Why is Daniel Hamermesh leaving campus at UT Austin?

by on October 8, 2015 at 12:03 pm in Current Affairs, Economics, Education, Law | Permalink

Economics professor emeritus Daniel Hamermesh will withdraw from his position next fall, citing concerns with campus carry legislation.

The law will allow the concealed carry of guns in campus buildings beginning Aug. 1, 2016. Hamermesh said he is not comfortable with the risk of having a student shoot at him in class. He teaches a course with 475 students enrolled, according to a letter Hamermesh wrote Sunday to UT President Gregory Fenves…

Hamermesh, who said he is under contract to teach his course in fall 2016 and fall 2017, said he will complete the semester at UT and will teach at the University of Sydney next fall.

Hamermesh said he thinks the legislation will impact the University’s ability to draw new faculty and staff to work at UT.

There is more at the link, via Catherine Rampell.

1 Ray Lopez October 8, 2015 at 12:08 pm

Fire him! First.

2 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 11:47 pm

The only logical conclusion is that Hamermesh is planning to massacre his students. He obviously realizes that he will be much safer engaging in such a massacre in Australia, where his students will not be able to return fire.

3 Brad_sk October 9, 2015 at 3:19 pm

Total B.S…both of you.

4 office October 24, 2015 at 5:17 pm
5 Andre October 8, 2015 at 12:12 pm

Ah, maybe this guns on campus legislation will stealthily balance the supposed left wing bias in higher education.

6 Terra October 8, 2015 at 1:20 pm

“Supposed left wing bias”

Does anybody actually dispute that this bias exists?

Jonathan Haidt published a large review of the available literature[1]. Economics is the big exception, obviously.

[1] http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/

7 Just Saying October 8, 2015 at 1:38 pm

A right wing author wrote a book about how something he doesn’t like is leftwing. Well that’s evidence!

8 Martin October 8, 2015 at 1:51 pm

Are you really this stupid? Or does Google not work for you?

9 Brian Donohue October 8, 2015 at 2:09 pm

Haidt is a right winger? I guess “supposed” is the correct word after all!

10 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:27 pm

The arts-and-sciences faculty (along with fine-and-performing arts faculty, the teacher training faculty, and the social work faculty) being the way it is, Haidt does count as hard right. I’ve seen Obama contributor / Lyndon Johnson admirer KC Johnson described as a ‘RWNJ” by defenders of the Bourbons of academe. These people live in Pauline Kael’s ‘special world’.

11 Cassiodorus October 8, 2015 at 4:57 pm

Haidt claims he’s a liberal even though he redefines terms to slant his result in a way that’s favorable to conservatives, therefore he’s a liberal because reasons.

12 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 4:58 pm

Huh?

13 Cassiodorus October 8, 2015 at 6:54 pm

Haidt’s primary claim to fame is his “Moral Foundations Theory,” which claims conservatives care about care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity, but that liberals only care about the first three. The problem is that Haidt defines his terms so broadly that basically everyone falls into the first three categories, so he can then take three conservative traits (as he defines them) and call liberals immoral on that basis.

14 Justin Kelly October 8, 2015 at 7:13 pm

Having read Haidts book, I don’t see how you could conclude he’s pro conservative. These moral foundations are essentially heuristics people lean on to make decisions instead of logic. The more moral foundations you have, the less logical and analytical you tend to be.

15 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 9:24 pm

So, Cassiodorus, in your view what makes someone conservative or liberal is whether their research results in a conclusion more favorable to conservatives or liberals, and NOT their policy views?

16 Jan October 8, 2015 at 3:15 pm

This just proves that highly intelligent people are more likely to be liberal than right wing.

17 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:03 pm

Since when do ‘highly intelligent people’ = ‘social psychologists’?

18 Cassiodorus October 8, 2015 at 4:56 pm

Probably around the same time “social psychologists” = “higher education”.

19 Jan October 8, 2015 at 5:10 pm

When do you start reading?

20 Terra October 8, 2015 at 5:01 pm

This line of reasoning also applies to certain underrepresented genders and minorities in STEM, right?

21 Jan October 8, 2015 at 5:09 pm

No, that is institutional bias. Duh.

22 mulp October 8, 2015 at 6:16 pm

I think of first Karl Rove:
“But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Then I think of Bobby Jindal:
“Another week, another mass shooting, another press conference by the President lecturing us on the need for gun control, and now Hillary and Obama are in a race to see which of them can be the most extreme in trying to destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Rinse and repeat.

But there is something missing from this discussion, and it’s a glaring omission that everyone knows deep down, but politicians are afraid to talk about.

I’m going to go ahead and talk about it, and I don’t care at all if some people don’t like it, the truth is important.

What is the root cause of all these evil acts? These people who go into classrooms and churches and murder innocent people? How did we get to this place?

These shootings are a symptom of deep and serious cultural decay in our society.

Let that sink in for a minute.

These acts of evil are a direct result of cultural rot, and it is cultural rot that we have brought upon ourselves, and then we act like we are confounded and perplexed by what is happening here.

Consider the following brew of decay, and you will realize exactly what is happening here:”

Followed by his laundry list of social-psychological reasons for mass murders. And then:
“Meanwhile, the shallow and simple minded liberals will continue to blame pieces of hardware for the problem, and they will long for the days before firearms were invented.

“But the simple truth is, as long as we place no value on human life, as long as we glorify senseless violence and evil, we will get the exact same result.”

So, when it comes to non-white,non-Christians, conservatives call for using jackboot government power to take away all their hardware and never ask “why are they doing it?” but when its white Americans presumably Christian because the NRA is defending Christian god given rights, conservatives are always invoking social-psychology to find something other than the people with all the hardware being the source of evil.

Islam plus guns === death === evil
Christianity plus guns === American exceptionalism virtue
Christianity plus murder === moral decay caused by liberals who won’t censor everyone except Bible thumpers.

Why not the pure simplicity of “guns === evil” addressed by jackboot government taking away the guns?

Why isn’t al qaeda and ISIS seen as pure conservative purity: religious fervor plus guns.

23 Mr. Econotarian October 8, 2015 at 8:24 pm

“These shootings are a symptom of deep and serious cultural decay in our society.”

I’d say that these shootings reflect a generalized higher level of violence in the US, than say Canada or the UK, which has been in effect for at least 150 years.

Look at the Rosewood massacre of 1923, the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, the Ponce massacre of 1937, the Orangeburg Massacre of 1968, the Golden Dragon massacre of 1977.

And overall, US violence is significantly down since peaking in the 1980’s.

24 Moreno Klaus October 9, 2015 at 7:55 am

Not only in US, this [violence significantly down] is a worldwide trend if i am not mistaken

25 TonyB October 9, 2015 at 12:10 pm

Considering that the conservative response to 9/11 did much more damage to America than the act itself, therapy and petitions would be nothing to complain about.

26 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 12:12 pm
27 Mike W October 9, 2015 at 11:27 am

The problem with being in the middle of the road is that you get hit by traffic going both ways. (Twain, I think)

But, the regulations that “moderate gun owners” say they would favor would not make much difference in gun violence because they would only affect moderate gun owners.

28 Gochujang October 9, 2015 at 12:19 pm

I would think that any of the moderate proposals which limit gun ownership by the violent or mentally ill would in fact target the immoderate.

In fact it is super strange to me to suggest that limitations, at the margin, on dangerous types, affects the “moderate.”

29 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 11:02 pm

It is already generally illegal to knowingly sell a gun to someone who is a felon or mentally ill.

And in fact, most gun arrests seem to be of otherwise law-abiding people who accidentally brought a gun to a gun-free zone (where they were arrested by someone with a gun).

So many people seem to think guns were invented last year and we just haven’t figured a few common-sense regulations that would prevent anything bad from ever happening. The homicide rate is much lower than the historical norm and ethnic homicide rates compare favorably with other countries, the hysteria is not justified.

30 internet man October 8, 2015 at 12:12 pm

Let him leave. More legal concealed guns = safer campus.

31 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 12:39 pm

So we keep adding guns until we are as safe as Australians? That sounds like a bloody experiment. Already is.

32 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 12:56 pm

Australia being an exact copy of the US, except without guns of course.

33 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 1:04 pm

Pretty funny, isn’t it,? A continent settled by convicts does it better?

34 Sam Haysom October 8, 2015 at 1:16 pm

I agree that should really chasten the group that commits the vast, vast amount of gun crime in America. Care to throw the first stone at that racial group?

35 The Original D October 8, 2015 at 2:24 pm

Hey Sam, maybe you should ask that racial group whether they support gun control?

36 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 11:03 pm

They’re learning.

But the level of African American support for gun control has fallen by 14 percentage points since 1993, when it stood at 74% according to the Pew data.

http://www.businessinsider.com/african-americans-are-changing-their-views-on-gun-control-after-the-charleston-massacre-2015-7

37 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 11:04 pm

The idea that guns provide protection appears to be quickly gaining currency among American blacks. In December, 54 percent of blacks polled by Pew said they believed guns were more likely to protect people than to put their safety at risk. That figure was up from 29 percent two years earlier. For whites, 62 percent said guns protect people, up from 54 percent in 2012.

38 IamBartman October 8, 2015 at 10:11 pm

Australia has the population of NYC + New England, and is the 4th LEAST densely populated country in the world. It’s also much more ethnically homogenous, having mostly English and European ancestry. To think the only missing peace to Australian-level gun violence is Australian-type gun laws is laughably naive.

39 Gochujang October 9, 2015 at 12:26 pm

If you look at Americans of English and European ancestry only, they still have a higher gun death rate than Australians.

The ‘whites only’ murder rate in the US is 2.6 per 100,000, the Australian murder rate is 1.1 victims per 100,000.

I don’t suppose you are going to say “only double is fine, as long as we keep our guns?”

Life is cheap.

40 Careless October 9, 2015 at 1:42 pm

I don’t suppose you are going to say “only double is fine, as long as we keep our guns?”

I’m certain a lot would.

41 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 11:05 pm

They have a higher gun death rate, but a lower homicide rate.

Look at the aboriginal homicide rate in Australia — it’s eight times higher.

42 Jonah October 8, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Funny, looking at actual data doesn’t seem to support your “theory” – http://www.oregonlive.com/data/2015/10/where_do_americans_die_by_gunf.html

43 Jonah October 8, 2015 at 1:11 pm
44 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 1:27 pm
45 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 2:46 pm

But, MOFO, there is a massive and overwhelming correlation between gun suicide rates and gun ownership, and more die of gun suicides than die f gun homicides. Basically owning a gun for self protection is utterly idiotic.

46 Jeff R. October 8, 2015 at 2:55 pm

“there is a massive and overwhelming correlation between gun suicide rates and gun ownership…”

Lulz. Who’d have guessed?

47 Hasdrubal October 8, 2015 at 3:55 pm

People who own guns are more likely to _use a gun_ to commit suicide than people who don’t own guns? That makes sense, in a trivial sort of way. People who have pools in their back yard are also more likely to die from drowning in a residential pool than those who don’t. Availability bias, I think it’s called?

That says nothing at all about whether or not owning a gun is useful for self protection. Though I would go out on a limb and say that people who own guns are more likely to protect themselves by using a gun than people who don’t own a gun. But it would be another meaningless comparison.

Isn’t the real question, then: Are people who own guns _more likely to commit suicide_ than people who don’t own guns? The Volokh post linked above says the answer is probably no or pretty close to no.

Of course, Volokh’s post isn’t hard science, just some back of the envelope accounting. However, most of the formal attempts to answer questions about gun ownership and crime have found small to no effect in either direction. Which leads me to believe that legal gun ownership probably doesn’t have much of an effect on crime in either direction, so marginal changes in the current US legal regime will have effectively no effect.

48 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 4:53 pm

hasdrubel,

I do not know what Volokh post you are talking about. In fact the evidence is also overwhelming, that people with guns simply commit suicide a whole lot more than those who do not. Both may have equal propensities, but guns are really lethal, whereas most other methods are a lot iffier, with a few exceptions like jumping off Golden Gate Bridge, but most people do not live near the GGB. Many try with pills and cutting themselves, and so on, and most of those attempts fail. I have a close friend who attempted with pills, booze, and a knife. He did not own a gun. He survived. He had been very depressed, but he got over it and is doing fine now, more or less. If he had owned a gun, he would almost certainly be dead now.

49 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 5:05 pm

In fact the evidence is also overwhelming, that people with guns simply commit suicide a whole lot more than those who do not

Now you’ve elided ‘suicide rates’ and ‘gun suicide rates’.

While we’re at it, here are the comparative suicide rates:

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/

Somehow I’d be skeptical that the gun laws are really the driver here.

50 So Much For Subtlety October 8, 2015 at 5:40 pm

Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 4:53 pm

He had been very depressed, but he got over it and is doing fine now, more or less. If he had owned a gun, he would almost certainly be dead now.

If he lived in Oregon he might well be dead by now. The Left hates the Catholic Church so much, and can’t see any basis for policy beyond feel-goods, they have been pushing for legalized euthanasia for a long time now. They are winning the fight. People in Europe are regularly killed by their doctor because they are depressed.

This seems to be a contradiction. Shouldn’t the Left celebrate gun suicides? Or is suicide only acceptable when it is at the hands of a doctor?

51 Dan Lavatan October 8, 2015 at 7:17 pm

I’m not sure what you are getting at. If you wanted to commit suicide, why make it harder on yourself? In fact if I were to get really sick I would want that option, which is a strong reason to support gun ownership but doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to defend myself in the meantime. The point is to die at a time and place of our choosing. Would liberals really prefer if I walked in front of light rail just to hurt their light rail stats?

52 Justin Kelly October 8, 2015 at 7:58 pm

South Korea, Japan, and China (using CDC estimates not PRC figures) show twice the suicide rate than we do. Having a gun is clearly not the bottle neck. Guns affect the share of suicides by gun, not necessarily the number of suicides.

53 Ricardo October 8, 2015 at 10:47 pm

Alex Tabarrok and Justin Briggs have a run-down of the evidence here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/12/gun_ownership_causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html

Short story: there is enough data from enough different contexts to think that being around a gun makes a (successful) suicide more likely and being kept from access to guns makes a deadly suicide attempt less likely. For instance, Israel banned IDF conscripts from taking their firearms home with them on weekend breaks and observed a drop in suicides within the IDF. There are other such natural experiments and data points discussed in the article.

54 Justin Kelly October 9, 2015 at 12:09 am

Ricardo, when Korea and Japan are considered, Dr. Tabarrok’s study is measuring ripples on a tidal wave.

