Debate in Sociology Class

Status
Not open for further replies.

defjon

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
1,355
Wow, well...let me explain what happened today.

I'm taking a 400 level sociology class, called "Social problems". It has been a very interesting class so far, and I love the teacher. He's from Trinidad, and one of the smartest professors I've yet had.

Anyway, I am following along, doing well in the course. A lot of information is presented, and it is all pretty interesting. Finally, we come to social problems about crime. I was dreading this day, because I knew this was where our paths would not longer converge.

Guns have finally come up. We're expected to copy down a slide that basically reads "As gun ownership increases so does violence and gun death". My fiancee was sitting next to me and sort of laughed, because I was like, "Ah hell. Well, here goes nothin'."

Raise my hand.

"What about Switzerland? Gun ownership per capita is probably some of the highest in the world. They have next to no murder."

For some reason, this point never much got touched upon. The cool thing about my teacher is that he is always willing to learn as well as teach, and change his viewpoint. So, I think I have half a chance with him. For some reason, the class sort of turned into a heaving mob of anger suddenly!

A guy in the front row brings up Chicago being so violent. My teacher directs the conversation away from Switzerland, taking hold to the Chicago comment and placing the frame of reference firmly on social problems in the U.S.

Up goes the hand again (I should've known...).

"How about Vermont? Next to NO gun laws, a great shooting culture...they have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation."

The kid in the front gets all pissy.

"Comparing Vermont to Chicago is absurd! One is a huge city and Vermont is full of white people who are rich."

"Okay. I might give you that. However, the point on the slide is that huge numbers of guns equate to an increase in violence."

He shut up.

For some reason, my teacher brings up Texas.

"In Texas, you can openly carry about guns like a cowboy!" (He isn't trying to be offensive, he is from Trinidad, and simply believes this to be true)

This time my Fiancee beat me to it.

"No, Texas doesn't do Open Carry like Vermont. Texas requires a CCW license. You can't wear your guns out. That isn't true."

Apprently the class didn't understand. Now they were really hostile. They couldn't grasp the concept of Open Carry/Concealed carry.

I never knew so many people here were so rabidly anti :O ! It was shocking. Even guys that seemed pretty cool were all up in arms like guns were as bad as crack- even in the hands of law abiding citizens.

So I raise my hand again, and talk about how I was there in Scotland when handguns were banned back in 96'. I talk about how crime rates haven't gone down. Now people just stab each other. And now, they've banned knives. I was attempting to illustrate the slippery slope.

The whole class was up in arms about this (no pun intended). On the plus side, every argument that cropped up I was able to firmly and politely refute and silence. Eventually people were just like, "I totally disagree. That's dumb. Guns are bad."

Class ended.

I went up to talk to the teacher, like I do after most classes. I am taking another one of his courses I enjoy them so much. Anyway, he greatly thanked me for the contribution. And laughed, appologizing for all the heat I took. I told him it was fine, I welcomed debate and discussion.

He said, "Well, I know that you don't need any help from me." That is, in most cases he has to jump in and rescue the person being flayed. It was rather amazing, because my fiancee and I actually totally "pwned" the hordes of angry college students.

You see, this class is extremely "liberal", one might say. Though my teacher openly dislikes both major political parties. I would venture to say he is a libertarian in all ways but well-fare.

Anyway, I'll be back on Friday. It didn't seem like anyone could argue the point at all. In fact, I've never yet met someone who could argue. I've had one professor that rabidly hated my viewpoints and it was in debate class. He was a classic tweed jacket wearing academic type, but was pretty cool despite his rather limited thinking when it came to firearms. This is the only point I conceded with him.

"Well, if guns didn't exist at all then there would be a lot less death."

I agree with that. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns. But we can't change reality. The world we live in has some violent, bad people. Guns are an essential evil in this world. It doesn't do anyone any good to bury their heads in the sand.

I guess I'm just looking for a little feed back. I thought I would have some more allies being in a rural college, but even the hunting types kept quiet. Not that I ended up needing their help. Between my fiancee and I, we were able to debate every rebuke to the point of silencing the other person. It was really, really cool :). If anyone has any extra ammo to give me, I'll take it. No doubt some of the kids will go and try to find statistics to back up their viewpoint for friday.

Thanks, and take 'er easy.
 
Well done!

"Well, if guns didn't exist at all then there would be a lot less death."

I'd not be so quick to concede that point.

There was a BOATLOAD of death in the world before guns. Armies were basically rampaging hordes, whose supply chain was the nearest farm, whose entertainment was the nearest farmer's daughter, and whose pay was the right to plunder whatever they could get their hands on.

Mr. Colt did in fact make folk a lot more equal.
 
There should be more college students like you. Maybe you'll get some of them to think. I also would've mentioned to the people that brought up Chicago's crime problem that Chicago also has very strict gun control laws and they do not work. Kudos.


