View Full Version : More guns on campus is the only solution to no guns on campus
Business_Casual
10-11-07, 08:33
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmZiZDdhNjJlZTk2YjY4N2IzYTUxZWNjZDZhZjUxMTY=
We must find responsible, trained teachers and administrators for our High Schools and allow college students to CCW. It is the only way to end this madness.
M_P
the1911fan
10-12-07, 06:32
There was an armed guard at the 1st floor main door who actually checked the bags of the Cleveland kid (Koon)...methinks he did'nt want to go to war alone and waited for backup...by that time it was over.
The shooting took place on the 4th floor.
I agree, responsible teachers with a CCW's is a reasonable solution. Just like armed airline pilots makes sense to me. What does not make sense is waiting in a classroom like sheep for some nut case to execute you. LE can't save them. Columbine was a disaster. We have to have the tools to protect our kids.
macddesign
10-13-07, 19:07
Teachers with CCW's just makes more sence than a single armed security guard or law enforcement agent for an entire campus. The teachers are already there, and on the payrole. And probably have a better knowlege or he students than a guard or officer would.
KintlaLake
10-13-07, 20:06
I'd like to hear from our professional practical-tactical types on this subject.
Seriously. Pro and con.
I'd like to hear from our professional practical-tactical types on this subject.
Seriously. Pro and con.
First off, I am an officer with a University agency that has the largest jurisdiction land wise of any university in the nation. We even have a Lake Patrol we are that large. We are fully commissioned state officers as every other "Police" officer in the state.
While CCW for students and faculty sounds good in theory, it would only result in potential disaster should an event such as VT occur.
The program our state utilizes to teach all officers to respond to Active Shooters advocates a swift and decisive response to the incident. Combine that with the anarchy of one of these events and a armed but well intentioned student or faculty member is bound to be engaged by responding officers.
One could advocate that would mean the responding officers are being quick on the trigger, but you have an ACTIVE shooting in progress and most likely no solid information regarding suspect description so you have to act fast. A two second delay in judgement and that can and probably will mean life and death for a student or students who are still within the crime scene.
You arm faculty and students and it will only complicate things even more and possibly cost lives in such an enclosed and dynamic environment.
Disclaimer before I am pegged as The Man... I have no problems with CCW and even advocate it. But... if it will complicate my job in an already chaotic environment and in turn place that CCW holder's life in even more danger then I will openly speak out against it.
I know my thoughts are echoed throughout my agency and the surrounding agencies we work with and would assume it is the same amongst fellow officer around the nation who work in a university environment.
Just my $0.02 based on my training.
Allow me...
There’s A Reason They Choose Schools
A familiar story.
By Timothy Wheeler
Wednesday’s shooting at yet another school has a better outcome than most in recent memory. No one died at Cleveland’s Success Tech Academy except the perpetrator. The two students and two teachers he shot are in stable condition at Cleveland hospitals.
What is depressingly similar to the mass murders at Virginia Tech and Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania and too many others was the killer’s choice of venue — that steadfastly gun-free zone, the school campus. Although murderer Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech and Asa Coon, the Cleveland shooter were both students reported to have school-related grudges, other school killers have proved to be simply taking advantage of the lack of effective security at schools. The Bailey, Colorado multiple rapes and murder of September 2006, the Nickel Mines massacre of October 2006, and Buford Furrow’s murderous August 1999 invasion of a Los Angeles Jewish day-care center were all committed by adults. They had no connection to the schools other than being drawn to the soft target a school offers such psychopaths.
This latest shooting comes only a few weeks after the American Medical Association released a theme issue of its journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. This issue is dedicated to analyzing the April 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, in which 32 people were murdered. The authors are university officials, trauma surgeons, and legal analysts who pore over the details of the incident, looking for “warning signs” and “risk factors” for violence. They rehash all the tired rhetoric of bureaucrats and public-health wonks, including the public-health mantra of the 1990s that guns are the root cause of violence.
