wtncffts

The first point doesn't seem to me to be an argument for guns on campus per se. The answer to your worry about campus police is to recruit and train better people, not allow everyone to carry guns. As an aside, I don't share your low opinion of campus security personnel, though I know the quality probably varies considerably. But there's a fundamental assumption, it seems to me, in your comments, which is that someone has to be armed, the question is who. I don't accept that, and I don't accept the inevitability of the presence of guns. I will acknowledge that, being Canadian and only having gone to schools here, it's hard for me to judge whether the deep-rooted gun culture, constitutional entrenchment, and pervasiveness of firearms in parts of the US is such that my strong preference for working towards a gun-free society rather than accepting and even encouraging firearm ownership and use is naive. Perhaps. In any case, I'm more certain that the whole 'guns on campus' issue, as it's played out, is utterly political, whatever the apparent legitimate concerns; conservatives use it as a 'red meat' issue to appeal to their base.




Why? I don't see this. Campuses are institutional property, and surely institutions, especially those with a unique role in society as universities have, have the right to make whatever rules are necessary to provide public safety. Universities have a responsibility for what goes on within their grounds. Do you also think it's pointless to ban firearms on airplanes? How about in government buildings (courthouses, legislatures, etc.)? Now, if you just meant that it's a lot harder logistically to prevent firearms from being carried into campus than onto a plane, I agree that it is. That's not an argument that we shouldn't try. But I thought the thrust of your point was that because some jurisdiction has lax firearm regulation in general, that that laxness might as well be applied to all the subunits in that jurisdiction. I don't think that makes sense. You may as well argue, in the extreme case, that I don't have the right to prevent someone from carrying a firearm into my house.

There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me.



Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.




Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.



Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.


OK, I guess I want to go back to my initial post, when I said that, being Canadian (though, obviously, I'm not speaking for all of us), I might simply not be in a position to understand arguments in favour of guns in general, or guns on campus. To me, it's abundantly obvious that carrying a gun is not a 'peaceful action'. In individual cases, it might be, in the sense that a particular person has no intention whatsoever of using the gun in a malevolent fashion. Again, though, big picture: in my opinion, a general allowance of an individual's right to carry guns on campus will tend to create a less safe, less secure, more dangerous community. I also think, though it's unstated, that there is a disagreement here about the nature of campuses themselves. The argument that, since carrying a gun is a general right most everywhere else in society, that a campus is no different: it's just another place. I simply don't agree. Perhaps I have an altogether too reverent and idealistic view, I don't know, but to me a university campus serves a unique role in our society, akin to churches or courthouses. They are places of learning, and should be as free as possible to create and cultivate a community which is safe, welcoming, and isolated from the ordinary patterns of the rest of society. There's a reason it's called the 'ivory tower'. As such, they should have every means at their disposal to achieve those ends. To me, an armed campus is the very antithesis of this ideal, but I certainly understand that others simply don't see it that way.

To the last point, I certainly also appreciate her (?), and others, thoughtful, well-argued posts; in a lesser forum, the discussion would have degenerated significantly by now.

It's also interesting to me as an observer to see where the debate is in the US (albeit with a tiny, tiny sample size). Both you and starmaker describe yourselves as liberals, yet you seem basically accepting of the place of guns in society. In that, I think you pretty much reflect the state of the Democratic Party, which seems to have decided that the gun issue is simply not worth the trouble. After the Tucson incident, for example, there was a golden opportunity for the party to rally behind stricter gun control, yet the right seems to have 'won' the message war, resulting in part in the newly found enthusiasm for things like guns on campus. I'm not passing judgment, and I know that you've come to your positions sincerely and not for political-strategical reasons; as I say, just a point of interest.

Again, as an outsider, I'm not familiar with the licensing systems in the various jurisdictions in the US. I will concede that you may very well be right, that with a rigorous vetting procedure only those people who are highly unlikely future criminals will have access to guns. I'm also positive, though, that many states don't have particularly rigorous procedures. There's also the plain fact that guns can be stolen, misplaced, etc. As well, and this is where, funnily enough, I completely see the NRA's point, it seems to me that you're treading on dangerous ground if you restrict gun ownership through more or less rigorous checks. If it's truly a fundamental constitutional right, guaranteed to all citizens through the second and fourteenth amendments (see recent case McDonald v. Chicago), it's difficult to sustain a regime which chooses among citizens in terms of that right, and which chills the exercise of that right. You can't have laws which restrict freedom of speech only to those who, through some rigorous government vetting, are found to have something of value to contribute.

As for the 'snapping', I didn't necessarily mean a mass murderer with deep psychological problems. There were 15,000 or so murders in the US in 2009. How many were of the mass variety? How many were organized crime related? The vast majority of murders are relatively humdrum affairs, carried out by murderers who are just like you or me, who find themselves in situations where they just decide killing another person is what they have to do. Obviously, guns don't have everything to do with this, but I still maintain that the widespread availability and access to guns, especially handguns, contribute to increasing the likelihood of violent intentions becoming murder statistics.



