi-front firefight in the middle of a campus is a superior solution?
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 4:07 PM
According to you. However, you have provided no evidence that what you claim is accurate, and, as I have previously pointed out, even if it is accurate there is something to be said for having less ignorant people running around firing off weapons.
the evidence is in the fact that these people are not regularly engaged in combat with live targets. most small town cops will never fire their gun off the range - that is a fact that is trivially verifiable. they are not superhumans with some kind of magical training that makes them invulnerable in school shootings. they will be just as nervous and just as likely to cause accidental deaths as anybody else who goes to the range regularly.
Does this mean an argument against professors carrying guns that does not apply to police...
of course thats what it means. now do you have one, or do you only have evasions to the question?
It's been reiterated in these comments multiple times: call the police. In addition, one can direct students away from the shooter, and perhaps if one is daring enough even use the confusion to try to disarm the shooter.
both of these "solutions" were tried at VATech. are you saying that the number of deaths at VATech was the minimum that could have possibly happened?
Perhaps you could explain to us how creating a multi-front firefight in the middle of a campus is a superior solution?
there is no "multi-front firefight." this is just rhetorical game playing on your part. it only takes one shot to disarm a single gunman. every 5 seconds in between the time he starts shooting and the time he gets shot, he can kill another person. even if the chances of accidental death by friendly fire increases, the total body count will be much lower that it would be if you simply call the cops and wait.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 4:16 PM
as incompetent as campus security is, can you name any instances where anybody died from friendly fire by campus security? can you name any instances where a campus security officer himself was the murderer? if you cant, why do you think professors would be more likely to fall prey to these problems?
More likely? We haven't established a baseline for how often friendly fire incidents occur with police or campus security. Or do you think that the fallacious argument from ignorance is a substitute for data?
im not arguing for arming everybody, but i certainly think the option should be available to anybody that wants it (and passes the relevant training, of course).
I never said you were arguing for arming everybody. I am saying, however, that what you are arguing for would lead to a larger pool of people firing guns. This is not a hard concept to grasp. With the larger pool of people firing guns, the likelihood of a friendly fire wounding or killing increases. This is not a hard concept to grasp either. I know you have the peculiarly American fetishism for guns as the invariable solution for every problem, but please try to let those synapses fire a few times before spouting off, please?
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 4:16 PM
More likely? We haven't established a baseline for how often friendly fire incidents occur with police or campus security. Or do you think that the fallacious argument from ignorance is a substitute for data?
then by all means, show us the data. you claim that a good reason for not letting people have guns is the accidental death factor. one would think that you actually measured this factor before making it a key point of your argument.
I never said you were arguing for arming everybody. I am saying, however, that what you are arguing for would lead to a larger pool of people firing guns. This is not a hard concept to grasp. With the larger pool of people firing guns, the likelihood of a friendly fire wounding or killing increases.
the likelihood of friendly fire wounding or killing may indeed increase, but that is not the relevant measure. i want to have the lowest body count possible.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 4:19 PM
I'm a gunowner myself, and I have to say this is a first-rate bad idea. These people aren't trained in the use of firearms, and if they're trained most of them won't keep up their training. Most of them probably aren't even interested. Why would you issue deadly weapons to a group of people who are (by and large) uninterested and none too competent with weapons, for a situation so rare that accidents are likely to cause more deaths than the sort of thing you're hoping to prevent?
Now, one sensible idea might be to make it easier for professors to acquire concealed-carry permits. That way, those who want to carry, and know what they're doing, can do so. Also snex (#7) had a reasonable suggestion. But a general-issue thing? I don't think so.
Posted by: Leon | June 29, 2007 4:21 PM
Posted by: Leon | June 29, 2007 4:32 PM
the evidence is in the fact that these people are not regularly engaged in combat with live targets. most small town cops will never fire their gun off the range - that is a fact that is trivially verifiable. they are not superhumans with some kind of magical training that makes them invulnerable in school shootings. they will be just as nervous and just as likely to cause accidental deaths as anybody else who goes to the range regularly.