Sheldon Greenberg, a dean at Johns Hopkins, offers this gem: “Reinforce a ‘no weapons’ policy and, when violated, enforce it quickly, to include expulsion. Parents should be made aware of the policy. Officials should dispel the politically driven notion that armed students could eliminate an active shooter” (emphasis added). Greenberg apparently isn’t aware that at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 another homicidal Virginia student was stopped from shooting more of his classmates when another student held him at gunpoint. The Pearl High School murderer Luke Woodham was stopped cold when vice principal Joel Myrick got his Colt .45 handgun out of his truck and pointed it at the young killer.
Virginia Tech’s 2005 no-guns-on-campus policy was an abject failure at deterring Cho Seung-Hui. Greenberg’s audacity in ignoring the obvious is typical of arrogant school officials. What the AMA journal authors studiously avoid are on one hand the repeated failures of such feel-good steps as no-gun policies, and on the other hand the demonstrated success of armed first responders. These responders would be the students themselves, such as the trained and licensed law student, or their similarly qualified teachers.
In Cleveland this week and at Virginia Tech the shooters took time to walk the halls, searching out victims in several rooms, and then shooting them. Virginia Chief Medical Examiner Marcella Fierro describes the locations of the dead in Virginia Tech’s Norris Hall. Dead victims were found in groups ranging from 1 to 13, scattered throughout 4 rooms and a stairwell. If any one of the victims had, like the Appalachian School of Law student, used armed force to stop Cho, lives could have been saved.
The people of Virginia actually had a chance to implement such a plan last year. House Bill 1572 was introduced in the legislature to extend the state’s concealed-carry provisions to college campuses. But the bill died in committee, opposed by the usual naysayers, including the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police and the university itself. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was quoted in the Roanoke Times as saying, “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.”
It is encouraging that college students themselves have a much better grasp on reality than their politically correct elders. During the week of October 22-26 Students For Concealed Carry On Campus will stage a nationwide “empty holster” demonstration (peaceful, of course) in support of their cause.
School officials typically base violence-prevention policies on irrational fears more than real-world analysis of what works. But which is more horrible, the massacre that timid bureaucrats fear might happen when a few good guys (and gals) carry guns on campus, or the one that actually did happen despite Virginia Tech’s progressive violence-prevention policy? Can there really be any more debate?
AMA journal editor James J. James, M.D. offers up this nostrum:
We must meaningfully embrace all of the varied disciplines contributing to preparedness and response and be more willing to be guided and informed by the full spectrum of research methodologies, including not only the rigid application of the traditional scientific method and epidemiological and social science applications but also the incorporation of observational/empirical findings, as necessary, in the absence of more objective data.
Got that?
I prefer the remedy prescribed by self-defense guru Massad Ayoob. When good people find themselves in what he calls “the dark place,” confronted by the imminent terror of a gun-wielding homicidal maniac, the picture becomes clear. Policies won’t help. Another federal gun law won’t help. The only solution is a prepared and brave defender with the proper lifesaving tool — a gun.
— Timothy Wheeler, M.D. is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute.
First off, I am an officer with a University agency that has the largest jurisdiction land wise of any university in the nation. We even have a Lake Patrol we are that large. We are fully commissioned state officers as every other "Police" officer in the state.
While CCW for students and faculty sounds good in theory, it would only result in potential disaster should an event such as VT occur.
The program our state utilizes to teach all officers to respond to Active Shooters advocates a swift and decisive response to the incident. Combine that with the anarchy of one of these events and a armed but well intentioned student or faculty member is bound to be engaged by responding officers.
One could advocate that would mean the responding officers are being quick on the trigger, but you have an ACTIVE shooting in progress and most likely no solid information regarding suspect description so you have to act fast. A two second delay in judgement and that can and probably will mean life and death for a student or students who are still within the crime scene.
You arm faculty and students and it will only complicate things even more and possibly cost lives in such an enclosed and dynamic environment.
