Professor fired over Va. Tech discussion

lucylespian

hippiemom wrote:

He pointed and said "pow." Am I missing something?

Yes, we are all missing what he said before and after. This action, taken out of context, has been seen to be offensive. In context, who knows what it was. Maybe he was asking students if they would have been able to point a gun and shoot Cho in self-defense. We will probably never know.
IN any event, stifling discussion about gun control seems to be a hallmark feature of teh US reaction to all of these incidents, wensuring that teh defensive position on "rights to bear arms" is maintained, any dissenter are howled down and demonised.

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

I can agree with the view that universities should lean toward so-called liberal thought. But this means accepting some degree of centrism or middle-of-the-road thinking as a good starting point for rational discussion.

I believe that it means accepting a general consensus as a result of rational debate and discussion - a dialectal discussion. If the end result happens to be considered by some to be in the shape of so-called 'liberal thought', 'middle-of-the-road centrism', or 'conservatism', is neither here nor there.

rebornFixer

lucylespian wrote:

IN any event, stifling discussion about gun control seems to be a hallmark feature of teh US reaction to all of these incidents, wensuring that teh defensive position on "rights to bear arms" is maintained, any dissenter are howled down and demonised.

I seriously disagree with this statement. Its not even close ... There is always a HUGE amount of press about gun control after every school shooting on this continent. In fact, the gun control lobby are the first people you here from. Notably absent from the discussion are people who lobby for increased funding for mental health care.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

I believe that it means accepting a general consensus as a result of rational debate and discussion - a dialectal discussion. If the end result happens to be considered by some to be in the shape of so-called 'liberal thought', 'middle-of-the-road centrism', or 'conservatism', is neither here nor there.

Indeed ... A rigidly-held a priori ideological position completely abnegates the possibility of having a true dialectical discussion, though.

lucylespian

reborncareerist wrote:

I seriously disagree with this statement. Its not even close ... There is always a HUGE amount of press about gun control after every school shooting on this continent. In fact, the gun control lobby are the first people you here from. Notably absent from the discussion are people who lobby for increased funding for mental health care.

I agree about the need for mental health care.
There may be a huge amount of press about gun control, but NOTHING happens. HAve you already forgotten what happened to that gun guy who dared say you don't need assault weapons to hunt woodchucks. Remember, fired, dead and buried, never to be heard from ever again !!!!!

rebornFixer

lucylespian wrote:

I agree about the need for mental health care.
There may be a huge amount of press about gun control, but NOTHING happens. HAve you already forgotten what happened to that gun guy who dared say you don't need assault weapons to hunt woodchucks. Remember, fired, dead and buried, never to be heard from ever again !!!!!

My beef with increased gun control is simple ... It won't work to prevent this sort of crime. Existing controls are already doing all they can do ... All that is it reasonable to expect them to do. What do you want to happen, and why do you think it'll help?

lucylespian

reborncareerist wrote:

My beef with increased gun control is simple ... It won't work to prevent this sort of crime. Existing controls are already doing all they can do ... All that is it reasonable to expect them to do. What do you want to happen, and why do you think it'll help?

In the short term, not much will change. But if America adopted a national mindset toward eliminating gun crime, over a few decades, the number of guns in circulation will decline, and the problem will eventually be manageable.
At present, you have so many guns in circulation, that the prospect of a gun0-free country is beyond anyones comprehension.
It is a big problem, but not insurmountable, but there is no political will.

Really, it is a lot like racism. In teh early days racism was entrenched and endemic. Slowly over several generations, attitudes are slowly changing. It will take a while yet, but the trend is against racism, and eventually equality will prevail. The same thing could happen with your gun culture, but it is not likely to.

rebornFixer

lucylespian wrote:

In the short term, not much will change. But if America adopted a national mindset toward eliminating gun crime, over a few decades, the number of guns in circulation will decline, and the problem will eventually be manageable.
At present, you have so many guns in circulation, that the prospect of a gun0-free country is beyond anyones comprehension.
It is a big problem, but not insurmountable, but there is no political will.

Really, it is a lot like racism. In teh early days racism was entrenched and endemic. Slowly over several generations, attitudes are slowly changing. It will take a while yet, but the trend is against racism, and eventually equality will prevail. The same thing could happen with your gun culture, but it is not likely to.

Hmmm ... Are you basically saying that attitudes towards violence need to change? If so, we are 100% in agreement. This is more fundamental than any amount of guns in circulation, though.

lucylespian

reborncareerist wrote:

Hmmm ... Are you basically saying that attitudes towards violence need to change? If so, we are 100% in agreement. This is more fundamental than any amount of guns in circulation, though.

Absolutely attitudes toward violence need to change. Starting with education to reduce poverty, followed by jail programmes that release prisoners that are better people rather than worse ones. Prisons are currently punitive in nature, not rehabilitative, and violence always begets violence !!

The number of guns in circulation is important to the "crims can always get guns", or the "only teh crims will have guns" argumanet against gun control.. that will only continue to be true while there is a large number of guns in circulation. Hand gun crime is practcally non-existent in Australia, because hand-guns are uncommon, their sale is strictly contoleed, and teh laws about storage etc are stricly enforced.
All guns in Australia must be kept in an approved locked cabinet with the ammunition kept separate from the weapon.
ONce the number of guns out there starts to fall, crims will not be able to get them.
With only a knife or machete, Cho could not have killed 32 people.

I predict that these incidents will increase in frequency in the USA.

Pearl Jam and toast

Catholics :rolleyes:

Seriously though, big over reaction.

rebornFixer

lucylespian wrote:

Absolutely attitudes toward violence need to change. Starting with education to reduce poverty, followed by jail programmes that release prisoners that are better people rather than worse ones. Prisons are currently punitive in nature, not rehabilitative, and violence always begets violence !!