Okay, so we have established that going to the range regularly will not magically convey in inability to kill or wound someone in a friendly fire situation. I'm glad we got past the point that I'm not arguing, and perhaps we can use it as a jumping-off point for the argument I am making.
If the foregoing premise is true, then we can infer that anyone who goes to the range regularly will not get this same magical property.
All you are advocating is that professors receive the same gun training as cops (actually less, because cops in certain areas have on-the-job training that professors are less likely to have). This amounts to a few qualifying runs at the range.
Therefore, given the fact that we have not trained people to the extent that they will not cause friendly fire deaths and maimings, and probably never can, arming professors will simply increase the likelihood of friendly fire maimings and deaths because there will be more people shooting.
I still don't get what's difficult to understand about this point.
of course thats what it means. now do you have one, or do you only have evasions to the question?
Of course I do. It's the one I've been making all the time: if you arm more people, more mistakes will be made even if your training is so perfect that the odds of any individual person making a mistake are the same for the professors as for the cops.
both of these "solutions" were tried at VATech. are you saying that the number of deaths at VATech was the minimum that could have possibly happened?
How do you know that your untested solution of giving professors guns will result in the minimum number of deaths that could have possibly happened?
there is no "multi-front firefight."
Let's see:
Shooter alone: one-front firefight
Shooter and cops: minimally, a two-front firefight.
Shooter, cops, and professors swarming from all around the campus to take a shot at the shooter: multi-front firefight.
Denying the obvious doesn't make you credible.
this is just rhetorical game playing on your part. it only takes one shot to disarm a single gunman.
Correct. However, the likelihood of that shot actually hitting its mark is rather low. Even for the highest trained shooters in the world, US military snipers, the average rounds per kill is 1.3, and what you are suggesting is nowhere near as rigorous as the training they get.
So would you care to do the math on the likelihood of hitting the moving target vs. hitting innocent bystanders given the fact that a) there may be one shooter compared to several hundred students, b) many people will be firing, and c) these many people will be firing multiple rounds all around the area hoping that one of them will happen to be the fatal or at least incapacitating shot.
every 5 seconds in between the time he starts shooting and the time he gets shot, he can kill another person.
Every 5 seconds? It doesn't take nearly that long for a semiautomatic weapon to chamber the next cartridge, or indeed for a fully automatic weapon to fire. Where do you get the 5 seconds figure?
even if the chances of accidental death by friendly fire increases, the total body count will be much lower that it would be if you simply call the cops and wait.
And here's the big question: HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 4:37 PM
then by all means, show us the data. you claim that a good reason for not letting people have guns is the accidental death factor. one would think that you actually measured this factor before making it a key point of your argument.
You're the one who's making quantification the basis for your argument, so you show the data. I am simply relying on general principles: the number of potential events in a probabilistic model increases with more runs (in this case, more people firing weapons), however low the probability in any case.
It's your argument that giving more people guns will result in less woundings and fatalities overall. In order to show this, you must establish a baseline for how likely a friendly fire wounding is to occur in a school situation, then estimate up based on how many professors would be carrying weapons overall. And you have to weigh the possibility of accidental or deliberate shootings, and weigh all those factors in light of the rarity of school shooting situations and come up with an average death toll for a school shooting situation where your plan would be instantiated.
So far, I've seen nothing of the sort from you.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 4:44 PM
You know, it seems to me the most sensible reaction to this might be to install a panic button in each classroom. Having the ability to immediately call for help would shorten response times a bit.
Maybe something like this: pushing the button once alerts the main office (good for not-quite-emergency situations), pushing three or more times calls 911. Pushing twice, or holding down the button, would cancel the last signal.
Posted by: Leon | June 29, 2007 4:45 PM
snex, here's the main difference between an actual police officer and a faculty member who's been issued a firearm: It's the cop's job to protect the safety of the people around him. Being aware of threats in their surroundings is, or should be, at the fore of his consciousness at all times. Being vigilant is what he does.
Faculty, by contrast, do not, and cannot be expected to, place that kind of constant attention on tactics and combat preparedness--because they have a damn job to do. There's a reason we have a division of labor between cops and not-cops in the first place.