Great post. I certainly understand where you're coming from. And, to repeat, my personal experience may simply render me unable to relate deeply with many of your points. And, again, I know the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed, which makes a significant difference to the discussion. But from my point of view, I simply don't see gun ownership as a particularly important or fundamental right of personal liberty, bearing in mind what I just said about it being in the constitution. I don't think, abstracting from the US case for a second, that the right to bear arms is self-evidently obvious. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a part of any UN declarations on rights, and it certainly isn't a guaranteed right in many, if not most, other developed democratic countries. I don't feel an iota of loss of personal liberty because of the very strict gun control regime up here. To me, it's pretty clear that guns are not simply 'another possession' like combs or toothbrushes. You wouldn't have the whole debate around them if they were. Especially in terms of handguns, their only purpose is as deadly weapons. Should individuals have the freedom to carry deadly weapons around? Maybe or maybe not, but it's not an easy answer.

In any case, I'm dubious about whether gun ownership as a personal liberty, if it exists, trumps other kinds of personal liberty. It's at least arguable that an individual's liberty to live free from fear, in a safe and peaceful society, should take precedence over an individual's negative liberty of gun ownership. I certainly think that even were gun ownership a fundamental personal liberty (which, as above, I doubt), it's a more serious infringement on my liberty to compel me to live, work, study, etc., in an armed environment.

Now, of course, some of you have made the argument that the way to a safe and peaceful society is precisely through widespread gun ownership. That's something I cannot buy, but I don't think I can change anyone's mind. Were I to ask the question "If you were designing a society from the ground up, tabula rasa, would you constitutionally guarantee the right to bear arms", to me, the answer's obviously no, for others the answer's obviously yes. There are utterly different paradigms here, borne from differing experiences. The latter simply accepts that guns will inevitably be pervasive, and so citizens should have every right to arm themselves, and/or that it's a fundamental right regardless. I simply do not accept either premise: guns are not inevitable, and gun ownership is not a fundamental personal liberty. But I doubt I could convince anyone in the latter camp.

Yes, that's right. I originally had that point in as well, but erased it for some reason. My point is that both rationales are outdated. If you're expecting that you would need to defend yourself against the government by armed force, I'm guessing you're either holed up in an underground bunker in Idaho or a cult leader (not you personally). That doesn't negate the right, obviously, but to my mind it surely undermines the basic purpose of its continued existence.



I'm not talking about owing Iran and North Korea rights. I'm talking about state sovereignty, which has been the basis for our international system since at least 1648. In a sense, then, we do enter a compact with other states, in which we mutually recognize the exclusive authority of states over its people. Of course, there are many complicating factors which muddle the pristine picture of state sovereignty, but my basic point was that arms control in the international system is similar, in principle, to gun control nationally. Now, you seem to have a view which is not, I don't think, shared by many, conservatives or liberals, viz. that other states should be perfectly free to develop nuclear weapons as long as we have a missile defense system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it certainly is out of the mainstream.

As to your points about the social compact, I'm not sure what you mean. Presumably, in a democratic society, the will of the majority is expressed precisely by the "members of the governing party". I never said anything about minorities taking away guaranteed rights without majority support. As I said, I fully recognize that the right to bear arms is a guaranteed constitutional right in the US. You have a right to bear arms, but as with other constitutional rights, it needn't be absolute. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't use 'fighting words', you can't libel or slander. Similarly, you can't bring a gun onto an airplane, and, in my opinion, you can't bring a gun onto a university campus.

As I didn't say in my previous reply, just because something is a right doesn't mean that should be the end of the discussion (this is the idea of 'rights as trumps'). There can be other considerations which should temper the expression of rights, though from what you've argued I doubt you'd accept them: the well-being of the community, respect and tolerance of others, moral and ethical standards. This is an idea underlying what is sometimes called 'communitarianism', and though I hesitate to fall under labels, I do think about many social issues in these terms: abortion, hate speech, guns. In at least these areas, and probably others, I think individual 'rights' which may or may not be constitutionally guaranteed should in any case be tempered by such considerations as the above. Now, I fully understand that we live in a liberal (in the classical sense) democratic society in which individual rights are held as sacrosanct; that doesn't mean I accept all its implications. Rights are wonderful things, but when they're used as shields against others, as supervening over every other possible justification for action and legislation, they become corrosive.

This is, by the way, getting way too into things...



