Frederick Steiner's deanship at Penn Design will begin on July 1, succeeding Marilyn Jordan Taylor. In a piece published in The Texas Tribune, Steiner reportedly rejected offers for positions at other schools in the past, but was provoked to reconsider in light of a new law allowing concealed guns in UT Austin's campus buildings, going into effect August 1.
Previously, concealed handguns were legally allowed on campus, but not inside buildings. "I would have never applied for another job if not for campus carry," says Steiner as quoted in The Texas Tribune. "I felt that I was going to be responsible for managing a law I didn't believe in." He adds: "Penn is a great institution and I am very happy to go to Penn, but I was approached ... and, if it wouldn't have been for campus carry, I wouldn't have considered it."
Academics and other members of the UT Austin community are concerned that such campus carry laws will result in a "brain drain", scaring away potential applicants and instilling fear in the classroom for both students and teachers. Such concerns are already becoming reality, according to a few instances cited in The Guardian.
Steiner's work in architecture academia is seasoned and varied, and UT Austin's Architecture school was consistently top-ranked under his deanship. The Texas Tribune characterizes his exit as a "blow" for the university.
According to a press release issued by Penn Design, before serving as dean at UT Austin for the last 15 years, Steiner spent 12 years as the director of the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture at Arizona State University, and was previously on faculty at Washington State University and the University of Colorado Denver's Center for Built Environment Studies. He is the author of many books, including The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning, and will return to Penn Design after completing two master's degrees and a doctoral degree in city and regional planning there, as well as three years of being a research scholar at the Penn Institute for Urban Research.
94 Comments
No one should carry a firearm on their person in public, ever. The "right" to own and flash deadly toys is incredibly stupid.
Hunting riffles should be kept unloaded in a locked case with a trigger lock and all ammunition locked in a separate case.
LOL at these fools treating guns as if they were talismans possessed by evil spirits.
My father inlaw recently had to pull a gun on some animal that was wielding a hammer and threatening to "bash his brains in" and swinging over the counter at him....He owns a business in a really shitty area. He carries lots of cash and often makes trips to the bank to deposit and break bills. He's been followed on several occasions. The idea of a gun free world is nice, but the US is a violent place filled with shit heads who would think nothing of killing someone for 50$. It happens all the time. I personally do not carry unless camping out in remote areas. I dont have the need to carry. I certainly would never feel compelled to carry on a campus. Sure shit happens sometimes but It's mostly a safe place . I don't however want Some politicians with 24-7 security telling me that I can't carry a gun if I ever feel the need to to protect myself or my family. It's a complete hypocrisy. It is also dangerous beyond belief to get into prohibition territory with firearms. People are getting murdered left and right for pot...can you imagine if a black market for guns was created by prohibition? It would be a disaster.
gwharton, i'm pretty sure most of us here know architecture studios are haunted by evil spirits.
if people are not allowed to carry guns on campus, there will be fewer people carrying guns on campus. if it is discovered that someone is carrying a gun on campus, it is likely they will be asked to refrain from doing that in the future. (notice how i'm not inflating the argument into saying they will bring in the swat teams to shoot up all the innocent 2nd amendment constitution blah blah blah. obama isn't going to knock on anyone's door to take their guns away.)
if people start carrying guns into architecture studios because they think it's cool and somehow a symbol of liberty or whatever, then there will be more guns on campus. that may or may not have an effect on premeditated crimes, but having immediate access to firearms would make it more likely for a student with a momentary lapse of judgement, caused by stress, lack of sleep, drugs, and everything else that goes in college, to do something regrettable.
i would be more concerned about studio crits with guns than the students during reviews. i understand the student is in a stressful position, but i'm pretty sure there are a few crits who would say "i like your model, but i wonder how it would look if there was a smoldering hole right here."
can you imagine if a black market for guns was created by prohibition?
for one thing, i'm pretty sure there already is an easily accessible black market for guns on the internet. for another thing, if manufacturers produced fewer guns, there would be fewer guns.
What limit Donna?
Where does the Constitution allows any limit?
British law limitations don't apply because this is a NEW country so limits set forth by the British empire would not apply. That is what the Judge's are applying. You can't apply foreign country's law.