--meathammer
 
sounds like college hasn't changed much,,,

I am looking foward to the post-friday report!
C-
 
I always have the words of my father echoing in my head when I debate professors and this has helped me all through undergrad, masters, and now when I'm working on my PhD.

"They don't know any more than you do"

What my dad really meant was that professors, contrary to many opinions, don't have magical powers that make them instantly right on everything. How do I know this? Well, because I've dealt with lots of them. I also hope to be one some day soon. Many professors would say, "no one needs a gun". Perhaps a member of THR didn't go to college and presents a logical reason for owning one (like, say, I dunno, the 2nd Ammendment?). Who is right? A PhD does not make you omnipotent.
 
I thought I would have some more allies being in a rural college, but even the hunting types kept quiet.
This was at a rural college? Dang, tell me where, so I'll know where not to apply! In my classes it is the liberals who have to fend off arguments. I like your prof though. It seems that even if he disagrees with you, he respects your opinion. That is the main rule in my political science class (and if the issues come up in my history classes). ALL opinions are respected and if disagreed with, respectfully argued against. I know a lot of liberal profs who would silence your arguments without even hearing you out - ir worse, grade you on your opinions......:fire: :banghead: :cuss:
 
It does no good to present facts to antis. They already know they're right and that your "facts" are irrelevant. It's unfair to bring "facts" into an issue that should be resolved by feelings, which is why they become so hysterically angry, begin screaming, and eventually storm off.

It's very, very difficult to see your world view irrefutably challenged. It's much easier to close your eyes, clap your hand over your ears, and run away screaming "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU IF I DON'T HEAR YOU THEN YOU NEVER SAID ANYTHING!"
 
Well, I can add a few things. I just finished up my BS this week (hold applause, lol). Difference is, I'm not in one of your traditional schools.. I'm in one of those "adult learner" modeled schools, so the median age range is around 35 or so I guess.

I've had good experiences in the rare events that guns come up as an issue in class. I think a good portion of it may have to do with most of the people I'm in class with are not 18-22 year olds. Of course, you may be in the same type of school. When I went to community college years ago, the average age was lower and the mentality was a lot different. My personal theory is that as people get older they realize that it's not as simple as "banning guns will stop gun crime" or "the police will always protect you". Once you actually have a crime comitted against you or a loved one, your beliefs change somewhat. A lot of these young kids are still living under mom and dads protective umbrella. A few years in the real world changes people... at least I think so.

I'm not even sure rural/urban or suburban has much to do with it. The school I'm getting my undergrad in is in a major city which, if polled, I bet would swing left, but almost to a T, went to the right on issues such as crime. Entitlements is another story, but one mission at a time, lol.

My final addition to the post is hunters. I know it's bad to stereotype, but I wouldn't expect hunters to jump up and help you defend our 2A. Just to throw out one example, one avid hunter at work doesn't even have ammo for his guns at home... he buys it right before hunting season and if he doesn't use it, he gives it away. He just wants the meat and the gun is a tool for that... he doesn't recognize the defensive aspect or just doesn't care I guess... his perogative, I'm not going to say anything bad, but just don't expect much support in class. Totally different mentality.

Kudos for you for speaking up and voicing your opinion. Those other people in school need to hear other opinions whether they agree or not... that's the whole point of the educational experience!
 
professors, contrary to many opinions, don't have magical powers that make them instantly right on everything. How do I know this? Well, because I've dealt with lots of them. I also hope to be one some day soon. A PhD does not make you omnipotent.
What???? I thought that academic regalia was just like Merlin's hat and cape!! Was I misinformed?!?!?!


:D :D :D :D

I lost TONS of repsect for PhDs in the process of getting mine. For a few years in my program, I was also the format advisor in the graduate college, where EVERY masters thesis and doctoral dissertation landed on my desk. You wouldn't believe some of the crap that passed for research at a RESEARCH ONE institution!
 
"Well, if guns didn't exist at all then there would be a lot less death."

The Mongols, ancient Greeks, ancient Romans, crusaders, and Muslims all managed plenty of mayhem without firearms.

Let alone all the machetes being used in Africa.
 
Reminds me of the countless arguments I have had with liberals here when the CCW bill was up last time. There is just no convincing these people; even when presented with cold, hard logic.

Its even harder when a liberal professor is involved, people on this campus for the most part don't understand that just because a professor says something is true, it is not necessarily the truth or, more importantly, the only version of the truth. It is truly sad that students, supposedly the future of this country, don't take the extra effort to research topics for themselves and come to a better understanding, but just listen to the popular belief on one side of any story.

Don't even get me started on Doyle.. grrrrrr.
 
Tell your class about the high school teacher from Vermont (where the evil guns are everywhere and oh so easily accessed) who vacationed in Scotland earlier this year and was brutally assaulted by a scumbag with a pipe.