What's 'absurd' to you is the de facto case in most other Western countries. Once again, I have to state my inability to understand the concept of 'law abiding citizen'. What was the kid at Virginia Tech? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What was Jared Lee Loughner? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What of the countless others who are ordinary people like you or me, who just snap? To reiterate, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' don't wear different clothes. Their driver's licences don't indicate their status. So, there are two options. You have either a universal right to carry guns, in which case some people who will, for whatever reason, have violent intent, have ready access to deadly weapons, or a restriction or outright ban on such weapons, where the violent intent is there but the deadly means aren't so readily available, or are extremely difficult to procure. Now, I've acknowledged a few times that the US is where it is, in terms of the constitutional guarantees, abundance of guns, and pervasiveness of gun culture, and so what I'm arguing may simply not be possible. Fine. That doesn't mean steps can't be taken, and I think preventing guns from being on a university campus, if that's what the university community decides, is not an extraordinary restriction of the constitutional right.



Carrying a gun is not a peaceful action. That has nothing to do with whether individuals who carry guns are peaceful or not. They may be peaceful, but in a dangerous situation, do unpeaceful things. I was talking about some particular individual who truly has no intention of using the gun (though, obviously, this is patently contradictory to the purpose of carrying it in the first place, since were the circumstances to require it, the whole point of carrying the gun is to use it). Public policy isn't individualized, though. It asks: would it further our purposes to allow every and all individuals to carry guns on campus? We can't look into every individual mind and say, okay, peaceful, peaceful, not peaceful, etc., and allocate rights accordingly. Instead, we ask, what are the possible outcomes of alternative policies, and what are their likelihoods of occurring, and we choose as best we can.

I don't see your point about opinions. Of course we can all have opinions. Opinions are words, thoughts, pictures, etc., which express one's views about something. A tangible object like a gun is not an opinion. And when threatening or harming occurs, I sure as heck would want it to be with an opinion and not a gun. It's also absurd to suggest that guns are simply "personal belongings" like combs or toothbrushes. None of us, in 2011, have to hunt for food to survive. It's not 1885. Again, I may be expressing my naivety, but it's clear to me that guns, in this context, have only one purpose: to kill or otherwise harm another person. They are deadly weapons. I guess this simply comes down to differing levels of comfort with being in environments in which deadly weapons are a fact of life.

There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me.



Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.




Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.



Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.


OK, I guess I want to go back to my initial post, when I said that, being Canadian (though, obviously, I'm not speaking for all of us), I might simply not be in a position to understand arguments in favour of guns in general, or guns on campus. To me, it's abundantly obvious that carrying a gun is not a 'peaceful action'. In individual cases, it might be, in the sense that a particular person has no intention whatsoever of using the gun in a malevolent fashion. Again, though, big picture: in my opinion, a general allowance of an individual's right to carry guns on campus will tend to create a less safe, less secure, more dangerous community. I also think, though it's unstated, that there is a disagreement here about the nature of campuses themselves. The argument that, since carrying a gun is a general right most everywhere else in society, that a campus is no different: it's just another place. I simply don't agree. Perhaps I have an altogether too reverent and idealistic view, I don't know, but to me a university campus serves a unique role in our society, akin to churches or courthouses. They are places of learning, and should be as free as possible to create and cultivate a community which is safe, welcoming, and isolated from the ordinary patterns of the rest of society. There's a reason it's called the 'ivory tower'. As such, they should have every means at their disposal to achieve those ends. To me, an armed campus is the very antithesis of this ideal, but I certainly understand that others simply don't see it that way.

The first point doesn't seem to me to be an argument for guns on campus per se. The answer to your worry about campus police is to recruit and train better people, not allow everyone to carry guns. As an aside, I don't share your low opinion of campus security personnel, though I know the quality probably varies considerably. But there's a fundamental assumption, it seems to me, in your comments, which is that someone has to be armed, the question is who. I don't accept that, and I don't accept the inevitability of the presence of guns. I will acknowledge that, being Canadian and only having gone to schools here, it's hard for me to judge whether the deep-rooted gun culture, constitutional entrenchment, and pervasiveness of firearms in parts of the US is such that my strong preference for working towards a gun-free society rather than accepting and even encouraging firearm ownership and use is naive. Perhaps. In any case, I'm more certain that the whole 'guns on campus' issue, as it's played out, is utterly political, whatever the apparent legitimate concerns; conservatives use it as a 'red meat' issue to appeal to their base.




Why? I don't see this. Campuses are institutional property, and surely institutions, especially those with a unique role in society as universities have, have the right to make whatever rules are necessary to provide public safety. Universities have a responsibility for what goes on within their grounds. Do you also think it's pointless to ban firearms on airplanes? How about in government buildings (courthouses, legislatures, etc.)? Now, if you just meant that it's a lot harder logistically to prevent firearms from being carried into campus than onto a plane, I agree that it is. That's not an argument that we shouldn't try. But I thought the thrust of your point was that because some jurisdiction has lax firearm regulation in general, that that laxness might as well be applied to all the subunits in that jurisdiction. I don't think that makes sense. You may as well argue, in the extreme case, that I don't have the right to prevent someone from carrying a firearm into my house.