While you can look at historic context, you can't assume the forefather's of this country are going to establish the laws of this country with the kind of limitations that the British Empire. They wouldn't have fought, bleed and lose loved one in fight for this country's Independence. One thing is, rights has different meaning in the United States than it did with the British empire. When it was the British empire, those so called rights are revocable at the whim of Parliament. It wasn't inalienable or permanent rights.
It must also be understood that basic words to bear and to keep has basic meaning as you will find it in the dictionary. The actual British law precisely defines limits. Those British laws are not laws of the United States and has no legal bearing on any legal matters of the United States from the point in which the country was established. What happened before is history.
Read the United States Constitution and you will see nothing of limitations set in the 2nd Amendment regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.
While self-preservation is inherent in the minds of the forefathers and general intent, you have to also bear in mind guns and similar scale of arms was the state of the art of the times. We have a duty clearly in the minds of the forefathers who formed this country that is our duty today that we must protect this country from all foreign and domestic tyranny. Think about what kind of tyranny we can face if a Hitler like figure had gain power over the United States military and government including it's law enforcement.
The right of resistance and the right of self-preservation that was contextual to keeping and bearing arms as it's historical roots imply would to extent apply today as fundamental rights. This means, we as people have the right to keep and bear arms to the scale necessary for a resistance against tyranny even from the very country where we may have to declare independence, again. We have a country with NUCLEAR weapons of mass destruction as well as BIOLOGICAL and CHEMICAL warfare weapons.
You believe the government is going to let the people be able to bear arms to resist them if they have the power to limit what people can have. What it means in that situation would literally mean is we would lose all our rights and become prisoner of the government and you might as well commit suicide because you'll never be free because you'll have the ability to resist a government that is a GOD on Earth with the power to kill every life on Earth several times over.
You can't fight such a tyranny if all you have for weapons is twigs.
Many Americans, particularly those in dense urban areas, have become pathologically afraid of conflict in any form. Weapons are immediate physical symbols of violent conflict, and so become a focus of that fear rather than the actual sources or causes of violence.
No one should carry a firearm on their person in public, ever. The "right" to own and flash deadly toys is incredibly stupid.
Hunting riffles should be kept unloaded in a locked case with a trigger lock and all ammunition locked in a separate case.
You know the people intent on killing people with guns are always going to find and secure guns. There are people who are lawless or not even subject to following U.S. laws that will find a way to get guns to a willing and paying customer.
You know how stupid that statement is, don't you. How the FUCK do you get the gun from the Big-5 or gun store to the private residence without it being carried by a person in public?
Guns carries responsibility to responsible use. Flashing and showing off a gun doesn't kill people as long as it is unloaded. The only limitation is not in keeping (ownership) of guns or necessarily physically carrying beyond that of responsible use. It is obvious that it is a crime to murder and kill people outside of a self-defense or in a situation of war where defense is necessary.
The right to bear arms even in resistance is the right to protect oneself from a oppressive armed force used to squash a resistance. Lets remember, the British empire had sent armed forces to surround and downright kill a protesting resistance. If we can not legally resist even with armed protesting, who are a resistance (protesters).... say 20,000 going to defend against 50,000 armed police and national guard soldiers (all of whom with itchy trigger fingers)? Those protesters has a right to be able to protect themselves from such armed police and military if any of them gets too itch with their trigger finger.
This doesn't mean these people are necessarily authorized to shoot or kill anyone until life is reasonably under threat.
Guns are not a toy. I agree with you and it is irresponsible for a person to treat it as such.
However, being locked away in such that it can never be useful in a timeframe to serve in self defense. The right to carry means you have the gun.... say.... a pistol or revolver or whatever in a holster so that it is with you when you need it. If you are being attacked by robbers with guns, there is no way you have the time to go find the key to unlock the gun vault, open the gun vault and get a gun. Long before you even get a chance, the robber would have put their gun to the back of your head and pulled the trigger and you are dead. Tactically, what good is a gun for self-defense if it is locked away?
These scenarios happens in real time. While criminals may have spent a lot of time planning but the victims of their criminal acts never knows about the situation until the last minute.
