Intellectual Elite

I just found this article being pushed by the antis of a psychiatry professor speaking out against campus carry. Frankly I think she should be embarrassed.

People who commit violent acts tend to fall into at least one of several categories. Young adults are more prone to violence, as are people of lower social class, IQ and education level. Individuals exhibiting violent behavior are 10 times more likely to be male. Mental illness, particularly paranoid delusions, is a major factor. But a history of violence is the best predictor of future violence.

Unfortunately, given the people who populate college campuses, most of those risk factors are present in enough people that the criteria aren’t much help for college officials trying to determine whether students or employees might become the next college shooter.

Is she saying that colleges SELECT for mental ill, mentally challenged, and violent people? Or is she saying that there is a certain percentage of violent, dangerous people in ALL WALKS OF LIFE?

If A) that’s DAMN embarrassing. If B) Well, I agree…and that’s why I carry a gun! You can’t catch them all, and the Pre-Crime division in the film and book Minority Report is a work of fiction (and even then the power was abused by the bureaucrats in charge of it), so its best just to have a plan to DEAL with such a problem in the unlikely event it happens to you. I avoid car accidents with all diligence, but I wear my safety belt, and have my airbags engaged just in case all I do isn’t enough.

“We have more shootings in areas where we have more schools,” she said. “I would hypothesize that if we allow more guns on college campuses, we are going to have more trouble, and I think that just goes without saying.”

Does it? Or is more logical that these campus shooters tend to be mentally ill, socially backwards, and emotionally impotent people who choose large bodies of disarmed people for their shooting sprees.

In the body of this article she takes some pretty strong ethical jumps comparing the various active shooters as if they are all equal. I will not that besides Charles Whitman, none of the active shooters were very well-armed, nor did they use any exceptional tactics, and as soon as an armed individual intervened they were quickly pacified…often by their own hand.

And you think by introducing more vetted people with guns is a BAD thing? I think that if you’d like to pursue higher education at Case Western Reserve University, you might want to look at a school that hires functional humans as professors.

This is typical junk-science, the professor starts with her conclusion and cherry picks the facts, data, and reality to support that conclusion, even if it was false from the start!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Intellectual Elite

  1. Bill Baldwin says:

    Psychiatry is an art, not a science, and she’s drawing stick figures, with a crayon.

    “But a history of violence is the best predictor of future violence.”

    I wonder if she came up with that all on her own.

    Weerd said…”besides Charles Whitman, none of the active shooters were very well-armed, nor did they use any exceptional tactics…”

    One other exception would be the Columbine killers. Not only were they armed with multiple firearms, they also built nearly a hundred improvised explosive devices. Luckily, they were too stupid to make them work.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      That is a good point. I can argue it because the Columbine attack was not a “Successful Spree Killing” (of course “Success” in the eyes of those psychopathic killers, not normal people) but a “Failed Bombing” where they transitioned to plan B.

      But you are correct that they DID have a plan, and certainly that’s vastly more preparation than most of these monsters do.

      Also I’m not sure how much Whitman planned, as much as he was a good shot and knew good military tactics. Whitman could have been acting on instinct while totally twisted by the tumor in his brain.

      Still I would argue that the Columbine shooting as it went down was very disorganized, and HEAVILY enabled by the public doctrine at the time (which has mostly been purged from society after the resistance on United 93 on 9-11…Tho frankly I hope it is all an urban myth endorsed by the government, because I don’t want to believe that after the two towers and the Pentagon was hit, the fighters in the air would just wait to see what happens) which is to hide and/or play dead.

      But if the attack had gone off as they had planned it would have been VASTLY more devastating.

  2. Phssthpok says:

    **”We have more shootings in areas where we have more schools,” she said. “**

    Couldn’t possibly be due to a vast majority of ‘schools’ being disarmed victim zones could it?

    “I would hypothesize that if we allow more guns on college campuses, we are going to have more trouble…”

    Maybe for a week or two. Maybe. When the goblins figure out that schools are no longer the free fire ‘happy hunting grounds’ they once were, they will move on to OTHER ‘gun free zones’ to practice their mayhem.

    “…and I think that just goes without saying.”

    No you don’t. That’s not thinking you’re doing, that’s *feeling*. Thinking requires you to consider ALL facts relevant to the discussion, not just the ones that support your predetermined result.

  3. Jake says:

    “We have more shootings in areas where we have more schools,” she said. While ignoring the fact that nearly all of them take place in schools where firearms are banned, and the few that didn’t were ended quickly.

    besides Charles Whitman, none of the active shooters were very well-armed, nor did they use any exceptional tactics

    While the Virginia Tech shooter was not very well armed (with only a .22 pistol and a 9mm pistol), he was very well supplied with ammunition, and he did use unusual tactics by chaining all the building’s entry doors shut – which successfully delayed police entry for several minutes.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Good point about those thwarted shootings. Those cases have cause some very entertaining mental gymnastics by the anti-freedom types. I believe Joan once said that you can’t consider them school shootings if nobody is actually shot…and the Parker Middle School doesn’t count because SOMEBODY was shot, and prevention ONLY counts if everybody was saved.

      See how that works?

  4. Greg Camp says:

    I’m a member of the intellectual elite. Let’s consider what that term means:

    1. A group of snobs who believe themselves to be superior to everyone else by virtue of the genetic heritage and pieces of paper (diplomas) that they have collected. I’m not one of those.

    2. People who take the time to gather the facts and use reason to analyze them. People who read widely and think deeply. People who see knowledge and reason as valid guides for living. I hope that I qualify for this group.

    Regardless, I do teach English on the college level. Looking at the facts and thinking through the situation, I believe that allowing those of us with concealed carry licenses to carry on campus makes sense. In Arkansas, we’re all over twenty-one. We have clean records. And while this is a guess, I suspect that I train with my handgun much more often than the campus police officers–all three of them.

    But magical thinking is hard to break through. The belief here is that the property line creates a zone of protection. Those of us who use facts and logic know the truth, but the truth isn’t as appealing as unicorns and fairies. Fortunately, there are other rational people in the country who are listening.

  5. Dave Killion says:

    I find it ironic that “educated” people use a logical fallacy as their lynch-pin statement.

    “It goes without saying” is an example of “Argue from Ignorance” fallacy.

    She puts out a “hypothesis” that “we already have lots of shooting near campus, with guns on campus, we’ll have even more!” and then, without any proof or data, just “asserts” she is right, because of course you’d be stupid to disagree with her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *