I'm rather saddened to read the above debate on academia and it's probable wholesale inclinations.
However, I don't see that anyone has a lock on the 'right or wrong' of the subject. Individuals make up institutions, and the mileage for each person will vary. That's all just platitudinous common sense, so far as that goes. Without a really well planned and executed neutral survey, I don't see that any 100% sweeping generalization may be the "GRAVEN TRVTH" regarding this issue.
I'm quite willing to accept the personal experiences with and anecdotes of pro-gun academics. Equally so, in some forty-fifty years of being aware of the subject, and actually having done some original 2A research at college levels, as well as having been a 'folding table and placard' activist, my take on Academia as a whole is that it not universally and scholastically open-minded on this subject.
That is not a blanket condemnation, nor is it a denial of the existence of pro-gun, or even gun-tolerant, individuals in the education profession.
HOWEVER: I do believe that the college/university Auntie Crowd is much more closely linked in their goals, than all the pro-gunners in Higher Ed, put together. There is a condescending social class 'we'ness, a clamoring vociferousness, moral self-righteousness, the compulsion to rule everything, reflexive intolerance and all the little political evils that go into a Would-be Ruling class. Ayn Rand nailed down that sniggling, smug mentality to the "T", in her writings.
However, that appearance is a question of visibility and public perception, aided by a largely Liberally-oriented Nat'l press. The factual percentage of
who comprises the reality, whether Auntie, pro or neutral -- is actually unknown.
From my own experiences here in the Upper Midwest, at the West End of Lake Erie, it would be fair to say that my exposure to pro-gun academics is far less than my exposure to Auntie-gun academics. That would also hold true for my second-hand experience with my wife's fellow high school teaches. Hunters: here and there. CCW advocates: verrrry few.
However, I can also relate that in my experience from manning 'activist tables' at general outdoorsman fairs or expositions, that there are considerable numbers of hunters who are NOT defenders of handgun ownership, or semi-auto rifles, or even large bore rifles [on one occasion]. "Why, what would a man NEED one of those things for? I saw one shoot RIGHT THRU a chunk of telephone pole. That's just dangerous for ANYONE to own!!!"
That last, from a smalltown Ohio farmer, in the cafe where I was grabbing a good burger, and had tacked some pro-gun material on the community bulletin board. As well, a general National gun registration doesn't especially bother a noticeable percentage of the attendees, when that is one of the questions being asked.
That not all of our fellow gun owners are even in the same phonebook, let alone on the same page shouldn't be much of a surprise. I doubt that a good many casual one-gun hunters are even aware of, or much care about, the deadly combination of Aunties packed into this Nat'l administration.
So? Well, a generalization is not a fact. An opinion is just that. Short of exhaustive and well conceived research on this divisive subject, the contributions brought here might be taken in a spirit of illuminating areas of which we might be unaware, or a rendering of what appears to be a common gun-public perception. Hardly worth vituperation and hard words, among like-minded folks in this tiny niche of self-selected gun fanciers.
In the meantime, check this out:
http://www.rocklintoday.com/news/templates/uc_davis_health.asp?articleid=8053&zoneid=75Be sure to leave a comment on their comment box, should you find it either entertaining or nauseous. I'm curious to see if they are deleting adverse opinion.
