Hokkmike
Member
So from this, I ask - do gun owners (who carry) live in fear?
Concealed Carry Essay: Rebuttal from Teacher
- Thread starter Deer Hunter
- Start date
- Status
bogie
Member
Pretty much only in fear of being discriminated against.
Wanna see the paper. You've got it on your computer. Post the one you handed in, and let some professionals nuke it. And turn THAT critique in... I'll copy it to Word, and we can use the markup feature...
Former Army journalist, PR major. Did R&D communications for 10 years.
Who else wants a shot at it?
Wanna see the paper. You've got it on your computer. Post the one you handed in, and let some professionals nuke it. And turn THAT critique in... I'll copy it to Word, and we can use the markup feature...
Former Army journalist, PR major. Did R&D communications for 10 years.
Who else wants a shot at it?
mojohand
Member
Your not going to change his mind, but that isn't the point. I applaud you taking the high road on this issue and standing up for your beliefs. Alot of others your age wouldn't have. I agree you should take out the wise-acre comments, funny as they may be, because they only weaken your arguments. Otherwise, well done. I would give you an A
Beagle-zebub
Member
He uses an awful lot of hypothetical scenarios to rebut a policy that is already widely in practice. Did you include the data in your essay in addition to citing it? (If you posted it on the second page of this thread, my apologies.)
The example of how he was help up was itself flawed, since he could have chosen not to have fired on the mugger (by acting like he didn't have the gun or starting a stand-off), and because no one is compelling him to carry in the first place. This is also another hypothetical, whereas data on the outcomes of muggings of armed victims is surely available, though perhaps only in raw form.
The example of how he was help up was itself flawed, since he could have chosen not to have fired on the mugger (by acting like he didn't have the gun or starting a stand-off), and because no one is compelling him to carry in the first place. This is also another hypothetical, whereas data on the outcomes of muggings of armed victims is surely available, though perhaps only in raw form.
zminer
Member
This is clearly a case where we cannot know what's up until we see the original paper. Any other replies are merely based on conjecture. As one poster said, an 85 is a pretty good grade and would be consistent with the only paper-related comment we have - that the OP used more opinion-based than factually-based arguments.
Let's see the original paper before we go blasting some professor that nobody here knows (except the OP, obviously).
Let's see the original paper before we go blasting some professor that nobody here knows (except the OP, obviously).
primlantah
Member.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 233
Higher education is a joke. This is an issue you should take to the dean...but it wont accomplish much. College is something you just do and finish and not take anything to heart.
You have a lot of good information in your reply. I do suggest, as others already have, that you provide statistics and provide the source for those statistics.
In general, the further you go into your reply the calmer your tone. You might want to review the first portion and see if you can strengthen the logic with a bit calmer tone.
One item that may not be very useful to your reply, but may also provide you with some one else's approach is at http://www.w0ipl.net/ccw.htm
Keep up the good work!
In general, the further you go into your reply the calmer your tone. You might want to review the first portion and see if you can strengthen the logic with a bit calmer tone.
One item that may not be very useful to your reply, but may also provide you with some one else's approach is at http://www.w0ipl.net/ccw.htm
Keep up the good work!
Was this the paper?
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=354254
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=354254
bogie
Member
was that the version that was submitted?
Feud
Member
professor silly arguments said:
Pfft! He got that off of Serenity, which if anything, is a very PRO gun movie!
ctdonath
Member
You've gotten caught in a common rhetorical trap: responding to the response. Don't. He docked you 15 points; call him out on exactly, objectively, why. Point out that his 2 pages of rhetoric are empty and emotive. Stay focused. Your response was too long. Insist he explain what, objectively, was missing.
Then he should know that those suitably equipped trump those who aren't. Tangents are immaterial if the core is missing.
patentmike
Member
CT nailed it. Stay focused. They hate that. Looks to me like the prof does live in fear. "I wouldn't be fast enough, I'd shoot someone by mistake etc..." Fear is a weapon. He'd probably be afraid of getting into some sort of trouble if you ask him to justify the -15.
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
Let me Clarify my purpose
Alright alright guys, I'm back from an SCCC luncheon.
The original paper was here http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=354254
My reply to his rebuttal was mostly unchanged. I cleaned up the grammar and spelling while replacing a few words here or there.
If I wanted an A on that paper, I could have written about why Batman is so much better than Superman. He would have given me an A before he read the rest of the paper.
I want an A in the class, which is why the 85 was a little troubling. But that's not my biggest concern.
My biggest concern is the fact that I have nothing from him, in the grading rubric or in the paper itself, that would show me what I did wrong or how to fix it. All he wrote was that one comment at the end, and that was all.
I am sending my original paper to the dean of the English branch, but NOT for a better grade. I want someone in that college to actually read my paper for what it is: A Paper. I want them to grade it accordingly. I want to get better because I just got a position as a writing center worker and will be helping kids with their papers every day.
Yes, this guy is a grad student. A TA, to be official.
It may have sounded harsh, and maybe I wasn't the most eloquent authors amung THR, but I had to write something. Just for my own benefit. This guy went through college with a lib arts degree, and from the way he talks and the times we've talked about firearms and CCW, it would take a lot more than what I can bring to the table to change this guy's views.
Alright alright guys, I'm back from an SCCC luncheon.
The original paper was here http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=354254
My reply to his rebuttal was mostly unchanged. I cleaned up the grammar and spelling while replacing a few words here or there.
If I wanted an A on that paper, I could have written about why Batman is so much better than Superman. He would have given me an A before he read the rest of the paper.
I want an A in the class, which is why the 85 was a little troubling. But that's not my biggest concern.
