A University of Kansas associate professor from the departments of History and of American Studies recently resigned citing concerns over campus carry in Kansas, which becomes effective July 1. Professor Jacob Dornan states in his resignation letter that “Kansas can have great universities, or it can have concealed carry in classrooms, but it cannot have both.”
Why not?
He blathers on: “In practical terms, concealed carry has proved to be a failure. Campus shootings have become all too frequent, and arming students has done nothing to quell active shooter situations because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters and rightly fear becoming identified as a suspect themselves.”
Excuse me, Mr. Professor, are you aware that according to a Crime Prevention Research Center report, 98.4% of mass public shootings occur in gun-free zones? Dr. John Lott, noted criminologist and President of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) states that, "Since at least 1950, all but four public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens can’t carry guns for protection. In Europe, every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass public shootings. It has been host to three of the four worst K-12 school shootings and, in the past eight years, a per-capita casualty rate 50 percent higher than the United States."
Maybe they don’t teach statistics in the history department, but in the real world, for something to be considered a fact, it must be backed by significant statistical information. Can you cite the number of mass shootings that occurred on college campuses where guns were actually allowed? Can you cite statistical evidence that crime goes up where concealed carry is allowed? Can you give statistical evidence of your claim that “concealed carry has proved to be a failure”? Perhaps you and your fellow "academics" should spend a little more time looking at CPRC numbers.
Let’s look at mass shootings during the past year or more occurring on school campuses. Roseburg, OR: nine killed, seven wounded, guns not allowed on campus; Antiago, WI: two wounded, none killed, guns not allowed; Los Angeles, CA: one innocent killed, no guns allowed; Townville, SC: one killed, two wounded, no guns allowed; Columbus, OH: two wounded, no guns allowed; San Francisco, CA: four wounded, no guns allowed. (Note: this may or may not be a complete list as several sites list shootings that would include accidental discharges, suicides and other situations where the shooter did not set out to kill more than one person. The number killed does not include the shooter, if the shooter was also killed or committed suicide during the event.)
So, how does one make an argument against concealed carry by citing the occurrence of shootings in places where it is not allowed? Apparently, they don't teach logic at universities anymore. That's like stating my diet is not working, because other people are fat.
The nutty professor goes on to make this argument later in his letter, suggesting the notion that “concealed carry does not deter gun violence” is actually fact. To make the assumption that violence or the threat of violence does not deter it is just plain ridiculous. One would think that a history professor would know better. After all, most major conflicts in history have been resolved through literal acts of war.
Next, he uses the tired line that students choosing to protect themselves by secretly carrying a firearm are going to somehow stifle debate, because they will be intimidating to other students who don’t know they are carrying a firearm. How exactly does that work again? How is it possible for someone to be intimidated by another who is carrying a gun, when they have no knowledge that said person is in fact carrying?
Even worse is the argument that they will turn a heated classroom debate into a lethal gun battle. Can someone please give an example of somewhere when this has actually happened? Anywhere? Ever? Just like the “blood in the streets” and “Dodge City all over again” arguments, these fallacies only occur in the fertile minds of the anti-gun Left, which are far removed from most realities or anything factual.
Given the current state of academia, he might have a point about chilling free speech - although, today’s campuses aren’t exactly bastions of free thought for anyone right of center. If today’s university students need to run to their safe spaces to cuddle with their blankies because someone muttered the President’s name, then the thought of another student carrying a gun would probably require them to purchase diapers.
So long and good riddance Professor Snowflake. Don’t let the door hit you in the backside on the way out. Maybe next time around, KU can hire someone who is a conservative, which would be the most diverse thing any university could do these days.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member