Posted by: cbutterb | June 29, 2007 4:52 PM
i dont understand why you are all attempting to place the emphasis on accidental deaths or injury due to friendly fire. this is NOT the relevant measure!
the relevant measure is how many innocent people will die or be injured. when you only have one person intending to harm innocents, and it only takes one successful hit to take him out, the potential for accidents far outweighs the potential for innocent deaths if NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE TO STOP THE MURDERER!
it is complete reality-denial to think that having armed and trained professors right there immediately in case of a problem could possibly lead to more deaths than having nobody at all who has any chance whatsoever to stop a gunman. when only the gunman has a gun, he can kill as many people as he wants, and that is the issue you all seem to be ignoring.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 5:02 PM
Speaking as an academic who's about to take up a teaching position: you cannot possibly tell me that, as part of my duties, I may be required to SHOOT PEOPLE. snex's position appears to be predicated on the idea that faculty will be overjoyed at the opportunity to be given weapons.
Fortunately I'll be in the U.K., where gun ownership is much rarer and, mirabile dictu, so are shooting deaths.
Reminds me a little of one of the Onion's "Voices" snippets re. sending more troops to Iraq: "We're going to keep sending heavily armed teenagers until the violence lessens."
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 29, 2007 5:03 PM
the potential for accidents far outweighs the potential for innocent deaths
obviously that should be reversed...
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 5:04 PM
you cannot possibly tell me that, as part of my duties, I may be required to SHOOT PEOPLE.
oh brother.. if you dont want to do it, dont opt to take the course. can anybody at least try to be sensible in this thread?
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 5:06 PM
i dont understand why you are all attempting to place the emphasis on accidental deaths or injury due to friendly fire.
Nullifidian already told you in comments 59 and 60. More people with guns = more accidental shootings, even if everyone gets perfect training. School shootings, thankfully, are pretty rare. I'd bet that nobody here (especially including you, snex) has done even the most cursory math for the situation, but it seems pretty evident to me that drastically increasing the number of professors with guns in the anticipation of an exceedingly rare school shooting is a terrible idea.
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | June 29, 2007 5:11 PM
Nullifidian already told you in comments 59 and 60. More people with guns = more accidental shootings
and as i already told you, this is irrelevant. a few accidental shootings is far less than the number of intentional shootings that will happen when nobody has the ability to stop a gunman.
a crazed gunman can kill as many people as bullets he can carry. if nobody is able to stop him, this is exactly what he will do. accidental deaths are indeed tragic, but they are not an argument against disarmament.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 5:18 PM
the relevant measure is how many innocent people will die or be injured. when you only have one person intending to harm innocents, and it only takes one successful hit to take him out, the potential for accidents far outweighs the potential for innocent deaths if NOTHING AT ALL IS DONE TO STOP THE MURDERER!
a) Nobody is talking about not doing anything, except you.
b) It's revealing how you draw a distinction between innocent people and those who are hit accidentally. Apparently they're to be considered guilty for having the coarse manners to step in front of the professor's bullet.
Now for those of us who are not insane, innocent people include those who are shot accidentally, and since your proposal increases the possibility of more accidental woundings and deaths, they increase the likelihood that more innocent people will be shot.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 5:22 PM
a few accidental shootings is far less than the number of intentional shootings that will happen when nobody has the ability to stop a gunman.
But how do you know? School shootings are exceedingly rare, and even more rare on university campuses. Before Cho at VT, it was...what, the University of Texas one with the sniper? That was in 1966. If you were serious about stopping school shootings through arming instructors, you'd be talking about high school teachers and even junior high teachers. Is that what you're suggesting? How about elementary school? Where exactly does this stop - who in our society should not be armed?
I understand that school shootings are a very intense situation, and they cause some very visceral reactions. I just think that, considering their rarity, policymakers should take a few deep breaths before radically altering the educational system to prevent school massacres.
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | June 29, 2007 5:25 PM
and as i already told you, this is irrelevant. a few accidental shootings is far less than the number of intentional shootings that will happen when nobody has the ability to stop a gunman.
Here is something to ponder: YOU...DO...NOT...KNOW...THIS!