The simple issue is you won't have time to arm yourself when you find yourself in a situation requiring self-defense. Part of carrying a gun or other weapons is also an deterrent for most of the problems we are seeing. Most of the people that are causing the mass shootings of schools or theaters or colleges, are NOT the kind of people who would conduct such an act if everyone or a significant majority of them were carrying guns. It would deter the low-life loser who shoots up a school because they want attention. They wouldn't even think of attempting such because they be likely to be shot before he/she would even be able to kill more than maybe 1 or 2 if any. Most of these cowards are 'spineless' shits that only feels big when only he/she has the gun and everyone else is like shooting fish in a barrel as the saying goes.
It can be an effective response to the low life shit heads who would shoot up a school of unarmed kids or students just to get attention of the media.
gwharton,
All made up in their own minds at that.
Balkins,
The simple answer is don't fucking by guns you gun-religious fanatic idiot. The reasonable answer is with a locked case, in the trunk, ammo locked separately.
You are really hitting a low here and that speaks volumes considering your normal posts.
Jla-x,
Someone with a reasonable expectation of violence due to their work is not the same as a paranoid fool like Balkins. It's a very bad example because there are far more fools without reason than there are those with one. Two children were gunned down in an failed gang hit less than 10 houses away from mine a few weeks ago. I still do not feel the need to arm myself, and I have no problem walking through any neighbourhood unarmed at any time of day/night.
Non Sequitur,
Good for you, some gang group with handguns points their guns at you.... what are you going to do?
Give them the key to your car and oh yeah.... they also take your car and your gun. Now another opportunistic asshole comes along with a gun and what are you going to do? Hand them your wallet and your clothes?
What if they go to your house with guns, are you going to pose as an easy target or a formidable opposition?
The reason they would see you as an easy target is because you are not armed in a manner to defend yourself. You are just a naive piece of trash that they can pick on.
You do realize who much advantage they would have. Having it locked up in a box and your ammo locked up in another box that you have to go out of lengthy extraordinary means... if I was one of those assholes holding a gun towards your head, I would shoot you the moment you attempt to open a gun box. I know what they look like.
My point is (not that I would kill you... no Non Sequitur, I don't like you that much to do so), you pose yourself as an easy target to someone who preys on the weak. They are everywhere. There isn't a town or neighborhood anywhere in the United States that doesn't ever have individuals who prey on the weak and will exert dominance.
Most of them will not attack someone who is armed already because it scares them. Most of them are not that brave. They only think they are only when they have the total advantage of force. When they have the gun and you have nothing but your bear fists, they think you are just an easy target. While these people amount only to a minority of a population, they can be very dangerous.
I used to live in a neighborhood full of gangs and was literally the minority in the area. While, I wasn't carrying a gun, the reality is I have to be mindful of at all times IS drive by shootings, and gang groups often armed.
I don't blame guns for stupid dangerous people. Just as there are people who will use guns for such reckless nonsense, there are also people who have guns that don't do that. However, the point and principle of self-defense is not to rely on other people coming to the rescue because you can't.
There isn't a neighborhood in America where any situation ranging from little issues like gangs to full fledge war.
You think I'm paranoid because I illustrate some of the larger LONG term dangers but guess what, unless the government can tell me when and where every incident that may endanger my physical welfare of life including prediction of when a person is going to commit a gun violence and where at least 48 hours BEFORE it occurs EVERY SINGLE TIME without failure, I can not trust my life and welfare in their hands.
How am I to know when and where some terrorist group commits an act of terrorism even in a small town like Astoria? Who knows? It isn't like the government had been all that effective in notifying people before it happens.
You never know.
Anything can happen at any time. It is not paranoia. It's flat out fact. I don't live in a dillusion that the world is safe or any place is safe.
There is no such thing as a safe place. That is BULLSHIT.
The government shouldn't be promising things they can't guarantee.
Where is common sense?
If you live alone out in the country or you own a liquor store, you might need a gun.
Would a bar or a divorce hearing be safer if everyone had a gun?
jla-x, in regards to your question, I agree with Non Sequitur's post above.
