This is the dumbest anti-gun editorial I’ve ever read.

Significantly, it’s in the paper of a first-line ivy league university.

Harvard Crimson: No Guns on Campus, because students are stupid.

[I]f gun proponents truly want to maximize safety, measures other than the further proliferation of arms should be sought out. Put bluntly, making college students in the tumultuous years between late adolescence and full-fledged adulthood the first line of defense for Texas’ most esteemed public institutions is a questionable means of making the state’s campuses safer.

Neurology confirms college students’ dubious decision-making abilities. The frontal lobes, the area of the brain responsible for ultimate decision-making, may not even fully develop until the 30s, and one of the last areas to mature. While this lagged development should not exempt college students from all responsibilities, Texas ought to reconsider the prudence of relying on gun-toting 20-somethings for campus safety.

The environment of undergraduate life itself also gives ample reason to question the wisdom of concealed carry. Alcohol and drugs are undeniable parts of college life, and combined with unfinished brain development these mind-altering substances could easily lead to accidents. Without painting with too broad a brush, these concerns are likely even more significant at a school with a strong Greek Life that is known for having trespassed boundaries.

I…don’t even know what to add to this.

What lessons are we to draw? Employers should stay the hell away from college grads? Parents should steer their kids clear of universities? Governments should only draft 30-year-olds? What does the writer mean, specifically, by saying students should be disarmed but at the same time not exempted from ‘all responsibilities?’

Seems a strange point for a college paper to make. I’m just a dumb ol’ redneck and can’t understand the no doubt higher reasonings buried in the metatext. Or something.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to This is the dumbest anti-gun editorial I’ve ever read.

  1. Steve_in_CA says:

    If they are so stupid, we should take away their vote.

  2. Howard says:

    Well when we still had the draft 18 year old men were often drafted if they didn’t have a 2S deferment. I doubt many of the current people enlisting are out of their 20’s and we are handing many of them fully automatic weapons. In Alaska a 16 year old with a hunter safety card can legally buy a hunting license and hunt any legal game in the state by him or her self without supervision. So I’m fine with college kids carrying as long as the lock up their weapon when they are drinking (which is the law anyway)

  3. MamaLiberty says:

    One of the most profound affects on me when I started to carry was a seriously heightened sense of responsibility. I had never been one to take stupid chances, or use any substance to excess in the first place, but any such tendency was extinguished when I accepted both the freedom and the liability of being armed.

    I’ve known many thousands of young college and university students… I were one once – and I taught many others. Very few of those who might have chosen to be armed would be in the wild, party mad, drunk/stoned numbers. Very few of the idiots would bother to arm themselves, regardless. The evil few among them would continue to be evil… and probably armed if they chose anyway.

    This guy doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, obviously.

  4. Tierlieb says:

    Maggie William’s got a point, doesn’t she? Modern students are exceptionally immature. Trusting them with guns is a bit of a gamble. What she forgets to point out is that modern schooling is to blame for a huge part of that.

    Now I do not consider this dumb. Society is at a crossroads (it always is). Going what seems to be her preferred way would mean: More safe spaces, less criticism, less debate, more echo chambers. Society gets more streamlined, conforming, yet immature and dependent members. And I guess it will work. Automation allows us to do more with less, we as a society can tolerate more unproductive members. We will simply need to allow more rough men standing guard into our lives as long as other societies don’t play ball.

    As said, I do not consider this dumb. It is just a direction I do not want to go. More self-reliance, more openness to criticism, more freedom, more risk, more reward seems more rewarding. But I think I and most readers here are the minority.

  5. Kentucky says:

    See “This is why I don’t care what you think, kid” posted below.

    The Crimson observation kinda follows right along, doesn’t it? I don’t see it as so much an anti-gun article as an anti-special-flower-pampered-clueless college kid article. And I say this having been one many, many years ago. I recall intro to psych/sociology/poly-sci as nurturing all the delusions of liberalism into susceptible young minds, augmented by frequent applications of beer.

    Perhaps they know their fellow campus mates better than we give them credit for in this instance.

    JMHO

  6. Draft boards have historically LOVED draftees who are in the 18-23 year age range. These young men believe they are going to live forever.

    But Draftees may perform as effectively in combat as volunteers; people who don’t choose military service might have a more ‘rational’ understanding of the balance between risk and reward.

    I’m not advocating the return of The Draft; nobody should be FORCED to serve in combat. ButMilitary Service may repay inductees with a way to grow beyond their years, and become more productive members of society than they might otherwise have become.

    But that’s only true for those who survive the experience.

  7. Matt says:

    I would suppose then that the author would be advocating that campus security and the local police forces fire all persons of college age, regardless of their education levels. They would however have to make the usual exceptions for the various groups that traditionally get special treatment.

  8. M Ryan says:

    I read this post and went and read the full editorial because i simply could not fathom how somebody could be this much out of touch with reality. I was gob smacked. The only reasons I could come up with for this caliber of stupid, was youth and lack of real world experience. While I laugh her off today as a wingnut, I know there are those who are in the Harvard “education” grinder reading her BS and sucking it up. Pray for tomorrow because these fools at Harvard today are tomorrow’s leaders.

  9. Phssthpok says:

    The members of this editorial board are either missing, or flat out mis-construing the whole point of Campus carry: It’s not about campus safety, it’s about INDIVIDUAL safety.

    The campus safety benefits overall from criminals not knowing those who are easy prey from those who can (and WILL) bite back.

  10. Sendarius says:

    I’m confused (and that’s getting more frequent these days).

    Aren’t the campus carry rules predicated on compliance with all other laws regarding carry permits and pistol possession?
    Specifically, I refer to those laws that specify a minimum age for lawfully owning and carrying a handgun.

    As I understand it, there are not a lot of places where a teenage or pre-adult (i.e. under 21 years of age) college student can meet the age-related legal restrictions on obtaining a “permit to carry”.

    That would seem to obviate all this hand-wringing at the very beginning.

  11. Joel says:

    Phssthpok, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that ‘misconstrue’ is more accurate than ‘mistake.’

    What got me about the article is that they chose to make their point by insulting the physical brains of their entire student body.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *