• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

66% of Kansas faculty say allowing guns in classrooms limits 'freedom to teach'

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,342
Location
White Oak Plantation
A majority of respondents were also concerned that allowing guns in the classroom would limit their academic freedom “to teach the material and engage with students in a way that optimizes learning,” and a majority said they would need to change how they teach their course.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7171
Interesting, a possibility that a concealed gun may be in the class is now the same as every kid in the class is armed.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,364
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wowwie!!!

Interesting, a possibility that a concealed gun may be in the class is now the same as every kid in the class is armed.
the idea that a crazy kid with a gun might shoot because of teaching, hasn't crossed their minds , YET!
, because It is against the law to shoot your teacher..

But allowing law abiding students to carry for defense of selves and Others scares them!
because Law abiding students may have a gun, for defense against,,, Crazy kids
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
Can you say "Projection"?

I knew you could.

It's the same thing once again - those with an external locus of control based on doctrine and peer pressure fear another situation where they feel they could not control their emotions and behavior and then attempt to project those feelings onto perhaps the largest group of people with a strong internal locus of control.

But I guess the documented cases of all (most?) gun owners going around in some srt of psychotic outrage, shooting every person who says or does anything that makes them feel uncomfortable or challenges their fixed way of thinking and viewing the world.

What this world needs is a mobile safe place that these liberal socialist academicians can crawl into and stay holed up in. That way bad weather, as well as bad thoughts, will never touch them and cause emotional boo-boos.

One of my favorite things to do is have an extended conversation with one of these types (not about guns but just a social conversation) and then bring up the subject of guns and get them to say what they would do if they found themselves near someone with a gun, or even had a gun themselves. Cognitive dissonance in action for the win!!

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,342
Location
White Oak Plantation
I wonder if any of these teachers would walk right up to a CCer and confront them in a very hostile manner simply because the gun scares them? I sure would like to see that happen...can't say I've ever heard of such a thing...well, there is a Interwebz rumor out there on the Interwebz that such a thing did occur at a zoo in the Midwest or some such place. There might even be a thread here on OCDO...but, ya know what they say about stuff you read on the Interwebz...
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Interesting, a possibility that a concealed gun may be in the class is now the same as every kid in the class is armed.
Getting our police in Utah to admit that they already assume (and conduct themselves as if) every car they stopped had a gun in it was one critical step to getting our permit-free car carry bill passed a few years back. Why shouldn't college professors assume that all, most, or some material number of their adult students are legally armed? And what exactly changes in their teaching methods if they make that assumption? Unless their teaching methods include giving students a reasonable man fear for their life or limb, or perhaps having students strip down such that a gun carried for self-defense would suddenly become unattended and unsecured, I'm having a hard time imagining what teaching methods cause any problems if adult students are armed.

What these professors need to do to bolster their argument is to find a location that allows students to be armed and gather up all the problems that has caused. After all, theories are one thing but real world results are quite another.

The University of Utah, Utah State University, Salt Lake Community College, and all the other public colleges and universities in the State of Utah have been forced by the legislature to respect adult students' RKBA for almost 10 years now (since Sept of 2006). I haven't seen anything in the local media, or anything documented at legislative hearings in that time that would support the thesis that armed students create actual (as opposed to theoretical) problems for professors, teaching, or the overall learning environment. But maybe the professors and universities have been keeping secret a huge rash of problems until they could be released for maximum effect. Kansas profs should double-check.

And weren't safety and learning environment some of the concerns expressed by segregationists? How could some fair little white gal possibly be expected to tackle university material while sitting next to a large black man?

Current bigotries toward lawful gun carriers are no less ugly and small minded that racist views toward black men were 40 years ago.

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Who cares what they say ... your right to defend yourself is sacrosanct ...

But tyrants are going to do what tyrants do.

Some anti :"SCOTUS, in Heller, said that this right can be subject to regulation...blah blah blah"

Me: "Well, what do you expect the government agents to say? That's what you would expect from a tyrant, right?"
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,342
Location
White Oak Plantation
Getting our police in Utah to admit that they already assume (and conduct themselves as if) every car they stopped had a gun in it was one critical step to getting our permit-free car carry bill passed a few years back. Why shouldn't college professors assume that all, most, or some material number of their adult students are legally armed? And what exactly changes in their teaching methods if they make that assumption? Unless their teaching methods include giving students a reasonable man fear for their life or limb, or perhaps having students strip down such that a gun carried for self-defense would suddenly become unattended and unsecured, I'm having a hard time imagining what teaching methods cause any problems if adult students are armed.

