Every Thursday night I played at a bar called Jefferson Place in Tupelo, Mississippi. On the way home, I had to pass by the very spot on Highway 45 where Jon and Tiffany had been murdered. I usually passed by the murder site between one and two in the morning. I started having nightmares about the killings. And I started to think about guns in a different way.
A good friend of mine by the name of David Lee Odom, who also owned one of the bars I used to play in, invited me to go shooting with him just a few weeks after the murders. David had just purchased a .44 magnum and was looking to sell a .357 magnum. So we went out to the local gun club one Saturday afternoon and fired off a couple hundred rounds.
After just one day at the shooting range, I agreed to buy his gun—a Smith and Wesson Model 19 revolver—for $250. I tucked it under my seat every time I took a road trip in my old Toyota truck. I knew that if the truck ever broke down I would not have to worry about being caught unarmed by an armed criminal, the way that Jon and Tiffany had been. The playing field would be leveled by my two new friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
Although I bought that first handgun in 1993, I did not get around to applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) until 1997. By that time, I had moved to North Carolina to teach criminology at UNC-Wilmington. My decision to acquire the concealed carry permit was prompted by a drug trafficking problem in the neighborhood where I bought my first house. There were crack dealers living just a few doors away, and I wanted to be armed on those occasions when I would walk from my house to downtown Wilmington—especially when I had to go to the ATM and walk back to my house with a wallet full of cash.
Upon hearing that I had obtained a CCW, one of my colleagues—a criminology professor—made an interesting comment. He said that the research indicating that CCWs actually reduce violent crime was “unsettling” to him. The remark is certainly an odd one for a criminologist to make. Why would anyone, particularly anyone who had devoted his professional life to acquiring expertise on crime prevention, be bothered by the results of research suggesting that a public policy was actually achieving its goal of reducing crime?
The answer, of course, is that reducing crime is not the chief concern of many criminology professors—or of professors in general in the so-called social sciences, even though crime is one of our most serious social problems. They are often more interested in having their own preconceived notions confirmed. Such bias does not advance knowledge. If fact, it only impedes it. It is one reason why our universities have become ideological echo chambers.
Of course, nothing other than a wildly naïve worldview could explain the profound bias against guns so often expressed by liberal academicians. They don’t like guns for the simple reason that guns—like prisons and military bases—are reminders of human imperfection. If one simply relinquishes one’s naivety concerning human nature, it is easy to see how easing gun restrictions can reduce crime. In fact, the logic behind CCW laws meshes perfectly with our previous discussions of routine activities theory.
The motivated robber is always looking for a suitable target. So he is always aware of the nonverbal cues communicated by potentially vulnerable targets. (If such cues were impossible to detect, or unimportant, our U.S. Air Marshals would not spend so much time training agents to identify potential hijackers by examining nonverbal signals.)
The individual who is carrying some sort of weapon also carries himself differently from someone who is unarmed. The average citizen is not as nervous when he is carrying a weapon—even if he is walking alone somewhere in the dead of night. He is, therefore, very unlikely to nervously avert his gaze from passersby. The motivated offender knows such a person is not a suitable target for a robbery.
I know this is true from personal experience. I have rarely been approached by panhandlers since I obtained a CCW permit. Of course, many people are uncomfortable carrying handguns. And that is fine because they also benefit from CCW laws. The reason is simple—capable guardianship.
In jurisdictions where concealed carry permits are easy to get, if someone should decide to rob the unarmed citizen, there is a good chance that a law-abiding witness to the robbery will be carrying a concealed weapon. Instead of being a mere witness, the armed citizen is a guardian capable of thwarting the robbery. Everyone benefits—except, of course, the motivated offender.
Since every law-abiding person benefits from CCWs, it is difficult to understand the opposition to them. Believe me; the opposition is often emphatic and emotionally charged. That was crystal clear during our last faculty meeting in the Sociology and Criminal Justice Department here at UNCW.
We were talking about emergency evacuation plans and what we should do in the event that a shooter decided to come into the building and embark on a shooting rampage. The conversation went on for about twenty minutes before someone asked what they should do if someone came into the classroom and found them (the professor and the students) while they were hiding underneath their desks. The answer—coming from someone who actually has a Ph.D.—was an instant classic: “Throw a book bag at him!”
I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry. If either Jon or Tiffany had a book bag on them that night, might they still be alive today? I don’t usually speak up at department meetings, but this time I asserted the obvious: “No school shooting in American history has ever targeted a criminal justice department”
I also gave the rather obvious reason: “This absence of shootings in criminal justice departments is explained by the fact that many criminal justice students are armed law enforcement officers finishing their degrees between shifts.”
Of course, any potential shooter knows that police officers major in criminal justice—and student police officers carry their service weapons to class. I summed up my brief statement with the following plea to end the pointless discussion:
“Since we—unlike other departments—have student police officers coming to class with guns, no shooter is going to target our building. We can talk about a shooting in this building all day long, but it just isn’t going to happen. There’s no need to practice throwing our book bags. Our armed law enforcement officers will protect us.”
This should have been comforting to my fellow professors, but it wasn’t. One of the women sitting across the room from me just buried her head in her hands and shook her head back and forth in disgust. The rest of the room fell silent. I could have told them I supported the legalization of incest and gotten a warmer reception. After the meeting, one of the professors walked up to me and said, “I hate guns. We just have a difference of opinion, Mike.” My response was measured:
“In reality, there is no difference of opinion between us. There have now been sixteen refereed academic studies demonstrating that CCW laws reduce violent crime. There has been none showing that these laws increase violent crime. When we allow CCW permit holders to carry their guns on campus, all the other buildings will be just as safe as ours.”
She was polite and listened to what I had to say. But after I finished she just looked at me and said, “I guess I’m not familiar with the research.” Then she walked away. But the truth of the matter is that my colleague will never familiarize herself with the research in this area—despite the fact that she teaches criminology. Instead, she will just continue to hold an opinion based on her professed hatred of guns. But it would be more accurate to say that her refusal to change her opinion is based more on the fear of ideas than the hatred of guns.
In January 2007, three months before the Virginia Tech shooting that killed nearly three dozen people, there was a proposal before the Virginia legislature to extend CCW laws to allow permit holders to carry their weapons on public college campuses. The proposed legislation did not pass.
Imagine how things might have been different if college professors in Virginia had been “familiar with the research” on CCW laws. Imagine how things might have been different if college professors in Virginia had been willing to lobby the legislature to ensure the
passage of a bill that, according to the research, could have been expected to reduce crime.
Imagine a world in which professors cared more about combating violence than reinforcing their pre-existing biases and broad assumptions in favor of the inherent goodness of man. Imagine no more ideologues. It’s easy if you try.
LETTER 21
Tolerance Presupposes a Moral Judgment
Zach,
Last week, I was standing at the podium getting ready to give a lecture when I noticed that a young woman had her laptop computer out. You know I don’t allow laptops in the classroom, so I was especially amused when I noticed that the outside of her computer was adorned with a bumper sticker that said “TOLERANCE” in big white letters. Ignoring her plea, I demanded that she put her computer away during the lecture. I simply don’t “tolerate” students who pretend to take notes on their laptops while they are, in fact, surfing the web and posting on Facebook.
But I do seriously wonder whether she—or any other student promoting tolerance—really understands what the words means. It is unlikely that she does, given the fact that most of her professors do not understand what it means either. Even professors sometimes mindlessly repeat words they don’t understand. “Tolerance” and “diversity” are arguably among the most often repeated and least understood words in higher education today.
To illustrate my point, I am forwarding an email I received from a colleague announcing the showing of a pro-homosexual film at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Inter-sexed, and Allied Center at UNC-Wilmington:Gentle folks-
I know that I’m “taking a chance” forwarding this to you all. I know that some are intolerant, unaccepting and “not comfortable” with “the gay lifestyle.” But someone has to have some huevos around here and that would be me.
Jimmy Wheeler had hopes and dreams. He was a gifted poet and painter and had a loving family who supported and cared for him. But for Jimmy Wheeler, growing up gay in rural Pennsylvania was too much to take. He was abused regularly at school. He was called awful names. In 1997, alone in a cold room, Jimmy Wheeler took his own life. “Jim in Bold tells the story of young James Wheeler and tells the stories of gay youth in this country, from the tragic impact of hatred to the triumphant resilience of youth” said Equality Forum’s Executive Director Malcolm Lazin.
The first and most amusing thing you probably noticed about this email is that its author congratulates himself on the courage he exhibited in sending it. His bravery in this instance is debatable since I am the only conservative Republican on the list of professors to whom it was sent. The other two dozen professors in my department are either independents or registered Democrats. Several are Marxists, and almost all of them are staunch supporters of the “gay rights” movement. So sending this email to the department is about as courageous as sending a racist email to a bunch of Klansmen.
This professor’s email was the third I had received promoting this “coming out” film. When I received the first notice (from the LGBTQIA Center), I simply deleted it without comment. When I received the second notice (from my department chairman), I again deleted it without comment. Next, my colleague sent the alert out a third time with a judgmental statement that not only applauded his personal courage but characterized those who disagree with him as “intolerant” and “unaccepting.” At that point, I decided to write about it.
Obviously, the professor who wrote this email is not willing to tolerate intolerance. Nor is he willing to accept un-acceptance.
The point that my colleague lacks tolerance—at least for those of us who subscribe to the Judeo-Christian worldview—is too obvious. In fact, he is so intolerant and unaccepting of those he considers intolerant and unaccepting that he must underline the words “intolerant” and “unaccepting.”
