University of Colorado-Denver professor Chad Kautzer says something has to be done to keep the students on campus safe from gunmen, and he think the best solution is to disarm them all:
Professor Kautzer teaches philosophy at the University of Colorado — Denver (CUD), the same school shooter James Holmes was attending for his graduate degree.
Earlier this year, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned CUD’s ban on concealed weapons, ruling that Colorado’s Concealed Carry Act applied to college campuses. Now students who meet the state’s qualifications to carry a concealed weapon can do so on campus.
“University campuses are places of work and study,” reads the petition. “The intentional introduction of more firearms in this environment only increases the chance of deadly violence.”
Professor Kautzer, who is also the director of the school’s “social justice minor,” lists the “recent mass shooting by CU Denver student James Holmes” as a reason to prohibit concealed firearms.
He claims that studies show “where guns are more prevalent, gun violence and homicides are more likely.”
For a philosophy teacher, he has a very feeble grasp on logic.
James Holmes shot up a theater in a gun-free zone. And he does not have a concealed carry permit.
Therefore, it does not follow that making campus a gun free zone and prohibiting the concealment of weapons would prevent anything.
This is called a:
Surprise he didn’t know that.
Well by this guy’s logic, we should abolish fire extinguishers to prevent fires.
this philosopher does not in fact teach at the same campus attended by the shooter. the former teaches at the university of colorado at denver, and the latter attended school at the medical campus which is located way out east of the city. although both are part of the university of colorado system, they are no more the same school as UCLA and UC berkeley. just a factual correction. also, despite the fact that the flagship in boulder is called ‘CU-Boulder’, the university of colorado at denver is called ‘UCD’ (at least around here, but probably not near UC-Davis).
He’s got the logic exactly right. But since you lack the ability to think logically, it looks wrong to you. There is a strong statistical correlation between loose gun laws, high numbers of guns, and gun violence. What’s amazing is that people who try to tighten gun laws always meet up with the same nimrods who shout them down and then offer zero proposals of their own–except proposing that more people own guns.
I’m excited to welcome our first reader from Bizarro World!
Also, you’re 100% wrong and, in my opinion, an ignoranus. (That’s slang for dumb ass)
Maybe we should restrict cars to prevent drunk driving.
It would be interesting to have hard data on the number of people killed in auto related accidents the same day the shooting occurred. Good chance it was more.
In this bizarre America, the more weapons, the better. Guns never cause any problems, it is only people misusing guns. The Aurora massacre would have been just as bad had the nutjob been using knives. He certainly would have killed a dozen people and wounded 50-60 more with a knife. It was just a coincidence that he had an AK-47 at this particular massacre.
As long as the country is controlled by the NRA and the extreme right, logic will never come into play in how our country is run.
He wasn’t using an AK-47.
You are thinking of the weapons Eric Holder allowed the ATF to walk into Mexico.
Your facts are as faulty as your logic.
@Alvin K-
Just like when DC had a firearm ban, yet held one of the highest murder/ firearm crime rates in the U.S. Then there is Denver; located in one of the most liberal gun-law states, yet has relatively low gun-crime rates for a metro-area.
Anyways, you’re probably right. I’m sure criminals always check the legal status of their weapons before committing horrendous crimes.
Furthermore, if it’s not guns, it will be something else. Humans, (as well as all living organisms!) are born with an innate need to protect themselves and their kin.
ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE: GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
I SUGGEST YOU ASK SOMEONE AT THAT THEATER IN COLORADO IF THEY WERE KILLED BY A PERSON OR BY A GUN.
IF IT’S NOT GUNS, EXPLAIN HOW ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED AND WOUNDED. WHAT WEAPON OF CHOICE WOULD THE NUTCASE HAVE USED?
ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BUY RAPID FIRE WEAPONS IS INSANE. THEIR ONLY USE IS TO KILL PEOPLE.
GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE. AND THEY KILL MORE AMERICANS THAN IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY.
I GUESS MAYBE GUNS ARE ANTI-AMERICAN. I THINK THAT YOU ARE, TOO.
You want me to go ask a dead person if they were killed by a person or a gun?
A dead person? Really?
What would you do if Holmes used firebombs? Ban gasoline?
And that canard about the only purpose for them being killing is weak. They protect people you hyperbolic tyrant.
Go relax in your fantasy world were police are always there and a disarmed populace is safer from madmen and killers.
“hyperbolic tyrant”?? What book did you find that in, you inane maroon. Protect people? How do automatic weapons protect anyone? You gonna shoot the bullets out of the air being fired at you by some other right winged nut job carrying his own automatic weapon? Don’t think so.
An automatic weapon is for killing people. No other purpose that I can think of. It is an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon.
A disarmed populace in most other civilized nations in the world mean far fewer murders by firearms. You are a primary reason that our country has gone mad.
A person like you may prefer that more foreigners be killed just as a matter of principle. But are you so anti-life that you are happy to see Americans killed in order to fulfill your gun-totting fantasy?
Clearly, you are not to be reasoned with.
All the women who would be rape victims, had they not had a gun, disagree with you.
Let me know if you’d like some education on the subject Andrew, and Alvin K.