Non Seq, I agree with you, especially this statement re: El Rickerino: You are really hitting a low here and that speaks volumes considering your normal posts.
Thanks Donna. Now let's all hit the pub for pint or two.
#archinect140wordsorless
I call bullshit. How engaged was he about enforcing the current law? Did he have metal detectors set up to ensure no one was bringing guns onto campus? Random checks of studio tote boxes? This dude got a better job offer and used it for a soap box. Booooooo! Just another academic who probably built nothing in his life and loves talking about the fold... or the field... or the form...
what the fuck are you talking about?
I understand a court room hearing should be such that guns are not allowed in the court room for safety of all. This also means that all the armed security (armed with guns) except the bailiff should remain outside the court room.
This is so no party is in a position or role to harm each other. However, when it is suggested by others that we should give up the 2nd Amendment rights, I have an issue with that as an AMERICAN CITIZEN.
People don't just go around carrying guns all the time because guns aren't exactly comfortable to carry or wear all the time. The weight of the guns over time isn't exactly something a person will necessarily want to wear or carry all the time.
Yes, common sense does apply but the main reason for carrying arms is to defend one self or at least deter an attack by another. Most people don't want to attack someone who is armed as that would logically pose a more challenging opponent. Something that a perpetrator of mass majority of gun violence cases of mass shooting, gangs gun violence, etc. would not want or desire. These aren't the brave people who would fight a fair fight.
In an attempt to focus this (I realize that is impossible)-
I'm willing to accept that one should be able to be licensed to carry a firearm for their protection. I'm also willing to accept that businesses and institutions have the right to allow or deny firearms on property (I recall my favorite Coffee shop in St. Paul having a "no guns on premise" sign that was more visible than the "push" sign on the door).
So it would seem to me that the proper measure would be to check if there is even a need to to carry firearms to prevent assault.
I'm not sure that these numbers support the need. I will grant you the fact that these are reported assaults, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of those assaults that are not reported are sexual assaults (rape)- which needs a completely different approach.
Marc,
The Constitution states every American has a right to carry arms including firearms. The license is for what is called CONCEALED weapons permit.
This permit is for authorizing a the carrying a weapon in a concealed fashion. Those who do not have a CONCEALED weapon's permit may carry a weapon in an UNCONCEALED fashion. The fact they are outright and visibly showing their guns is following the law. By carrying in an UNCONCEALED fashion is in fact complying with the law when you don't have a concealed weapon because the general rule for carrying a weapon is that people outright KNOWS you are carrying it. Therefore, you are not hiding the weapon. The concealed weapon permit serves to hold a registry of people who are licensed to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion and that also informs the officer that person is likely to be armed even if you don't outright see them armed.
While there is a governing policy that police officers should always consider a person as possibly armed.
As a general rule, a person who is armed, should outright show they are armed unless they have a concealed weapons permit. This way, there is no question about them being armed.
Guns as fashion. Got it.
Makes far more sense than the the 2nd amendment crap Balkins is spewing. Enough loonies are armed because of it, now we know that El balkarino is just another one of them.
Marc,
The reason government should not make decisions on whether or not a person may or may not carry a firearm for self-defense is the statistics are A) flawed, B) after the fact of past cases that can not guarantee to respond to changing dynamics before an incident occurs. For government to change its policy, someone would have to die. This reactionary policy doesn't help prevent the loss of life. People should carry whatever weapon they need to protect themselves but you never KNOW how the assault will occur. Just because assaults with a gun being used may not happen often, should we have a statistic on the sidewalk with a gun shot to the skull for the government to allow?
It is A) realistic that a criminal maybe armed with any kind of weapon from a knife to a gun. Therefore B) it is always possible that a criminal will use a gun.
Does anyone want to be the very statistical occurance where a gun is used?
Should a college female student depend on so called flawed statistics and assume that a rapist is always going to use their hands or at most a knife or should they also be ready also in case a gun is used?
Just a thing to think about? Every criminal has means to obtain a gun if they wanted it.
Guns are that prolific in the world.
There are more guns than there are human beings and many times more bullets than there are guns.