Yes, that's right. I originally had that point in as well, but erased it for some reason. My point is that both rationales are outdated. If you're expecting that you would need to defend yourself against the government by armed force, I'm guessing you're either holed up in an underground bunker in Idaho or a cult leader (not you personally). That doesn't negate the right, obviously, but to my mind it surely undermines the basic purpose of its continued existence.



I'm not talking about owing Iran and North Korea rights. I'm talking about state sovereignty, which has been the basis for our international system since at least 1648. In a sense, then, we do enter a compact with other states, in which we mutually recognize the exclusive authority of states over its people. Of course, there are many complicating factors which muddle the pristine picture of state sovereignty, but my basic point was that arms control in the international system is similar, in principle, to gun control nationally. Now, you seem to have a view which is not, I don't think, shared by many, conservatives or liberals, viz. that other states should be perfectly free to develop nuclear weapons as long as we have a missile defense system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it certainly is out of the mainstream.

As to your points about the social compact, I'm not sure what you mean. Presumably, in a democratic society, the will of the majority is expressed precisely by the "members of the governing party". I never said anything about minorities taking away guaranteed rights without majority support. As I said, I fully recognize that the right to bear arms is a guaranteed constitutional right in the US. You have a right to bear arms, but as with other constitutional rights, it needn't be absolute. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't use 'fighting words', you can't libel or slander. Similarly, you can't bring a gun onto an airplane, and, in my opinion, you can't bring a gun onto a university campus.

As I didn't say in my previous reply, just because something is a right doesn't mean that should be the end of the discussion (this is the idea of 'rights as trumps'). There can be other considerations which should temper the expression of rights, though from what you've argued I doubt you'd accept them: the well-being of the community, respect and tolerance of others, moral and ethical standards. This is an idea underlying what is sometimes called 'communitarianism', and though I hesitate to fall under labels, I do think about many social issues in these terms: abortion, hate speech, guns. In at least these areas, and probably others, I think individual 'rights' which may or may not be constitutionally guaranteed should in any case be tempered by such considerations as the above. Now, I fully understand that we live in a liberal (in the classical sense) democratic society in which individual rights are held as sacrosanct; that doesn't mean I accept all its implications. Rights are wonderful things, but when they're used as shields against others, as supervening over every other possible justification for action and legislation, they become corrosive.

This is, by the way, getting way too into things...



What's 'absurd' to you is the de facto case in most other Western countries. Once again, I have to state my inability to understand the concept of 'law abiding citizen'. What was the kid at Virginia Tech? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What was Jared Lee Loughner? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What of the countless others who are ordinary people like you or me, who just snap? To reiterate, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' don't wear different clothes. Their driver's licences don't indicate their status. So, there are two options. You have either a universal right to carry guns, in which case some people who will, for whatever reason, have violent intent, have ready access to deadly weapons, or a restriction or outright ban on such weapons, where the violent intent is there but the deadly means aren't so readily available, or are extremely difficult to procure. Now, I've acknowledged a few times that the US is where it is, in terms of the constitutional guarantees, abundance of guns, and pervasiveness of gun culture, and so what I'm arguing may simply not be possible. Fine. That doesn't mean steps can't be taken, and I think preventing guns from being on a university campus, if that's what the university community decides, is not an extraordinary restriction of the constitutional right.



Carrying a gun is not a peaceful action. That has nothing to do with whether individuals who carry guns are peaceful or not. They may be peaceful, but in a dangerous situation, do unpeaceful things. I was talking about some particular individual who truly has no intention of using the gun (though, obviously, this is patently contradictory to the purpose of carrying it in the first place, since were the circumstances to require it, the whole point of carrying the gun is to use it). Public policy isn't individualized, though. It asks: would it further our purposes to allow every and all individuals to carry guns on campus? We can't look into every individual mind and say, okay, peaceful, peaceful, not peaceful, etc., and allocate rights accordingly. Instead, we ask, what are the possible outcomes of alternative policies, and what are their likelihoods of occurring, and we choose as best we can.

I don't see your point about opinions. Of course we can all have opinions. Opinions are words, thoughts, pictures, etc., which express one's views about something. A tangible object like a gun is not an opinion. And when threatening or harming occurs, I sure as heck would want it to be with an opinion and not a gun. It's also absurd to suggest that guns are simply "personal belongings" like combs or toothbrushes. None of us, in 2011, have to hunt for food to survive. It's not 1885. Again, I may be expressing my naivety, but it's clear to me that guns, in this context, have only one purpose: to kill or otherwise harm another person. They are deadly weapons. I guess this simply comes down to differing levels of comfort with being in environments in which deadly weapons are a fact of life.

There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me.



Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.




Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.



Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.


OK, I guess I want to go back to my initial post, when I said that, being Canadian (though, obviously, I'm not speaking for all of us), I might simply not be in a position to understand arguments in favour of guns in general, or guns on campus. To me, it's abundantly obvious that carrying a gun is not a 'peaceful action'. In individual cases, it might be, in the sense that a particular person has no intention whatsoever of using the gun in a malevolent fashion. Again, though, big picture: in my opinion, a general allowance of an individual's right to carry guns on campus will tend to create a less safe, less secure, more dangerous community. I also think, though it's unstated, that there is a disagreement here about the nature of campuses themselves. The argument that, since carrying a gun is a general right most everywhere else in society, that a campus is no different: it's just another place. I simply don't agree. Perhaps I have an altogether too reverent and idealistic view, I don't know, but to me a university campus serves a unique role in our society, akin to churches or courthouses. They are places of learning, and should be as free as possible to create and cultivate a community which is safe, welcoming, and isolated from the ordinary patterns of the rest of society. There's a reason it's called the 'ivory tower'. As such, they should have every means at their disposal to achieve those ends. To me, an armed campus is the very antithesis of this ideal, but I certainly understand that others simply don't see it that way.

The first point doesn't seem to me to be an argument for guns on campus per se. The answer to your worry about campus police is to recruit and train better people, not allow everyone to carry guns. As an aside, I don't share your low opinion of campus security personnel, though I know the quality probably varies considerably. But there's a fundamental assumption, it seems to me, in your comments, which is that someone has to be armed, the question is who. I don't accept that, and I don't accept the inevitability of the presence of guns. I will acknowledge that, being Canadian and only having gone to schools here, it's hard for me to judge whether the deep-rooted gun culture, constitutional entrenchment, and pervasiveness of firearms in parts of the US is such that my strong preference for working towards a gun-free society rather than accepting and even encouraging firearm ownership and use is naive. Perhaps. In any case, I'm more certain that the whole 'guns on campus' issue, as it's played out, is utterly political, whatever the apparent legitimate concerns; conservatives use it as a 'red meat' issue to appeal to their base.




Why? I don't see this. Campuses are institutional property, and surely institutions, especially those with a unique role in society as universities have, have the right to make whatever rules are necessary to provide public safety. Universities have a responsibility for what goes on within their grounds. Do you also think it's pointless to ban firearms on airplanes? How about in government buildings (courthouses, legislatures, etc.)? Now, if you just meant that it's a lot harder logistically to prevent firearms from being carried into campus than onto a plane, I agree that it is. That's not an argument that we shouldn't try. But I thought the thrust of your point was that because some jurisdiction has lax firearm regulation in general, that that laxness might as well be applied to all the subunits in that jurisdiction. I don't think that makes sense. You may as well argue, in the extreme case, that I don't have the right to prevent someone from carrying a firearm into my house.

The above replies are good advice, but with due respect, I'm not sure they apply directly to the question. They seem to be directed more at being a full-fledged instructor or starting prof, whereas the OP will be a TA. In the first instance, I doubt this will involve lecturing, unless my experiences as a TA were completely out of the ordinary. As the OP says, she will be leading 'recitation sections', which I assume means discussion sections. The very pedagogical point of these are to allow the students to actively engage with the material, something which they can't do in the larger lecture section. Yes, obviously TAs need to be prepared. I had summaries of the readings and some major points I wanted to get across, but it's the students' opportunity to show they've done the work and engage with it and each other, not an opportunity for the TA to give a lecture. I talked perhaps five minutes at the beginning, and would of course intervene when discussion strayed to make sure we covered the main points, but otherwise allowed students as much opportunity as possible to have their say.

As for positive advice, I'd say just the fact of your being a grad student rather than an undergrad will help. I think in general people will tend not to respect authority when that authority is, by some measure, 'equal' to them. I don't know if it's true in your situation, but these may have been fellow undergrads whom you've taken classes with, are friends with, etc. That fact alone will tend to diminish your ability to project authority over them. You need to be friendly, that is, genial and generally sympathetic, without being 'overfriendly'. I'd say the latter includes not getting involved in their personal lives, limiting your conversations with them to academic matters and pleasantries. I know some TAs who have become much more involved than this, but I wouldn't recommend it. If there's an attendance/participation component to the course grade, it doesn't hurt to remind them of this occasionally, if you're having trouble getting them to do work. I've been lucky with that; I TAed at a great school where the students were almost all engaged and, at least, not disruptive. In terms of the first few sessions, you need to make your expectations for behaviour and work crystal clear, verbally if not in writing. And yes, what you wear will help; dress may seem like a superficial thing, but I think people's impressions of others are formed in significant part by what they look like, especially what they wear. Dressing professionally or at least not casually will communicate to your students that you care and are serious about your job and your discipline, and that you think the section aspect of the course is important. Dressing casually leaves the opposite impression, whether it's warranted or not.