What these professors need to do to bolster their argument is to find a location that allows students to be armed and gather up all the problems that has caused. After all, theories are one thing but real world results are quite another.

The University of Utah, Utah State University, Salt Lake Community College, and all the other public colleges and universities in the State of Utah have been forced by the legislature to respect adult students' RKBA for almost 10 years now (since Sept of 2006). I haven't seen anything in the local media, or anything documented at legislative hearings in that time that would support the thesis that armed students create actual (as opposed to theoretical) problems for professors, teaching, or the overall learning environment. But maybe the professors and universities have been keeping secret a huge rash of problems until they could be released for maximum effect. Kansas profs should double-check.

And weren't safety and learning environment some of the concerns expressed by segregationists? How could some fair little white gal possibly be expected to tackle university material while sitting next to a large black man?

Current bigotries toward lawful gun carriers are no less ugly and small minded that racist views toward black men were 40 years ago.

Charles
These profs are not concerned about any number of potentially armed students (citizens) they are only concerned with the fact that they are not in total control, a liberals worst nightmare to be sure.

Utah and other states have provided Missouri with years worth of "empirical data" of events that have not occurred. If I may be permitted to speak for Missourians, many thanks to the good, liberty minded, citizens of Utah.

MO is behind the times to be sure, but we are working to get there.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
I must confess I only know one teacher in Kansas. She carries a gun, though.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,165
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
A majority of respondents were also concerned that allowing guns in the classroom would limit their academic freedom “to teach the material and engage with students in a way that optimizes learning,” and a majority said they would need to change how they teach their course.

Why would you have to change your method of teaching? Are you (the 'teacher') that much of an icehole that your current method could get you shot for it? You might want to rectify that little problem.
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
I don't see how this will limit their ways of teaching. Also claiming they feel the student will strike back if a verbal disagreement occurs is also a bit stretched. Once again I guarantee there are already students who have been conceal carrying on campus since day one. I feel these folks think enacting a ton of laws will make them feel safer, even though it's just something on paper. We have those select few folks who feel the laws don't apply to them, that in which would group others into the same category. I'm all for campus carry as I don't like going anywhere without my protection, with all the action and violence going on recently in Kansas and Missouri, I rather have protection with me at all times.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
These profs are not concerned about any number of potentially armed students (citizens) they are only concerned with the fact that they are not in total control, a liberals worst nightmare to be sure.-snip-
And that is the truth of it.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,261
Location
northern wis
What they are really afraid of is that that will lose the progressive argument that all guns are bad.

It is really hard to push that line when they are perfectly legal to own and carry.

They need to fill the young minds full of mush from the beginning that is why they pushed the GFSZ and fight very hard to demonstrate that guns are bad all the time.

When you had active rifle pistol teams in school it was really hard to convince the students that firearms are bad.

Ban them from school property and it is easy to say see all guns are bad we don't even have them here.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,618
Location
here nc
reviewing the actual report and the question(s) i would surmise the study was biased from the git-go:
1) little over a half (54%) of those actually sent the survey responded. the test was done via internet using a nationally recognized third party software entity with participants notified by email.

2) interestingly, the notification email was sent the 3rd of December and the survey's conclusion was the 4th of January 16 ~ over the holiday break!!!

3) here is the first couple questions from the survey:

quote:
Q1 In 2013, a state law was passed stipulating that state buildings, including college and university buildings, could not prohibit concealed carry of handguns unless a building has "adequate security measures." Colleges and universities were given an exemption from the law until July 1, 2017, but by that date they must put in place "adequate security measures" or will be required to allow concealed carry in college and university buildings. "Weapons Fact Sheet" Which of the following best matches your personal policy preference for campus gun laws?
((70%) of respondents preferred amending the law so that guns are not allowed on campus...)

Q2 If the current law remains in place and the exemption is allowed to expire, would you favor your university expending the necessary resources to implement "adequate security measures?"
(Over half (54%) of respondents said they would favor their university expending the necessary resources to implement “adequate security measures,” 23% said it would depend upon the cost, 16% said they would not favor their university expending the necessary resources....)

Q3 Imagine you are walking into a university facility and you see a screening station. How would seeing this affect your sense of safety?
(my add, here are the choices to respond: Much Less Safe Somewhat Less Safe Would Not Affect Somewhat Safer Much Safer Don't know)
(....almost half (45%) of respondents indicated they would feel safer, 24% said they would feel less safe, 24% said it would not affect their sense of safety....)