Disclaimer before I am pegged as The Man... I have no problems with CCW and even advocate it. But... if it will complicate my job in an already chaotic environment and in turn place that CCW holder's life in even more danger then I will openly speak out against it.
I know my thoughts are echoed throughout my agency and the surrounding agencies we work with and would assume it is the same amongst fellow officer around the nation who work in a university environment.
Just my $0.02 based on my training.
Extrapolate that to every other cop on the beat and you have effectively banned CCW using that logic. Yeah, you're real pro-CCW. :rolleyes:
Don Robison
10-13-07, 22:07
First off, I am an officer with a University agency that has the largest jurisdiction land wise of any university in the nation. We even have a Lake Patrol we are that large. We are fully commissioned state officers as every other "Police" officer in the state.
Size doesn't matter in this case:D
While CCW for students and faculty sounds good in theory, it would only result in potential disaster should an event such as VT occur.
What exactly would you call VT if not a disaster:confused: They were unarmed and it didn't seem to help them much from what I could see.
The program our state utilizes to teach all officers to respond to Active Shooters advocates a swift and decisive response to the incident. Combine that with the anarchy of one of these events and a armed but well intentioned student or faculty member is bound to be engaged by responding officers.
You get paid to make shoot no-shoot decisions. Acting swiftly doesn't mean hosing the area with suppressive fire does it? I agree that it wouldn't be the smartest thing to do; running around with a gun like a spaz, but one motivated and trained student could have ended VT before it got where it did IMHO.
One could advocate that would mean the responding officers are being quick on the trigger, but you have an ACTIVE shooting in progress and most likely no solid information regarding suspect description so you have to act fast. A two second delay in judgement and that can and probably will mean life and death for a student or students who are still within the crime scene.
See above
You arm faculty and students and it will only complicate things even more and possibly cost lives in such an enclosed and dynamic environment.
Keeping them disarmed is already ready costing lives; it's obviously not working.
Disclaimer before I am pegged as The Man... I have no problems with CCW and even advocate it. But... if it will complicate my job in an already chaotic environment and in turn place that CCW holder's life in even more danger then I will openly speak out against it.
I don't think of you as "The Man" I just think you've bought into a bill of goods that is obviously not working. I would suggest looking for a solution other than disarming honest folks.
I know my thoughts are echoed throughout my agency and the surrounding agencies we work with and would assume it is the same amongst fellow officer around the nation who work in a university environment.
Just my $0.02 based on my training.
Problem with those thoughts is that it's impractical to expect police protection and been proven that waiting for the calvary gets you dead. Having a gun is no guarantee, but it sure beats standing there with your dick in your hand. There aren't enough of you, it's not your fault it's just a fact of life that there are more loons, kooks, criminals and degenerates than there are cops. So please don't take this as bashing you. I just have a differing opinion.
Not a problem Don, but place yourself in my shoes.
Get a call of shots fired at a classroom building. You arrive on scene, make entry into the facility and move toward the gun shots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student. Which do you engage?
Bear in mind, if you wait to long you never see your family again and you have done nothing to help the situation end.
You engage both. Nowadays criminals work in teams. A student in the building with the suspect will in turn be viewed as a suspect. Even if he doesn't match the "description" you were given if you were given one he is there, not a law enforcement responder and has a gun. It's just a crappy day to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
At VT, sure a student with a gun could have attempted to stop it. Then again, students were killed execution style in groups. Physically assaulting Cho would have ended it just as quick. Fifteen students physically attacking a solo armed subject; odds are they would have won and thus ended the whole thing without a gun.
And Razor... I honestly am for CCW, but I am also a realist. You put a gun in a student or teacher hand, they will come up on the losing end of the battle.
I wish that I could place some of you in that situation where you would have to make that choice. But I can't. Plus... this is the internet, so regardless of who says what it should be looked at skeptically anyway.
All we can do is be objective to each other's opinions and allow for what could be "lost in translation" through the text that express our opinions.
Don Robison
10-13-07, 22:34
Trust me ZG, I empathize with the position you're put in, I guess I'm just too old and ornery to A. line up for execution B. wait for the cavalry. Don't mistake this for being willing to go to guns mano eh mano in a no win situation just for the hell of it. I've just made the decision to not be a victim.
FWIW, I retire from the military in the next year and I'm currently applying to a few departments. So, I guess I'll be in your shoes then................hopefully.
Heavy Metal
10-13-07, 22:41
At VT, sure a student with a gun could have attempted to stop it. Then again, students were killed execution style in groups. Physically assaulting Cho would have ended it just as quick. Fifteen students physically attacking a solo armed subject; odds are they would have won and thus ended the whole thing without a gun.
And Razor... I honestly am for CCW, but I am also a realist. You put a gun in a student or teacher hand, they will come up on the losing end of the battle.
So, students/teachers could have physically have overcame him but would have came out on the losing end of the battle if they had a handgun?!?
Trust me ZG, I empathize with the position you're put in, I guess I'm just too old and ornery to A. line up for execution B. wait for the cavalry. Don't mistake this for being willing to go to guns mano eh mano in a no win situation just for the hell of it. I've just made the decision to not be a victim.
FWIW, I retire from the military in the next year and I'm currently applying to a few departments. So, I guess I'll be in your shoes then................hopefully.
First off... congrats on nearing retirement. I was the typical 1st Termer up until I hit Corporal and realized the Corps wasn't so bad once you picked up rank and decided I wanted to stay in and go EOD. But... an injury on my second deployment prevented that. Still miss it every day I wake up!
Best of luck on the career after retirement. It will make you wish you were still on active duty though LoL. Things are much more black and white in the military!!! Well... I guess maybe not so much anymore, but still more so than L.E. You can just act more instinctively in the military since the "black pajama'd mofos" (my SgtMaj's favorite way to describe them lol) are less likely to sue you for your life's worth!
Anyways, back on topic. I understand what you mean. I am the same way or else I would not have been in the Marines and continued on in uniformed and armed doing what I do. I just think that the risk have to be weighed and in what is the arguably the dynamic situation an officer can be in, it would put the innocent at an unnecessary level of enhanced risk in respect to being a non-LEO inside the active scene with a gun.
Again, congrats on the retirement and your future career endeavours.
Business_Casual
10-13-07, 23:50
I just think that the risk [sic] have to be weighed and in what is the arguably the dynamic situation an officer can be in, it would put the innocent at an unnecessary level of enhanced risk in respect to being a non-LEO inside the active scene with a gun.
So let me get this straight, you can be killed by a crazed gunman or you can risk being killed by a cop, right? So it is better, or in this case, more convenient for the police, if you are killed by the crazed gunman because if you have a gun a cop might have to shoot you since he can't tell who the real gunman is? Oh, I do sincerely hope you are never called to the witness stand young man.
Once again we cross swords!
First you want to eliminate the 1st Amendment because you don't like mouthy teenagers on Youtube, now we need to eliminate CCW because you might shoot us? Dear Lord, save us from the Kampus Kops! :cool:
M_P
KintlaLake
10-14-07, 10:43
Late yesterday I asked for a practical-tactical perspective because although I have opinions on this issue, I'm not the smartest guy in the room when it comes to dealing with an active shooter.
Here's what I mean.
My wife and I are private citizens, with two teenage spawns enrolled in public schools. Both expect to attend college. We'll do whatever is necessary to ensure their safety and welfare.
We're passionate supporters of the Second Amendment, the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, and the judicious issuing of concealed-carry privileges.
We believe that an armed citizenry can be a deterrent to those who would do us harm or threaten our freedoms, and that the existence of "unarmed victim zones" -- the widespread absence of an armed deterrent -- contributes to violent crime.
With differing degrees of real-world experience and practical training, we take the words of Jeff Cooper to heart: "One is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."
We know that not everyone who owns a firearm is "capable of using it skillfully" or seeks training to make up that deficit, and that holding a concealed-carry permit is no guarantee that the permittee is trained to act or capable of performing in the face of an armed threat.
Finally, we're mindful of the words of Wayne Woodrow Hayes: "When you throw the football, three things can happen. Two of them are bad." In the case of armed defense, to us the "bad things" are missing the intended target or hitting an unintended target, possibilities that increase without proper training.
All that said, we're still struggling with how we (as a society) should address the threat of armed violence in public schools and on college campuses. It'd be relatively easy for us to take the emotional-Constitutional position, but we're sobered by the prospect of arming thousands of faculty, staff and (college) students who may or may not be (and probably aren't) adequately trained.
We've also considered precisely the scenario that ZGXtreme talked about from the law-enforcement perspective:
Get a call of shots fired at a classroom building. You arrive on scene, make entry into the facility and move toward the gun shots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student. Which do you engage?
So as much as we loathe "unarmed victim zones" and could support (with specific reservations) the presence of armed citizens as deterrent and defense, we're still in search of the rest of the answer.
Ellery Holt
10-14-07, 12:08
Originally Posted by ZGXtreme
I just think that the risk [sic] have to be weighed and in what is the arguably the dynamic situation an officer can be in, it would put the innocent at an unnecessary level of enhanced risk in respect to being a non-LEO inside the active scene with a gun.
So let me get this straight, you can be killed by a crazed gunman or you can risk being killed by a cop, right? So it is better, or in this case, more convenient for the police, if you are killed by the crazed gunman because if you have a gun a cop might have to shoot you since he can't tell who the real gunman is?
Well your restatement isn't nearly as LEO-friendly, and you'd never see it quoted that way in the media, but you've summarized the essence of his argument exactly.
Here in Oregon we have the Medford school teacher suing her district because their 'no concealed carry policy' is in violation of our state laws. The district and it's lawyers sound very much like ZGXtreme -- very reasonable, very well intentioned. A polished message intended for maximum ease of buy-in for those who are too lazy to think critically about the argument being presented.
And of course it's all just the same BS.
Don Robison
10-14-07, 12:30
I just think that the risk have to be weighed and in what is the arguably the dynamic situation an officer can be in, it would put the innocent at an unnecessary level of enhanced risk in respect to being a non-LEO inside the active scene with a gun.
I appreciate the concern for the safety of others, but the innocent were put at an unnecessary level of danger the moment they were told there would be "gun free" zones. Every school shootings that has taken place since this bit of stupidity was enacted has happened in a gun free zone. I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but I'd call that a clue pointing to the fact that gun free zones don't do anything except disarm those who want to be good citizens(victims) and follow the law.
Maybe schools should issue Kevlar-lined School uniforms or backpacks with a SAPI plate built into them so our kids can attempt to protect them selves while the police are still trying to figure out WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON...
just my $.o2:rolleyes:
Heavy Metal
10-14-07, 12:48
Lets do a little math.
How many have been killed by armed gunman inside victim disarmament zones?
How many CCWers have been mistakenly killed anywhere at anytime, not just at so-called gun free zones by police while engaging a tango? I have never heard of it.
I will bet the first example totally dwarfs the second.
The odds sure seem to favor the armed student unless someone can give me a mathematical, statistically valid argument to the contrary.
KintlaLake
10-14-07, 12:56
And of course it's all just the same BS.
Before dismissing ZGXtreme's points wholesale as BS, I believe it'd be fair to answer one of his questions as a practical matter:
Get a call of shots fired at a classroom building. You arrive on scene, make entry into the facility and move toward the gun shots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student.
Which do you engage?
I'm not an LEO and never have been, nor do I presume to have a complete understanding of the profession or the tactics involved, but to me that's a plausible scenario.