She came back to Vermont in a coma and died a few months later.

Tell her family how the availability and presence of firearms is always bad, and how total absence of guns is always good.

I know it's an extreme example, but your classmates sound incredibly simplistic with their kneejerk attitudes.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061101/NEWS/611010414/1024/NEWS04
 
Guns are an essential evil in this world.

You did good overall in my opinion - I can't quite get to agreement with the above statement however.

I don't consider inanimate objects as having the capacity to be evil. To blame an object for the actions of humans seems rather amblyopia to me.
 
hoorah

gfy (good for you!)
I've been there, thanks for having the courage to stand up for what you believe and also doing it well. Those classrooms are the front lines, so to speak. Something I did at my ultra liberal school was start a target club. We even got money for targets (no ammo!:p)
A large number of girls showed up wanting to learn basic safety and the guys had a good time sharing rifles. no weapons on campus but we always found a way to work it out with commuters. Besides, marksmanship is just as fun with high powered air rifles (almost).
Good luck.
st
 
Guns have finally come up. We're expected to copy down a slide that basically reads "As gun ownership increases so does violence and gun death".
Well, that "turns out not to be the case."

Attached is the firearms homicide data (Word .doc), 1981 - 2003, from the WISQARS tool at the Centers for Disease Control, and an Excel chart image showing the variation. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, every year in that range the total number of guns in civilian hands went up between 3 and 5 million.

The number of guns just does not make any difference, since homicides go both up and down, while the number of guns (and guns per capita) only goes up.
 

Attachments

  • WISQARS Firearm homicide data.doc
    60 KB · Views: 15
  • firearms chart.jpg
    firearms chart.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 81
I am a sociology major myself. I see so many rediculous things written in the books we have to read for class. I am so tired of reading the stats they give straight from the Brady Bunch.

Either way what school are you at?
 
"Comparing Vermont to Chicago is absurd! One is a huge city and Vermont is full of white people who are rich."

You could have really silenced and humiliated him by pointing out that he just basically stated that impoverished minorities commit most of the violent crimes. The look on his liberal face would've been priceless.
 
"Well, if guns didn't exist at all then there would be a lot less death."
Quite inaccurate it just means the death is all at the hands of the strong.

He was a classic tweed jacket wearing academic type
Then if he was smart he would understand that it is actualy his type and women that benefit from an equalizer like guns. While strong men are in more danger than they otherwise would be. Those in power (that command others that are strong) and those who are strong can have thier way with the weak or less trained when people are restricted to hand to hand combat. So even if criminals that remained armed regardless of laws didn't exist he would still lose.
In societies without guns the larger groups (gangs if you want) of strong men are free to do as they wish until a similar group of strong men can be brought against them.

Those that dedicate thier life to warefare and weapons training arts become more important than the tweed academic type you speak of in such societies. For individuals can cut down others with impunity if they can retreat before any capable opposition can be assembled. The outcome is societies where knights, or samurai are far more important than even the best of scientists or professors.
Yes the societies are very different when no guns exist, but not in the way hippie liberals would like you to believe, and no once people begin to focus on slaughter with blades instead of aiming with guns the trained blade wielders are no less lethal. In fact in history you see battles where tens of thousands routinely died in hand to hand combat in single battles in a time when that was a much more significant % of the population. In modern individual battles guns rarely kill anywhere near that many since warfare was adapted around gun tactics (infantry charges into machinegun fire were leftover relics from prior tactics.) In fact most casualties are related more to explosives that detonate than to small arms that propel a lil piece of metal.

So no the world is not a better place without guns, and especialy not for the academic types.
 
...I love the teacher. He's from Trinidad, and one of the smartest professors I've yet had.

...

The cool thing about my teacher is that he is always willing to learn as well as teach, and change his viewpoint. So, I think I have half a chance with him.

If you think he is a true "scholar" (and way too many college professors aren't these days), get him a copy of John Lott's More Guns Less Crime. It's very dry reading, but it's been peer-reviewed to death and, unlike the "studies" done by the anti's, has never been refuted.
 
Cain killed his own brother...

without a gun. Taking guns out of the picture wouldn't do a thing to the murder rate. Guns just make it more convenient and easy. Murderers will murder no matter the weapon.
 
First off, this is sociology class which as a field has been infiltrated and taken
over by the socialists a long time ago like the other soft sciences . We all
know what the socialist agenda involves when it comes to "small arms".

"What about Switzerland? Gun ownership per capita is probably some of the highest in the world. They have next to no murder."

Would you like to complicate matters more by bringing up a forbidden topic?
Talk about homogenous populations/cultures and the effect on their crime rates.....
 
"Comparing Vermont to Chicago is absurd! One is a huge city and Vermont is full of white people who are rich."

This is a good place to point out that maybe it isn't the guns, but the people, that are the cause of the violence and the crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top