Academics really do live in an ivory tower in a lot of ways. They don't have to deal with the real world in their day-to-day lives. They're viewed as part of the elite and they view themselves as being experts on literally anything, even if it has no bearing on their fields of study.

So yeah, I kind of loathe academics as a whole, though there are some very good ones I consider friends.

In the wake of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, folks are coming out of the woodwork to try and tell us how Republicans should have supported gun control.

That includes academics, such as this criminology professor at Northeastern.

A Northeastern University professor said that the assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump should get Republicans to “Reconsider” their stance on some gun control measures.

James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University professor of Criminology, made the comment to Northeastern University’s news service on Saturday, just hours after Trump was shot.

“The Republican party has been rather reluctant to back sensible gun control measures,” Fox said. “Their party leader has been shot. Fortunately, he didn’t get mortally wounded, but it certainly should help them reconsider some of their stances on sensible gun safety measures.” 

The quote would later be removed from the article entirely.

Fox noted that similar previous incidents of political gun violence have forced gun control to be discussed.

Fox told Campus Reform that the issue of gun control is relevant.

”As to whether it is an appropriate issue to raise, the assassination attempt on Reagan and the severe injury to his aide James Brady eventually inspired a significant gun control measure (Brady Law). Besides, the assassination attempt on Trump was a shooting, and so raising the issue of gun control is clearly relevant,” Fox said. “Republicans are entrenched in their pro-gun stance. I would welcome but not expect some movement.”

First, there are still a ton of questions, so even if gun control was on the table for the Republican Party, we can't even begin to evaluate where a potential breakdown occurred.

But let's also remember this isn't the first time in recent years that we've seen a would-be assassin target Republicans. The shooting at a Republican baseball practice in Alexandria is still fresh enough in my mind, after all.

Rep. Steve Scalise was badly wounded in that shooting. Upon returning to work, he was asked if he would rethink his position on gun control. He said he wouldn't. If he, someone who had been directly shot by an attacker--a Bernie bro--wouldn't suddenly support gun control, why should the party as a whole?

Yes, James Brady did, but is he the exception or the rule?

The truth is, like so many others, Fox is engaging in wishful thinking. He favors gun control and so he figures Republicans should favor it in the wake of this.

But Fox isn't accounting for something called principles. 

When you believe in something, and support it with the very core of your being, you don't switch because of something bad happening. You might think about it--believe me, I know--but you remember why you supported it in the first place. You remember that nothing has changed and you don't back down and do what your opponents wanted all along.

In a case like this, you especially don't do it. You don't want to encourage such a thing in the future.

So Fox can want this all he wants. He's wise, though, to not expect it.

(Edit: The university was incorrectly listed as Northwestern. That correction has been made.)