That's a good, albeit extreme, example of my concerns about guns on campus. Now, obviously, that's a situation where, in one of the discussant's terms, it went from a 'peaceful action' to not, but I can think of several hypothetical examples where there can be subtle intimidation and threats without any overt action. A student, say, brings a gun to campus and puts it in front of him on the desk. Or comes to a prof's office and makes it clear that he's carrying, but not in any explicit manner. Speaking personally, a policy of allowing guns on campus would be a huge obstacle to me as a potential faculty member or grad student, and I imagine it would be for many others. I certainly would not be comfortable as a TA or lecturer in that kind of environment. Now, this thread shows plainly that for many it wouldn't be a problem, but I think the potential effects on hiring/recruiting would at least be among the considerations a university would look at.

As for the discussion, I've said pretty much all I wanted to say, and I really ought not to spend so much time on lengthy replies when I should be doing more 'productive' things This has made me think about the issue a lot more than I have, though, to the point where I've got into a book on the public policy and politics of gun control (specifically, this one), and I may bring some of those points in. But hopefully others will continue the excellent discussion we've been having.

Yeah, I'd think and hope that academic freedom, and free speech in general, would prevent any negative legal or academic consequences simply because you express an opinion. However, I don't think there would be anything improper, necessarily, in a potential employer or colleague, having seen the videos, thinking more or less of you because of the reasoning and manner of argument therein. If you're confident that you're coming across as an intelligent, reasonable person, and would and could stand behind your comments in person, you should be fine.

The first point doesn't seem to me to be an argument for guns on campus per se. The answer to your worry about campus police is to recruit and train better people, not allow everyone to carry guns. As an aside, I don't share your low opinion of campus security personnel, though I know the quality probably varies considerably. But there's a fundamental assumption, it seems to me, in your comments, which is that someone has to be armed, the question is who. I don't accept that, and I don't accept the inevitability of the presence of guns. I will acknowledge that, being Canadian and only having gone to schools here, it's hard for me to judge whether the deep-rooted gun culture, constitutional entrenchment, and pervasiveness of firearms in parts of the US is such that my strong preference for working towards a gun-free society rather than accepting and even encouraging firearm ownership and use is naive. Perhaps. In any case, I'm more certain that the whole 'guns on campus' issue, as it's played out, is utterly political, whatever the apparent legitimate concerns; conservatives use it as a 'red meat' issue to appeal to their base.




Why? I don't see this. Campuses are institutional property, and surely institutions, especially those with a unique role in society as universities have, have the right to make whatever rules are necessary to provide public safety. Universities have a responsibility for what goes on within their grounds. Do you also think it's pointless to ban firearms on airplanes? How about in government buildings (courthouses, legislatures, etc.)? Now, if you just meant that it's a lot harder logistically to prevent firearms from being carried into campus than onto a plane, I agree that it is. That's not an argument that we shouldn't try. But I thought the thrust of your point was that because some jurisdiction has lax firearm regulation in general, that that laxness might as well be applied to all the subunits in that jurisdiction. I don't think that makes sense. You may as well argue, in the extreme case, that I don't have the right to prevent someone from carrying a firearm into my house.

There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me.



Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.




Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.



Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.


OK, I guess I want to go back to my initial post, when I said that, being Canadian (though, obviously, I'm not speaking for all of us), I might simply not be in a position to understand arguments in favour of guns in general, or guns on campus. To me, it's abundantly obvious that carrying a gun is not a 'peaceful action'. In individual cases, it might be, in the sense that a particular person has no intention whatsoever of using the gun in a malevolent fashion. Again, though, big picture: in my opinion, a general allowance of an individual's right to carry guns on campus will tend to create a less safe, less secure, more dangerous community. I also think, though it's unstated, that there is a disagreement here about the nature of campuses themselves. The argument that, since carrying a gun is a general right most everywhere else in society, that a campus is no different: it's just another place. I simply don't agree. Perhaps I have an altogether too reverent and idealistic view, I don't know, but to me a university campus serves a unique role in our society, akin to churches or courthouses. They are places of learning, and should be as free as possible to create and cultivate a community which is safe, welcoming, and isolated from the ordinary patterns of the rest of society. There's a reason it's called the 'ivory tower'. As such, they should have every means at their disposal to achieve those ends. To me, an armed campus is the very antithesis of this ideal, but I certainly understand that others simply don't see it that way.

There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me.



Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.




Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.



Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.


