I've never been able to read the Volokh Conspiracy. David Bernstein and Orin Kerr are quite good, but the rest of the gang, especially Volokh himself, are apt to fill their posts with non-sequiturs. Today provides us with a shining example of this:

What, though, is the argument against allowing professors and other university staff to possess weapons, if they choose? ...One argument is that it's just dangerous for law-abiding citizens to have weapons, because they'll start shooting over arguments or fender-benders. But that's precisely the argument that has been rejected by the 38 states that allow any law-abiding citizen to get a concealed carry license (or, in 2 of the 38 states, to carry without a license).

No, not 38 states!

When reading stuff like this, I constantly wonder whether I should write something refuting it (um, there is no reason to substitute majority opinion for evidence, especially when the majority in question is comprised of politicians who spend a fair amount of time thinking about how to influence donors, various lobbies, etc) or whether it would be a waste of my laptop's battery power to do so.

Update: More nonsense from Volokh:

...I know of zero evidence that for those professors who are likely to seek and get concealed carry permits, the risk of misbehavior is materially greater than for police officers.

On the other hand, I know of no evidence that arming professors reduces campus crime. Oh, wait - could it be because no one has studied the effects of arming professors on campus crime?