My biggest concern is the fact that I have nothing from him, in the grading rubric or in the paper itself, that would show me what I did wrong or how to fix it. All he wrote was that one comment at the end, and that was all.
I am sending my original paper to the dean of the English branch, but NOT for a better grade. I want someone in that college to actually read my paper for what it is: A Paper. I want them to grade it accordingly. I want to get better because I just got a position as a writing center worker and will be helping kids with their papers every day.
Yes, this guy is a grad student. A TA, to be official.
It may have sounded harsh, and maybe I wasn't the most eloquent authors amung THR, but I had to write something. Just for my own benefit. This guy went through college with a lib arts degree, and from the way he talks and the times we've talked about firearms and CCW, it would take a lot more than what I can bring to the table to change this guy's views.
zminer
Member
I don't want to be a jerk, but if that is the paper in question, it is not clear that he graded you the way he did based on the fact that your arguments were pro-gun while he was anti-gun. What he said was that you didn't cite evidence, and instead used emotional arguments. See here:
These assertions need to be backed up by statistics, not simply stated. Cite studies which show that police miss a large percentage of shots at perps; cite studies about college alcoholism versus real-world alcoholism; cite crime statistics from Texas. We may know these things to be true, but formal writing requires evidence of this kind. It also requires that you write in a very formal manner:
"Preach" and "stammering against" suggest value judgments rather than presenting cold hard facts.
I don't want to go through the whole thing, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that you got the grade you did because the professor is against guns. If you still disagree with him, I suggest going to his office and asking for specific examples of where you could have improved on the paper. You can even ask for a grading breakdown - what percentage is based on spelling/grammar, what percentage is based on argument construction, etc. The truth is, most students don't want a detailed critique of their work (and profs don't have time to do detailed work on every single paper every time) and so a couple of sentences is all that is done. But students who DO care and want a more detailed explanation (e.g. - YOU) are free to ask for more detail.
And, I agree with earlier posters that you will want to keep your comments short and topical, if you indeed send them to him at all. I would suggest instead going to his office hours and meeting with him about it. That way you can have a meaningful discussion rather than just exchanging notes, which could be easily misunderstood, especially since he has different views than you do.
EDIT: Just saw your reply that the guy is a TA. My points are still valid, though.
These assertions need to be backed up by statistics, not simply stated. Cite studies which show that police miss a large percentage of shots at perps; cite studies about college alcoholism versus real-world alcoholism; cite crime statistics from Texas. We may know these things to be true, but formal writing requires evidence of this kind. It also requires that you write in a very formal manner:
"Preach" and "stammering against" suggest value judgments rather than presenting cold hard facts.
I don't want to go through the whole thing, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that you got the grade you did because the professor is against guns. If you still disagree with him, I suggest going to his office and asking for specific examples of where you could have improved on the paper. You can even ask for a grading breakdown - what percentage is based on spelling/grammar, what percentage is based on argument construction, etc. The truth is, most students don't want a detailed critique of their work (and profs don't have time to do detailed work on every single paper every time) and so a couple of sentences is all that is done. But students who DO care and want a more detailed explanation (e.g. - YOU) are free to ask for more detail.
And, I agree with earlier posters that you will want to keep your comments short and topical, if you indeed send them to him at all. I would suggest instead going to his office hours and meeting with him about it. That way you can have a meaningful discussion rather than just exchanging notes, which could be easily misunderstood, especially since he has different views than you do.
EDIT: Just saw your reply that the guy is a TA. My points are still valid, though.
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
I'll agree with you that the paper is not the best in the world. I should have read through it more, and the citations that I did have through the paper showed statistics from the FBI and CHL holders when compared against violent crimes committed by non CHL holders. These were compiled by William E. Sturdevant. My research may not have been the best, but it was there.
I get preachy in my papers occasionally. Sometimes I don't see it, sometimes I do. When I catch it, I fix it. When I don't, it's usually small. I've read over that paper and yes it needs some things done to it. When Finals are over I plan on revising a couple of my papers.
I get preachy in my papers occasionally. Sometimes I don't see it, sometimes I do. When I catch it, I fix it. When I don't, it's usually small. I've read over that paper and yes it needs some things done to it. When Finals are over I plan on revising a couple of my papers.
Tarvis
Member
Your rebuttal was good, albeit your choice of semantics may have been a little to emotionally charged. I think the biggest problem is the liberals' grasp on the school system. In 3 years of college, I only had 3 or 4 conservative teachers.
Why is it that liberals refuse to accept a valid point when it contradicts thier perspective?
Why is it that liberals refuse to accept a valid point when it contradicts thier perspective?
bogie
Member
Have you fired the rebuttal off yet?
I just loaded the original paper in Word, and man, but I could bleed all over it...
Let's see the rebuttal in one chunk... I think the thing you need to concentrate on is that the guy is penalizing you because he feels his "opinion" trumps your facts. Problem is, you tossed in a LOT of hyperbole-type stuff, which shadows some of your fact cites...
I just loaded the original paper in Word, and man, but I could bleed all over it...
Let's see the rebuttal in one chunk... I think the thing you need to concentrate on is that the guy is penalizing you because he feels his "opinion" trumps your facts. Problem is, you tossed in a LOT of hyperbole-type stuff, which shadows some of your fact cites...
Treo
member
Ok , having read the paper I saw; poor paragraph structure, several mis-spellings & a few typos. I didn't see a single quoted source in the whole paper & I thought the paper was very casually written.
I'd say high C low B
I'm not a professional writer but I did get an A in Comp II
I'd say high C low B
I'm not a professional writer but I did get an A in Comp II
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
As I said before, my original research paper wasn't the best in the world. I did Ready Writing UIL contests in high school, which generally ruined my paragraph structure (which I believe to be overrated anyway, damned TAKS test). There was a quoted source, althought I relied heavily on the citations.
But that's not what I'm slightly peeved over.
This teacher has told the class numerous times that he's not grading on grammar and he lets paragraph structure slide. He wants the content, since he believes that is the most important thing.
So when he hands me my paper with no explaination other than his rebuttal, it pissed me off.
But that's not what I'm slightly peeved over.
This teacher has told the class numerous times that he's not grading on grammar and he lets paragraph structure slide. He wants the content, since he believes that is the most important thing.
So when he hands me my paper with no explaination other than his rebuttal, it pissed me off.
bogie
Member
Here's a quick hack at the first portion... comments ref'ed at end...
=========
Concealed Carry on Campus: The Responsibility of Self Defense
There was a young chemistry major who attended a major university in Texas, a university that enjoyed yelling immensely. This student, a sophomore, lived in an off-campus apartment complex a quarter-mile from campus. Every Thursday, after eating an early dinner, this student would walk to a 6:00 P.M. chemistry lab. While walking to the lab one night, the student stopped for traffic, hurriedly pressing the WALK button on the traffic-light post. A group of people, also students, waited on the other side of the street, eagerly eyeing the red hand and waiting for their chance to traverse the street. The Chemistry student, while gingerly watching the red hand, did not hear the stranger creeping up from behind. The student does not hear the metallic locking sound of a knife opening. However, the student does hear the command that leaves the stranger’s lips. “Empty out your pockets!” the stranger says; these words chill the student horridly. The student turns to see the knife and the face of the stranger, shrouded by a university-emblazoned hoodie. The student’s heart-rate drops, then takes off like a rocket. Sweat beads in the student’s armpits and across the student’s brow. The student takes a step back, looking toward the street that has just cleared of traffic as a greenish-white stick figure appears on the opposite light post. The stranger takes a step closer, pushing the knife towards the student’s turned face. The student’s peripheral vision catches a glimpse of the knife’s blade. The student begins to run, faster than the student had ever ran in the past. From across the street, the greenish-white stick figure has been joined by the crowd of students, all urging the student on. “Run! You can make it!” they cry. The student can almost feel the hot breath of the stranger bearing down upon the student’s neck. Images of police-tape and body-bags encourage the student’s rubbery legs to push on. Just as the stranger is about to grab the student’s jacket, the student strides onto the sidewalk. Above the student is a large sign, welcoming everyone to their institute of higher learning. The student stares breathlessly at the assailant, whom is standing two feet from the sidewalk in the bike lane. The stranger then begins to stomp their[CU1] feet violently, closing his knife as he does, and storms back across the street, disappearing behind an overgrown bush. The group of students then converge on the chemistry major, offering their congratulations. The student then bids them a farewell and continues on into the campus, grateful to be free from the malicious forces of the outside world.
[CU2]Sound flawed? That’s because it is. Universities across the country have fallen under a spell of blinded assuredness, one that assumes that universities are above crime, corruption, and violence. A&M did not escape the blight[CU3], insisting that a few lighted emergency phones and an ill-trained police force is[CU4] more than enough to protect every student the university enrolls[CU5]. However, thanks to the federal clery act, we can see that life on campus is just as dangerous as life away from campus. A&M, as well as other universities, would[CU6] benefit greatly if their[CU7] administrators would [CU8]simply acknowledge the fact that their[CU9] campuses are not the bastions of peace [CU10]we, as students, are told[CU11] to believe. In that same thought process, A&M should rethink their “No Guns On Campus” policy (as defined in Penal Code Section 46.05(a)). ("TITLE 10") [CU12]A “No Guns” rule works just as well as a “No Rape”,[CU13] “No Stealing”, “No Cheating“, or “No Fighting” rule. A person who is willing to break the law one way (stealing, sexual assault/aggravated assault and battery, etc) is not discouraged from bringing a weapon to a “weapons free” zone. And since this is the case, criminals will always be better fit [CU14]to survive an encounter with a law-abiding citizen/student when that citizen/student has been meticulously de-clawed by ridiculous feel-good[CU15] legislation. We, as students, cannot rely on the police at all times, and therefore must demand the ability to take responsibility for our own safety.
There are many arguments against [CU16]letting qualified, licensed individuals carry their tools on campus. One very simply states that “More guns isn’t the solution!” (Kingsbury ) Well, then we had better starts [CU17]by disarming all police and special response teams. “The police are the only people qualified enough to carry such a dangerous weapon!“ (Peterson ) Show me an officer on campus that can consistently place accurate shots on your standard torso target at 25 yards and I’ll show you an avian swine.[CU18] “Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to carry firearms.“ (Gill-Austern) As opposed to the outside world, where drug abuse and alcoholism cease to exist.[CU19] “If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” (Clark) Just like those nasty corner-shootouts that happen across the state of Texas, which is a Shall Issue concealed handgun licensing state. [CU20][CU21]All of these arguments have been presented against allowing citizens to carry on campuses. However, it hasn’t [CU22]stopped violence from occurring, nor has it stopped criminals from carrying weapons onto campus.
“More guns isn’t the solution!“ A mantra that has been heard from those against carrying on campus. [CU23]It’s voiced by certain police officers[CU24], parents, students, and faculty. These people feel that if we “flooded” [CU25]the campuses with guns, more shootings would occur. This argument is flawed since it does not take into account the amount of training and places every single person who carries a concealed tool daily into a single category. These people view everyone with a concealed handgun permit as a liability to society, an ill-trained and trigger-happy danger to those around them. However, such ridiculous[CU26] stereotyping does not stand true. First[CU27], to obtain a concealed carry permit in Texas, you must sign up [CU28]to take a 12 hour class, which costs $150, not including pistol or ammunition. This class covered all legal aspects of carrying a concealed weapon. This class included[CU29] written tests, live-fire exercises, role-playing portions, and non-violent conflict resolution strategies. Safety is the biggest concern taught in this class.(KR Training) Also, those who sign up for such a class usually already have experience with a firearm. Perhaps it is with hunting, competition shooting, casual target shooting, or in some cases all three. Those who pass the tests and obtain their concealed carry permit (CHL) are anything but ill-trained. Those who preach that “more guns is not a solution” have probably never researched what is involved with obtaining a CHL, or even[CU30] had the opportunity to work with a firearm. What good is it to have people stammering against the natural right of self defense when they themselves have no real experience with what they are fighting so vehemently against?[CU31]
“The police are the only people qualified enough to own such a dangerous weapon!“ This remark is mostly voiced by those who place their and their family’s safety in the hands of a 911 operator. It is rare that a police officer would[CU32] have to unholster his duty pistol and[CU33] fire upon a threat. Because of this, police officer training has switched [CU34]to apprehension techniques. In some departments, officers are not graded on whether or not they can accurately fire upon a target.(Robinson) The reasoning behind this lack of firearms proficiency with your average police officer is due to the reliance on quick-response teams, such as S.W.A.T. These teams are brought in when a threat arises that is assessed to be beyond your average police officer’s ability to handle. However, our reliance on the police, or anyone else other than ourselves for that matter, has caused complacency in our society. We must all remember that the police, no matter how well trained or speedy they are, do not prevent crime. They never have, and unless Spielberg is a seer, never will. Police may sometimes deter crime with their presence, but the police exist to pick up the pieces after the law has been broken. In fact, the supreme court has ruled numerous times that the police are not required to protect the citizens of this country.(Kasler)
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases. (Kasler)
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”, a saying that has made its rounds during this debate. Recently, there was a shooting at Virginia Beach. Three people died, while three others were injured. The attack was reported to the police at 5:00 P.M. that day. It wasn’t until two hours later that the police had found out where the murderer was, and that was when the police surrounded the apartment complex. (Virginia) This is not anecdotal. A simple search for newspaper reports of police action during shootings, stabbings, or blunt-object-beatings will show that the police arrive long after the crime has been committed. The police are no one’s personal security guard. No university could ever have enough of a police presence and still maintain their university to prevent crime from being committed on their grounds. Those who proclaim the police proficient enough for this issue unwittingly wish for a state of martial law at our universities, which are supposedly bastions of open-mindedness and acceptance of diversity.
“Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to have firearms.“ This attack is as insulting as it is presumptuous. Starting with the obvious, if universities have such a strict policy on drug and alcohol abuse, how is it that there is still such abuse within their walls? Perhaps it is because those rules do not stop drugs from being used on campus, nor does it stop underage drinking from occurring on campus. In this same breath, we can also agree that just because there is a “no guns on campus” rule does not mean it will be followed. In a way, this damages the argument against weapons on campus. Also, it against makes the assumption that all students are the same. It states that we are all immature, pot-smoking, binge-drinking, ruffians only in college to have a good time. How could we possibly be trusted with our own safety? The arrogance of this argument defies logic, however those in favor of campus carry understand that those in possession of a CHL are not your average wild, out of control college stereotypes. They are a varied group of individuals whom value their lives enough do shoulder the responsibility of their own self defense.
“If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” This was a common argument against the CHL program getting started in Texas, along with may other states. After the CHL bill was passed, those fighting the bill waited for the streets to run red with the blood of innocent citizens, callously shot down by enraged individuals motivated by their inanimate objects. However, this was not the case. The opposite was true. Violent crime lowered, and continued to as more people obtained their CHL. In fact, statistics show that CHL holders are less likely to break the law than non CHL holders of the same age. The numbers actually show us that males in Texas, as of 2001, were 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault than a CHL holder. For females, the numbers showed that those without a CHL were 7.5 times more likely to commit these illegal acts. (William) Opponents to students carrying on campus ignore these facts and continue to insist that CHL holders, who carry their concealed tools to the grocery store, to the mall, to the movie theatre, and at home would suddenly and wildly lash out at fellow students if allowed to carry on campus. People tend to anthropomorphize firearms, citing what they view on TV or equating them with what certain criminal people have used them for. Because of this, it is believed that owning a firearm changes the owner’s perception and causes reckless and dangerous activities. As the statistics show, this is not the case.
A sign depicting a crude silhouette of a gun within a red circle cut diagonal across the silhouette will not stop someone from taking a firearm onto school grounds and using it against the students. A clear example was forwarded to every student at Texas A&M October 12, 2007. The Federal Clery Act emails sent to our neo.tamu accounts inform the students of illegal activities that the police have thought best to show the students. That email details the October 6th account of a young girl who was held up by two men, one with a pistol. The student was walking through parking lot 40, on the south side of campus, when she was approached from behind by the two men. After taking her purse, they made off quickly. (TAMU) These men were there to violate the law. They did not care about the rights of that student who lost her purse, nor did they care if there was a police presence on campus. So why then should they care for the “no weapons on campus” rule? One of these men had a firearm, which he used to intimidate the helpless student into getting what he wanted. Every single one of the Federal Clery Act emails should be a wake-up call to those who think they could never be victims.
