At the law school where I work there are a lot of cops taking classes, all of whom carry weapons. A colleague says he's thankful for the added security. If there are people with guns around, I'd rather have it be cops who are trained in their use, including when not to use them, than random civilians who can get themselves a permit. Maybe especially more than random civilians who'd be inclined to.
My class, when I asked them, said it would not make them feel more secure to know that I carried a weapon, if I did, which I don't. They said it wasn't me in particular, they just didn't want armed professors. ("The one bullet Socratic method. 'Miss Smith, what is the rule in US v. Schmuck [a real case, one of the leading cases in mail fraud]?' 'Uhhhhh.' BANG! 'Mr. Stevens, can YOU state the rule in Schmuck?'")
--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> Joseph Catron wrote:
>
> > How so? Granted, incidents of armed civilians
> ending mass shootings,
> > like at the Appalachian School of Law, are rare,
> but as Chuck notes,
> > so are the shootings themselves. Show me a mass
> shooting coupled with
> > armed bystanders, and I'll show you a shooting
> that ended quickly.
>
> Because, of course, all the bullets from all these
> armed bystanders will
> magically hit only the original shooter, and no one
> else could possibly
> be injured in the hail of gunfire from all
> directions. Can I have some
> of what you're smoking?
>
> Miles
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com