55 Ricardo October 9, 2015 at 12:49 am

“Ricardo, when Korea and Japan are considered, Dr. Tabarrok’s study is measuring ripples on a tidal wave.”

Non sequitur. The evidence shows that access to firearms are a factor in suicides. The fact that there are other factors doesn’t change that. Most countries don’t have data on traffic-related fatalities per million-vehicle-mile but I checked the data on fatalities per vehicle and Saudi Arabia has a shockingly high fatality rate compared to the U.S. Does this prove that drunk driving (which is likely far rarer in Saudi Arabia) is not an important factor in vehicle fatalities in the United States?

56 Careless October 9, 2015 at 2:10 pm

there is a massive and overwhelming correlation between gun suicide rates and gun ownership

Is it really possible for someone this stupid to get a PhD and tenure? In a sort of real discipline that at least requires a bunch of math

57 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:27 pm

“there is a massive and overwhelming correlation between gun suicide rates and gun ownership…”

By this logic, the massive and overwhelming negative correlation between non-gun suicides and gun ownership proves guns save lives.

58 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 1:34 pm
59 Hasdrubal October 8, 2015 at 3:42 pm

I wonder how many of those rural counties are showing up with a high death rate due to guns simply for the fact that there are so few people that any gun related deaths at all will push the rate up into the reds. For example, Lake of the Woods, MN has a gun death rate of 14.63, but only 4217 people. That works out to 1.6 deaths/year. If gun related deaths (including accidents and suicides) are variable, you could have some seriously high rates caused by one or two years in the sample where 3 or 4 people died in accidents or suicide driving the entire result.

That would also make the more densely populated areas looking relatively safer relative to guns. For example, using this graphic you would assume that Cook County, IL (Chicago: 9.31 gun deaths per 100,000) is safer than Lake of the Woods, MN (14.63 deaths/1000) since the MN county has 60% more gun deaths per capita. But, is rural MN where locking your door when you leave isn’t even a habit for everyone yet, really more dangerous than Chicago?

60 Bernard Yomtov October 8, 2015 at 6:16 pm

Hasdrubal,

No doubt the small population of a rural county can make the rate for a given year look unreasonably high. But that cuts both ways. It can also make the rate look unreasonably low. It is highly implausible that the error is consistently in one direction or the other across counties.

61 BenK October 8, 2015 at 12:12 pm

He wasn’t more concerned about the ability of cars to drive on streets within and around the campus?

62 Millian October 8, 2015 at 12:29 pm

Cars are useful for driving, guns are useful for maiming, wounding and killing.

63 XVO October 8, 2015 at 12:47 pm

What do you suppose the odds are that someone bent on killing a professor decides that he can’t do it because it would be against campus policy to bring guns on the property?

64 chuck martel October 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm

Does the professor never leave the campus and circulate among the non-student Texans, who seem to have an affection for firearms and a general tendency to pack them around?

65 Dan Lavatan October 8, 2015 at 7:19 pm

Right, it was always legal to carry on campus anyway under my interpretation of the constitution, so I carried every day I was a student at Illinois.

66 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 12:47 pm

And bikes are safer than cars.

that’s why should we get rid of all the cars.

do it for the children

67 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 2:40 pm

What kind of cars? Certainly not big cars. A smart car should suffice.

68 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 6:15 pm

This guy thinks cars pretty much equal guns

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mathonan/googles-cute-cars-and-the-ugly-end-of-driving#.npWYKY3Wr

So go fuck a tailpipe if you love cars so much. Your love for cars doesn’t supersede the lives of 1.2 million people who die in automobile accidents every year. It’s not more important than the energy savings we’ll get from not manufacturing 60 million or so vehicles every year that spend most of their time idle. Turned off. Parked.

69 Justin Kelly October 8, 2015 at 8:05 pm

That’s kind of beside the point. The professor is irrational confusing technical capability with likelihood. Every student is technically equipped to have public sex during class, every student is technically capable of stabbing the professor in the eye during lecture yet it does not happen, every student is capable of setting the lecture-hall on fire. This professor confused anecdotal media coverage for statistically representative threat samples.

70 Sigivald October 8, 2015 at 1:27 pm

I’m confused by the way he thinks students with background checks to get a carry permit are “likely” (“enough to worry about and even quit his job”) to shoot him, vs. students who want to commit that felony and will just ignore that it’s illegal to bring a gun to school to do it.

I mean, is the idea he has that a student that’s willing to murder him, but won’t unless they can legally carry on campus with a permit is … I don’t even know how someone thinks the set of people in that Venn diagram is greater than zero.

I can’t read this as a rational response to a threat per se, or as anything but signaling behavior or mere hoplophobia.

I’m not sure which of those two alternatives casts him in a worse light, as an alleged intellectual, and educator.

71 dearieme October 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm

Elderly chap has a fit of the vapours. What a twerp.

On the other hand, at last somebody who threatens to go abroad if xyz is legislated actually keeps his word. Well played, sir.

72 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:06 pm

I can’t read this as a rational response to a threat per se, or as anything but signaling behavior or mere hoplophobia.

It was not meant to be a ‘rational response’. Academe is abnormally thick with people taking stances conscious of their ‘colleagues’ reaction. He’s performing.

73 T. Shaw October 8, 2015 at 4:55 pm

A million surplus Dannys are willing to fill the chair.
And, a professor is only a professor,
But a good man there is rare.

74 Jay October 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Someone should have told the VA Tech faculty sooner…oh wait.

75 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 12:43 pm

If only they had a rule in place, the murderer would have been thwarted.

76 BC October 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Hamermesh: “With a huge group of students, my perception is that the risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom and start shooting at me has been substantially enhanced by the concealed-carry law.”

Makes sense, disgruntled students that want to shoot professors generally can be expected to obey all other campus policies, so an official policy against guns would surely prevent such tragedies.

77 XVO October 8, 2015 at 12:45 pm

Maybe if they made it a campus policy not to murder professors with a gun that would put his mind at ease.

78 anon October 8, 2015 at 12:52 pm

People are creatures of habit. A person with a regular habit of carrying a firearm to campus is more likely to shoot a firearm on campus than someone who never made it a habit.

79 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 12:59 pm

A person with a regular habit of carrying a firearm to campus is more likely to shoot a firearm on campus than someone who never made it a habit. [[CITATION NEEDED]]

80 Aaron October 8, 2015 at 3:05 pm

You don’t need to cite common sense.

The more acclimated you are to carrying around firearms the more likely you are to think about shooting things, including professors.

(that being said I suspect his statement is more of a PR thing than a real concern)

81 ad*m October 8, 2015 at 3:27 pm

Concealed carry makes me intensely aware of the exact situations in which I would take out my gun, as I can only do that legally if I am in immediate mortal danger. Any other situation where I am not in immediate danger of my life means taking out my gun is a threat which is a felony resulting in jail time.

So I find myself evading any verbal let alone physical confrontations substantially more than before I carried. I acutely avoid situations which may result in me feeling threatened and then illegally taking my gun out.

And I am Professor not in Texas.

82 Maximum Liberty October 8, 2015 at 7:43 pm

Arron, I don;t mean this to be a personal attack, but I think you must not own a gun and must not hang out with people who do. People who own guns are generally nuts about gun safety. To get the concealed carry permit, you have to have owned the gun for a while, and gotten good enough with it to pass the test, and learned all the safety stuff. I just don’t see that kind of experience leading to a “shoot’em up” attitude.

83 asdfG October 9, 2015 at 8:19 am

They are certainly nuts!

84 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 12:02 am

I agree with Aaron. I’m skeptical of common sense reasoning at times, but I think this is a pretty safe bet.

85 Sigivald October 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

People who can get a permit all have clean criminal records (at least of felonies and such, which any violent abuse of a gun, and most violent non-gun crimes are).

Thus they have the habit of not committing violent crimes (and this includes “impulsive action”, since people with impulse control issues like that tend to, well, get in serious legal trouble).

Last I checked, data nationwide confirmed that carry permit holders were at worst no worse than the general population in terms of criminal action post-permit, and typically less dangerous to others.

86 Slocum October 8, 2015 at 2:58 pm

Is there any evidence that’s true? What is the data regarding long-time legal carriers of concealed weapons who suddenly and unexpectedly go off the deep end? I have to say that maybe it’s just bad memory on my part, but I can’t think of any campus shootings where the perpetrator fit that profile.

87 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Good point. A very very high share of the population will go off the deep a few times in their life … even the best of us.

Will the best intentioned person admit to this and turn in their gun when they realize it? I doubt it.

Multiply this by 100 million gun owners, and I think you’re asking for trouble.

88 Careless October 9, 2015 at 1:44 pm

A very very high share of the population will go off the deep a few times in their life … even the best of us.
GMAFB. People may have mental breakdowns, but they very rarely involve taking a gun and shooting people with it.

89 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 4:19 pm

I agree with rarely. But rarely times 100 million = a lot.

90 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:09 pm

Who is rarely?

91 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:35 pm

Do those people have access to knives? Automobiles? Hammers? Power tools? Propane tanks? The plain fact of our modern existence is that any mentally competent adult has plenty of tools capable of violence readily available.

The vast majority of homicides are by low-IQ people with a history of violence and/or mental illness. Median Joe Gunowner is not likely to shoot someone over a bad poker game.

92 Nathan W October 10, 2015 at 12:35 am

Yes, Dave. But guns make it easy.

93 Nathan W October 10, 2015 at 5:13 am

Dave – how do you test the IQ of a murderer? What incentive does he/she have to try?

94 TallDave October 10, 2015 at 11:35 pm

You could test their IQ with an IQ test, though I’m not sure what you would gain by the effort. I’m just pointing out that these people are going to commit murder anyway, the tool is not particularly important.

Guns do not actually make homicide all that much easier, except in two particular cases: small, weak people (esp. women and the elderly) who are almost always acting in self-defense, and career criminals fighting each other, who in no reasonable scenario can be prevented from illegally acquiring firearms.

95 rayward October 8, 2015 at 12:30 pm

Having more of something means you use more of it. It’s a variation of Say’s Law (supply creates its own demand). Hamermesh is making the classical economics case.

96 Scott H. October 8, 2015 at 1:08 pm

Is that what was argued when Homeland Security bought all those bullets?

97 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:36 pm

This comment thread is certainly a fascinating look at the mentality of gun control.

98 Bob Knaus October 8, 2015 at 12:31 pm

Because he is not Dashiell Hammett.

99 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 12:36 pm

Heh, some here want college life to read like Red Harvest.

100 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 12:34 pm

He’s emeritus faculty. He’s leaving because he can and striking attitudes on his way out the door. As long as it doesn’t hit his ass, it’s all good.

101 RPLong October 8, 2015 at 3:58 pm

Yes, this. Notice he didn’t get a job elsewhere in the same region or even the same country.

102 Craig October 8, 2015 at 12:36 pm

Every gun show I’ve been to requires your gun to be unloaded, inspected at the door, and a zip tie put around it so you can’t pull the slide back to load it. Every indoor pistol range I’ve been to requires you to unload your weapon before entering.

103 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm

And your point is?

104 Craig October 8, 2015 at 12:46 pm

My point, since you’re obviously unable to figure it out, is that even pro-gun people realize that guns are dangerous and put prudent restrictions on them.

105 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Every gun owner on the planet knows that guns are dangerous, thats the point of guns.

106 Sigivald October 8, 2015 at 1:33 pm

The irony is that, while both policies are there to prevent idiots from firing guns accidentally while selling or … er… being about to load and fire them, in the case of the range (because that policy actually makes no sense at all, but hey…), they both:

1) Cause more actual risk of a negligent discharge during the “unload outside” stage and
2) Don’t do anything to stop someone who deliberately means to cause harm.

Because I guarantee you, someone at a gun show can cut a zip tie and load that gun if they wanted to; they don’t because spree killers don’t want to be immediately shot by the people around them.

(I recall from people who work gun shows that while the attendees are unloaded at the door, exhibitors can often carry loaded, and they all also have armed security on site.)

In this case “prudent” is more “not very prudent but good for your insurance rates, because insurers don’t care if someone has an ND outside your facility, because that’s not THEIR problem”.

107 Sam Haysom October 8, 2015 at 1:09 pm

Every blood bank I know doesn’t let gays give blood. Point is gays are dangerous and need to have proper restrictions placed on them. Right Craig.

108 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 12:38 pm

Um….is there some reason a disgruntled student couldn’t bring a gun into class now?

I’m kinda doubting a student would say “Oh gosh – it’s against the law to bring a gun onto campus, so guess I’d better not….” if they were fully intent on being disgruntled and shooting up a classroom.

The good prof may feel unsafe – but at least use a reasonable excuse here.

109 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 12:45 pm

Yeah, let him move to country with sensible gun control and see how safe he feels with a 10x lower murder rate! The fool.

110 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 12:52 pm

Did you hurt yourself when you moved the goal posts so quickly?

111 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 12:58 pm

I reframed the debate, but I think in a useful way. Australians do not suffer so many school and campus shootings because, while individuals may own guns, there are more rules. (As of 2015 about 815,000 people had a gun licence in Australia.)

We CHOOSE fewer rules and more death.

112 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 1:02 pm

Different cultures – urban cities with highly restrictive gun ownership laws are all you need to know

113 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 1:03 pm

To the best of my knowledge, Australians didnt suffer may school shootings before they enacted all the rules you are so fond of. Australia just isnt as violent a place as America.

114 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 1:08 pm

You guys do nothing more than reiterate that choice. You choose guns and death.

115 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 1:37 pm

Keep telling yourself that

116 Jeff R. October 8, 2015 at 3:00 pm

I’ll take guns and death for $500, Alex!

117 HL October 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm

i’m ok with that choice

118 enoriverbend October 9, 2015 at 2:12 pm

Given the much lower population, there certainly have been a lot of mass murders via arson in Australia (Childers Palace, Churchill fires, Quaker Hill…)

Guess you guys really should have added “Match and lighter control” to your list.

119 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:40 pm

Murder rates by ethnicity are essentially identical in Australia and the U,S,

120 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:41 pm

BTW, note Australia also has a high-crime ethnic population.

Violence in Indigenous communities is disproportionately high. The main source of information on homicides is the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP), which was established in 1990 at the Australian Institute of Criminology. Data showed that from 1 July 1989 to 30 June 2000, 15.7 percent of homicide offenders and 15.1 percent of homicide victims were Indigenous, despite the fact that they made up only 2 percent of the population in 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime

121 Sigivald October 8, 2015 at 1:37 pm

The US murder rate, per Wikipedia, is 4.7 per 100,000.