CHL holders are rational, law abiding citizens who shoulder the responsibility of their own safety every day. They are the people behind you in line at Wal-mart, those you meet at the gas-station pumping gas, and those enjoying the movie two rows in front of you. CHL holders carry their tools everywhere, except when barred from doing so. Rules like “No guns on campus” strip law-abiding citizens of their right to proper self-defense. These rules only apply to those that comply with the law. So if the police cannot stop these things from happening, and the rules established to try and protect the students only leave them defenseless, what can campuses do? To combat the shadows cast by the tombstones of victims from various school shootings across the country, A&M decided it was best to place more lighted emergency phone-stations around campus. It was a simple feel-good move aimed at quelling the restlessness of its students. Simple feel-good legislation will not stop crime. The responsibility of safety lies strictly in the hands of the individual. Stripping students and faculty CHL rights on campus robs them of a chance to defend themselves properly. The police cannot protect us. Signs and laws cannot protect us. Disarmed and helpless, we will continue to be preyed upon by the dredges of society: The rapists, the burglars, the petty thieves, and the murderous sociopaths. It is time that campus officials take notice to the rights of the students and the faculty. It is time that they allow us the proper means of defense instead of forcing us to assume the role of the victim. It is time you to choose: Victim or Survivor?
Sources
"TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS." 6 Apr 2008 <http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes....000046.00.htm >.
Kingsbury, Laura. "Indiana law enforcement officials discuss firearms on campus." The Penn 3/4/08 <http://media.www.thepenn.org/media/s...8/03/04/News/I ndiana.Law.Enforcement.Officials.Discuss.Firearms.On.Campus- 3248671.shtml>.
Peterson, Hayley . "Bill to allow firearm possession on campus." Red and Black 4/2/08 <http://media.www.redandblack.com/med...s/2008/04/02/N ews/Bill-To.Allow.Firearm.Possession.On.Campus-3296491.shtml>.
Gill-Austern, Maggie. "Girls, guys and Glocks?." Sun Journal 03 09 2008 <http://www.sunjournal.com/story/255421-3/bsection/Girls_guys_and_Glocks/>.
Clark, Julie. "Concealing weapons would add increased campus safety risk." The Aubourn Plainsman 04 03 2008 <http://www.theplainsman.com/front/2008/apr- 03/campus_gun_bill_shot_down_state_senate>.
KR Training, "Texas Concealed Handgun License Training ." KR Training <http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/chlnew.html>.
Robinson, Jim. "Jackson Police Officers Firearms Testing Below Standard." Expert Witness News 05 11 2007 <http://www.expertwitnessblog.com/200...ers_firearms_t esting_below_standards.html>.
Kasler, Peter. "Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals." 05 11 2007 <http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html>.
Virginia, "3 dead, 3 injured in Va. Beach shooting." In Rich 03 20 2008 <http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.a...TD-2008-03-20- 0170.html>.
Sturdevant,, William . "An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population 1996 - 1998, Revised to include 1999 and 2000 data." 08 24 2001 <http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm>.
Texas A&M University, "Theft." Federal Clery Act 10 12 2007
<neo.tamu.edu>.
[CU1]Should be “his”
[CU2]Needed a stronger “lead.” Lose the novel, or slice it down hard…
[CU3]Poor choice of words – I’d look on it more as a “fad”
[CU4]“are”
[CU5]In what? The Dept. of Redundancy Department?
[CU6]“will”
[CU7]delete
[CU8]Delete – and “simply” borders on hyperbole.
[CU9]delete
[CU10]“, which”
[CU11]“led” or “instructed”
[CU12]Don’t know what cite method – should period follow last paren?
[CU13]Comma should be inside quotes.
[CU14]“more likely”
[CU15]hyperbole
[CU16]Is this supposed to be persuasive? If you feel obliged to list arguments against your position, you need to effectively counter them.
[CU17]Do I even need to says anything about this?
[CU18]Cute. And, while I admit that I hate shooting next to most cops (unsafe, bad shots, etc.) you need to cite or drop it… Instead, mention situations like Diallo or Bell…
[CU19]More cute, more hyperbole.
[CU20]I’d have broken his up into bulleted thoughts – soundbites…
[CU21]Cute hype. You need cites/numbers… I’m from Missouri – show me.
[CU22]“they have not”
[CU23]Sentence structure fault
[CU24]Should have replaced with “administrators.” Officers on the street are generally pro-ccw – but management doesn’t want to admit that they cannot deal.
[CU25]Lose the “finger quote” speech pattern – and the hype.
[CU26]Lose the hyperbole.
[CU27]Where is “Second?” Needs para break before.
[CU28]Signing up doesn’t cut it – you must complete the class.
[CU29]Should have been “covers” and “includes”
[CU30]Cut – don’t need the word.
[CU31]Never ask a question that (a) you do not immediately answer; or (b) know how your audience will answer.
[CU32]Should be “will”
[CU33]Should be “pistol, much less fire…”
[CU34]“emphasizes”
=========
Concealed Carry on Campus: The Responsibility of Self Defense
There was a young chemistry major who attended a major university in Texas, a university that enjoyed yelling immensely. This student, a sophomore, lived in an off-campus apartment complex a quarter-mile from campus. Every Thursday, after eating an early dinner, this student would walk to a 6:00 P.M. chemistry lab. While walking to the lab one night, the student stopped for traffic, hurriedly pressing the WALK button on the traffic-light post. A group of people, also students, waited on the other side of the street, eagerly eyeing the red hand and waiting for their chance to traverse the street. The Chemistry student, while gingerly watching the red hand, did not hear the stranger creeping up from behind. The student does not hear the metallic locking sound of a knife opening. However, the student does hear the command that leaves the stranger’s lips. “Empty out your pockets!” the stranger says; these words chill the student horridly. The student turns to see the knife and the face of the stranger, shrouded by a university-emblazoned hoodie. The student’s heart-rate drops, then takes off like a rocket. Sweat beads in the student’s armpits and across the student’s brow. The student takes a step back, looking toward the street that has just cleared of traffic as a greenish-white stick figure appears on the opposite light post. The stranger takes a step closer, pushing the knife towards the student’s turned face. The student’s peripheral vision catches a glimpse of the knife’s blade. The student begins to run, faster than the student had ever ran in the past. From across the street, the greenish-white stick figure has been joined by the crowd of students, all urging the student on. “Run! You can make it!” they cry. The student can almost feel the hot breath of the stranger bearing down upon the student’s neck. Images of police-tape and body-bags encourage the student’s rubbery legs to push on. Just as the stranger is about to grab the student’s jacket, the student strides onto the sidewalk. Above the student is a large sign, welcoming everyone to their institute of higher learning. The student stares breathlessly at the assailant, whom is standing two feet from the sidewalk in the bike lane. The stranger then begins to stomp their[CU1] feet violently, closing his knife as he does, and storms back across the street, disappearing behind an overgrown bush. The group of students then converge on the chemistry major, offering their congratulations. The student then bids them a farewell and continues on into the campus, grateful to be free from the malicious forces of the outside world.
[CU2]Sound flawed? That’s because it is. Universities across the country have fallen under a spell of blinded assuredness, one that assumes that universities are above crime, corruption, and violence. A&M did not escape the blight[CU3], insisting that a few lighted emergency phones and an ill-trained police force is[CU4] more than enough to protect every student the university enrolls[CU5]. However, thanks to the federal clery act, we can see that life on campus is just as dangerous as life away from campus. A&M, as well as other universities, would[CU6] benefit greatly if their[CU7] administrators would [CU8]simply acknowledge the fact that their[CU9] campuses are not the bastions of peace [CU10]we, as students, are told[CU11] to believe. In that same thought process, A&M should rethink their “No Guns On Campus” policy (as defined in Penal Code Section 46.05(a)). ("TITLE 10") [CU12]A “No Guns” rule works just as well as a “No Rape”,[CU13] “No Stealing”, “No Cheating“, or “No Fighting” rule. A person who is willing to break the law one way (stealing, sexual assault/aggravated assault and battery, etc) is not discouraged from bringing a weapon to a “weapons free” zone. And since this is the case, criminals will always be better fit [CU14]to survive an encounter with a law-abiding citizen/student when that citizen/student has been meticulously de-clawed by ridiculous feel-good[CU15] legislation. We, as students, cannot rely on the police at all times, and therefore must demand the ability to take responsibility for our own safety.
There are many arguments against [CU16]letting qualified, licensed individuals carry their tools on campus. One very simply states that “More guns isn’t the solution!” (Kingsbury ) Well, then we had better starts [CU17]by disarming all police and special response teams. “The police are the only people qualified enough to carry such a dangerous weapon!“ (Peterson ) Show me an officer on campus that can consistently place accurate shots on your standard torso target at 25 yards and I’ll show you an avian swine.[CU18] “Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to carry firearms.“ (Gill-Austern) As opposed to the outside world, where drug abuse and alcoholism cease to exist.[CU19] “If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” (Clark) Just like those nasty corner-shootouts that happen across the state of Texas, which is a Shall Issue concealed handgun licensing state. [CU20][CU21]All of these arguments have been presented against allowing citizens to carry on campuses. However, it hasn’t [CU22]stopped violence from occurring, nor has it stopped criminals from carrying weapons onto campus.
“More guns isn’t the solution!“ A mantra that has been heard from those against carrying on campus. [CU23]It’s voiced by certain police officers[CU24], parents, students, and faculty. These people feel that if we “flooded” [CU25]the campuses with guns, more shootings would occur. This argument is flawed since it does not take into account the amount of training and places every single person who carries a concealed tool daily into a single category. These people view everyone with a concealed handgun permit as a liability to society, an ill-trained and trigger-happy danger to those around them. However, such ridiculous[CU26] stereotyping does not stand true. First[CU27], to obtain a concealed carry permit in Texas, you must sign up [CU28]to take a 12 hour class, which costs $150, not including pistol or ammunition. This class covered all legal aspects of carrying a concealed weapon. This class included[CU29] written tests, live-fire exercises, role-playing portions, and non-violent conflict resolution strategies. Safety is the biggest concern taught in this class.(KR Training) Also, those who sign up for such a class usually already have experience with a firearm. Perhaps it is with hunting, competition shooting, casual target shooting, or in some cases all three. Those who pass the tests and obtain their concealed carry permit (CHL) are anything but ill-trained. Those who preach that “more guns is not a solution” have probably never researched what is involved with obtaining a CHL, or even[CU30] had the opportunity to work with a firearm. What good is it to have people stammering against the natural right of self defense when they themselves have no real experience with what they are fighting so vehemently against?[CU31]
“The police are the only people qualified enough to own such a dangerous weapon!“ This remark is mostly voiced by those who place their and their family’s safety in the hands of a 911 operator. It is rare that a police officer would[CU32] have to unholster his duty pistol and[CU33] fire upon a threat. Because of this, police officer training has switched [CU34]to apprehension techniques. In some departments, officers are not graded on whether or not they can accurately fire upon a target.(Robinson) The reasoning behind this lack of firearms proficiency with your average police officer is due to the reliance on quick-response teams, such as S.W.A.T. These teams are brought in when a threat arises that is assessed to be beyond your average police officer’s ability to handle. However, our reliance on the police, or anyone else other than ourselves for that matter, has caused complacency in our society. We must all remember that the police, no matter how well trained or speedy they are, do not prevent crime. They never have, and unless Spielberg is a seer, never will. Police may sometimes deter crime with their presence, but the police exist to pick up the pieces after the law has been broken. In fact, the supreme court has ruled numerous times that the police are not required to protect the citizens of this country.(Kasler)
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases. (Kasler)
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”, a saying that has made its rounds during this debate. Recently, there was a shooting at Virginia Beach. Three people died, while three others were injured. The attack was reported to the police at 5:00 P.M. that day. It wasn’t until two hours later that the police had found out where the murderer was, and that was when the police surrounded the apartment complex. (Virginia) This is not anecdotal. A simple search for newspaper reports of police action during shootings, stabbings, or blunt-object-beatings will show that the police arrive long after the crime has been committed. The police are no one’s personal security guard. No university could ever have enough of a police presence and still maintain their university to prevent crime from being committed on their grounds. Those who proclaim the police proficient enough for this issue unwittingly wish for a state of martial law at our universities, which are supposedly bastions of open-mindedness and acceptance of diversity.
“Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to have firearms.“ This attack is as insulting as it is presumptuous. Starting with the obvious, if universities have such a strict policy on drug and alcohol abuse, how is it that there is still such abuse within their walls? Perhaps it is because those rules do not stop drugs from being used on campus, nor does it stop underage drinking from occurring on campus. In this same breath, we can also agree that just because there is a “no guns on campus” rule does not mean it will be followed. In a way, this damages the argument against weapons on campus. Also, it against makes the assumption that all students are the same. It states that we are all immature, pot-smoking, binge-drinking, ruffians only in college to have a good time. How could we possibly be trusted with our own safety? The arrogance of this argument defies logic, however those in favor of campus carry understand that those in possession of a CHL are not your average wild, out of control college stereotypes. They are a varied group of individuals whom value their lives enough do shoulder the responsibility of their own self defense.
“If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” This was a common argument against the CHL program getting started in Texas, along with may other states. After the CHL bill was passed, those fighting the bill waited for the streets to run red with the blood of innocent citizens, callously shot down by enraged individuals motivated by their inanimate objects. However, this was not the case. The opposite was true. Violent crime lowered, and continued to as more people obtained their CHL. In fact, statistics show that CHL holders are less likely to break the law than non CHL holders of the same age. The numbers actually show us that males in Texas, as of 2001, were 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault than a CHL holder. For females, the numbers showed that those without a CHL were 7.5 times more likely to commit these illegal acts. (William) Opponents to students carrying on campus ignore these facts and continue to insist that CHL holders, who carry their concealed tools to the grocery store, to the mall, to the movie theatre, and at home would suddenly and wildly lash out at fellow students if allowed to carry on campus. People tend to anthropomorphize firearms, citing what they view on TV or equating them with what certain criminal people have used them for. Because of this, it is believed that owning a firearm changes the owner’s perception and causes reckless and dangerous activities. As the statistics show, this is not the case.
A sign depicting a crude silhouette of a gun within a red circle cut diagonal across the silhouette will not stop someone from taking a firearm onto school grounds and using it against the students. A clear example was forwarded to every student at Texas A&M October 12, 2007. The Federal Clery Act emails sent to our neo.tamu accounts inform the students of illegal activities that the police have thought best to show the students. That email details the October 6th account of a young girl who was held up by two men, one with a pistol. The student was walking through parking lot 40, on the south side of campus, when she was approached from behind by the two men. After taking her purse, they made off quickly. (TAMU) These men were there to violate the law. They did not care about the rights of that student who lost her purse, nor did they care if there was a police presence on campus. So why then should they care for the “no weapons on campus” rule? One of these men had a firearm, which he used to intimidate the helpless student into getting what he wanted. Every single one of the Federal Clery Act emails should be a wake-up call to those who think they could never be victims.
CHL holders are rational, law abiding citizens who shoulder the responsibility of their own safety every day. They are the people behind you in line at Wal-mart, those you meet at the gas-station pumping gas, and those enjoying the movie two rows in front of you. CHL holders carry their tools everywhere, except when barred from doing so. Rules like “No guns on campus” strip law-abiding citizens of their right to proper self-defense. These rules only apply to those that comply with the law. So if the police cannot stop these things from happening, and the rules established to try and protect the students only leave them defenseless, what can campuses do? To combat the shadows cast by the tombstones of victims from various school shootings across the country, A&M decided it was best to place more lighted emergency phone-stations around campus. It was a simple feel-good move aimed at quelling the restlessness of its students. Simple feel-good legislation will not stop crime. The responsibility of safety lies strictly in the hands of the individual. Stripping students and faculty CHL rights on campus robs them of a chance to defend themselves properly. The police cannot protect us. Signs and laws cannot protect us. Disarmed and helpless, we will continue to be preyed upon by the dredges of society: The rapists, the burglars, the petty thieves, and the murderous sociopaths. It is time that campus officials take notice to the rights of the students and the faculty. It is time that they allow us the proper means of defense instead of forcing us to assume the role of the victim. It is time you to choose: Victim or Survivor?
Sources
"TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS." 6 Apr 2008 <http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes....000046.00.htm >.
Kingsbury, Laura. "Indiana law enforcement officials discuss firearms on campus." The Penn 3/4/08 <http://media.www.thepenn.org/media/s...8/03/04/News/I ndiana.Law.Enforcement.Officials.Discuss.Firearms.On.Campus- 3248671.shtml>.
Peterson, Hayley . "Bill to allow firearm possession on campus." Red and Black 4/2/08 <http://media.www.redandblack.com/med...s/2008/04/02/N ews/Bill-To.Allow.Firearm.Possession.On.Campus-3296491.shtml>.
Gill-Austern, Maggie. "Girls, guys and Glocks?." Sun Journal 03 09 2008 <http://www.sunjournal.com/story/255421-3/bsection/Girls_guys_and_Glocks/>.
