Poor opinion article at cnn.com


March 8, 2011, 03:55 PM

I have a hard enough time with students who bring their cell phones to their classes. If they bring guns, they better check them at the door, or I may be forced to arm myself and try to outdraw them when I see one of them reaching for his holster.

this guy is clearly clueless

If you enjoyed reading about "Poor opinion article at cnn.com" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 8, 2011, 04:06 PM
An article full of lies, da-n lies, and statistics.

March 8, 2011, 04:07 PM
But...he's a professional at George Town University!!! He provided "facts" by using the words "a study". How can you not believe him?

March 8, 2011, 04:42 PM
It is clearly an ivory tower op-ed. It is designed to obfuscate the 400lb gorilla in the room that anti-gunners don't really like to think about: there are over 300 million firearms in america, it is a little bit too late to "restrict" them. Any new law needs to take that into account. . . without infringing on the rights to life, liberty, and property.

March 8, 2011, 05:20 PM
That guy is a idiot. <removed> like that really pisses me off!!

Just think... that guy is teaching people. PISS POOR ARTICLE CNN!!!

March 8, 2011, 05:32 PM

I stopped reading. Sociology is nothing more than a bunch of court academics justfying the crimes of their statist masters.

Nico Testosteros
March 8, 2011, 05:35 PM
The guy is entitled to his opinion.
Conceptually, or ideally, there would be no guns on college or kindergarten, high school, campuses, etc. but since murderous criminals or madmen by definition don't follow the law it makes sense for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.

March 8, 2011, 08:50 PM
I don't think that an attack of sociologists is very high road. I majored in sociology, I had several progun professors. Of course there were antis too. But to single out a whole group of people is just plain ignorant.

March 8, 2011, 08:53 PM
Looks like another winner from the Communist News Network.:banghead:

March 8, 2011, 08:58 PM
My wife is currently a PhD candidate in sociology/criminology. She likes me carrying, and will be getting her carry license soon as well. However, she is the exception in her department. And I have learned that you can make statistics say anything you want.

March 8, 2011, 09:56 PM
I love how these people think that if its illegal to carry a gun somewhere those who would shoot people wont have one on them. Cause you know, they were going to follow the law anyways...

I'm glad my college days are over. No more B.S. from professors.

March 8, 2011, 10:12 PM
Hey... to each his own. Some professors don't like it, but guess what, they don't make laws.

His opinion is as valid as yours or mine. Whenever pro-gunners quote statistics people say the same thing. Lies... yes... you may be lying and doing it in good faith. People feel differently... and will find research to support their feelings.

On another note, did anyone expect a pro-gun Opinion piece to come from CNN? Fox maybe. We all just gave CNN that many more hits on their website, and made them think that it's worth posting garbage. Woops...

March 8, 2011, 10:13 PM
The good Dr needs to move to CUBA!

March 8, 2011, 10:19 PM

All opinions are NOT valid, and we should not honor them. Your "opinion" that I may not be entitled to life or property is invalid; if you attempt to act on your opinion, I'll defend myself with deadly force.

In other situations, the stakes can be just as high, but the response is different. If a man steals a quarter from your pocket, you might not even chase after him. Once he starts taking 30% of what you make, however, and that 30% would pay for most private colleges in the US your kids could have gone to, you really have to step up and act to get your property back.

Stalin had the opinion that central planning could drive the economic activity of hundreds of millions of diverse, differing peoples. Millions starved to death.

When your "opinion" infringes on my right to life or property, your "opinion" is nothing more than violent speech against me, and I will defend myself by attacking your position, attacking your field of study, attacking your employer, attacking your funding, and attacking every bit of violence you have spewed until no one within shouting distance believes a word you say now or ever again.

And yeah, sociology is the rationalization of statism, which I'll let you reason the legitimacy of from what I said above.

JohnF Boulder Co
March 9, 2011, 02:52 AM
Just once, I'd like to see an interview or video article with somebody who holds views like this guy... Ask them if they really hold such a low opinion of everyone around them. Their own family & friends, neighbors & co-workers are too slow & stupid, too dangerously unstable.
It's an inescapable part of what they're saying, that they just don't trust people. They say it all the time, that people are on the edge, ready to go off on a homicidal rampage at any time.
And they insist that gun owners are frightened, living in fear of everyone else...
Everyone who might be on college campus is just another drunkard frat boy looking for a fight?

And remember the school shooting in Mississippi, where the assistant principle broke federal law by bringing his gun from his parked car, outside the defense-free zone and stopped the shooter from getting away to do more. If he'd had it on him, or in his desk, how many might he have saved?

I just don't get the mindset: Where's the logic in their position that if more people were armed as they wish, that it were generally known that many people everywhere might or will be armed, that some people will think it's in their best interests to threaten others for no just reason?

March 9, 2011, 02:58 AM
Banning guns in universities have made the institutions prime hunting ground for all kinds of predators.

