"I am a biology professor, not a lawyer, and I had never considered bringing a gun to work until now. But since many of my students are likely to be armed, I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field. . . .
"In terms of the campus murder rate -- zero at present -- I think that we can all agree that guns don't kill people, people with guns do. Which is why encouraging guns on campus makes so much sense. Bad guys go where there are no guns, so by adding guns to campus more bad guys will spend their year abroad in London. Britain has incredibly restrictive laws -- their cops don't even have guns! -- and gun deaths there are a tiny fraction of what they are in America. It's a perfect place for bad guys."
-- Boise State U. Prof. Greg Hampikian, in a NYT
op-ed piece, "When May I Shoot a Student?"
op-ed piece, "When May I Shoot a Student?"
by Ken
The answer I'd like to propose to the question in the title of this post is: A Right that is taking steps to escalate its War on Reality from cold war to hot.
Very likely you've already seen the NYT op-ed piece from which I've quoted above, but if not, it's important that you do, and I'm not going to apologize for inflicting it on readers who have already read it.
As far as I know, history doesn't record the exact moment when America officially went off the Reality Standard, but there are clearly two turning-point markers. There was, first, Ronald Reagan's declaration of Morning in America, by which he offered an eager nation relief from the tyranny of reality, a time and place in which the only standard of "reality" that applied was what you wished reality to be. And second, there was that glory time during the (George W.) Bush regime when the regimistas took to chortling over the pathetic prattling of the loser leftish loons they so chucklingly dubbed "the reality-based community." And the Right has never looked back.
As between the often-nasty realities of, you know, reality and the pastel-colored gazebo of believe-what-you-wish, it proved no contest. And by the time of the 2008 election season, the Reality Standard was clearly out the window. That was the historic year in which every word out of the mouth of every Republican candidate in every race from the presidency on down was a fantasy, a delusion, or most commonly and out-and-out lie. And from the moment on Election Night when it became unmistakably clear that the presidential race, at least, was lost, the Right rose up with every weapon at its disposal up to and possibly including violence to stuff its fantasies, delusions, and lies down the throat of Reality.
In retrospect, it seems clear the correct answer to the quesion "Do you have to be insane to be a right-winger?" was a resounding and unequivocal "You betcha!"
You might think it couldn't get worse, but I'm thinking you would be wrong. Again in retrospect, the escalation of the insanity was probably inevitable. Now it's not just the danger of right-wing insanity which threatens us, but the active promotion of insane paranoia designed to delude captive minds into thinking that their enemies are within reach of having them at their mercy.
At the moment, the form of paranoia sweeping the country is the laughable premise that Christianity is under siege, when in fact Christianity in this country has never been more swaggeringly bullying. The only person the rampaging Crap Christians treat with more loathing and contempt than their delusionally anti-Christian "enemies" is Jesus himself, who is the object of every ounce of psychotic rage they can muster. That's the genius of Crap Christianity: It can, in the name of Jesus, wage holy war against everything that Jesus said and stood for.
Viewed from this perspective, it's easy to see that the groundwork for hot war against the imagined enemies was laid with the psychotic gun "rights" movement. The political masterminds of the movement have raised the stakes from garden-variety insanity to criminal insanity by persuading already mentally enfeebled and destabilitzed minds to arm themselves everywhere they go, even in school and in church. "We're crazier than coots," they have their people saying, "and we're gunnin' fer ya."
I think what I love so much about Professor Hampikian's op-ed piece that he takes the gun-nutters at face value. "Since many of my students are likely to be armed," he says in this letter to the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature, "I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field." He notes that "at present, the harshest penalty available here at Boise State is expulsion, used only for the most heinous crimes, like cheating on Scantron exams," and argues utterly reasonably, it seems to me: "Now that lethal force is an option, I need to know which infractions may be treated as de facto capital crimes."
When May I Shoot a Student?
By GREG HAMPIKIAN
FEB. 27, 2014
BOISE, Idaho -- To the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state's college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?
I am a biology professor, not a lawyer, and I had never considered bringing a gun to work until now. But since many of my students are likely to be armed, I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field.
I have had encounters with disgruntled students over the years, some of whom seemed quite upset, but I always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil. Since I carry a pen to lecture, I did not feel outgunned; and because there are no working sharpeners in the lecture hall, the most they could get off is a single point. But now that we'll all be packing heat, I would like legal instruction in the rules of classroom engagement.
At present, the harshest penalty available here at Boise State is expulsion, used only for the most heinous crimes, like cheating on Scantron exams. But now that lethal force is an option, I need to know which infractions may be treated as de facto capital crimes.
I assume that if a student shoots first, I am allowed to empty my clip; but given the velocity of firearms, and my aging reflexes, I'd like to be proactive. For example, if I am working out a long equation on the board and several students try to correct me using their laser sights, am I allowed to fire a warning shot?
If two armed students are arguing over who should be served next at the coffee bar and I sense escalating hostility, should I aim for the legs and remind them of the campus Shared-Values Statement (which reads, in part, “Boise State strives to provide a culture of civility and success where all feel safe and free from discrimination, harassment, threats or intimidation”)?
While our city police chief has expressed grave concerns about allowing guns on campus, I would point out that he already has one. I'm glad that you were not intimidated by him, and did not allow him to speak at the public hearing on the bill (though I really enjoyed the 40 minutes you gave to the National Rifle Association spokesman).
Knee-jerk reactions from law enforcement officials and university presidents are best set aside. Ignore, for example, the lame argument that some drunken frat boys will fire their weapons in violation of best practices. This view is based on stereotypical depictions of drunken frat boys, a group whose dignity no one seems willing to defend.
The problem, of course, is not that drunken frat boys will be armed; it is that they are drunken frat boys. Arming them is clearly not the issue. They would cause damage with or without guns. I would point out that urinating against a building or firing a few rounds into a sorority house are both violations of the same honor code.
In terms of the campus murder rate -- zero at present -- I think that we can all agree that guns don't kill people, people with guns do. Which is why encouraging guns on campus makes so much sense. Bad guys go where there are no guns, so by adding guns to campus more bad guys will spend their year abroad in London. Britain has incredibly restrictive laws -- their cops don't even have guns! -- and gun deaths there are a tiny fraction of what they are in America. It's a perfect place for bad guys.
Some of my colleagues are concerned that you are encouraging firearms within a densely packed concentration of young people who are away from home for the first time, and are coincidentally the age associated with alcohol and drug experimentation, and the commission of felonies.
Once again, this reflects outdated thinking about students. My current students have grown up learning responsible weapon use through virtual training available on the Xbox and PlayStation. Far from being enamored of violence, many studies have shown, they are numb to it. These creative young minds will certainly be stimulated by access to more technology at the university, items like autoloaders, silencers and hollow points. I am sure that it has not escaped your attention that the library would make an excellent shooting range, and the bookstore could do with fewer books and more ammo choices.
I want to applaud the Legislature's courage. On a final note: I hope its members will consider my amendment for bulletproof office windows and faculty body armor in Boise State blue and orange.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and a co-author of "Exit to Freedom."
Just remember "that we can all agree that guns don't kill people, people with guns do." And that's "why encouraging guns on campus makes so much sense." Let's hope the Idaho legislature comes through with the bucks for those bulletproof office windows and faculty body armor in Boise State blue and orange. After all, this is war.
#