Non Sequitur,
You can call me a loonie all you want but I am pointing out exactly what is FACT. The ones that are out there in our American public society killing people with guns are by far majority are cowardous shit heads. They don't go after the heavily armed and formidable targets. They go after the ones who don't pose an outward threat to them. An armed target is a big threat to those criminals.
I don't go out carrying a gun all the time. No. I do however, I am not blind to the fact that these cowardous assholes exists and this can literally happen anywhere. There isn't anything in the laws of physics or psychological science that says this stuff can and may only happen in certain areas.
However, there is a common theme for most of these cases. The majority of mass shooting cases like that of schools, theaters, colleges, etc. is that the shooters are shooting people knowing they are unarmed by targetting locations where their targets are likely unarmed. Hence a disparity of them with the GUN (association with the power to coerce through fear) and the rest without a weapon to defend themselves.
If we stop teaching our young bullshit like saying there are safe places in the world, people will be more prepared for self-defense by keeping themselves alert of their surrounding than being deluded by some belief that certain places are safe.
No place is safe. You should never place absolute trust in anything in this world.
Yes, it is a fact that you're a loonie and worse, an armed loonie with no idea what he's talking about.
El Balkarino, your stance on firearms, the 2nd, and everything else here is flat-out wrong and intellectually drab. It is people like yourself that get other, well meaning & responsible firearm owners, a terrible name. You are paranoid, delusional and extremely ignorant.
Now, go crawl back under what ever rock you call home and stay there for a while.
Rick,
Don't I or anyone else have just as much right not to be killed by a stray bullet when you are "defending" yourself from an imaginary threat?
Well, Ballcans is right, we're not safe anywhere, were, but then Ballcans.
z1111,
No one is going out and shooting imaginary targets, here.
I just put some hypothetical scenarios. We all know that geopolitics and status quo is fluid. We know that from history. We can't guarantee that status quo between China and U.S. will always remain.
There are certain threats brought up that isn't so imaginary.
El Balkarinorette,
My right not to get hit while you foolishly, or another similar gun-nuts crank, fires away their pointless and deadly penis extensions because you/they feel like being a hero trumps your silly 2nd amendment religion.
Z1111's point above rings more truth than everything you're contributed to these forums combined.
But let's be honest, you're not capable of understanding this.
Non Sequitur,
I'll be very clear, I don't miss. If I were to shoot a gun, I won't miss. That is why you target practice at a shooting range to correct the scope or iron sight alignment so it is correct. If I can't hit the intended target, I won't pull the trigger.
I'm not into killing innocent people.
One shot.... one kill or maybe multiple kills if the intended targets are lined up so that an innocent is not in the line of fire.
nope.
You clearly missed your shot on that reply.
"I don't miss."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL this is absolutely not a statistically defensible position.
Here's a parallel: I drive a Miata. About 360 days of the year, it's a perfect car. Sometimes it snows, and then it's not perfect, and can even be a little unsafe. But by Rickarino's logic, I should drive a four wheel drive vehicle every single day just in case it snows.
But then I'd miss out on 360 days of super-fun driving, living in fear of those 5 days of terror. The risk of snow is an acceptable risk to my life. The risk of not having a gun is, too.
Donna, your problem is solved:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Non Sequitur,
I know you are an asshole but you are not worth a bullet.
I'm not an asshole, I'm just better informed and knowledgeable than you are on quite a few things.
Non Sequitur,
Do you know that if the government takes away your Constitutional rights, any of them or all of them, it is ILLEGAL for the government to give it back to you and you will NEVER get it back.
Do you know that if you let the government take one of your rights away, you can not legally stop them from taking the others away because you gave them the authority to take your rights away. Once they make the decisions and vote at Congress to revoke those rights, it's final. You can not appeal. You can not challenge it. The Supreme Court will not hear your case.
Therefore, the only way to then be free and have those rights again is to take control.
Remember, once they can take your rights away as regular people, they can establish life long election terms and have perpetual control over the people. If they take the guns away from the people, the people will have no way to fight.
This is how Hitler got power as he did. In Germany, the rights were easily revoke-able and so therefore, he and his party having the leadership of Germany's form of 'Congress' or 'Parliament' had took control of the government and people. They systematically manage to do so in a matter of years and BAM! the people were then on a world war.
This isn't about Hitler or Trump or Obama. Hitler is dead even if he escaped Germany to South America. Too many years. have passed by for him to humanly still be alive.
You give a party or whoever the ability and the precedence to take rights away. You will be setting up the country for a Hitler like dictator to take control. That is a perilous situation and I will be very clear with you about some classified weapons we have in space. Officially we don't have "Thor" implemented. Unofficially under black project funding, these systems have been implemented. Some of those systems include particle beam weapons capable of melting titanium and other materials. They are tunable in both frequency and output power. Tuned to the right level, they can send a beam from outer space to kill a person without a visible beam that you can see. Basically, that beam can penetrate through a mile or more into the surface of the earth. You can be inside your office, they can still kill you even if you are not in the top floor. You can be on the bottom floor of a 100 story building and the frequency can be tuned just right kill a person at the precise floor all by calculations being processed by supercomputers that are located in an underground base in the desert. I'm not talking Area 51. I am talking about other facilities although interconnected.
Thor on the other hand was a concept for sending a Tungsten rod that's like a telephone pole of Tungsten. We have smaller projectiles that are effective enough that can penetrate the atmosphere from outer space with a controlled fall that when it impacts the earth will create a massive explosion comparable to a very large bomb.
We also have rail guns with projectiles that not only can kill an ICBM but can certainly kill a human on Earth.
When you have a government that has this capability as well as nuclear, biological and chemical warfare arsenal to wipe out all life on Earth several times overs, it is a precedence we can not ever afford to let happen. A Hitler type person in charge of the U.S. with absolute control over the people with no rights with this military powerhouse will literally mean the end of human kind and life on this planet for a VERY VERY VERY long time.
You need to look beyond tomorrow. You need to think beyond the current geopolitical status quo.
Geopolitical issues are not static. It is fluidic when you look at longs over a longer period of time.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolute power is irresistible to a power hungery mad man hell bent on destroying the world. There are people like that but if you give them what they want and make it just possible for them.... they will seize it and then we see the end of life on Earth.
How do stop such a mad man who has all the guns under his/her control and you don't have any weapon.
If there is question to answer, how do you stop that mad man under the conditions I am presenting to you?
You think those conditions can never happen but history has demonstrated that such has happened before albeit in times of lesser weapons. History may have demonstrated it is possible to stop such mad men and their regimes but without weapons up against someone who has all the weapons under their control is a tad bit more difficult.
Since the future isn't written, anything is possible. But history can guide you a lot on how the future can unfold in such a scenario. You are suppose to be creative so think creatively about answering the question. Lets be realistic.
My point is about thinking about the decisions and the consequences of those decisions of revoking the 2nd Amendment and the consequence for ALL future generations until the last day that life can be supported on Earth before it's incinerated by the sun as it goes through its final phase before it burns out. Are you willing to think that far?
Non-sequitur, Donna, let me rephrase my question...if you were in a room with Balkins would you rather be with or without a firearm?
jla-x,
I wouldn't shoot or kill Donna. I don't hate her. I might not always agree with everything she says or others say but it doesn't mean I would be out to kill them.
I know how to shoot and how to shoot to kill but it doesn't mean I go out shooting people to kill them. Knowing how to kill is different than murdering people. Part of knowing how to kill is also knowing how to self defend.
jla-x that totally made me LOL! And I desperately needed that laugh after Non Sequitur posted those SOUL-CRUSHING images of those poor brutalized Miatas!
Richard, I know you wouldn't shoot me, and no worries, I wouldn't shoot you either. I wouldn't shoot anyone, though I have chopped heads off chickens.
Lets agree to not discuss controversial topics like guns.....
It just explodes into this kind of "Fire"-fight.....
Always have one of these:
a roll of duck tape would probably solve more problems than a gun in that situation
-
Dude, what's up with pics disappearing...it was Buschemi from Airheads with an Uzi. Lol
Use the correct URL of the image itself.
or
or
or
jla-x,
I think I got you covered.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.