Clark, Julie. "Concealing weapons would add increased campus safety risk." The Aubourn Plainsman 04 03 2008 <http://www.theplainsman.com/front/2008/apr- 03/campus_gun_bill_shot_down_state_senate>.
KR Training, "Texas Concealed Handgun License Training ." KR Training <http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/chlnew.html>.
Robinson, Jim. "Jackson Police Officers Firearms Testing Below Standard." Expert Witness News 05 11 2007 <http://www.expertwitnessblog.com/200...ers_firearms_t esting_below_standards.html>.
Kasler, Peter. "Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals." 05 11 2007 <http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html>.
Virginia, "3 dead, 3 injured in Va. Beach shooting." In Rich 03 20 2008 <http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.a...TD-2008-03-20- 0170.html>.
Sturdevant,, William . "An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population 1996 - 1998, Revised to include 1999 and 2000 data." 08 24 2001 <http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm>.
Texas A&M University, "Theft." Federal Clery Act 10 12 2007
<neo.tamu.edu>.
[CU1]Should be “his”
[CU2]Needed a stronger “lead.” Lose the novel, or slice it down hard…
[CU3]Poor choice of words – I’d look on it more as a “fad”
[CU4]“are”
[CU5]In what? The Dept. of Redundancy Department?
[CU6]“will”
[CU7]delete
[CU8]Delete – and “simply” borders on hyperbole.
[CU9]delete
[CU10]“, which”
[CU11]“led” or “instructed”
[CU12]Don’t know what cite method – should period follow last paren?
[CU13]Comma should be inside quotes.
[CU14]“more likely”
[CU15]hyperbole
[CU16]Is this supposed to be persuasive? If you feel obliged to list arguments against your position, you need to effectively counter them.
[CU17]Do I even need to says anything about this?
[CU18]Cute. And, while I admit that I hate shooting next to most cops (unsafe, bad shots, etc.) you need to cite or drop it… Instead, mention situations like Diallo or Bell…
[CU19]More cute, more hyperbole.
[CU20]I’d have broken his up into bulleted thoughts – soundbites…
[CU21]Cute hype. You need cites/numbers… I’m from Missouri – show me.
[CU22]“they have not”
[CU23]Sentence structure fault
[CU24]Should have replaced with “administrators.” Officers on the street are generally pro-ccw – but management doesn’t want to admit that they cannot deal.
[CU25]Lose the “finger quote” speech pattern – and the hype.
[CU26]Lose the hyperbole.
[CU27]Where is “Second?” Needs para break before.
[CU28]Signing up doesn’t cut it – you must complete the class.
[CU29]Should have been “covers” and “includes”
[CU30]Cut – don’t need the word.
[CU31]Never ask a question that (a) you do not immediately answer; or (b) know how your audience will answer.
[CU32]Should be “will”
[CU33]Should be “pistol, much less fire…”
[CU34]“emphasizes”
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
Thanks Bogie, I'll look into revising it soon. I have had plans to do so, and I should have had someone else read over it (my sister used my mother, who is an English teacher. I havn't sunk that low yet...)
but yes, I know it's not great. I just wanted something more than "your opinion is wrong!" to explain the grade.
In any case, to those of you who took the part where I said "You're a nerd, you should know this" to him. If you knew the guy, you'd know he says it all the time. His office has Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics covering the walls right next to X men. It's a joke that we use quite often.
but yes, I know it's not great. I just wanted something more than "your opinion is wrong!" to explain the grade.
In any case, to those of you who took the part where I said "You're a nerd, you should know this" to him. If you knew the guy, you'd know he says it all the time. His office has Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics covering the walls right next to X men. It's a joke that we use quite often.
BruceRDucer
Member
"But really, are you there to protect me instead? If you hear gunshots in a neighboring classroom are you going to run into help me, to be a big-ass hero? Or should I carry a handgun in case one of my students go berserk?"
RE: "big-ass hero"
Isn't that called HYPERBOLE?
The point being that one is not a "hero" nor a "big ass"; we just aim to defend ourselves and perhaps others.
I noticed this right off.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am sympathetic to studends who attend schools and attempt serious rational debate. I whatched my son do it. I've also seen bright people shot down repeatedly by BIASED teachers.
/
"If you want that A you'd better learn to mouth the party line. That's just the way it is in modern academia. Independent thought is NOT rewarded. In fact they find it terrifying."------COSMOLINE
__________________
RE: "big-ass hero"
Isn't that called HYPERBOLE?
The point being that one is not a "hero" nor a "big ass"; we just aim to defend ourselves and perhaps others.
I noticed this right off.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am sympathetic to studends who attend schools and attempt serious rational debate. I whatched my son do it. I've also seen bright people shot down repeatedly by BIASED teachers.
/
"If you want that A you'd better learn to mouth the party line. That's just the way it is in modern academia. Independent thought is NOT rewarded. In fact they find it terrifying."------COSMOLINE
__________________
bogie
Member
It's all about an option...
No Choice = No Chance...
Dude, illustrate the next one with some of Oleg's images...
No Choice = No Chance...
Dude, illustrate the next one with some of Oleg's images...
I had a teacher last semester who would, without explanation, dock me points on an assignment. Did that frustrate me? Of course it did! Did I take it up with the chair? No point in that. That was his way of grading. Many teachers grade on content not sentence structure. To them, if you can't properly structure a paper by the time you hit college, why waste time correcting the problem -- they want content. If he didn't see something he wanted (papers are objective) he had every right to dock you points. It's not fun, but it's how college is. Take your beating and let it slide. There's always next time.
Besides, an 85 on a paper is not a poor grade -- just work harder on any more papers and your tests and final.
Besides, an 85 on a paper is not a poor grade -- just work harder on any more papers and your tests and final.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