What is less obvious is that he also lacks tolerance toward homosexuals.
In order to tolerate something you must first disapprove of it. Since my colleague approves of homosexual conduct, he cannot simultaneously tolerate it. Let me illustrate with a couple of examples.
• I approved of the recent killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Navy Seals. Therefore, it is not possible for me to “tolerate” their actions as an unfortunate necessity of war.
• I approved of the decision of Springfield Armory to send me a free personally engraved .45 semi-automatic handgun. Therefore, it was not possible for me to “tolerate” their benevolence.
The problem with professors like my colleague is twofold: 1) they often use words that they do not understand and 2) they often claim to be morally superior to others on the grounds that they do not believe they are morally superior to others.
The profound illogic of diversity moralists like this professor can be annoying at times. But as the lone conservative Christian in the department, it’s just something I’ve learned to tolerate. After all, maybe they didn’t choose to be sanctimonious hypocrites. Maybe they were born that way.
LETTER 22
Fox and Foes
Zach,
Speaking of things progressives won’t tolerate, I want to discuss Fox News. Let me tell you about a conversation I once had with a parent I ran into in the cigar shop. He was riled up about an assignment his freshman daughter had been given on the topic of global warming. The assignment was for credit in an environmental science class.
For the assignment, she was allowed to use cable news sources and Internet sources. The only restriction was that she could not use Fox News as a source. The parent was angry because he is a conservative and likes to watch Fox News. I agree with the parent on this issue. In fact, I see two problems with this assignment.
First, there is the problem of using cable news and Internet sources for college research assignments. I would generally not allow either one to count as a legitimate research source for a student seeking college credit. I want students to use books and journal articles as references.
Second, there is the issue of banning Fox News—and only Fox News—as a source for the paper. This move was predicated on the notion that Fox, despite its claims to be “fair and balanced,” really is a biased, unfair, and imbalanced news source. This belief, which most professors seem to hold, is so confusing that it will take a little time to untangle. Please, be patient.
If one is interested in seeing a biased, unfair, and imbalanced news source, then one need not get cable or satellite television. One need only turn on the regular evening news. It does not matter whether one is talking about ABC, CBS, or NBC, nor does it matter what topic one is talking about. Let’s use the topic of abortion as an example.
Whenever a major news network like CBS runs a segment on a women’s issue, such as abortion, they interview an expert. (Note: They see abortion as a women’s issue. I see it as a human rights issue). The expert, however, is always a representative from the National Organization for Women (NOW) or a similarly pro-choice group. It is never a representative from a conservative group like Concerned Women for America or Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum.
Of course, because the selected expert always takes the liberal position—the pro-abortion position, in this case-there is no fair opportunity for the other side to present its view. Nor is there a balanced presentation of the issue, since only one side is presented. This is an example of biased reporting since the network is liberal and the one side they present is also liberal.
In other words, CBS is unfair, imbalanced, and biased. That’s why I rarely watch them any more.
My experience with Fox News has been much different. I was first involved in a nationally publicized free speech controversy in 2001. That controversy revolved around an accusation of libel that a socialist student leveled against me. After she tried to demand that the university read some of my private emails, I was invited to appear on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes. They invited my accuser, too, but she declined to appear on the show.
Then, in 2003, I wrote a controversial satire on affirmative action. I was invited to appear
on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss my position. Bill invited someone on the other side of the issue to appear on the show as well. That person declined, and I made my appearance on the show without opposition.
In 2005, I got into a bit of a tiff with an anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying professor. We were invited to appear together on Fox News Live with Martha MacCallum. I showed up, but the anti-Semite did not.
In 2007, I linked a Kent State University history professor to a violent Islamic Jihadist website. I specifically accused him of treason for aiding and actively encouraging the killing of American troops (and for disseminating bomb-making instructions on the Internet). We were both invited to appear on Fox News Live with Megyn Kelly. I showed up, but the professor did not.
You are no doubt seeing a pattern here. Fox News may be biased, but the apparent imbalance is often created by leftists who refuse to debate the issues on Fox. In fact, one Marxist actually mocked Fox publicly about their claim to be “fair and balanced”—after declining to debate me on Fox News. To me, that sounds like killing both your parents and then asking the judge to show you mercy because you’re an orphan.
As for the decision to ban Fox as a resource for that environment science class assignment because of its “bias,” only this needs to be said: the professor sees the speck that is in his brother’s eye yet is blind to the log in his own.
But what is to be said about the rest of the Fox News-haters, Zach? Is it accurate to say that professors with leftist politics hate Fox News despite its desire to promote debate on controversial issues? Or is it more accurate to say that these professors hate Fox News because of its desire to promote debate on controversial issues?
Regardless of how you answer that question, I hope we can agree on one thing: most people who teach at secular universities have no business lecturing others on the issue of ideological diversity.
Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand Page 9