Train and deputize students.

March 9, 2011, 03:42 AM

We could discuss social contracts and your right to opt out of them if you'd like... It involves a long conversation about the state of nature, and the understanding of the common good. It would be a Hobbesian (google it) centered conversation. And one in which you and I would probably agree. However, a decently educated and informative conversation necessarily involves at least two sides for advancement of an idea.

I was purely trying to point out that calling this man a liar and other fallacy is not exactly productive.

The man is educated... and he understands THE RIGHTS OF A PRIVATE INSTITUTION. Now, some farmers receive subsidies from my tax dollars and those son of a bitches still charge me for my food. They're taking my property! That's part of the 30% they're taking from you. Where else does that 30% go? [Paying young men and women overseas accounts for a lot of it] How much money does that school receive? (Hint: I'll bet it's less than that quarter you weren't worried about)

You're claim that opinions aren't valid is equivalent to the claim that they don't exist and that no one hears them. Sorry, but you're just wrong. People read the opinion piece(as vile and disgusting as it was). It's an opinion. It exists. It's validity in the eyes of a vetted source are indisputable. George Washington University, and CNN carry a hell of a lot more history and credibility than everyone on this forum put together.[Now if your name is Ronald Reagan...] If THR ran the world we might be a better place. The absence of the THR government seems to tell me that GWU, and CNN carry some credibility and that the validity of that argument stands.

Attack that opinion all you want, however calling it "violence" is a little nuts. And by a little I mean completely baseless. Even STALIN who had an opinion (which isn't a good example because a lot of studies and reports indicate that even ol' Joseph didn't believe in the true communist ideal. Therefore that his "opinion" was able to mobilize an economy long enough and well enough to keep up with the capitalist (ours) point of view for a decent amount of time is friggin' crazy.) [Note: Using communism, fascism, or islamism as an argument is generally regarded as poor form, and proves more complicating than complimentary to your argument unless your argument is a graduate level thesis paper numbering in the hundreds of pages]

Where do I even go from here? Hell, IFTRUE. congrats on taking the high road and instead of making an educated argument, or recognizing his argument, and researching and presenting your own argument, or EVEN asking a relevant question, or RAISING a relevant point, you decided to make the "IF IT HARMS ME[in idea, not nearly in faculty]OR TAKES MY STUFF I'LL KILL IT" argument.

Feel free to PM to continue this conversation.

March 9, 2011, 03:49 AM
Is no one else worried about the likelihood of friendly fire? It's a major concern of mine in an active shooter on campus scenario. There is a reason officers wear uniforms civilians who wear guns may not necessarily understand the potential repercussions of brandishing a firearm in the heat of the moment.

How do you plan on evaluating a potential combatant?

March 9, 2011, 05:16 AM
Interesting you bring that up sgratra. There was a discussion about that a little bit ago and it's a very real concern. Basically the bullet points of the discussion in another thread were: Only use your gun if you have no other choice. Your job as a CCW holder is to protect yourself/ family, the best way to do that is to get away and NOT to get into a gun fight.

It really isn't something that is discussed much here. That's too bad, it could have very tragic results. It is something that all of us who carry should think a lot about and plan out what we would do in such a situation.

March 9, 2011, 07:17 AM

best answer I can give you is a what if....

what if just one of the 30+ students at Virginia Tech had bern carrying... yes, they might have accidently hit an innocent student and killed them while shooting at the guy killing everyone... and they might have even been killed themselves.... and only 10 or 15 people would have died....

March 9, 2011, 08:56 AM
Is no one else worried about the likelihood of friendly fire? It's a major concern of mine in an active shooter on campus scenario. There is a reason officers wear uniforms – civilians who wear guns may not necessarily understand the potential repercussions of brandishing a firearm in the heat of the moment.

Not really in the way that you think.

There's the actual fight and the odds are no jack booted thugs will be in the area. Finish the fight and win.

I become worried about the police once they show up. Some percentage of those arriving officers will be good officers and some will be "jack booted thugs" (JBT's). The JBT's are extremely dangerous to anyone out of uniform. They have shown, just often enough, they will shoot with no regard for the situation. They get all hyped up about "dynamic entry" and "combat" while completely forgetting the purpose of their job. No investigation, no basic questions and no evaluation. I am not accusing all police of this (which is why I used the term "JBT"--these are not the officers that do things right).

Therefore, given the current attitudes of many police officers, it's up to you to ensure you are not a threat when they show up. Hopefully YOUR part of the fight is already over.

Jim Cirillo mentioned in Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights that he and his partner shot some criminals while in plainclothes. When NYPD rolled up, Cirillo and his partner were pointing their guns at the bad guys, but held their wallets over their heads. The officers in uniform said that they didn't shoot them because of that.

You know, this may be a good reason to get a CCW badge. I never thought I'd say it...but such a silly thing may not be so silly any more.

If you enjoyed reading about "Poor opinion article at cnn.com" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!