So is Prof. Peterson going to demand that students declare whether they are carrying, or is he going to follow a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy?
I have a CCW permit, although I carry seldom because I have to enter government buildings so often it becomes impractical. However, I would both feel safer and more importantly I would BE safer if I knew that other CCW permit holders were carrying in my classroom. I already know that crazed shooters could be carrying at any time, since they don't respect gun laws. Why would I NOT feel safer knowing that if a crazed shooter has brought his gun to my classroom, there's at least a chance that someone on my side might be armed too?
Over 250 felons were shot dead ust in one year - 2010 - by private citizens stopping the commission of a crime against themselves. Hundreds more were injured or detained by armed private citizens stopping the commission of a crime. And no doubt thousands more decided it was too risky to run up against a possibly armed citizen and elected not to commit a crime in the first place. Why do I have no doubt about that last point? Because the rate of violent crimes such as robberies and occupied home invasions has shot way up in jurisdictions that have disarmed citizens, such as the U.K. and Australia.
I've taught college classes, and I have a CCW permit. I don't see how it would be at all "traumatic" for anybody to know that some of their classmates or their professor might be carrying firearms. In one of my classes, several students were police officers. I assume some of them were carrying, even though on my campus guns were generally banned for non-LEOs, and I didn't see anybody freaking out about it. As teddy4 said, anybody foolish enough to brandish their firearm SHOULD be removed (although in most jurisdictions brandishing and menacing are different things, and brandishing is a misdemeanor).
You're free to relocate. Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun laws; maybe you'd be happier there. Of course, you'd have to practice dodging bullets - they also have the highest rates of gun crime. But at least the law-abiding folks are prevented from carrying, as you prefer.
"Police say the best thing to do when you think you're being followed is to get to a place that's open where people are and call 911." Those are the best things to do AFTER you make sure you've got a round in the chamber of your gun and take the safety off.
With more and more chemophobes and irrational thinkers coming out of our public school system and refusing vaccinations, we can expect previously eradicated illnesses to make a come-back. And with the failure of the federal government to protect vaccine makers from the threat of exorbitant liability lawsuits for the inevitable few adverse effect cases, we are losing the capacity to even produce adequate vaccines. But the federal government is too busy telling Wisconsin how to run its business, and suing Arizona for trying to do the feds' work that the feds are failing at.
The "1,400 mostly civilian" deaths is not established by the Goldstone report at all.
The very wording of some of the charges you quote below demonstrates the bias of the report, since it ascribes motives and intentions to people who weren't interviewed and whose motives had never been placed in evidence. The legal objection "lack of foundation" needed to be remembered here, and wasn't.
The parts I've read also show a selective skepticism about the reliability of testimony or other evidence - if it supports Israeli claims, it's viewed skeptically, while if it supports Hamas's claims, it's viewed as inherently trustworthy.
As I said, "Baloney."
According to Judge Goldstone, his report is basically the presentation of a prima facie case, not a judicial investigation or "proof" of crimes. Meaning, since Israel did not participate in the investigation, that a bunch of Gazan people interviewed by investigators in front of Hamas "guides" (blatant witness tampering) made claims of "war crimes" that were not, on their face, obviously false. That doesn't make them true. As Goldstone himself said: If "this were a court of law there would have been nothing proven. ... I would not consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved."
The Constitution was "written over 100 years ago"? Wouldn't someone who actually KNEW when it was written have said "over 200 years ago"?
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Contraption