Q11 Assuming concealed carry is allowed on campus, what is your policy preference?
(The vast majority of respondents (90%) favored requiring a permit to carry a concealed gun on campus, 7% favored allowing concealed carry without a permit, and 4% said they did not know. )

it goes on like this with, IMHO presenting biased questions slighted against the practice. i should point out the questions were 'worked & approved' by the institution's presidents and state's regents prior to release to the participants.

https://www.fhsu.edu/uploadedFiles/executive/docking/Regents FacultyStaff Gun Survey 2015 (2).pdf

best case scenario is to review the report yourself pointing out, unemotionally, the obvious bias to your state legislature and governor and the main stream (ok internet sources). the biggest flaws i see: 1) was it was presented over the holiday shutdown season and immediately ended upon the end of the holiday season; 2) the wordiness and length of the survey questions.

just noticed the Q10 of the survey also mentions shotguns and rifles???

ipse
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,342
Location
White Oak Plantation
What they are really afraid of is that that will lose the progressive argument that all guns are bad.

It is really hard to push that line when they are perfectly legal to own and carry.

They need to fill the young minds full of mush from the beginning that is why they pushed the GFSZ and fight very hard to demonstrate that guns are bad all the time.

When you had active rifle pistol teams in school it was really hard to convince the students that firearms are bad.

Ban them from school property and it is easy to say see all guns are bad we don't even have them here.
It is really hard to push that line when they are confronted with the fact that X number of weeks/months/semesters/years down the road the quad remains free of flowing blood from the mangled bodies of pencil neck liberal professors.

Then, the coop-de-grass, a lawfully armed redneck-jock from somewhere south of Branson, on a full ride sporting a 2.5 to stay alive GPA to stay on the team...and in school, whips out his big ugly Glock gat and ventilates a thug gang banger trying to bust in on a Karl Marx "Bible" study being held in some pencil neck professor's klassroom....cops then hail him as a hero. And he then gets a couple of phone calls later that afternoon from a couple of the "little ladies" he saved from the thug gang banger requesting his presence at a local soda shoppe, to celebrate and reward his bravery...before the team's curfew that is.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,261
Location
northern wis
It is really hard to push that line when they are confronted with the fact that X number of weeks/months/semesters/years down the road the quad remains free of flowing blood from the mangled bodies of pencil neck liberal professors.

Then, the coop-de-grass, a lawfully armed redneck-jock from somewhere south of Branson, on a full ride sporting a 2.5 to stay alive GPA to stay on the team...and in school, whips out his big ugly Glock gat and ventilates a thug gang banger trying to bust in on a Karl Marx "Bible" study being held in some pencil neck professor's klassroom....cops then hail him as a hero. And he then gets a couple of phone calls later that afternoon from a couple of the "little ladies" he saved from the thug gang banger requesting his presence at a local soda shoppe, to celebrate and reward his bravery...before the team's curfew that is.
It does not matter to the progressives or the anti's if it is true or not the results are what matter.
 

grimjack

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
25
Location
Kansas City, KS
They should just go to KCKCC

The fine folks in Wyandotte / KCK have decided once again that state laws don't apply in KCK. Students and teachers fearful of an armed non government presence should enroll at KCKCC. Here is the law that WYCO/KCK passed. It basically says the Unified Govt can do a wole bunch of things the state says they can't.