The only countries lower than 1/10 that are Kuwait, French Polynesia, Japan, Iceland, Singapore, Liechentstein, and Monaco.

Of those, four have a population less than that of Wyoming.

Even Canada’s 1.6 rate is only 1/3 of America’s.

So, hey, you were off by a factor of three, in the most generous analysis.

(Note that America’s non-gun homicide rate is, per a graph I saw recently, higher than Canada’s total rate, period.

It’s like the issue is America’s demographics and violent subcultures, not “guns”.)

122 spencer October 8, 2015 at 2:17 pm

Sigivald — can’t you understand that a murder rate expressed as a share of the population is independent of the number of people in the country?

The 4.7 per 100,000 is 0.0047 percent and that is a lot less than the 1/10, or 10 percent, that you cite for several countries.

Somehow, I am not impressed by your arguments — I wonder why.

123 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 2:38 pm

Doesn’t change anything. The US non-firearms murder rate is STILL higher than Canada or other nations, INCLUDING firearms. We could ban guns and the US would still be murder capital.

124 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm

We could ban guns and the US would still be murder capital.

I’m afraid Latin America and Southern Africa have us beat. By a factor of about 5.

125 TMC October 8, 2015 at 4:42 pm

spencer, reread what he was replying to and it will make more sense to you.

126 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:39 pm

If you look at those of European ethnicity, the US murder rate is comparable to Western Europe or Canada.

If you look at Asians, it is comparable to Japan.

Culture dominates.

127 T. Shaw October 8, 2015 at 7:32 pm

The US murder rate would be near lowest on the planet if you omit four large, democrat-ruled (for generations) cities which have in common the fact that only criminals may go about in public armed.

128 Careless October 9, 2015 at 7:54 am

No, it wouldn’t. You’d only be reducing the number of murders by about 10%

129 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 12:45 pm

Yea, because its against the rules, of course. Who would even dream of breaking the rules? Certainly not someone who would shoot up a class, thats for sure.

130 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Exactly.

Oh oh oh – I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we make a law against killing people in any place – not just campuses.

Wow – i feel so much safer now. Surely no one would dare to Break The Law.

131 ttt October 8, 2015 at 12:50 pm

the difference is they are effectively encouraged to bring a gun now.

132 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 12:54 pm

he should feel safer – disgruntled people don’t want people shoot back at them

133 Eddie S. October 8, 2015 at 1:24 pm

Do they? Most school shootings end up with the shooter(s) dead anyways.

134 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

Eventually yes – once people arrive to start shooting back – which takes a while

135 TMC October 8, 2015 at 1:11 pm

Allowed = Encouraged now??

136 tt October 8, 2015 at 2:34 pm

“effectively encouraged” i thought you economists were into subtleties like that

137 anon October 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm

Lets make drinking and driving legal while we’re at it.

138 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 12:56 pm

why?

139 Norman Pfyster October 8, 2015 at 12:58 pm

It is in most states.

140 Sigivald October 8, 2015 at 1:39 pm

I drink and drive all the time.

Water, coffee, soda…

141 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 2:23 pm

What’s the legal limit? Because it’s not 0.00

142 WorruB October 8, 2015 at 1:24 pm

Well, right now if you see someone with a gun you can report it and maybe it has a chance of getting dealt before it escalates. No chance of doing this if guns are in everybody’s hands. The fact that the state is insisting that the university allow it is a bit silly. You can easily think that both the state policy and the university policies are bad even though they are in conflict.

How would you feel about a law requiring everybody to own a gun or to provide a good reason they don’t?

143 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 1:31 pm

See – now THIS is a reasonable response – had THIS been the argument the professor offered, this thread would be a lot shorter – or at least taking a different form.

144 Sigivald October 8, 2015 at 1:41 pm

“Concealed” carry means exactly that you don’t see it, is the thing.

I assure you that Mr. “I am here to kill my professor and/or classmates” is also not going to show his gun until he’s opening fire, precisely because he wants to succeed in his ambition rather than be shot by a SWAT team first, you know?

(I oppose mandatory ownership laws because I’m a libertarian, myself.

Forcing people to own or not own things is what I oppose.)

145 TMC October 8, 2015 at 1:42 pm

How about since you allowed to drive, we force people to own cars? All about coercion with you guys.

146 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:45 pm

How are they going to deal with a report of unauthorized guns?

Oh right — they’ll call in a bunch of people with guns.

147 The Engineer October 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm

I think Australia is the place for a guy like this. I just hope that a student wielding a board with a nail sticking out of it doesn’t murder him after class because of a bad grade.

148 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 1:01 pm

Exactly. And more seriously because “nail wielding” does not appeal to the warped mind quite the way stockpiling weapons does.

Visualization, fantasy, precedes action.

149 Sam Haysom October 8, 2015 at 1:13 pm

And gun confiscation has never appealed to a warped mind. Nope no sir only Angels, with super high social status (which is really the point of your incessant posts to falsely signal social status you haven’t earned) lust for gun confiscation programs.

150 prognostication October 8, 2015 at 6:54 pm

Yep, clearly that is what has happened in the awful totalitarian hellhole that is Australia.

151 Sigivald October 8, 2015 at 1:42 pm

A “stockpile” does not make someone deadly. You can only fire one at at time, and can only carry a couple, practically speaking.

Murderers fantasize about killing, not about a gun collection.

152 Ricardo October 9, 2015 at 9:56 am

Thought-crime!

153 Anon October 8, 2015 at 4:34 pm

After Australia passed its stricter gun control laws. A student bought his guns to class to shoot his tecaher and classmates. So he may not be safe there either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

154 Tom October 8, 2015 at 1:00 pm

It’s amazing that someone with a PhD in economics can’t see the connection (or lack of connection) between laws and behaviors. Perhaps if he believes that a “gun free zone” on campus keeps him safe then he also believes that QE and ZIRP and “stimulus spending” is helping the economy. Perhaps if they pass a law mandating that the economy grow then that will ensure economic growth, just as “gun free zones” keep violent people from bringing guns onto campus.

155 S October 8, 2015 at 1:00 pm

How do you say Attention Whore in economics?

156 Maximum Liberty October 8, 2015 at 7:45 pm

“Keynesian.”

157 FMJ October 8, 2015 at 1:02 pm

So what’s the straussian reading of this? Economists model their students as irrational actors?

158 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm

The sad thing is that gun ownership selects for irrational actors.

Owning a gun increases, not decreases, all factor risk to the owning household.

159 TMC October 8, 2015 at 1:12 pm

Like surviving a robbery. I agree.

160 The Anti-Gnostic October 8, 2015 at 1:15 pm

I have two loaded handguns that have been in the nightstand beside my bed for a decade. So far, they haven’t hopped out and shot anybody.

161 Sam Haysom October 8, 2015 at 1:18 pm

Well he doesn’t have your self control I guess.

162 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 1:18 pm

Gochujang seems to be of the school of “anyone who disagrees with me is crazy”

Always a delightful conversationalist.

163 tt October 8, 2015 at 2:36 pm

and no kids around i hope.

164 msgkings October 8, 2015 at 3:24 pm

They already shot each other.

165 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 1:23 pm

One of the tests of rationality is who can process statistics, and for whom their nightstand is the whole world.

Also note that right up until the Oregon spree, the shooter could have made exactly the same argument, that he was one of the good guys. Indeed his mom added guns to the house because she feared “confiscation.”

That bloody straw man argument has killed a lot of kids.

166 TMC October 8, 2015 at 1:44 pm

So your argument is that confiscation is a strawman, and we should outlaw guns?

167 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 2:22 pm

Exactly. I link to the position of moderate gun owners above. I note that 800,000 Australians have gun licenses. But all you hear is “ban guns.”

Emblematic.

168 aside October 8, 2015 at 2:46 pm

+1 for proper use of “straussian.”

169 jorgensen October 8, 2015 at 1:04 pm

Reading the comments it seems that the gun advocates feel they have a right to carry a gun but other people do not have the moral right to stay as far away from them as possible in response.

If you are free to carry a gun, I am free to refuse to come within 1000 yards of you.

170 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 1:12 pm

Not really – I’m reacting to the professor’s illogical response. If he thinks this is a Bad Idea, then come up with a decent reason why – such as threat of accidental discharge (low) to “distraction” (reasonable). There should be plenty – and I think most are just fine with a lack of CCW on campus

But to claim that a student might randomly shoot up a classroom b/c CCW is suddenly legal is frankly silly. I guarantee you that Roseburg and VTech didn’t allow CCW – nor did the theater in Denver for that matter or Sandy Hook elementary.

Whether or not CCW is legal is immaterial to those nuts enough to want to shoot up a classroom – and in fact, the lack of CCW might be an attractor – there’s no one to shoot back

171 jorgensen October 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm

What part of freedom do you gun nuts not understand?

The professor does not have to explain himself. He does not have to advance an argument that you agree with or even that you find logical. He is entitled to say: “you’re all crazy and I want nothing to do with you.”

172 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 1:56 pm

Who said he wasn’t free to opine?

He’s totally free to opine – and I’m totally free to criticize his reasonings.

At least as long as I’m not on campus…..

What part of freedom to you anti-free speech zealots not understand?

173 Careless October 9, 2015 at 7:58 am

And we’re free to point out that he’s an idiot. What’s your point?

174 Sam Haysom October 8, 2015 at 1:15 pm

Reading jorgenson’s puerile comment I’m getting the feeling that Jorgensen things being criticized for a laughably precious over-reaction from scaredy-cat professor is the same as having ones rights taken away.

175 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 1:17 pm

Sure, you are free to stay away from whomever you like. But your irrational fears dont give you the right to force me to change my behavior. If i felt i had the moral right to stay away from people who carry wallets, should i be able to force you to not carry your wallet around me?

176 TMC October 8, 2015 at 1:25 pm

Who’s asking you to be anywhere near? Why do leftist always assume coercion in every action?

177 Thomas Taylor October 8, 2015 at 9:35 pm

If the crazies can go everywhere with their guns, yes, normal people are being made to be near them and thei gun.

178 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:46 pm

Cars kill many more people than guns. Am I free to stay 1000 yards away from car owners?

179 Gochujang October 8, 2015 at 1:26 pm

Let’s be honest. Protectors of guns on campus are protecting future killers, even as they fanticise that they only protect “the good ones.”

They choose death.

180 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 1:32 pm

Project much?

181 Martin October 8, 2015 at 1:56 pm

Not really. Try again and think.

182 Harun October 8, 2015 at 9:13 pm

Looks up statistic where Australia has more crime per capita…

Hmmm rape.

Australians choose rape.

They should license penises in Australia.

Let only 800,000 of the top men get their use.

I’m sure my penis would pass the test.

Also, seriously, knife is the main murder weapon now…why have not banned those, yet M8?

183 Jake October 8, 2015 at 1:27 pm

Marginal Revolution comments have a sort of reverse-Aumann effect on me.

I’m always amazed at how knowledgeable, articulate, and clever Tyler and Alex are. But then I come to the comments and 99% of them are blithering idiocy. It makes me increase my subjective probability that I’m a blithering idiot.

Everyone so far seems to assume that the one and only use case of guns is: disgruntled student wakes up and decides that today they will murder everyone (possibly dying as a result). They then bring their automatic assault rifles to school and do it. Of course, such a student would not be deterred by any gun rules.

However, if you have even a little bit of experience with REAL FUCKING LIFE, you know that people often make snap decisions; they get angry and overreact. *Especially* when they’re young. Letting — nay, with so much publicity, encouraging — tens of thousands of students to carry guns to school every day is beyond asinine.

You all must have thought nuclear proliferation was a great idea.

184 MOFO. October 8, 2015 at 1:34 pm

Sure people get angry and make snap decisions, but if your REAL FUCKING LIFE involves college students shooting each other over arguments, then its vastly different from the REAL FUCKING LIFE that I and everyone else i know experiences.

185 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 1:56 pm

I’m just wondering if he’s a porn star given his REAL FUCKING LIFE

186 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 1:41 pm

Please give me even one example of a college student concealed carrying who made a snap decision to shoot somebody because they got angry.

187 Slocum October 8, 2015 at 3:07 pm

I can give you one (though it was a grad, not a current student, and the shooting happened in a local bar, not on campus):

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2013/10/man_charged_with_6_felonies_fo.html

188 TMC October 8, 2015 at 4:51 pm

The dude was a security guard – the ones we rely on to handle bad folks so we don’t need to carry.

189 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 5:05 pm

So in other words, you can give me zero

190 Slocum October 8, 2015 at 7:03 pm

Well, it’s an example of a concealed-weapon permit holder getting drunk, going off the rails and shooting someone in a college-town bar. But it’s the only one of it’s kind I know of — I don’t think it’s a trend.

191 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:05 am

There are lots of example where somebody concealed carrying who mad a snap decision to shoot somebody because they got angry.

192 Careless October 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm

Really? Because they’re shockingly underreported, if you’re right. And against the bias of the news media, at that.

So I do not believe you.

193 Glenn October 10, 2015 at 10:51 am
194 Glenn October 11, 2015 at 4:24 am

The examples are unfortunately coming out daily, Cliff.

195 athEIst October 8, 2015 at 2:30 pm

What is the aumann effect(much less its reverse)? Bing and google don’t seem to know. There is an aumann conjecture(a much more iffy term) but it doesn’t seem to apply. Honest question, please reply.

196 Anon October 8, 2015 at 4:41 pm

Refers to Aumans conjecture “rational agents with common priors can never agree to disagree about anything.”
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2410

It suggests that two rational people people prepared to adjust their opinions l new facts are presented will always come to agreement.

197 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 2:35 pm

“It makes me increase my subjective probability that I’m a blithering idiot.” – Ohhhh, I am not so sure it’s subjective.

198 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 2:38 pm

I’m always amazed at how knowledgeable, articulate, and clever Tyler and Alex are. But then I come to the comments and 99% of them are blithering idiocy. It makes me increase my subjective probability that I’m a blithering idiot.

You can read Crooked Timber if the anomaly really irritates you.. There, the moderators seldom improve on their comment boards.

199 Justin Kelly October 8, 2015 at 10:42 pm

Well we don’t have a scourge young student getting angry, overreacting and making “snap decisions” where they set their lecture hall on fire with their lighters cigarette lighter, or walk up to their professors and stab him/her in the eye with their pencils or choking/raping the students next to them. Your fear is irrational in light of the near unlimited acts of violence that could theoretically occur every day yet don’t.

200 Craig October 9, 2015 at 7:13 am

However, if you have even a little bit of experience with REAL FUCKING LIFE, you know that people often make snap decisions; they get angry and overreact.