The number of guns in circulation is important to the "crims can always get guns", or the "only teh crims will have guns" argumanet against gun control.. that will only continue to be true while there is a large number of guns in circulation. Hand gun crime is practcally non-existent in Australia, because hand-guns are uncommon, their sale is strictly contoleed, and teh laws about storage etc are stricly enforced.
All guns in Australia must be kept in an approved locked cabinet with the ammunition kept separate from the weapon.
ONce the number of guns out there starts to fall, crims will not be able to get them.
With only a knife or machete, Cho could not have killed 32 people.

I predict that these incidents will increase in frequency in the USA.

Australia has gun laws that are about as restrictive as those here in Canada, yet our handgun crime rate is a lot higher than yours. This suggests that cultural attitudes play a bigger role than gun laws per se. Sure, I need all kinds of permits to get a handgun. A 19-year old gang member doesn't care about such technicalities, he'll get a gun illegally and then shoot someone. Meanwhile, here's me, no need to have a handgun and even if I wanted one, it'd be a huge pain in the arse to get the permits so I probably wouldn't bother. My point? Gun laws that target me do little or nothing to prevent violent crimes. Restrictive laws somehow need to target criminals, not the general public. Illegal handguns, and more importantly, those who use them, need to be the targets.

Pearl Jam and toast

reborncareerist wrote:

Australia has gun laws that are about as restrictive as those here in Canada, yet our handgun crime rate is a lot higher than yours. This suggests that cultural attitudes play a bigger role than gun laws per se. Sure, I need all kinds of permits to get a handgun. A 19-year old gang member doesn't care about such technicalities, he'll get a gun illegally and then shoot someone. Meanwhile, here's me, no need to have a handgun and even if I wanted one, it'd be a huge pain in the arse to get the permits so I probably wouldn't bother. My point? Gun laws that target me do little or nothing to prevent violent crimes. Restrictive laws somehow need to target criminals, not the general public. Illegal handguns, and more importantly, those who use them, need to be the targets.

I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.

Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.

The same can most likely be applied to gun control.

rebornFixer

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.

Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.

The same can most likely be applied to gun control.

Pretty much ... I mean, since Canada implemented its long gun registry, handgun killings in cities like Toronto have increased. What's driving this increase is an increased flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border, as well as urban gang activity increases in general. This violent gang subculture is seeping into our big cities, and it has nothing to do with laws that make it less likely that I'll bother to obtain a handgun.

Purple Hawk

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.

Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.

The same can most likely be applied to gun control.

excellent post, agree with you 100% on both issues.

cincybearcat

MrBrian wrote:

I think it also said that most students did'nt have an issue with it. I think that's an important thing.

Not really, it said that 1 student said that most students didn't have an issue.

This appears stupid, but what the hell is a financial accounting prof doing? Those kids or their parents are paying money for a financial accounting class.

Seriously, who really thinks the accounting prof is the best person to lead the students in a discussion about gun control and the VA Tech shhotings?

Byrnzie

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.

Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.

The same can most likely be applied to gun control.

So you equate people gathering in secret - speak easy's - and drinking alcohol, and generally having a good time, to violent criminal activity involving guns?
Somehow, I think one of the above stands out slightly more than the other, and so is therefore easier to curb, and to impose stricter sentences on.

MrBrian

cincybearcat wrote:

Not really, it said that 1 student said that most students didn't have an issue.

This appears stupid, but what the hell is a financial accounting prof doing? Those kids or their parents are paying money for a financial accounting class.

Seriously, who really thinks the accounting prof is the best person to lead the students in a discussion about gun control and the VA Tech shhotings?

my bad, I stand corrected

---

The shootings involved both teachers and students, so based on that i feel anyone in that situation is qualified to have a discussion about said topics.

we may not agee with the method used, I mean It really did'nt make sense to me reading what he did, nevertheless, he made that choice. if any students have issues, a debate should be started. not a quick action such as getting fired over this.

boxwine_in_hell

Uncle Leo wrote:

Exactly. This is liberalism run amok!

(Is there an eyrolling smiley?)
I really don't think this is a freedom of speech issue. If this is an innapropriate act, then it should be treated as such, like a sexual gesture or something. In any case, the reaction was an over-reaction. I think 20 seconds with the him would have been enough to make sure he does not do this again.

This kind of reminds of of a mock trial I was a "juror" for in college. A law professor and law students were putting on a mock trial and the "murder weapon" was represented by a bright green squirt gun. One of the law students ("prosecutor") in his closing remarks pointed the "gun" right at me to get his point across. It was almost unsettling, but no big thing. After that portion of it, the professor said "...and by the way, an attorney would never point a gun at a juror." I am sure that student did not need more than that. This was the University of Wisconsin, so it's hard to believe this very liberal and possibly communist university did not fire him, make him issue an apology to me and some animal rights groups, force him to donate money to the United Negro College Fund and order him to replace the Camp Randall (football stadium) astroturf with natural grass while being taunted by a "Take Back the Night" crowd.

BTW, I know nothing about this college, but most of the big liberal schools in the united states are not catholic: http://www.emmanuel.edu/about/default.asp

Just wondering. How can a university be liberal and communist? Aren't communists conservative by nature?

Uncle Leo

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Just wondering. How can a university be liberal and communist? Aren't communists conservative by nature?

You need to bone up on your liberal bashing.

boxwine_in_hell

Uncle Leo wrote:

You need to bone up on your liberal bashing.

You mean like Stalin, Castro and Mao? Yeah those were real liberal governments.