Sec. 22-189. - Carrying concealed weapons; prohibited acts.
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person licensed or recognized as a valid out-of-state licensee pursuant to the Personal and Family Protection Act, and amendments thereto, to carry a concealed weapon into:
(1)
Any place where an activity declared a common nuisance by K.S.A. 22-3901, and amendments thereto, is maintained;
(2)
Any police, sheriff or highway patrol station;
(3)
Any detention facility, prison or jail;
(4)
Any courthouse;
(5)
Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in the judge's courtroom;
(6)
Any polling place on the day an election is held;
(7)
Any meeting of the governing body of a county, city or other political or taxing subdivision of the state, or any committee or subcommittee thereof;
(8)
On any state or county fairgrounds, or real property used for a state, county or city fair;
(9)
Any state office building, whether owned or leased;
(10)
Any athletic event not related to or involving firearms which is sponsored by a private or public elementary or secondary school or any private or public institution of postsecondary education;
(11)
Any professional athletic event not related to or involving firearms;
(12)
Any portion of a drinking establishment as defined by K.S.A. 41-2601, and amendments thereto, except that this provision shall not apply to a restaurant as defined by K.S.A. 41-2601, and amendments thereto;
(13)
Any elementary or secondary school building or structure used for student instruction or attendance;
(14)
Any community college, college or university facility;
(15)
Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal or State law;
(16)
Any child exchange and visitation center provided for in K.S.A. 75-270, and amendments thereto;
(17)
Any community mental health center organized pursuant to K.S.A. 19-4001 et seq., and amendments thereto; psychiatric hospital licensed under K.S.A. 75-3307b, and amendments thereto; or State psychiatric hospital, as follows: Larned State Hospital, Osawatomie State Hospital or Rainbow Mental Facility;
(18)
Any city hall;
(19)
Any public library;
(20)
Any daycare home or group daycare home, as defined in Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-3-113, or any preschool or childcare center, as defined in Kansas Administrative Regulation 28-4-420; or
(21)
Any church, temple or place of worship.
(b)
It shall be unlawful to carry a concealed weapon while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or both.
(c)
It shall be unlawful for any city employee with the exception of law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon while on unified government premises or while engaged in the duties of the person's employment by the unified government.
(d)
It shall be unlawful for any person licensed or recognized as a valid out-of-state licensee pursuant to the Personal and Family Protection Act to carry a concealed weapon onto any unified government facility, premises, public park, or public grounds, provided that the property is posted in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of the persons entering the property where carrying a concealed property is prohibited.
(e)
Nothing in the Personal and Family Protection Act herein shall be construed to prevent:
(1)
Any public or private employer from restricting or prohibiting in any manner persons licensed under this Act from carrying a concealed weapon while on the premises of the employer's business or while engaged in the duties of the person's employment by the employer;
(2)
Any entity owning or operating business premises open to the public from restricting or prohibiting in any manner persons licensed under this Act from carrying a concealed weapon while on such premises, provided that the premises are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the premises, as premises where carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited; or
(3)
A property owner from restricting or prohibiting in any manner persons licensed under this Act from carrying a concealed weapon while on such property, provided that the premises are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the property where carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited.
(f)
It shall be unlawful to carry a concealed weapon in violation of any restrictions or prohibitions allowed by subsection (e)(1)—(3).
(Ord. No. O-124-06(Res. No. R-150-06), § 3(22-128), 12-14-2006)


Grimjack
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
Once "Campus Carry" passes next year, they will have to revoke that little law of theirs due to the new law. I find it funny how some states feel they can stomp over Federal Law and such and not realize what they're actually doing. I might as well be speaking out of my rear, but they need to enforce that Federal laws and punish those political members who make a law that goes against Federal Law. Seems like if it's legal "Federally" law abiding citizens get canned due to states or cities who feel the need to make a law that is an exception for them. Once again, I'm just venting because things like this need to stop so we don't have a game of tug of war between Federal laws and State Laws.
 

BigTzzy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
37
Location
Kansas
Once "Campus Carry" passes next year, they will have to revoke that little law of theirs due to the new law. I find it funny how some states feel they can stomp over Federal Law and such and not realize what they're actually doing. I might as well be speaking out of my rear, but they need to enforce that Federal laws and punish those political members who make a law that goes against Federal Law. Seems like if it's legal "Federally" law abiding citizens get canned due to states or cities who feel the need to make a law that is an exception for them. Once again, I'm just venting because things like this need to stop so we don't have a game of tug of war between Federal laws and State Laws.

"Campus Carry" is not passing next year. The relevant statute was passed in 2013. (Statute quoted below) The four year exemption period for post secondary schools is expiring in 2017.

KSA 75-7c20(j)(5) said:
(j) The governing body or the chief administrative officer, if no governing body exists, of any of the following institutions may exempt any building of such institution from this section for a period of only four years by stating the reasons for such exemption and sending notice of such exemption to the Kansas attorney general:
(5) a postsecondary educational institution, as defined in K.S.A. 74-3201b, and amendments thereto, including any buildings located on the grounds of such institution and any buildings leased by such institution.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
"Campus Carry" is not passing next year. The relevant statute was passed in 2013. (Statute quoted below) The four year exemption period for post secondary schools is expiring in 2017.
Query based on the quoted law related to the exemption. Exemption granted on for 4 years from the time lawwentinto effect or no exemption may last less than or longer than 4 years from when granted ( AG notified)
 
Top