They also accidentally drop their weapon which discharges a bullet into someone, or the trigger gets snagged on a piece of clothing which discharges a bullet into someone etc.

201 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:47 pm

Next they’ll let these young kids drive tanks and fire artillery. Craziness!

202 Silas Barta October 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm

An economics professor, of all people, should be above making this kind of easily forseeable error, in researching the *actual* professor-shooting rates on various campuses. Actually leaving based on this is ridiculous, and the best that can be said is that it’s a cover for his real reason.

Fortunately, I had already identified Hamermesh as an overrated parrot-the-book lightweight several years ago, calling out his confused use of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Interestingly enough, this exact mistake — poorly calibrated oddsmaking that really serves more as social signaling than factual truth — is exactly the kind of mistake Robin Hanson would never make, and indeed advises against making, and yet he urged charity in response to that very post!

203 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 2:57 pm

Sorry, Silas, youir “callinlg out” of Hamermesh is a total joke. Very silly of you to link to it so people can see how totally stupid you are, not to mention insufferably arrogant.

204 Silas Barta October 8, 2015 at 3:03 pm

Improve my understanding to the point where I see the error in it.

205 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 3:08 pm

Just for one point, you throw repeated games at him when he is doing a one shot one. I am not going to bother with this any further. Nobody is citing you on this as you have proven nothing. Just a waste of time. Why not discuss the issues here rather than bragging about your failed post?

206 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:20 pm

I am not going to bother with this any further.

We’re all terribly disappointed.

207 Silas Barta October 8, 2015 at 4:23 pm

>Just for one point, you throw repeated games at him when he is doing a one shot one.

The entire point was that it’s unclear he had really firewalled this game from repetitions of it, and therefore misinterpreted good multi-game behavior has bad single-game behavior; and that distinction fundamentally broke the analogy to cartelization. (Would you mind spelling out how this was unclear from the original post so I can improve?)

If your understanding is at the level where you can meet the challenge I posed to you, you should *enjoy* helping to find where the misunderstanding is, so you can spell it out precisely; instead, your claim appears to be grounded in a misreading of a core point in the post.

If you find a legit misunderstanding on my part, please do forward it my way. I enjoy learning and finding where my worldmodel is deficient!

208 Martin October 8, 2015 at 2:00 pm

Surely, this is satire?

209 dearieme October 8, 2015 at 2:02 pm

Let’s hope that in Sydney the sharks, and snakes, and the funnel webs don’t get him. Unless he wants to die of irony.

210 kb October 8, 2015 at 2:25 pm

Why do so many people feel the need to carry weapons on college campuses in the first place? And please spare me the “to stop a shooter” fantasy.

211 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Protection.

212 kb October 8, 2015 at 2:45 pm

Protection from what? From whom? I’ve lived in places – West Oakland, California, for example – where at times it might have been advisable to carry a firearm for protection, but there are very few places in the U.S. that approach that level of (perceived) threat. So, again, why feel the need for protection when you’re out and about in the other 99 percent of the country where any threat to your personal safety is minuscule?

213 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 2:58 pm

Why do I lock my door at night? I mean no one’s broken into my house in 30 years. I must be mentally ill.

214 kb October 8, 2015 at 3:35 pm

I don’t carry a firearm, and in the past 30 years, I haven’t been in the position where I’ve felt like I needed one to protect myself.

As for locking your doors at night, I would consider that to be more like a precaution, like avoiding high-crime areas, or not leaving valuables sitting in a car parked on the street. Now, if you happen to live or work in a high-crime area, then yes, protection is a concern.

My point, made elsewhere, is that many things, including carrying a firearm, may be more or less appropriate depending on the situation. I find the possibility disturbing that everyone should be packing heat at all times.

215 Moreno Klaus October 8, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Whats the risk of dying from locking the door at night?

216 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 4:45 pm

Moreno, locking my door might prove quite difficult. I used to have a double-cylinder lock which means that I would need to insert a key to unlock the door from the inside. This is FAR more dangerous than a GUN, yet double-cylinder locks are sold everywhere. Some areas even ban them!

217 Bernard Yomtov October 8, 2015 at 6:33 pm

And some people simply keep a key permanently in the lock on the inside.

218 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 7:09 pm

We probably need to require that. Let’s call it a quick trigger lock. Licenses for anyone who wants a double-cylinder lock. Training for double cylinder locks.

219 Moreno Klaus October 8, 2015 at 3:34 pm

Protection from other people with guns! OBVIOUSLY everybody should just carry guns hahahaajhaha

220 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 7:10 pm

I lived in Chicago and attended UIC, a relatively low-crime area where one of my friends was assaulted by a homeless person. I think he moved to Texas because why the fuck would you deal with that? My protection these days is the Sailer method: I live around rich people.

221 Maximum Liberty October 8, 2015 at 7:55 pm

My daughter is a college student. She walks to school. By the time she heads back to her apartment, it is usually dark. The area she walks through is inhabited by homeless people, many of whom show clear signs of mental disorder and others of whom clearly chose the lifestyle. The area is full of bars and attracts non-students. Rapes and muggings happen in this area. The police only seem interested in traffic stops. There appear to be no cops walking a beat.

If she feels the need to carry a gun for protection, do you believe you should be allowed to second-guess her decision?

222 Ricardo October 8, 2015 at 11:05 pm

I’m not anti-gun but the ideal situation is one where your daughter is not exposed to such threats. I’d point out that handguns can cost several hundred dollars. That money would almost certainly be better spent on booking rides home through Uber on those days when she finds herself stuck on campus after dark. And someone needs to start demanding answers from the college administration and city government on why they don’t take student safety and security seriously. Some universities offer free shuttle services after a certain hour for students who live near the campus and campus police partner with municipal police to ensure routes from the campus to popular off-campus housing neighborhoods are adequately patrolled.

223 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:08 am

As she’s a rational individual, the invisible hand should be guiding her away from this place so she doesn’t need a gun.

224 Moreno Klaus October 9, 2015 at 8:03 am

Pepper spray? Also defense classes? Ride a bike? Change of neighbourhood altogether? Of course much less effective than the threat of a gun, but then do you want your daughter to run the risk of “having to” kill someone? Even if it is in self-evidence is just a horrible experience.

225 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:57 pm

Better for the daughter to be raped, robbed and/or murdered than take on the terrible burden of having defended herself? Strange morality…

226 Glenn October 10, 2015 at 10:54 am

Again, TallDave, you’re very fearful. As mentioned earlier, it seems gun supporters are expecting the worst all the time.

227 TallDave October 10, 2015 at 11:36 pm

There’s a difference between mere fear and preparedness.

228 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:49 pm

“Protection from what?” ask the people who demand we disarm everyone else for their protection.

229 BDK October 8, 2015 at 8:13 pm

Do you even lift, bro?

230 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 2:36 pm

They carry weapons generally and dislike the implication that there is something wrong with that. It’s not going to matter practically bar in the rare circumstance you’re searched by campus security.

231 kb October 8, 2015 at 3:09 pm

Thank you for that perspective. I would offer that whether something is wrong with carrying weapons generally is subject to local norms, and is not a universal thing. I don’t see a clear reason why the position of gun carry proponents should categorically dominate every time there is a discussion of prohibiting weapons somewhere. If I refuse to allow someone inside my home because I know they are carrying a weapon, they don’t get to override my decision because they dislike the implication that there’s something wrong with that.

But aside from norms, I would expect there to be an increasing risk associated with each additional person carrying a weapon. If that risk reaches an unacceptable level, then what do you do?

232 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:30 pm

A state college campus is public property. It’s not your condo.

233 kb October 8, 2015 at 5:33 pm

See comment below re: public property vs. public space. They are not the same.

234 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 6:42 pm

So what?

There is no intramural authority at any state college campus which can properly determine to treat that campus as if it were the faculty’s ‘home’ or the administration’s ‘home’ absent a permission encoded in the state constitution or statutory law.

While we’re at it, do the students or the hourly staff employed at UT get any say as to whose ‘home’ it is?

235 kb October 8, 2015 at 7:40 pm

This is getting a little off the topic here, and it’s getting late, so I’m going to leave it at this: a public university system certainly has the latitude to prohibit the possession of weapons on its campuses. Seven or eight states have decided otherwise. Texas wants to not only permit concealed carry on campuses, but to require it, whether or not specific campuses wish to do so.

The fact that the Texas legislature had to prescribe this tells me that it isn’t a Second Amendment issue (otherwise the Supreme Court would have struck down campus weapon bans…though I suppose there’s still time for that). So that brings us to a discussion of cultural differences.

This is the imposition of gun culture on people who don’t want gun culture imposed on them. As I wrote at the start, I don’t see a clear reason why the position of gun carry proponents should categorically dominate every time there is a discussion of prohibiting weapons somewhere. I don’t take issue with the fact that in some places, carrying weapons is a part of everyday life, but I don’t really care to see it expand.

236 Harun October 8, 2015 at 9:07 pm

The imposition of gun culture on those who don’t want it!

Classic!

I hope you don’t support SCOTUS making gay marriage the law of the land, or the ACA, or abortion!

237 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 9:51 pm

a public university system certainly has the latitude to prohibit the possession of weapons on its campuses. –

No, it has the latitude if the constituting agency grants it the latitude. In this case, the Texas state legislature says it does not have the latitude.

This is the imposition of gun culture on people who don’t want gun culture imposed on them.

Which people did you have in mind? Texas law applies throughout Texas. Get used to it. The faculty and administration at UT are not a Republic unto themselves, their pretentions notwithstanding.

238 asdfG October 8, 2015 at 2:51 pm

They have inadequacies they feel they need to compensate for.

239 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:35 pm

Wisdom from the producers of Family Guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Wiener_Is…). Thanks for the education.

240 asdfG October 8, 2015 at 11:25 pm

You should learn how to make links that work. Maybe one of your great-grand nieces can help.

241 anon October 8, 2015 at 3:01 pm

None of your business. It’s my second amendment right, so go fuck yourself.

242 kb October 8, 2015 at 3:22 pm

If you want to engage with the question, then please do so.

If something affects public safety, then by definition it is my business as a member of the public, thank you very much. And it’s a second amendment issue if you’re talking about government regulation, not if you’re talking about what happens on private property. Facilities like schools are not quite clearly “public” spaces. Next, just as the first amendment doesn’t protect yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater, nor libel, nor slander, the second amendment does not confer an unconstrained right to carry your firearms everywhere you want. You might want it to be that way, but you’re just fooling yourself.

If you’re just going to be angry and aggressive in your response, then you’re feeding the notion that many firearm owners are just a bunch of misanthropic pricks. Instead of telling me to “f— off,” why don’t you demonstrate some civility?

243 Dmitri Helios October 8, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Public schools and universities are “not quite clearly public sources” bro? I’ll smoke what you’re smoking.

244 Dmitri Helios October 8, 2015 at 4:52 pm

* spaces

245 kb October 8, 2015 at 5:32 pm

I alluded to this above, but state college campuses, and certain other publicly-owned facilities, like hospitals and government administration buildings, are not necessarily “public space,” and neither are college classrooms and dorms. If you’re not a student, then you can be excluded from these facilities. Therefore it is not a public space like most streets, beaches, parks, etc. You might want to read up on the legal background of public space. That’s why Texas had to pass a bill requiring all the state’s colleges to allow weapons on campus, bro.

The U.S. Capitol is public property, but I don’t think you’re going to get past the front door with a firearm.

246 Whatever October 8, 2015 at 3:08 pm

Protection from all the sexual assaults going on.

247 ad*m October 8, 2015 at 3:33 pm

+1

248 Ricardo October 9, 2015 at 10:15 am

That is an amazingly good idea: only allow women to carry guns! They aren’t as impulsive or as violent as men, so the risk of inappropriate use is low. And yet they could still stop an attack. Plus, as you say, there is a strong self-defense aspect. Seems like a good compromise.

249 msgkings October 8, 2015 at 3:23 pm

They have feelings of inadequacy, which they ameliorate with guns. We’re not talking hunters here. Just people who like to feel like big shots (heh) because they are armed and you probably aren’t.

250 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:02 am

Why do so many people feel the need to carry weapons on college campuses in the first place?

How many is “so many”?

251 Bill October 8, 2015 at 2:26 pm

Ready

Aim

Fire.

Prediction: Faculty will bargain for bulletproof glass separating them from the audience.

Also in today’s news:

In an attempt to reduce prison violence, Texas has implemented concealed carry policy for its prison population. In a news release, the governor said: We will all be safer if criminals can have guns to protect themselves from other prisoners. This will reduce prison violence and is supported by the NRA.

252 Urso October 8, 2015 at 4:45 pm

Hey, the average UT student is hardly comparable to a convicted felon. You’re thinking of A&M.

253 Jay October 9, 2015 at 12:10 pm

Great analogy that took a lot of thought but that rule in the prison wouldn’t have any effect, good luck getting a permit.

254 dbp October 8, 2015 at 2:41 pm

Old fart, who is leaving anyway, decides to make an ass of himself a bold stand. Film at 11:00

255 JesusLovesGuns October 8, 2015 at 3:31 pm

“Old fart”? Have you looked at your mirror lately? 😉

256 dbp October 9, 2015 at 11:20 am

I do not recall making the claim that I am not an old fart too. Though in all modesty, I expect that most people would agree that I look more youthful than professor Hamermesh. I will note that this is hardly a major accomplishment on my part, given that he is almost 20 years older than me.

257 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 3:04 pm

Tjhe idea that having concealed carry on a campus or anywhere for that matter will reduce gun violence has been shown to be the fraud that it is by the recent events in Roseburg, OR. There were some vets with concealed weapons there. Did they go to stop the shooter when it started? No. Why not? Because they realized that if they started firing, when the police arrived they might be targeted as the original shooter. This is quite aside from cases of fools pulling out their guns inappropriately to start firing whenever, which it looks like we will be getting more of.

There are two issues on which conservatives in virtually the entire rest of the world think that conservatives in the US are just completely out of their minds and worthy of not a shred of respect. One is the recent compulsiion to deny climate science. The other is the longstanding insanity about guns, which seems to be getting worse, as the totally pathetic, stupid, and downright lunatic remarks on this thread prove once again.

Yes, folks, despite the CDC being banned from studying these things, buying a gun even to protect yourself is nuts, much less buying one to carry around to “protect” others. Higher suicide rates by an order of magnitude, home homicides, home accidental deaths by shootings, and even having robbers steal guns out of peoples’ hands when they are trying to “protect” themselves against intruders, all reasons why it is simply insane to own a gun for self protection. You want to buy it to go kill animals? Fine. But for protection? You are either stupid, ignorant, or just plain crazy.

Hamermesh is being completely reasonable.

258 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 3:30 pm

“Owning guns is stupid”-so what’s your regulatory stance?

259 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 3:39 pm

Very strict, ADBG, very strict, but I do not have a precise one with all the details. We do have the problem here that the horse is out of the barn, or the guns are out of the holsters, but indeed, while people have been dissing them, Australia has shown that some of the guns can get put back into their holsters if there is an effort to do so. But, it looks like we are going to have many thousands more dead here from guns before that might happen.

So for now, the issue is educating people, starting with the gun goons here who believe utter fantasies they repeat endlessly.

260 A Definite Beta Guy October 8, 2015 at 5:01 pm

I don’t see the issue. Fire arm homicides are under 20,000 per year and generally affect the criminal elements. People who do not get flu shots are more of a public menace than firearm owners.

261 Ricardo October 8, 2015 at 11:25 pm

That’s a very selective use of statistics. When the issue of self-defense is being discussed, pro-gun people (rightly) point out that successful self-defense incidents often don’t involve a potential victim actually firing his or her firearm. Same logic applies to your numbers. Someone with a gun can create a “public menace” without pulling the trigger and killing someone. Armed robberies, burglaries, kidnappings, domestic violence, etc. can all be enabled or made easier when the perpetrator has a gun.

262 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 11:41 pm

In theory, but it can cut both ways. The U.S. has a very low rate of violent and property crime other than homicide.

263 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Perhaps Barkley presumes everyone is as labile as he is.

264 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 4:56 pm

As usual you are unable to respond to the content of the argument and just engage in silly ad hominem bs.

265 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 5:10 pm

The ‘content’ of most of your commentary consists of an upraised middle finger.

266 Silas Barta October 8, 2015 at 7:03 pm

Yeah, it sure sucks when someone leaves a substance-free ad hominem reply like:

>Sorry, Silas, youir “callinlg out” of Hamermesh is a total joke. Very silly of you to link to it so people can see how totally stupid you are, not to mention insufferably arrogant.

267 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 6:10 pm

“Art,”

Do you dispute the high correlation between guns and suicides? How about accidental shootings in the home?

Do you dispute that conservatives in no other nation think that attitudes about guns here are completely incomprehensible?

Still waiting to see you say something substantive.

268 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 6:47 pm

1. I do not care what ‘conservatives’ in any other nation think of their own tastes or popular tastes in Texas. I have no reason to care.

2. Anyone who wishes to commit suicide, Barkley, has plenty of options. You can cut the arteries in each arm, jump off the GW bridge, OD on oxycontin, hang yourself, and put a bullet in your head. A tool is merely a tool.

269 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 8:10 pm

Sorry, “Art,” you are not going to get off scot free repeating this NRA drivel. Other methods of killing oneself are not nearly as effective. Guns work quickly and effectively. A brief bout of depression can be, and is frequently, deadly. The numbers are very clear. Where there are fewer guns, a lot fewer people commit suicide. They do not switch to knives or rooftops or cars in garages,or iif they are, they are failing to finish it off.

There is a reason why conservative abroad have contempt for you gun nuts. Deal with it.

270 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 8:50 pm

Other methods of killing oneself are not nearly as effective.

A relation of mine catapulted himself out the window of a Sheraton Hotel in 1952. It took him a few seconds to hit the ground. Pretty effectively killed him too.

271 Harun October 8, 2015 at 9:27 pm

The left wants to legalize euthanasia. If that happens they lose this argument for gun control.

272 John L. October 8, 2015 at 10:26 pm

“The left wants to legalize euthanasia. If that happens they lose this argument for gun control.”
Ha ha ha. The guy doesn’t know what the word “euthanasia” means. “The right loves the death penalty, so they don’t have argument for forbidding killings” is basically the mirror image of this argument. When will people stop importing those Chinese lead-painted toys?

273 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 12:32 am

“You obviously are completely clueless about American culture. People are not generally concealed carrying because they are afraid.”
Come on. We are hearing over and over how horrible things will happen if people can not bring their guns to work, school, church, movies. Do you really think that non-scared people fear their friends, co-workers, etc. this much? As the American Dream goes sourer, people get more desperate.
“Furthermore, no one in America would conceive of CALLING THE POLICE TO MURDER A BEGGAR. That would be completely anathema to anyone and certainly far worse than (theoretically) wanting a firearm for your personal safety.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-shooting-skid-row-20150805-story.html To be fair, this one was on the government’s dime. Good provision of public services is one of the blessings of development, right? In Brazil, someone would have had his palm greased before the public nuisance was erradicated–and people would have the common sense of not doing it in broad daylight, but problem was solved, right? Anyway, as the names make it clear, neither death squads nor lynching are Brazilian inventions (ask Central Americans and Iraqis who trained and founded their death squads–a tip: it was not us).
And you are still missing a distinction: violent acts by people who don’t make a living from them are virtually unknow in Brazil. I was a kid the last time I heard about something like that reporter killing his former co-workers. The median American, by contrast, is being scared into violence, clinging to hatred as his one crutch. American public discourse is basically about how other Americans are monsters that must be stopped at all costs before they ruin the country. Do you really think this house divided against itself can stand?

274 Slocum October 8, 2015 at 5:00 pm

“Hamermesh is being completely reasonable.”

No. Hamermesh is making a political gesture — he’s not really fearful. Nor are the countless European academics who readily move the U.S. for faculty appointments. Outside of violent inner-city neighborhoods, the homicide rate in the U.S. — while still higher than Western Europe — is very low relative to other risks. The overall homicide rate per 100,000 in the U.S. is about 4 and half. But outside of poor, inner-city neighborhoods, it’s much less. In Western Europe, rates are typically between a little under 1 and 2. So Americans living in suburban, exurban, and rural areas experience roughly an extra 1 per 100,000 risk as compared to Western Europe. This is dwarfed by the differences in traffic deaths, where Americans have an annual death rate of 11.6 per 100,000 which is 2-3x higher than Western European countries. The additional risk from all the driving people do in the U.S. is far greater than the additional risk from guns/violent crime.

275 Bob from Ohio October 8, 2015 at 6:23 pm

“he’s not really fearful. Nor are the countless European academics who readily move the U.S”

Of course not, the only people truly fearful of gun violence are inner city working and middle class blacks being terrorized by other blacks.

“According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.” Wikipedia

Most of the blacks doing the killing are either too young to legally own a handgun or have criminal convictions making possession illegal. They are not CCW holders.

276 Slocum October 8, 2015 at 7:33 pm

The other thing is…he’s over 70. The overall death annual rate for men that age is around 2000 per 100,000:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23r.pdf

So worrying about an extra 1-2 per 100,000 due to homicide or even 6 per 100K due to traffic accidents is really, REALLY silly.

277 BDK October 8, 2015 at 8:12 pm

Making a political gesture can be reasonable. I mean, no one really thought dumping tea into Boston Harbor would hurt the Crown’s finances, right?

As for the latter point, 1) why not try to address really horrible things (gun violence), even if we can’t fix them all (driving deaths, cancer, risk of LHC malfunction and subsequent mini-black hole…); 2) that seems especially important where the harm to be addressed doesn’t come with a big benefit (we live in a big country and need to drive–we don’t really need to keep the King of England out of our grills anymore).

At this point, its all just mood affiliation.

278 Moreno Klaus October 9, 2015 at 8:07 am

And?… People in France who live outside of Paris Marseille etc (probably) also have a much lower homicide rate as well… this argument is just not good.

279 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:51 pm

There was one vet and he was off campus at the time.

People buy guns to commit suicide in much the same sense they buy spoons to eat. There are other options.

280 Bill October 8, 2015 at 3:17 pm

In the future, the UTexas bookstore will carry a complete line of handguns and assault weapons for your to carry to the classroom, or to your drunken Friday night dance party.

In addition, you will be able to purchase flack jackets monogramed with the U Texas logo to add to your back to school wardrobe.

Don’t tread on Texas.

281 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 3:18 pm

The point is, Americans are, ceteris paribus, much more violent than most other peoples. I doubt he would have feared for his life in a more reasonable country. When you have a culture of murder, you get murder. Guns don’t kill people, Americans with guns kill people. Instead of policing the world, Americans should police themselves.

282 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 4:18 pm

The point is, Americans are, ceteris paribus, much more violent than most other peoples.

Thus sayeth the man from a country whose homicide rate exceeds that in the United States by a factor of 5 and that in Britain by a factor of 20.

283 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 6:02 pm

1) It means America’s homicide rate is four times Britain’s. Talk about a failed revolution! Lord North deserves an apology.
2) This exactly what ceteris paribus means. If Americans were to live under a state powerless and unwilling to stop criminal activity, how would they behave? People respond to incentives. We get more homicides than we would have otherwise gotten by the same people, it is their trade in life (it is the same reason the SEAL Team Six will not get the coveted Mahatma Gandhi Prize in non-violent resistance) . But the median Brazilian is obviously much more peaceful than the typical American. Americans are indoctrined to hate. Hate liberals, hate conservatives, hate black people, hate white people, hate women, hate men, hate themselves. Is it really surprising, given such culture of hatred, that America is an outlier among developed countries?

284 Bob from Ohio October 8, 2015 at 6:14 pm

“But the median Brazilian is obviously much more peaceful than the typical American.”

“Obviously” ?

In 2012 (last year I could find) 14,827 Americans (4.7 rate) were murdered while 50,108 (25.2 rate) Brazilians were murdered.

Much more peaceful.

285 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 6:48 pm

Maybe you do not understand what median means.
In any case, I doubt professor Hamermesh thinks drug dealers, militia men and robbers (the ones responsible for Brazil’s murder rates) want to get him. He fears his own students, the kind of fear that resembles more Iraq than Britain or Brazil. It is the very nature of America that grants verisimilitude to those fears. How many American presidents have you killed? How many more have you tried to kill? No Brazilian president was ever killed. We overthrew our first Emperor and pensioned off the second one, but no one ever thought of killing them.

286 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 7:09 pm

He understands what it means. He just finds your judgment unsupported, fanciful, and silly. Which it is.

287 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 7:35 pm

“He understands what it means.”
Aparently he does not understand that “average” is not the same as “median”. It is like attributing the SEAL Team Six kills to Rick Moranis because he starred American movies.

288 Bob from Ohio October 8, 2015 at 7:56 pm

“drug dealers, militia men and robbers (the ones responsible for Brazil’s murder rates)”

Drug dealers and robbers are the ones responsible for US murder rates too.

The comparison of “median” which has a precise meaning with a vague term like “typical” is strange.

Was not your underlying point that the US has a more violent culture? Evidence disagrees.

289 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 8:23 pm

How many American presidents were killed by drug dealers? What about the failed killers? Oswald had been a Marine, Hinckley was from an ingluential family. We are not talking about the Lumpen here.
Killing innocent people is anthetical to Brazilian character.

290 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 8:51 pm

Aparently he does not understand that “average” is not the same as “median”

No, he understands your unsupported assertion that Brazil could have a lower median perpetration rate with a mean rate more than 5x that in the United States to be a silly ass pull. Which it is.

291 ricardo October 8, 2015 at 8:56 pm

“Killing innocent people is anthetical to Brazilian character.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/world/americas/police-killings-brazil-rio.html?_r=0

Perhaps only antithetical to the median Brazilian’s character.

292 Harun October 8, 2015 at 9:26 pm

Using the example of presidential assassination is the epitome of non-median killings!

Its more likely to say that the outlier in brazil is safe: the rich and powerful, and its the median poor person in a vaela or some poor peasant that is indeed at risk.

293 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 9:33 pm

As I said, people who trade in violence do violence (suffices to say, Brazil’s first death squad came almost entirely from the polices ranks, and before that, we had capitães-do-mato, slave hunters). .How shocking! By the way, when shopkeepers want to make beggars and urchins vanish, they hire cops to kill them. Calling civilians to do it is almost unheard of. Militias are made of former soldiers. America’s culture of death as every men’s (and women’s) duty is completely alien to Brazil’s Weltanschauung.
“I need guns to protect me from my fellow students and teachers” is a thought that would never occur to Brazilians.
“could have a lower median perpetration rate with a mean rate more than 5x that in the United States.”
Murders are a much more widespread phenomenon in America than in Brazil as the “I need guns to feel safe in school” bears witness. Such reasoning would only hold in Brazil’s slums. The idea that one goes living one’s pathetic middle class life and suddenly takes to kiling one’s friends and family is as American as Freedom Fries. I never heard anyone express such a fear in Brazil. Again, if the median American is the enemy, I don’t see how arming him helps matters.

294 ricardo October 8, 2015 at 9:39 pm

“Killing innocent people is anthetical to Brazilian character.”

“By the way, when shopkeepers want to make beggars and urchins vanish, they hire cops to kill them.”

Thiago, I am sympathetic to what I suspect is your basic position on gun laws. But come on.

295 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 10:03 pm

Again, murders by people for whom violence is not a way of life are unheard of. There is no vigilantism in Brazil. And certainly people don’t live in fear of their families, co-workers and friends. People saying they need guns to go to school would be laughed out of society.

296 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 11:00 pm

“Its more likely to say that the outlier in brazil is safe: the rich and powerful, and its the median poor person in a vaela or some poor peasant that is indeed at risk.”
I can assure no Brazilian would think of needing guns to go to school. And things like a reporter killing his former co-workers would be unthinkable.

297 Cliff October 8, 2015 at 11:44 pm

Thiago,

You obviously are completely clueless about American culture. People are not generally concealed carrying because they are afraid. Furthermore, no one in America would conceive of CALLING THE POLICE TO MURDER A BEGGAR. That would be completely anathema to anyone and certainly far worse than (theoretically) wanting a firearm for your personal safety.

298 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 1:13 am

“You obviously are completely clueless about American culture. People are not generally concealed carrying because they are afraid.”
Come on. We are hearing over and over how horrible things will happen if people can not bring their guns to work, school, church, movies. Do you really think that non-scared people fear their friends, co-workers, etc. this much? As the American Dream goes sourer, people get more desperate.
“Furthermore, no one in America would conceive of CALLING THE POLICE TO MURDER A BEGGAR. That would be completely anathema to anyone and certainly far worse than (theoretically) wanting a firearm for your personal safety.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-shooting-skid-row-20150805-story.html To be fair, this one was on the government’s dime. Good provision of public services is one of the blessings of development, right? In Brazil, someone would have had his palm greased before the public nuisance was erradicated–and people would have the common sense of not doing it in broad daylight, but problem was solved, right? Anyway, as the names make it clear, neither death squads nor lynching are Brazilian inventions (ask Central Americans and Iraqis who trained and founded their death squads–a tip: it was not us).
And you are still missing a distinction: violent acts by people who don’t make a living from them are virtually unknow in Brazil. I was a kid the last time I heard about something like that reporter killing his former co-workers. The median American, by contrast, is being scared into violence, clinging to hatred as his one crutch. American public discourse is basically about how other Americans are monsters that must be stopped at all costs before they ruin the country. Do you really think this house divided against itself can stand?

299 Cliff October 9, 2015 at 1:23 am

Like I said, your comment makes it very clear that you have no idea what life in America is like.

I would much rather have a culture of some guys who go around carrying weapons because they like to be part of the gun-carrying club than a culture of guys who go around hiring the police to murder homeless people and then feel good about themselves because they didn’t carry out any violence.

300 msgkings October 9, 2015 at 1:34 am

Troll óbvia é óbvio

301 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:15 am

Interesting arguments here and lots of weasel words used against Thiago.

Most of the comments prior to this thread DO seem to support the idea of Americans being fearful of a) each other and b) the world around them.

However, when Thiago brings this up, there’s a 180 degree flip and it’s NOT about fear. Interesting.

302 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:09 am

Most of the comments prior to this thread DO seem to support the idea of Americans being fearful of a) each other and b) the world around them.

Really? Aside from the ex-professor, where, exactly?

303 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 9:07 am

People are saying they need guns to feel safe among their friends/co-workers.

304 Careless October 9, 2015 at 9:18 am

Who?

305 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 10:07 am

Everyone who needs a gun to go to school for example. Unless, they are Black and going to a school in Little Rock circa 1957, it doesn’t make sense to me. People are scared. Hamermesh is scared, his students are scared, the good people of the Great State of Texas is scared. You just have to hear Americans speaking. They are being terrorized by other Americans.

306 Cliff October 9, 2015 at 10:40 am

No one needs a gun to go to school, so that would be nobody

307 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 11:40 am

Tell Professor Hamermesh that.
The truth is, as the American Dream goes sourer, Americans get desperate; as they get desperate, they get angry; as they get angry, they get fearful of other angry Americans; as they get fearful, they get sad; as they get sad, they get desperate. It is a vicious circle. People cling to mindless violence as a coping mechanism.

308 Careless October 9, 2015 at 12:58 pm

Oh, so you’re saying they’re scared, despite what they say.

309 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 1:47 pm

They are the ones saying they can’t make it to school and back without carrying guns. They don’t fear Brazilian drug lords or the Tonton Macoute (if I had a rock band, I would call it Tonton Macoute or Kempeitai), they fear their fellow Americans. And they have reason to fear. At a moment’s notice, their neighbours, co-workers, friends can turn on them. One day, one is an university student, the following day, one is trying to kill Reagan. Anyone can be the enemy. Imagine how it affects impressionble teenagers.
Scared students have reason to want guns, and a scared teacher has good reason to fear scared students with guns, who have reason to think someone (Obama, Clinton I, Clinton II, the UN, their reasoning changes with the times) will try to pry their guns from their cold, dead, clammy hands. Scared people–and most Americans are scared– do stupid things. In such a climate of unrelented, unmitigated, unalloyed fear, all it takes is a bad day to disaster strike. Again, violence–or the threat of violence–became a psychological crutch for Americans, who see themselves living in a hostile world, surrounded by enemies outwardly indistinguishable from them. Americans live in the world of the body snatchers, what more one needs to say?

310 Careless October 9, 2015 at 3:13 pm

They are the ones saying they can’t make it to school and back without carrying guns

They are? They weren’t going to attend UT until this?

You’re an idiot.

311 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 3:49 pm

“They are? They weren’t going to attend UT until this?”
Apparently they were attending UT at great personal risk–unarmed and all in hostile territory–, I give them that. I would like to say that now the risk is lower, but I still don’t see how giving guns to violent people will lower risk. Maybe violent people will kill one another, but it can take some time and disrupt educational activities.

312 Glenn October 10, 2015 at 10:59 am

Cliff: “No one needs a gun to go to school, so that would be nobody.”
Your own words, so it’s pointless for UT Austion to change the legislation then.

Careless: “Really? Aside from the ex-professor, where, exactly?”
All the comments above about having to have a gun to protect daughters, family, themselves, their property from “Others”.

313 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 2:06 am

If it helps you sleep at night, by all means. My point stands: you hardly will heard of a Brazilian engaging in violence unless it is how he makes a living. The median Brazilian does not engage in violence because violence is anthetical to Brazilian culture. Meanwhile a culture of death made America an outlier among rich countries. America is richer than Japan, but an American is 15 times more likely to be killed and 27 times more likely to be raped. Yet, Americans are armed to the teeth and employ much more police.
“I would much rather have a culture of some guys who go around carrying weapons because they like to be part of the gun-carrying club.”
I doubt they want those guns to shoot skeet. They are scared and for good reason. There is no other developed country where people have good reason to think their friends, relatives, co-workers, fellow congregants will turn on them at a moment’s notice. Everyone is scared: Hamermesh is scared, his gun-carrying students are scared. American ethos nowadays reminds me more of Ruanda circa 1994 than fellow Anglo-saxonic England or Canada.

314 Moreno Klaus October 9, 2015 at 8:12 am

I think what you mean in other words is “the incidence rate of psycopaths/sociopaths/ “random shooters” is much lower in Brazil then in US, that is, violence surges are very unpredictable in US. While in Brazil the causes are very clearly identified.

315 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 8:59 am

Yes.

316 Cliff October 9, 2015 at 10:16 am

Sorry Thiago, I don’t draw an important distinction between somebody who calls a death squad to execute somebody and someone who does it themselves.

No one in America outside the ghetto is scared and for good reason. Crime rates are very low. If you are basing your conclusion on media, understand the media is very liberal and is also trying to create the biggest news story possible and fill all its time slots. So they have a huge incentive to blow everything out of proportion and act like they are terrified all the time because they want the laws to be changed.

Comparing Japan to America is just silly. Lets look at the crime rate for Japanese people in America. Since you think Brazil is safer than America despite having many times the crime and homicide rate, what makes you think Japan is any safer?

317 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 11:26 am

You keep missing the crucial distinction: any (exceedingly rare) Brazilian wanting to eliminate another Brazilian will know better than entrust a civilian with this mission. There is no vigilantism and violence is the province of hardened professionals. People are not afraid of their families, friends, classmates, co-workers, fellow congregants. They don’t think everyone is out to get them. Under the military dictatorship, for instance, the Army liquidated political enemies, but–horrible as it is– it was the job of soldiers working inside the unified chain of command (and trained by the USA): they were professional torturers and killers. The idea of someone being a Marine or an actor or a child of privilege today and trying to kill the president tomorrow is simply preposterous. Again violence–specially random violence– is anthetical to the Brazilian character. People don’t fear their neighbours will turn on them.
“No one in America outside the ghetto is scared and for good reason.” Have you ever heard Americans speaking? They are terrorized. Obama will get them. Or Clinton or Trump or Jeb Bush. Before that, it was Bush II or Clinton I. Blacks will get them or Whites or Arabs. or Jews. American public discourse is basically about how the other half of the country is evil–ploting to sell the country to Iran, Israel, Syria, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, whatever- and must be stopped at all costs before the gas chambers are up and running. People fear their neighbours are awake at night plotting their destruction.
“Since you think Brazil is safer than America…”
You keep misrepresenting my argument. Most of Brazilian homicide rates is simply mishandling of very poor neighborhoods. I am not sure how safe Brazilians from different economic backgrounds are. But on average, America is safer (even if much more dangerous than any other rich country and many poor ones) than Brazil. Satisfied? Got it out your system? What I said is, the typical Brazilian (not a drug lord or a militia hit man) is less violent than his American counterparts. Drug dealers and the like are responding to incentives–they know they won’t be caught (even in the USA, one-their of homicides remain unsolved), so they expand their business. They kill more than they would if they were rwsily stopped by law enforcement, but it has as much to do with the typical Brazilian as you have to do with the Alamo. People don’t stay awake at night fearing their neighbors or students or classmatea or teachers. People just live their lives the best they can.

318 Careless October 9, 2015 at 1:49 pm

Oh, I get it, because your country is full of premeditated murder and murder for profit, there aren’t people peacefully carrying guns, and therefore Brazil is better than the US.

319 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 2:51 pm

“Oh, I get it, because your country is full of premeditated murder and murder for profit, there aren’t people peacefully carrying guns, and therefore Brazil is better than the US.”
Better in what? I doubt any country is better in everything, as shocking as it may be to American jingoism. The truth is, the median Brazilian doesn’t have a violent bone in his body. The wrongdoers are overachievers and do much more damage than they would do if they were reined in by the state –as they respond to economic incentives and a particularly failed public security apparatus–, but that is it. But average people don’t have anything to fear from their peers, their neighbours, their friends. One is not drinking with the guys today and killing classmates tomorrow. One is not going to school today and shooting Reagan tomorrow. One is not with the Marines today and killing Kennedy tomorrow. One is not working today and laying co-workers off with bullets tomorrow. Again violence is anthetical to the Brazilian character. Proportionally, the Japanese Red Army probably has more killings than all Brazilian guerrillas scored against a dictatorship (and many of our terrorists were either non-assimilated Japanese-Brazilians or former Army officers anyway). It took a hard work of desensitization (and American training) to prepare Brazilian soldiers to torture, and even then most of them were not up to the task. The common conscripted –no matter how poor or how violent may his original community be–was not torturer material. Compare and contrast with how easily “normal” Americans take to torture or extermination. Lt. Calley was the prototypical young American.

320 Careless October 9, 2015 at 10:18 pm

Dude, your country is famously a shithole. Anyone making comparisons to it is mocking you. You’re a joke, and your country sucks.

321 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 11:14 pm

“Dude, your country is famously a shithole. Anyone making comparisons to it is mocking you. You’re a joke, and your country sucks.”
As happens with your Rambo, what you call Hell we call home. We are not fleeing life or at least we are about three times less likely to do so as Americans are. I always thought it was anthetical to the very human nature to take one’s life, anthetical even to animal nature, but it is a provincial prejudice of course, it is just anthetical to Brazilian nature. Portuguese-speaking countries tend to have low suicide rates–bless those conquistadores for that.
Sometimes I wonder what it takes to make people tired of life. Apparently, the answer is, living in the richest and most powerful country Mankind has ever seen. You are three times more likely to kill yourself than being killed by someone else. We have met the enemy and…

322 TallDave October 10, 2015 at 11:51 pm

Thiago Ribeiro, I have never heard anyone so hilariously frightened of Americans. You have been exposed to way too much leftwing media, you read like a caricature. And your feeble excuses for Brazilian violence sound almost like North Korean propaganda.

Crime rates by ethnicity in America are generally a bit lower than comparable countries, and homicide rates slightly lower.

323 Thiago Ribeiro October 11, 2015 at 2:08 am

1) I like most Americans I have met–even if they are using the wrong unities of measure and really think football is played with one’s hands–, they seem bright and well-meaning fellows. I am less afraid of your countrymen than you are (I am not the one who thinks he needs a gun to deal with them). Why, I am less afraid of my own countrymen than you are of yours (I guess this–lack of paranoia in dealing with one’s neighbours and friends– is what you call excuses for Brazilian violence).
2) Is this the same “leftwing media” that says that Obama is a Communist who sold the USA and Israel to Iran and ruined the economy and raped the Constitution? For this is the media I am very acquainted with which loves bad news–real or imaginary– about America (even if from 2001 to 2008 America–i.e. the White House– could do no wrong. And even that media is not the reason Americans are so prone to killing themselves (3 times more likely than Brazilians) and their own countrymen (5 times more likely than the British). Just because you can bear guns, it doesn’t mean you should shoot the messenger.
3) I really love when fascists play the “there is nothing wrong with my country but those damn niggers whose forefathers our forefathers enslaved, segregated or lynched”. Just for curiosity’s sake, could I play it too if I wanted, Brazil having imported more slaves in a decade than you in all your history (but being softer on the segregating and lynching parts)? Talking seriously, thought,there is no easy solution for the violence problem and there is no sure cure for the deep divisions that have turned brother against brother and made Americans so afraid of one another. The gun issue is just a sign of a much deeper social problem.

324 HL October 8, 2015 at 3:30 pm

They need to start arming their football team.

325 cheesetrader October 8, 2015 at 3:42 pm

They’re certainly good at shooting themselves in the foot

Or should I say hoof?

326 RPLong October 8, 2015 at 4:03 pm

You mean all these years Hamermesh has been teaching students who he genuinely believes would have killed him on the spot, had they only had the means to do so?

Possible explanations:
(a) He’s a horrible instructor.
(b) His students are horrible people.
(c) That’s not the real reason he’s leaving.

327 Urso October 8, 2015 at 4:31 pm

(c) has got to be right. He’s 71 years old, already a professor emeritus, retiring soon anyway. This is his way to make a bang (poor metaphor?) on his way out the door. He’s just trying to make a point.

328 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:10 am

Personally, I’d try to avoid making myself look so ridiculous on the way out.

329 Jeff October 8, 2015 at 4:04 pm

Students have been carrying on campus for decades. I graduated from UT-Austin in 1989 and personally knew a handful who did so. It certainly wasn’t common but it did happen. So far nobody has shot a professor. Is Hamermesh worried his lectures are so much worse than those of his peers that someone will finally take a shot?

330 Barkley Rosser October 8, 2015 at 5:13 pm

And then there was the Texas Tower shooter, I think in 1968. He took out quite a few people.

Also, hilariously, there was a famous math professor, R.L. Moore, who was Dept. Chair for decades into his 80s and a native Texan. When they were trying to remove him from power, he showed up at a meeting one time with a six-shooter in a holster and made it clear he was prepared to use it if the vote did not go his way. He was on his way out not too long after that.

So, there is also the potential threat of faculty shooting each other, quite aside from students accidentally shooting themselves in their genitals.

331 Bob from Ohio October 8, 2015 at 6:16 pm

Students with rifles helped pin down and contain the Texas Tower shooter until the police could kill him.

332 Strick October 8, 2015 at 6:29 pm

Not to mention some faculty who back in those days were known to keep their .30-06s in their pickups. And were generally WWII vets.

333 Art Deco October 8, 2015 at 7:08 pm

He used long guns, which are made use of in only a small minority of homicides.