OK, I guess I want to go back to my initial post, when I said that, being Canadian (though, obviously, I'm not speaking for all of us), I might simply not be in a position to understand arguments in favour of guns in general, or guns on campus. To me, it's abundantly obvious that carrying a gun is not a 'peaceful action'. In individual cases, it might be, in the sense that a particular person has no intention whatsoever of using the gun in a malevolent fashion. Again, though, big picture: in my opinion, a general allowance of an individual's right to carry guns on campus will tend to create a less safe, less secure, more dangerous community. I also think, though it's unstated, that there is a disagreement here about the nature of campuses themselves. The argument that, since carrying a gun is a general right most everywhere else in society, that a campus is no different: it's just another place. I simply don't agree. Perhaps I have an altogether too reverent and idealistic view, I don't know, but to me a university campus serves a unique role in our society, akin to churches or courthouses. They are places of learning, and should be as free as possible to create and cultivate a community which is safe, welcoming, and isolated from the ordinary patterns of the rest of society. There's a reason it's called the 'ivory tower'. As such, they should have every means at their disposal to achieve those ends. To me, an armed campus is the very antithesis of this ideal, but I certainly understand that others simply don't see it that way.

God, this makes me so sad and, frankly, a little frustrated. The whole "suicide will always be an available option" hits very close to home, but speaks to an already defeated mindset. I'm telling you, as long as you believe that, you'll never have the courage to change. It seems like you're just utterly defeated and unable to see anything beyond that, hoping for some sort of miracle which will take you away. And I have to say, have you considered any of the advice which has been given in this thread? It seems like it's all just passed you by.

I literally have no idea what you mean when you say you can't afford to leave home. I think I recall earlier in this thread you did have a job of some sort, so you must have some savings. Even if you don't, I'm sure you have enough resources to take a bus somewhere, anywhere. I'm also curious, as the above reply, to know whereabouts you live, because I can't imagine that there's anywhere in the US where you have absolutely no options. If that's indeed the case, you need to move to where the opportunities are, but you also need to be humble and willing to do hard things and live frugally. It seems to me that, despite the horrible psychological issues, you're fundamentally comfortable where you are and are unwilling to accept 'lower' standards of living.

I also don't understand the obsession with six figures. Why, exactly, do you need to make that much, and why is anything less a failure? A tenure track assistant professor's starting salary is in the 50 to 60,000 range. According to a quick check on wikipedia, the median salary for a FULL professor is $98,974. By you or your mother's standards, this is failure. Ridiculous.

Again, I have to reiterate my frustration and sadness that you're in such a place as to consider suicide an "always available option". I know how impossible it is for you to see beyond your own circumstances, to get beyond the psychological blocks. But everyone here has given good advice. It's up to you to act on it. Sometimes you just have to take that leap into the unknown.

The first point doesn't seem to me to be an argument for guns on campus per se. The answer to your worry about campus police is to recruit and train better people, not allow everyone to carry guns. As an aside, I don't share your low opinion of campus security personnel, though I know the quality probably varies considerably. But there's a fundamental assumption, it seems to me, in your comments, which is that someone has to be armed, the question is who. I don't accept that, and I don't accept the inevitability of the presence of guns. I will acknowledge that, being Canadian and only having gone to schools here, it's hard for me to judge whether the deep-rooted gun culture, constitutional entrenchment, and pervasiveness of firearms in parts of the US is such that my strong preference for working towards a gun-free society rather than accepting and even encouraging firearm ownership and use is naive. Perhaps. In any case, I'm more certain that the whole 'guns on campus' issue, as it's played out, is utterly political, whatever the apparent legitimate concerns; conservatives use it as a 'red meat' issue to appeal to their base.




Why? I don't see this. Campuses are institutional property, and surely institutions, especially those with a unique role in society as universities have, have the right to make whatever rules are necessary to provide public safety. Universities have a responsibility for what goes on within their grounds. Do you also think it's pointless to ban firearms on airplanes? How about in government buildings (courthouses, legislatures, etc.)? Now, if you just meant that it's a lot harder logistically to prevent firearms from being carried into campus than onto a plane, I agree that it is. That's not an argument that we shouldn't try. But I thought the thrust of your point was that because some jurisdiction has lax firearm regulation in general, that that laxness might as well be applied to all the subunits in that jurisdiction. I don't think that makes sense. You may as well argue, in the extreme case, that I don't have the right to prevent someone from carrying a firearm into my house.

This 'debate' is inherently political, so I'm not sure what you mean to start with. Not only is it political, it's confined to a particular political culture in places in the US where gun culture is strong. This is all about the second amendment nuts and the gun lobby; it has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. The proponents of such measures seem to have a misguided romantic notion that they're cowboys in training, for lack of a better phrase, such that if something horrible were to happen they would heroically draw their guns and take the baddie down, rather than the much more likely scenario of a gunfight with innocent casualties and escalated mayhem. There's also this inane notion that there are mutually exclusive categories of 'law-abiding citizens' and 'bad guys', and that we need to arm the former to take care of the latter. This is again, I think, something inherent in certain elements of American political culture, this sort of Manichaeanism. In reality, of course, 'bad guys' are law-abiding citizens until they're not, and allowing guns on campus essentially recognizes and explicitly approves their right to carry arms into public places with malevolent intentions.

I put debate in quotes above because I really think this isn't a case in which there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I'm open, however, to be proven wrong if someone here defends and supports such measures, though, to be honest, on a forum of highly intelligent people such as this, I'd be very surprised.

I don't want to speak for the US educational system for many reasons, not least of which is I'm Canadian and have never attended a US institution, but I think many of these points also apply to Canadian schools.

First, the GRE. From everything I've read, GRE scores aren't a very significant part of admissions decisions; used as a cut-off, perhaps, but not much more. Believe me, I'm the last person to defend the GREs use as a measure of anything meaningful, but to the more general point, if you're going to a US university you have to be expected to communicate in English at a roughly equal level with domestic students. That's just the way it is. I TAed at a school where many students had English as their second language,and while I admired their courage at trying to write and speak in their non-native tongue, I could not 'relax' standards of, say, proper syntax and semantics on papers. They chose to attend an English-speaking school, as you have.

Second, of course US schools don't know everything about every university around the world. I don't expect that they should, and they couldn't even if they tried. It works the other way around, too. There may well be, for example, a state university which has a great reputation but which a top school in, say, Germany, has never heard of because it isn't Harvard or Princeton or the like. It's only common sense that schools will know the most about other schools in their own countries, in the US as in everywhere else.

Third, the recommendation system. Again, I'd just say that that's the way it is. That's how US schools do things. They can't tailor their admissions processes for every particular international context.

I seem to be reiterating the same basic point, which is that it's only "unfair" if you expect US schools, or any other institutions, to account for every educational practice and make admissions uber-individually tailored. That's logistically impossible and I see no need for it. I understand that a lot of international students want to study in the US; I'm one of them. But I don't see the system as being "biased" or "unfair"; if it is, then I fully expect it to be. I understand that, given equal 'skills', I would likely have a lesser chance than a native German of getting into a German university, simply because they've been immersed in that particular educational system for much longer. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. International students make an intentional choice to 'subject' themselves to the American educational system. Noone forces them to.

OK, well that surprises me, but if that's what you've heard than perhaps there's some credibility to it. There's all sorts of potential problems with the comparison, though: they may have been slightly different courses with different foci, they may have been at different points in the work, the prof may just be more of a hardass. It doesn't compare to grad-level work, but when I took the intro calculus course during my undergrad, the particular prof I had it with had us doing much more difficult material than others taking supposedly the same course.

Again, I'd think it odd if higher ranked universities are more difficult as a general rule, since that would seem to play havoc with the general ideal of academia in terms of an academic community and sharing of information. I mean, if the only people who are taught this superadvanced material are those at Harvard and the like, how do they interact with other scientists who come from 'lower' ranked schools? It seems rather closed off. Now, it may be the case that 'higher' ranked schools have higher expectations of their grad students, and so pitch their courses at a higher level, but I'd think the difference between any of the top 50, even top 100, schools in terms of such expectations is negligible.

I don't see the problem here. I know you specifically say you're simply ranting, but from what you describe, this isn't your boss 'not letting you quit', it's you caving in to pressure. I don't see anything wrong with your boss's actions; I might do the same were I in that situation. Perhaps a little jerky, but not so much. You gave notice, she has every right to ask you to stay longer, you have every right to say no. That's up to you. Unless she's tying you to your desk, there's no coercion here.

I don't see the problem here. I know you specifically say you're simply ranting, but from what you describe, this isn't your boss 'not letting you quit', it's you caving in to pressure. I don't see anything wrong with your boss's actions; I might do the same were I in that situation. Perhaps a little jerky, but not so much. You gave notice, she has every right to ask you to stay longer, you have every right to say no. That's up to you. Unless she's tying you to your desk, there's no coercion here.

I wonder if the grade inflation issue is as acute here in Canada, because I had a 3.40 Master's GPA, with an A- as my best grade ( the rest were B+'s), and got in somewhere I'm very happy with. Granted, I got rejections from every US school I applied to, so perhaps it did hurt me there.

I don't see the problem here. I know you specifically say you're simply ranting, but from what you describe, this isn't your boss 'not letting you quit', it's you caving in to pressure. I don't see anything wrong with your boss's actions; I might do the same were I in that situation. Perhaps a little jerky, but not so much. You gave notice, she has every right to ask you to stay longer, you have every right to say no. That's up to you. Unless she's tying you to your desk, there's no coercion here.

I don't see the problem here. I know you specifically say you're simply ranting, but from what you describe, this isn't your boss 'not letting you quit', it's you caving in to pressure. I don't see anything wrong with your boss's actions; I might do the same were I in that situation. Perhaps a little jerky, but not so much. You gave notice, she has every right to ask you to stay longer, you have every right to say no. That's up to you. Unless she's tying you to your desk, there's no coercion here.