The majority of comments here flow out of the fact that you cannot comprehend this basic concept, and the rest of us trying to explain it to you.
a crazed gunman can kill as many people as bullets he can carry.
"Can" perhaps. Is likely to? No way. A crazed gunman is not, by the nature of his pathology, a better shot than a US military sniper.
if nobody is able to stop him, this is exactly what he will do.
It is not the case that a crazed shooter, or a crazed anyone, will manage a 1:1 kill ratio. He won't even manage a 1:1 hit ratio. Furthermore, it is not the case that nobody will be able to stop him if professors are not armed. Unarmed people can disarm armed assailants, and the cops responding to the scene will not be unarmed.
accidental deaths are indeed tragic, but they are not an argument against disarmament.
This is not an argument for disarmament, it is an argument against arming currently unarmed professors. Get a grip.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 5:30 PM
Firstly, the whole proposal is based on the idea that it's a good thing for faculty to be armed, which I profoundly disagree with to begin with, much as I wouldn't suggest routinely arming doctors.
Secondly, if it's known that faculty are armed, then if someone wants to get hold a gun their first action will be to jump a member of faculty! Do you want us to go around like ninjas, constantly alert for surprise attacks, or do you want us to teach and research- you know, our jobs?
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, if the problem is unstable people getting their hands on guns, then adding MORE GUNS is not a solution. You can reduce the risks of a school shooting by making it much more difficult than it currently is for people to get guns.
Fourthly, even the voluntary sign-up aspect is still based on the idea that it's a good thing to put guns in the hands of those members of faculty who really want to carry guns. I am even more nervous of guns in the hands of the enthusiastic than I am of guns in the hands of the unwilling.
Sensible enough for you?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 29, 2007 5:30 PM
who in our society should not be armed?
anybody who does not want to be armed or cannot pass whatever strict standards are required for being armed.
a) Nobody is talking about not doing anything, except you.
doing nothing is exactly what your solution is. by the time the cops arrive, the killer has already run out of ammo and blown his own head off. im sorry, but "call the cops" is not a viable solution. cops can only prevent a crime if they can be there before it is over, and with school shootings, this does not happen.
b) It's revealing how you draw a distinction between innocent people and those who are hit accidentally. Apparently they're to be considered guilty for having the coarse manners to step in front of the professor's bullet.
whats revealing is your willingness to resort to stupid ad hominems. really, this is just pathetic, and if you cannot debate respectfully then i see no reason to further respond to you.
Posted by: snex | June 29, 2007 5:34 PM
doing nothing is exactly what your solution is. by the time the cops arrive, the killer has already run out of ammo and blown his own head off. im sorry, but "call the cops" is not a viable solution. cops can only prevent a crime if they can be there before it is over, and with school shootings, this does not happen.
I'm glad to see that the police are so useless. One wonders why we have them around at all, beyond assassinating Black Panther leaders and fitting up or clubbing political dissidents.
Besides, call the cops was not my lone suggestion. I also made the point that one can direct students and others away from the shooter and, perhaps, disarm the gunman. If I'm in close enough quarters where I stand a better than evens chance of hitting him and not hitting another student, then I'm close enough to reach out and take the bastard's gun.
whats revealing is your willingness to resort to stupid ad hominems. really, this is just pathetic, and if you cannot debate respectfully then i see no reason to further respond to you.
Hey, you have only yourself to blame for drawing a distinction between the innocent and the accidentally hit.
Besides, I'm not really interested in cries of "ad hominem" in this case. It's the shout of someone who yearns for the halcyon days of his high school debate society. However, in this case, though it has no fancy Latin name, there is also the fallacy of giving credence to the totally deranged, which one might argue is a far larger source of avoidable error in the world.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 29, 2007 5:45 PM
Here is something to ponder: YOU...DO...NOT...KNOW...THIS!
The majority of comments here flow out of the fact that you cannot comprehend this basic concept, and the rest of us trying to explain it to you.
of course i know this! it is based on the fact that it only takes ONE shot to disable the gunman. the worst case scenario is that the number of deaths is exactly the same as it would have been had nobody else been armed. the best case scenario is that there are fewer deaths. it is simply not go