334 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:16 am

That’s ok then.

335 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:10 am

More relevantly, they’re guns which have nothing to do with concealed carry.

336 Vaniver October 9, 2015 at 9:42 am

And there was also the shooter in 2010, who thankfully only took out one person (himself). I recall the incident because I had some damn courage and went to classes anyway despite knowing that there was a gunman on campus.

337 Chris October 8, 2015 at 4:05 pm

I teach at a college in a state that allows carry/conceal on college campuses. But, the colleges are allowed to opt out.
Our faculty and staff voted on it and we chose overwhelmingly to not allow anyone but security to carry weapons on campus. I voted against.
I was trained in weapon safety and the use of lethal force by the US Marine Corps. I carried a loaded 9mm to work for years since I worked in the armory and it was required. I’m not “scared” of guns by any stretch of the imagination. That isn’t why I voted against.
After discussions with other faculty in my department (most were conservatives and a some were veterans), we thought many of our students would not feel comfortable with weapons in the classrooms and we would rather they focus on the material than on how many guns were in the room.
I wasn’t worried that a student would shoot me. If they wanted to do that, a campus ban won’t stop them. I would feel completely fine carrying a gun myself as I am used to it. But, I have no doubt it would freak a lot of my students out.
I’d also point out that the thought of a bunch of students with guns going after an active shooter on campus should give you pause as well. I’ll just let you think about what could go wrong there.

338 Kevin- October 8, 2015 at 5:57 pm

+1 Very well stated.

339 Dan Lavatan October 8, 2015 at 7:28 pm

While that is your choice a lot of other students or potential students and faculty would choose not to go to your school because they don’t like having their rights oppressed and because of what it says about other policies. A school that doesn’t care about the 2nd amendment probably doesn’t really care about the 1st.

340 John L. October 9, 2015 at 12:40 am

Ha ha ha. “Help ! I’m being repressed ! ” Preventing me from playing in your property is a major infringement of constitutional rights! It is gold.

341 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:12 am

A school that doesn’t care about the 2nd amendment probably doesn’t really care about the 1st.

Seriously?

342 CD October 8, 2015 at 8:23 pm

Yeah, it’s the “bunch of students with guns” part that worries me. If you teach any large number of students, you know there’s nothing so simple and obvious that some students can’t screw it up. They’re kids, they’re distracted, sleep-deprived… It’s unlikely that the carrying students are going to be responsible and careful, let alone well-trained.

343 Urso October 8, 2015 at 4:23 pm

I’m not reading 150 comments, but I’m quite sure no one on either side is updating any priors any time soon.

344 jorgensen October 8, 2015 at 4:30 pm

We really need an app that could take a stream of comments and summarize them into the three or four conflicting points of view.

345 RPLong October 8, 2015 at 5:08 pm

I have that app. It’s called Google News.

346 HL October 8, 2015 at 8:08 pm

After reading Barkley Rosser’s comments, I’ve decided that Morrissey was right. “What’s the first thing I do when I wake up in the morning? Wish I hadn’t.”

347 KDV October 9, 2015 at 10:53 am

+1

348 Jason October 8, 2015 at 4:54 pm

I came into this thread thinking the professor had overreacted. I leave this thread understanding his concern. You guys are fucking nuts.

349 CD October 8, 2015 at 8:14 pm

The gun-humpers *want* more gunfire on campuses.

350 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:25 am

True, and the gun lobby seem oblivious to this aura they give off…..

351 Craig October 9, 2015 at 7:45 am

It happened around the time of the Clinton administration. Guns went from being a tool, like a flashlight or circular saw, into a fetish (and I mean that in the religious and sexual sense.)

352 Cliff October 9, 2015 at 10:29 am

He doesn’t have any concern, he’s trolling

353 chuck martel October 8, 2015 at 6:17 pm

Point 1. The second amendment to the US Constitution refers to “arms”, not “firearms”. In 1789 there were a number of devices classified as arms; knives, swords, spears, pikes, maces, axes, etc. Constitutionally there should be no restrictions on automatic knives, for instance. Point 2. At the current state of technology prohibition of guns is meaningless to those that wish to carry them. Very effective weapons can and would be manufactured in garages and basements. Those familiar with the social environment of “West Side Story” will remember that a common weapon of that era was the home-made “zip gun”, not because handguns were illegal but because they were expensive and hard to get. It’s testimony to American affluence that this is no longer the case.
Point 3. Even if guns of all kinds were effectively regulated out of existence there are alternatives. The government can’t forbid fire. A moderately-talented teenager is capable of designing and constructing a miniature flame thrower that would be even scarier than a Smith & Wesson Model 66.

354 Tim October 8, 2015 at 10:35 pm

Are you serious?

The fact that SOME teenager would find SOME way to kill SOME people even without guns says nothing about how many MORE teenagers would kill how many MORE people when incredibly powerful guns are readily available.

Does the existence of SOME crime mean we should abandon the idea of police?

355 TallDave October 9, 2015 at 10:54 pm

We let teenagers drive tanks.

356 Paul October 8, 2015 at 6:35 pm

I am disappointed with Professor Hamermesh’s economic analysis (he said fewer faculty would want to come, not merely that there would be an effect).

Obviously the economists would say that the university would attract faculty with a different preference function, not necessarily that fewer would apply.

357 Rand October 8, 2015 at 6:50 pm

Really? Out of 500 people, there ought to be one who’s crazy.

But guns to campus. What a crazy idea. I think it tells a lot about the society when people start to carry guns for protection.

358 Rand October 8, 2015 at 7:07 pm

And for the record, I think campus or whatever can be “safer” with guns, but I think it tells a lot about the trust in society (and other things) when people start doing that..

359 Harun October 8, 2015 at 9:03 pm

Its mainly a matter of response time. Imagine a world were magic policemen could arrive 1 minute before any shooting. Very few people would carry a gun then.

Since the police take minutes at best to arrive, having some armed civilians sprinkled among the crowd makes sense, and increases trust. People feel safer.

Its the same with people trained in CPR…would you feel safer where you had to wait minutes for the EMTs to arrive or would you “trust” someone who’d had some training to attempt to save you?

360 Moreno Klaus October 9, 2015 at 8:15 am

Sorry, but where in other civilized countries do people bring guns to campus? Outside of the US (as far as i know) this is just a bizarre idea.

361 Cliff October 9, 2015 at 10:30 am

Well there is noting special about campus. Some people just bring guns with them wherever they go

362 dbp October 9, 2015 at 11:38 am

“I think it tells a lot about the trust in society (and other things) when people start doing that.”

Agree, but will add that it also tells a lot about the trust in society when people try to prevent their fellow citizens from having the right to bear lethal weapons. I think the latter is far worse than the former. In the first case is an acknowledgement that criminals exist. In the latter is the assumption that normal law-abiding citizens might snap at any moment and create mayhem, if they have the means.

363 TallDave October 11, 2015 at 12:39 am

Maybe worse than that — it’s an assumption that most people cannot act morally.

That’s really the crux, I think — those afraid of guns in the hands of solid citizens just don’t believe in the concept of solid citizens.

A few weeks of training and a uniform doesn’t hurt, but you’d much rather have a whole nation of Spencer Stones.

364 jjbees October 8, 2015 at 7:32 pm

Anti-gunners are just pathetic wimps who are afraid of everything…but if something goes wrong they always have to call a “real man” (with a gun or a wrench or a bucket of water or a scalpel) to fix everything.

I’m guessing all these liberals were simply breastfed too long and never learned to be independent.

People that want to carry guns believe that they would be just fine without police, anti-gunners are scared shitless in a world where they have to depend on themselves.

As a conservative I look down upon these weaky and pathetic imitations of adult men who piss their pants at the idea of using violence to protect themselves and others. Anti-gun is basically individual cowardice writ large. I’m not surprised why there is such a correlation between anti-guns and pro-immigrant (pro-pleasefuckmywife) views.

365 John L. October 8, 2015 at 8:06 pm

“As a conservative I look down upon these weaky and pathetic imitations of adult men who piss their pants at the idea of using violence to protect themselves and others” They won’t let me play Cowboys and Indians. Children tantrums are cute, particularly if I am not the one who must change their diapers. “with a gun or a wrench or a bucket of water or a scalpel).” Are you carrying a bucket, a wrench and a scapel too? I love all this overcompensating. “in a world where they have to depend on themselves.” I can be John Wayne too! And Crazy Horse can thank his lucky stars he is not here today. “to call a “real man” (with a gun).” As we all know, “real men” can be set apart by their guns. And when problem strikes, the first thing you do is calling a man-child to live his fantasies. Do you know who is your group’s designated one? “and pro-immigrant (pro-pleasefuckmywife) views.” What can I say? They take jobs some Americans can’t do. If you don’t want your “job” outsourced, maybe you should try Viagra (talk with a doctor first) instead of this Freudian routine.

366 Thomas Taylor October 8, 2015 at 9:00 pm

The funniest part is that he wants us to believe a “real man” is someone too coward to go to school without a gun.

367 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 9:38 pm

“As a conservative I look down upon these weaky and pathetic imitations of adult men who piss their pants…”
Ha ha ha. Said the guy too scared to go to school without a gun. Does he piss his paints without it?

368 Thiago Ribeiro October 8, 2015 at 10:10 pm

“Anti-gun is basically individual cowardice writ large.”
I really love how the guy clinging to his gun to go to school/work, etc. like Linus clings to his blanket wants us to believe he is a (if not “the”) “real man”. It is pure gold.

369 JesusLovesGuns October 9, 2015 at 8:17 am

I AM SURE he is trolling…

370 Thomas Taylor October 9, 2015 at 9:02 am

Are you sure? It sounds like a summary of gun nuts positions.

371 JesusLovesGuns October 9, 2015 at 8:17 am

You Sir are the Troll of the day!!!!! Amen!

372 John L. October 8, 2015 at 8:05 pm

“As a conservative I look down upon these weaky and pathetic imitations of adult men who piss their pants at the idea of using violence to protect themselves and others”
They won’t let me play Cowboys and Indians. Children tantrums are cute, particularly if I am not the one who must change their diapers.
“with a gun or a wrench or a bucket of water or a scalpel).”
Are you carrying a bucket, a wrench and a scapel too? I love all this overcompensating.
“in a world where they have to depend on themselves.”
I can be John Wayne too! And Crazy Horse can thank his lucky stars he is not here today.
“to call a “real man” (with a gun).”
As we all know, “real men” can be set apart by their guns. And when problem strikes, the first thing you do is calling a man-child to live his fantasies. Do you know who is your group’s designated one?
“and pro-immigrant (pro-pleasefuckmywife) views.”
What can I say? They take jobs some Americans can’t do. If you don’t want your “job” outsourced, maybe you should try Viagra (talk with a doctor first) instead of this Freudian routine.

373 bxg October 8, 2015 at 8:40 pm

I might have missed it in all the previous comments but: what about the selection effect?

So many, many comments to the effect “If someone decides to shoot the professor, will they really care about the laws anyway?”

But, right or wrong, the very mentality “USA 2015 is so dangerous I need the right to carry a firearm as I go about my day to day life” is significant. No right to concealed-carry on campus – the fewer such believers will go there (*) (**) in the first place.

(*) (USA) So what, there’s no point being made here. Lawful people being cautious. Have you not read about all the
mass shootings, especially in schools. And even if not, lawful people being cautious; what legitimate complaint could you possible have?
(**) (!USA) Seriously, these people think they should take a gun to the supermarket or to school for protection. Unless they live in some Somali-at-its-worst hellhole, there’s something mentally wrong with them – please keep them far far away.

374 Careless October 9, 2015 at 1:59 pm

But, right or wrong, the very mentality “USA 2015 is so dangerous I need the right to carry a firearm as I go about my day to day life” is significant

Well, why? Until legal CCiers start gunning innocent people down, I don’t see the problem.

375 ThomasH October 8, 2015 at 10:55 pm

I’d be worried about the mental stability of someone who would want to carry a gun on the UT campus. (I’m a graduate.)

376 Rich October 8, 2015 at 11:03 pm

A little off topic, but the risk of students shooting professors is not new. The University of Virginia adopted the nation’s oldest student-run honor system after a student shot a law professor. However, the current honor code does not prohibit the shooting of law professors, and there are two shotguns in the law school (one is Earl Warren’s shotgun). I doubt that either of them is functional.

377 Nathan W October 8, 2015 at 11:51 pm

How many of those conceal carry students belong to a well regulated militia?

378 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:14 am

Why do you ask?

379 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 1:08 pm

Because I think the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitution is a joke, primarily the result of decades of NRA propaganda.

380 Careless October 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm

umm… where does your brain break when reading “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Or are you pretending to be to stupid to understand the first clause?

Why do you read it as if it were “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed as needed to regulate the militia”?

381 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Where does your brain break when someone suggests that for most of the history of the USA, the courts did not interpret this as allowing conceal carry to Walmart on Sundays?

It didn’t say you can have rocket launchers or nukes or assault rifles or all manner of things.

I don’t interpret it as being “as needed to regulate the militia”. I interpret it as “For the purpose of being able to call upon a body of men into a local militia at times of need, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which I think was basically the idea when it was written.

You could go in lots of directions from there, but conceal carry to Walmart on Sunday? I don’t think that’s what they meant in the first place. But it is also a living document, and I don’t think it is in the best interests of society to interpret it that way.

Whatever the Supreme Court rules. I have my own opinion.

382 Art Deco October 9, 2015 at 5:14 pm

Where does your brain break when someone suggests that for most of the history of the USA, the courts did not interpret this as allowing conceal carry to Walmart on Sundays?

‘Most of our history’ went on twixt 1939 and 2005?

383 Careless October 9, 2015 at 5:17 pm

Concealed carry was typically banned while open carry was allowed. The right to keep and bear arms was not infringed.

384 Careless October 9, 2015 at 5:18 pm

I interpret it as “For the purpose of being able to call upon a body of men into a local militia at times of need, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which I think was basically the idea when it was written.

You suck at reading comprehension. Go on, interpret my other post that same way.

385 Nathan W October 10, 2015 at 12:48 am

Reading it the way you want to read it, if “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is over-emphasized, with specific focus on “shall not be infringed”, shall I then claim the right to nuclear arms? After all, if there “shall be no infringement [whatsoever] on my right to bear arms, then I have every right to bear nuclear arms, dirty bombs, chemical weapons, etc.

Of course that’s silly. Where’s the line? No rights are absolute. Courts are obliged to apply good sense in addition to good reading comprehension.

386 Careless October 9, 2015 at 2:03 pm

If the First Amendment went “An informative news media being necessary to the governance of a democratic state, the write to speak and write freely shall not be infringed,” would you censor people outside of the official media as you wished?

387 Careless October 9, 2015 at 2:04 pm

I’m sorry, I forgot to put “regulated” in there

388 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 4:41 pm

That’s not even close to what the 1st Amendment says.

But I understand what you’re saying. And observe that free speech has limits. You can go to prison or face massive liability for some abuses of free speech (e.g. slander, when you cross the line from hate speech to calling for violence, lying in court, and quite a number of other things).

No right or freedom is absolute. When it goes too far, and is against the best interests of society, and in particular when it competes with other laws or constitutional directives, it is up to the courts to make a decision.

389 Careless October 9, 2015 at 10:20 pm

It’s not at all about speech having limits. It’s about the fact that the first clause is a statement of purpose.

390 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 12:20 am

Most of the civilized world thinks that Americans are absolutely nuts when it comes to guns.

Imagine there is a mass shooting. 100 students in the classroom have guns. I bet that more students get killed in the crossfire of untrained shooters than the mass murdered would have killed on his own.

391 Art Deco October 9, 2015 at 12:46 am

Most of the civilized world thinks that Americans are absolutely nuts when it comes to guns.

This is an inane observation (even if it were true) that does not get better from repetition.

392 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am

Inane because?

393 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 4:39 am

I don’t expect to convince anyone, but I’m not sure that gun enthusiasts are aware of how basically the entire rest of the West perceives them.

394 Art Deco October 9, 2015 at 9:54 am

1. Who cares how ‘the entire rest of the West’ perceives them? We’re out of high school, Nathan.

2. Why would you fancy anyone would take you seriously when you pretend you know what ‘the entire rest of the west’ thinks and feels?

395 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm

1) Whatever. That’s your right to ignore other people’s opinions if you want to. It’s not their country.

2) Because I’ve been a lot of places and talked to a lot of people. Not the entire rest of the world, but a lot of places.

Around the world I’ve met boatloads and boatloads of people who openly ridicule Americans about gun stuff. But never in my life have I met a non-American who thinks NRA propaganda is anything other than rubbish.

396 Careless October 9, 2015 at 2:05 pm

I’ll bet a testicle you’ve never run into a person in another country who’s even encountered NRA propaganda

They’re not a very international group, for some reason

397 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 4:46 pm

I hope you’re not too attached to that testicle 🙂 Don’t worry, one is enough to procreate.

“More guns will make us safer”. And every time there is another mass shooting, the NRA basically says the same thing: “More guns will make us safer”. Aside from a lot of people being aware that it’s basically being a lobby group that helps to sell guns (yes yes, I know they do lots of other stuff and claim that they’re not a lobby group), a lot of people are familiar with the “more guns will make us safer” argument. This is on the butt end of a lot of ridicule.

And of course I won’t hold you to the bet. I don’t take pleasure in emasculation.

398 Art Deco October 9, 2015 at 5:15 pm

Around the world I’ve met boatloads and boatloads of people

Let go of my leg.

399 Careless October 9, 2015 at 5:19 pm

No, really, go on, tell us all about how people in other countries encounter this NRA propaganda. Don’t be shy.

400 Careless October 9, 2015 at 10:22 pm

Still waiting, Nathan.

401 Nathan W October 10, 2015 at 1:09 am

When there’s a mass shooting in the USA that makes the global news, whenever the story goes beyond the mere details of the story and they get into discussing solutions, two sides to the story are presented. One side which demands stronger gun control and the NRA side which invariably endorses more guns as the solution.

Columbine made world news and is well known around the Western world. And quite a lot of people know that the NRA solutions is more guns.

Moreover, some Americans travel and share these stories firsthand, albeit usually from the liberal perspective (it appears that conservatives either don’t travel much, or keep to themselves while on holiday, or don’t stay in the type of hotel I might stay in).

I originally learned about the NRA from Europeans. The average European knows ridiculously more about the world and broader current events than the average American, but probably about 50% of Americans like to think that Europeans are ignorant and naive because they do not have a gut reflex for war mongering. Since gun violence is one of the salient features of America (perhaps in the top five or six after New York City, California, Hollywood, whoever’s the current president, and the fact that the USA gets involved in a lot of wars…), and since America is the most powerful and important country in the world, you should not find it at all surprising that people are aware of the NRA.

402 Glenn October 10, 2015 at 11:10 am

Art and Careless, have you been outside of the USA?

403 Glenn October 10, 2015 at 4:44 pm

C.f. Careless on October 9, 2015 at 10:22 pm
Still waiting, Art and Careless

404 TallDave October 10, 2015 at 11:38 pm

“The average European knows ridiculously more about the world and broader current events than the average American”

They know a lot more about Europe, a lot less about America (which is almost as large), and a lot more that is wrong — there’s a reason Communism, Nazism and Fascism found fertile ground there and not here.

405 Glenn October 11, 2015 at 4:18 am

TallDave: “They know a lot more about Europe, a lot less about America (which is almost as large), and a lot more that is wrong — there’s a reason Communism, Nazism and Fascism found fertile ground there and not here”.

Currently, people outside of the USA know more about the USA than Americans know about outside the USA. But t

Scarily for Americans, Communism and Fascism are not just found outside the USA. As Nazism, that just an extreme form of Nationalism which, as TallDave must know, is the strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance.

406 dbp October 9, 2015 at 11:51 am

Even if this were true: Why should we care any more what they think than they care what we think?

Personally, I am proud to live in a society where we trust our fellow citizens with arms. Yes, there is a large minority that does not trust their fellow citizens: As an American, they embarrass me.

407 TallDave October 11, 2015 at 12:28 am

Great point. That’s really the core of America right there: trusting the judgment of our fellow citizens. In an accident of history, the US was settled by people who had little interest in exploiting native labor or their material wealth (unlike South America), and so their main desire in coming here was usually to escape oppression or make a living on their own terms. They established a republican system that enshrined liberty as its first principle, and the individual’s duty to defend that liberty as the second.

408 Thiago Ribeiro October 9, 2015 at 1:18 am

“even if it were true.”
Which it is. Let’s be honest here, there is a reason America is the outlier among developed countries. Americans are being cowed into violence, it became a spiritual crutch to them. It is the one way left to them to make sense of life.

409 Cliff October 9, 2015 at 1:24 am

????????????

410 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:20 am

Extremely insightful!

411 TallDave October 11, 2015 at 12:46 am

Heh.

You should really come to an outdoor firing range sometime, one of the ones that allows heavy weapons. You can’t really understand gun culture till you’ve fired a few hundred rounds of belt-fed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

412 Glenn October 9, 2015 at 2:35 am

Once again, if UT Austin implement this legislation, let the market decide.

Prospective students who are happy with the legislation will still go, those who aren’t, won’t.

Enrollment levels should be checked over the next few years to see if the change impacted the figures.

As long as UT Austin don’t request help from the government, brilliant, carry on you’ve found a new market.

However, if the institution fails, the market has spoken.

413 Vaniver October 9, 2015 at 9:37 am

It is worth pointing out that the campus administration was opposed to the legislation, but the state government passed the law regardless.

414 Glenn October 13, 2015 at 2:18 am

I didn’t appreciate that aspect, Vaniver.

So the government is interfering in people’s lives again?

415 Careless October 9, 2015 at 2:07 pm

Prediction: it will have no detectable impact whatsoever on UT, and the only noticeable effects will be two (and counting) professors humiliating themselves in this story.

416 Glenn October 10, 2015 at 11:04 am

Opinion synonymous with prediction.

417 Glenn October 13, 2015 at 2:19 am

It seems the government is interfering in people’s lives with unwanted legislation.

418 prior_approval October 9, 2015 at 2:42 am

Not a single mention of tear gas in basically 300 comments? Think how much safer anyone in an academic setting would be all be if when a professor is attacked in their classroom, several armed students open fire.

Well, safer from the strange world that also brings us chickenhawks being in love with something they have never experienced. Because for anyone with any weapons training involving killing other people, the above scenario is a nightmare. Including the responding SWAT team – who tend to follow a better safe than sorry approach when confronting anyone armed at the scene of a shooting in a public place.

419 Careless October 9, 2015 at 7:43 am

lol

420 Careless October 9, 2015 at 8:18 am

Btw, it’s even stupider than it sounds at first: he’s teaching an introductory course, full of, in his words, “18 year olds.” IOW, people who cannot legally concealed carry anywhere, or own a handgun

421 Masimo October 9, 2015 at 9:08 am

Hammermesh had already been planning to leave UT anyway for non-political reasons and is just using that move for dramatic effect. I don’t even disagree with his political points.

Here is Hammermesh’s best on UT Austin campus on The Daily Show: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/37su2t/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ugly-people-prejudice

422 dave smith October 9, 2015 at 9:39 am

I have not read the comments, but yours is almost certainly the most intelligent one posted. He’s going out in a blaze of a political statement. I’m from Texas, and this is almost certainly much to do about nothing. You have to be 21 to carry. We estimate that only a handful of people on campus at any given time are licensed to carry. And I’d wager that those are not the ones to worry about. And we’d likely be shocked at how many guns are on campus already.

423 Gochujang October 9, 2015 at 9:53 am

That’s what they were saying in Arizona, right up until this morning.

I am sure that one “doesn’t count” though. Let those games begin.

424 Cliff October 9, 2015 at 10:43 am

Doesn’t count as what?

425 Gochujang October 9, 2015 at 11:00 am

Are you the same Cliff who said yesterday:

Please give me even one example of a college student concealed carrying who made a snap decision to shoot somebody because they got angry.

426 Harun October 9, 2015 at 11:07 am

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-09/malcolm-turnbull-plea-for-mutual-respect-after-parramatta-murder/6841892

Looks like you need to do some work there in Australia.

Also, why haven’t you licensed knives yet? It sure likes you have a real knife problem there in Australia.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/21/australian-woman-charged-murder/20721921/

I’d assume you guys could buy back all the knives, then issue a few licenses and cut back on the most popular murder weapon in Australia. They’re used to kill kids, you know. Pretty sick of your country to allow people to have these mass killing devices casually lying around in schools and homes.

427 Gochujang October 9, 2015 at 11:12 am

Do you make crazy arguments so that as step two you can claim everyone thinks you are crazy? Refuses you the respect you deserve?

428 Nathan W October 10, 2015 at 5:20 am

I like to chop vegetables with my gun.

429 Jason October 9, 2015 at 12:15 pm

Exactly right. The pro-gun idiots just argue repeatedly that you can’t stop criminals from being criminals, so might as well let law-abiding citizens carry wherever they want. Except that everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until they aren’t. Aren’t most murders crimes of passion? It’s not the person who wakes up in the morning and plans to kill a bunch of people that I’m scared of, it’s the “law-abiding” asshole with a concealed-carry permit and a quick temper. You piss him off, he shoves a gun in your face. It happened on my street a couple years ago when a neighbor dared to confront a guy who always walked his aggressive dog off-leash.

Concealed carriers are cowards.

430 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 1:49 pm

The funny thing is that pro-gunners often call the non-gun people cowards.

But who’s the scaredy cat who need a gun in his pocket to feel safe?

431 Careless October 9, 2015 at 2:09 pm

I don’t know, Nathan. Are you a mind reader now?

432 dbp October 9, 2015 at 5:06 pm

Are drivers who wear seat belts, cowards who have no faith in their own ability to drive?

433 Nathan W October 9, 2015 at 5:19 pm

Yes dbp, wearing a seatbelt is like carrying a gun. Very good analogy.

(I don’t suggest taking an IQ test. It might be bad for your self esteem.)

434 Glenn October 10, 2015 at 11:15 am

dbp, it could be suggested that the people who do wear seat belts have no faith in the ability of others to drive.

435 TallDave October 11, 2015 at 12:32 am

Don’t worry, leftists want to take away the right to drive cars too (just ask Vox). And knife control is already a real thing in Britain — they have gone into people’s houses and said “you don’t need all these knives.”

Apparently your need to chop vegetables isn’t worth killing over.

436 Glenn October 11, 2015 at 3:55 am

Not true about Britain and knives, TallDave, but keep up the false narrative, you might have others believing it at some point if you keep up the propaganda.
Have you been out of the USA recently?

437 dbp October 11, 2015 at 8:23 am

This is a good point Glenn. People could wear seat belts out of a fear of fellow drivers. (I think most fatal accidents are single vehicle though).

The thing is that nobody thinks a person who always wears his seat belt is cowardly or paranoid even though the risk is minuscule. In my 35-some years of driving, I have yet to have been saved from harm by always wearing my seat belts. I always wear them though.

A seat belt can only save the person wearing it but a pistol in the right situation could save many.

438 Stephen Long October 9, 2015 at 9:23 am

Hamermesh is a brilliant professor. I took a class with him at the University of Michigan and remember it was one of my favorite. This is definitely a loss to the UofT.

439 Harun October 9, 2015 at 11:02 am

Being against concealed carry because you worry someone might just decide to shoot you is like being against gay people, because some gay guy might just decide to rape you.

440 Mike W October 9, 2015 at 12:19 pm
441 Careless October 9, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Shot by a person who could not legally own his handgun or legally carry one, were he able to own it.

442 Axa October 10, 2015 at 12:02 pm

I thought people in MR cared about markets.

Protection? There is people specialized in this topic, they are known as bodyguards. These guys (sometimes women) are commonly ex-soldiers because experience and physical ability are much more important for the job than having gun in a waist holder. When people is really under threat, they hire a bodyguard. Spending an hour in a gun store and many hours int he internet does not make a protection pro.

Indeed, in other settings there is a perfect word to describe the fat guy who buys a gun to protect other people: poser. It’s like the young musician that aspires to be a rock/rap star. The first thing the poser will do is to buy clothes and accessories to look like the music star. However, in reality can’t compose a single song and entertain any audience.

So, protection is not buying a gun and socialize at a shooting range. It’s about following years of training in self-defense, continuous physical training and actual combat experience.It’s not OK to describe a fat guy in cammo a gun nut, call it the right way: POSER.

A reminder (among many) that a gun is not a substitute of expertise and physical ability http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris-train-gunman-france

443 Floccina October 10, 2015 at 6:42 pm

He must be a hard marker.

444 Nylund October 11, 2015 at 10:16 am

I would be interested to know if Alex and Tyler have ever lobbied to have the prohibition of guns on campus lifted at their university.

445 EFwvKnBuOjSFJQc October 11, 2015 at 9:48 pm

WZfYGDidboovMwamrG 6518

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: