since9
Campaign Veteran
I seriously doubt this course would be objective!
I've spent 13 years post-high school in various forms of academics, both as a student as well as an instructor. I've developed courseware throughout its development cycle, including establishing training goals and learning objectives, writing course descriptions, crafting syllabii, lesson plans, textbooks, workbooks, slides, tests, post-course polls... You name it.
Give my experience, this course description has some interesting inclusions, as well as some which are more foreboding. Allow me to dissect:
It's a Criminology class. Generally speaking, most of the folks taking these courses are headed for a career in law enforcement, justice, or the legal profession.
Sounds ok so far.
What's a "firearms enforcement policy?" Is that where the government enforces our rights to keep and bear firearms? Or the other way around?
Typical LE stuff.
Sounds positive. I hope they dispel the wrongful use of the term "assault weapon" and get back to using proper, technical terms, such as SA, DA, bolt-action, etc.
This actually sounds quite promising!
Er, to what end? Hopefully to highlight anti-gun buffoonery.
Sounds open-minded, but it might also be a trap into which stats are abused towards the wrong conclusion.
Again, sounds objective, but it could go either way.
I sincerely hope they're talking about the BATF's fiasco. Otherwise, this is the clincher, and casts doubt on the remainder of the course description as being nothing but an attempt to be objective while sucking the students in with anti-gun "statistics" so as to finally demonstrate that the US firearms policy is to blame for the world's problems.
Grade: C-. Whoever developed this appears to have a hidden, anti-gun agenda.
Beware...
There are so many ways a class like this can be spun -POV and agenda will be the deciding factors. Wonder if GMU/instructor will have the strength of character to prepare an honest, realistic syllabus or if it will be more "indoctrination" to liberal thinking.
I've spent 13 years post-high school in various forms of academics, both as a student as well as an instructor. I've developed courseware throughout its development cycle, including establishing training goals and learning objectives, writing course descriptions, crafting syllabii, lesson plans, textbooks, workbooks, slides, tests, post-course polls... You name it.
Give my experience, this course description has some interesting inclusions, as well as some which are more foreboding. Allow me to dissect:
CRIM 490: Firearms Law, Policy, and Politics
It's a Criminology class. Generally speaking, most of the folks taking these courses are headed for a career in law enforcement, justice, or the legal profession.
The course will explore federal, state and local firearms laws and regulations and how they
impact the availability and use of firearms; the legal firearms industry and commercial firearms
supply chain; and how and why firearms are diverted from lawful commerce for criminal
purposes.
Sounds ok so far.
We will examine existing firearms enforcement policy
What's a "firearms enforcement policy?" Is that where the government enforces our rights to keep and bear firearms? Or the other way around?
and programs to reduce
firearms-related violent crime, including how enforcement agencies use statistical data and other
investigative and technical tools to respond to firearms-related crime.
Typical LE stuff.
We will examine the
history of firearms and the types of firearms in circulation today, and discuss technical
similarities and differences and dispel misinformation that frequently appears in print and
electronic media.
Sounds positive. I hope they dispel the wrongful use of the term "assault weapon" and get back to using proper, technical terms, such as SA, DA, bolt-action, etc.
We will explore the founding fathers' original intent regarding the second
amendment
This actually sounds quite promising!
and compare and contrast the need for a well-regulated militia with the way the
public and courts view the amendment today.
Er, to what end? Hopefully to highlight anti-gun buffoonery.
We will discuss whether guns contribute to more
or less violent crime.
Sounds open-minded, but it might also be a trap into which stats are abused towards the wrong conclusion.
We will explore how politics, the media and special interest groups
influence the government's ability and willingness to pass firearms legislation and enforce
firearms laws.
Again, sounds objective, but it could go either way.
We will explore the role of the United States as a small arms supplier to the world
and the role that U.S.-sourced firearms play in contributing to violent crime in neighboring
countries such as Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean region.
I sincerely hope they're talking about the BATF's fiasco. Otherwise, this is the clincher, and casts doubt on the remainder of the course description as being nothing but an attempt to be objective while sucking the students in with anti-gun "statistics" so as to finally demonstrate that the US firearms policy is to blame for the world's problems.
Grade: C-. Whoever developed this appears to have a hidden, anti-gun agenda.
Beware...
Last edited: