So,
I am in the process of trying to find a sponsor for the students for concealed carry on campus at wayne, and have basically mass emailed people I believe would be good candidates.
The following is conversation between myself and an english professor. I am literally SHOCKED at the responses I have received from her. Ignorance and sexism rampant.
My original email:
Dear Respected Wayne State University Faculty Member,
My name is Alex Shikhman and I am a current student in my junior year at Wayne State University's School of Business. I am writing to you today because of your relation to your respective department. I am looking for a faculty/staff sponsor for the WSU chapter of Students for Concealed Carry(SCC). Currently, multiple states and universities are in the media because they are addressing this topic.
Most recently, on our Detroit/Ann Arbor NPR station, they ran a story about this cause.
It can be read at http://news.michiganradio.org/post/e...otest-gun-laws
and provides some insight and a brief background into our mission.
If this is something that does not interest you, or you are simply unable to commit the time to being involved with this student organization, then I thank you for your time reading this.
However, if this is something that you would like to get involved with, then I eagerly await your response.
Thanks Again.
-Alex Shikhman
This is the response I received last night:
I edited her name out to respect privacy.Dear Alex Shikhman
Even if I had the time I would never under any circumstances give my support to anyone proposing concealed carry on campus. The mere idea is frightening. There are many unreasonable ideas being proposed these days, and this one ranks near the top of unreasonableness.
Where there are more guns there are more gun deaths, and more deaths in general, since guns are more efficient than other weapons for killing. Every honest study shows that.
I bet you cannot guarantee that all the gun carriers on campus are reasonable and only interested in the safety of everyone else. I bet you cannot guarantee that they are all mentally stable and not prone to impulsive action. I bet you cannot guarantee that none of them have a history of violence. And no, if someone starts shooting wildly, having someone else start shooting, even if in defense, will only put more bullets into the air, and make things more dangerous for all around.
I think you should reconsider this project of yours.
And no, it is not that "it does not interest" me or that I am "simply unable to commit the time to be involved:" I think yours is a pernicious, dangerous, unreasonable, thoughtless, careless proposal. Also murderous.
By the way: I am not against hunting; I do not want to separate people who have had gun training and who are neither criminals nor mentally unstable from their registered guns. But I think guns have their place, and schools, churches, shopping malls, subway stations, and other venues crowded with human beings are not places for guns.
In the hope that you and your chapter will actually think about what you are proposing with the rational parts of your brains,
I am,
Professor, English and Comparative Literature
at this point after reading that, I was genuinely pissed off. I went to the gym and worked out with my buddy to try to let off the steam, got home, yup, still angry.
So I decided to fire off an email her way.
I was as polite as possible, yet managed to offend this woman. :headinj:Professor Wasserman,
I appreciate the reply and the honest effort involved with writing it. However, I cannot say that I agree at all to many of your points.
You stated:
"I bet you cannot guarantee that all the gun carriers on campus are reasonable and only interested in the safety of everyone else. I bet you cannot guarantee that they are all mentally stable and not prone to impulsive action. I bet you cannot guarantee that none of them have a history of violence. And no, if someone starts shooting wildly, having someone else start shooting, even if in defense, will only put more bullets into the air, and make things more dangerous for all around.
I think you should reconsider this project of yours."
Yet, I am very adamant about arguing all of those points in detail, if given the opportunity. I can guarantee you that when suffrage for all Americans was proposed as an idea, rather than just to men, the same arguments were used, and in the same tone as well.
This is why I love living here. The fact that we have certain unalienable rights, and when an organization unjustly denies us those rights, it is no longer a privileged opportunity, but a DUTY to protest their action until our rights are once again ours.
Clearly, since Michigan is a "shall issue" state, they have rationally come to the conclusion that we live in a society where mere police presence is simply not enough to deter criminals. The reality is that crime exists, and we do not live in a perfect world. I can say that I speak for a majority of us CPL holders when I say that we wish to NEVER have to use deadly force. Yet, hoping for the best and preparing for the worst is the strategy that keeps most of us alive.
If you still disagree with this reality, please read this article as a quick reminder as to exactly how "safe" the WSU campus really is.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/26011433/detail.html
Regardless, I respect your opinion to oppose my personal and my organization's views, as it is a freedom given to all of us by the very amendments that we fight to protect. However, the very same freedom is granted to us in arming and protecting ourselves.
The fact you mention that the idea is frightening to you would suggest to me that you would should re-familiarize yourself with the process required to obtain a gun, and the license to carry it as well. It is not cheap, nor is it easy, and realistically would not encourage any more guns on campus than most of people believe to be. However, those of us who are already allowed to carry everywhere else would be allowed to continue to enforce our given right in a setting where it is most necessary.
I have always wondered why women, including close friends of my own, have been the strongest opposition to concealed weapons, yet stand to benefit the most from them. Or is it that the statistics in the WSU crime reports are compiled irrationally as well?
To say that guns are dangerous is the equivalent of saying that alcohol and smoking is dangerous. Yet cigarettes and drunk drivers kill exponentially more every year then legally-permitted owners of firearms. So why have we not banned smoking and alcohol on campus yet? Maybe we should ban automobiles on campus as well? Since our student age demographic has the highest rate of fatality in car accidents as well.
Irrational thinking is to fear something that is not understood, and to imply that correlation means causation. Rational thinking on the other hand is denying the biased views pushed upon those screaming at you and trying to pick apart your cause, brick by brick, with straw man arguments and fallacies. Rational thinking is personally educating yourself on something that is at the very core of being an American, and ensuring personal safety and the safety of those in your surroundings.
So please excuse the length of my response, but I am genuinely offended by your claim that supporting this cause is irrational, and do wish that in the future you would reconsider your position on the subject matter.
If you would like to discuss any of this, I welcome a debate, or a tasteful conversation.
Us gun-carrying members of society are not the uneducated, john-wayne, aggressive meat-heads that you paint us out to be.
-Alex Shikhman
this is her next response
at this point, Im not sure if I should even respond anymore. any advice?Dear Mr. Shikhman
In fact, you cannot guarantee any of those things I mentioned, which is why you resort to an analogy with a completely different matter--suffrage.
And speaking of trust in women: maybe you should listen to all those women who oppose concealed weapons, assume they are rational, consider their arguments without getting offended, and at least ask yourself whether you are not closer than you think to the men who were against suffrage because they did not think that women could reason and because they thought men knew best what was best for women.
Every result of every questionnaire to law enforcement personnel I have ever read or heard of shows that those who are professionally engaged in keeping public safety are also very much against the proliferation of firearms.
Yes, drivers cause accidents (which is why there is drivers' education, drivers' licenses are issued and revoked, there is an age requirement, teenagers have to be chaperoned for a while as they drive, cars and licenses are registered, and so on); yes, drinking can be dangerous. But what you suggest is simply adding another layer of danger to the streets. I don't see the logic.
Still hoping for the best,
Professor, English and Comparative Literature