Here's another angle, substituting an armed private citizen for the LEO:
You're walking across campus and you hear what sounds like gunshots coming from inside a classroom building. You draw your concealed handgun, shove your way into the building past fleeing occupants and move toward the gunshots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student.
Which do you engage?
RIF: At this point I'm neither advocating nor opposing the arming of private citizens in schools or on campuses. I'm in relentless pursuit of information from folks who are smarter than I am on the subject.
Not a problem Don, but place yourself in my shoes.
Get a call of shots fired at a classroom building. You arrive on scene, make entry into the facility and move toward the gun shots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student. Which do you engage?
Bear in mind, if you wait to long you never see your family again and you have done nothing to help the situation end.
You engage both. Nowadays criminals work in teams. A student in the building with the suspect will in turn be viewed as a suspect. Even if he doesn't match the "description" you were given if you were given one he is there, not a law enforcement responder and has a gun. It's just a crappy day to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
At VT, sure a student with a gun could have attempted to stop it. Then again, students were killed execution style in groups. Physically assaulting Cho would have ended it just as quick. Fifteen students physically attacking a solo armed subject; odds are they would have won and thus ended the whole thing without a gun.
And Razor... I honestly am for CCW, but I am also a realist. You put a gun in a student or teacher hand, they will come up on the losing end of the battle.
I wish that I could place some of you in that situation where you would have to make that choice. But I can't. Plus... this is the internet, so regardless of who says what it should be looked at skeptically anyway.
All we can do is be objective to each other's opinions and allow for what could be "lost in translation" through the text that express our opinions.
You shoot first without identifying targets? I would hate to have you as a cop. :eek:
So you see guy A shooting at guy B but you shoot both? Excellent logic and I commend you. :rolleyes: Good guy whether A or B will drop his/her gun when seeing the cops making it easier, but if you go in like Rambo, I pity the innocents in your crossfire.
Before dismissing ZGXtreme's points wholesale as BS, I believe it'd be fair to answer one of his questions as a practical matter:
Get a call of shots fired at a classroom building. You arrive on scene, make entry into the facility and move toward the gun shots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student.
Which do you engage?
I'm not an LEO and never have been, nor do I presume to have a complete understanding of the profession or the tactics involved, but to me that's a plausible scenario.
Here's another angle, substituting an armed private citizen for the LEO:
You're walking across campus and you hear what sounds like gunshots coming from inside a classroom building. You draw your concealed handgun, shove your way into the building past fleeing occupants and move toward the gunshots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student.
Which do you engage?
RIF: At this point I'm neither advocating nor opposing the arming of private citizens in schools or on campuses. I'm in relentless pursuit of information from folks who are smarter than I am on the subject.
First: Whichever throws down his gun when the cops come. You don't round a corner spraying.
Second: As a private citizen I probably wouldn't run towards the BG unless BG is in my path. It all depends but if someone is engaged with another, I sit out until one of them wins and if that winner continues to shoot that makes the decision easy. Assuming I'm still sticking around. However, I'm not a one man entry team and probably won't go on the offensive but rather defensive.
Submariner
10-14-07, 13:36
Here's another angle, substituting an armed private citizen for the LEO:
[INDENT][I]You're walking across campus and you hear what sounds like gunshots coming from inside a classroom building. You draw your concealed handgun, shove your way into the building past fleeing occupants and move toward the gunshots. You round a corner and find two subjects with weapons; one the true suspect, the other a student.
Which do you engage?
This sounds like a TOS masturbatory fantasy. What duty would require this person to run to the sound of gunfire? The CCW is to protect him and, perhaps, those in close proximity to him. Most folks are concerned about a gunfight finding them and dealing with it, not looking for a gunfight.
Avoidance. Deterrence. De-escalation.
There is a Plan C. Online degree programs which avoid living/working in the gun-free zone while still carrying. We have two doing it now.
KintlaLake
10-14-07, 13:50
This sounds like a TOS masturbatory fantasy.
Agreed. And plausible as hell, unfortunately.
You shoot first without identifying targets? I would hate to have you as a cop. :eek:
So you see guy A shooting at guy B but you shoot both? Excellent logic and I commend you. :rolleyes: Good guy whether A or B will drop his/her gun when seeing the cops making it easier, but if you go in like Rambo, I pity the innocents in your crossfire.
The target is the non-Cop inside an Active Shooter scene who has a gun. Simple. This is one of the rare examples in modern law enforcement where an officer will be justified in engaging a subject without so much as saying a word. Because the person had shown their intentions... to kill as many as possible. You wait that second or two and you have more victims and the media starts asking why did the officers hesitate?
There is no true right or wrong answer to this question and I wish I could take each of you through a training session in a school with blanks and the alarms going off to show you somewhat how the real thing actually feels. But I can't.
I believe someone here made mention of the CCW holder not seeking the subject to engage but rather defend themself and those around them if confronted by the suspect...
IF, someone did not pursue the subject to engage, I would be more abt to agree with CCW on a university campus. Problem is... we have a population of "adults" who are still catered to as if they are children. (Don't blame me on that one... that is the liberal pussifiction of society at work there). While You all have the maturity and life experiences to possibly make the right choices in such a situation, I highly doubt a 21 year old whose mind is on the bar that night will do the same in regards to keeping a tactical frame of mind and not feeling like "Superman."
Don Robison
10-14-07, 14:57
IF, someone did not pursue the subject to engage, I would be more abt to agree with CCW on a university campus. Problem is... we have a population of "adults" who are still catered to as if they are children. (Don't blame me on that one... that is the liberal pussifiction of society at work there). While You all have the maturity and life experiences to possibly make the right choices in such a situation, I highly doubt a 21 year old whose mind is on the bar that night will do the same in regards to keeping a tactical frame of mind and not feeling like "Superman."
Sorry, but I can't buy that line of reasoning. The pussification acceptance party isn't going to be carrying a gun or pursuing anyone. I have no doubt there are 21 year olds who have no business with a gun, much like there are 40 year olds in the same category, some cops belong in there as well. Here is the major problem I have with that argument. There are in fact 21 year olds making those decisions both in the military and in police departments everyday. The majority of people who CCW do so to protect themselves and family, not to compliment the "S" on their chest.
Nathan_Bell
10-14-07, 15:06
The target is the non-Cop inside an Active Shooter scene who has a gun. Simple. This is one of the rare examples in modern law enforcement where an officer will be justified in engaging a subject without so much as saying a word. Because the person had shown their intentions... to kill as many as possible. You wait that second or two and you have more victims and the media starts asking why did the officers hesitate?
There is no true right or wrong answer to this question and I wish I could take each of you through a training session in a school with blanks and the alarms going off to show you somewhat how the real thing actually feels. But I can't.
I believe someone here made mention of the CCW holder not seeking the subject to engage but rather defend themself and those around them if confronted by the suspect...
IF, someone did not pursue the subject to engage, I would be more abt to agree with CCW on a university campus. Problem is... we have a population of "adults" who are still catered to as if they are children. (Don't blame me on that one... that is the liberal pussifiction of society at work there). While You all have the maturity and life experiences to possibly make the right choices in such a situation, I highly doubt a 21 year old whose mind is on the bar that night will do the same in regards to keeping a tactical frame of mind and not feeling like "Superman."
This is the problem. These adults have the mindset of children. Too many of them have the mindset of big brother will protect me if I am good. This mindset is what leads to the slaughters on campus. None of these "children" know and understand that THEY are resposible for their security, and surrendering this power is going to get them dead.
So if giving these "children" a gun is anathema to the campus police, how about giving them a wake up. Tell them that if someone starts shooting they are on their own for X number of minutes, and if they want to have a chance to have another hangover they will have to handle themselves for that amount of time.
Sorry, but I can't buy that line of reasoning. The pussification acceptance party isn't going to be carrying a gun or pursuing anyone. I have no doubt there are 21 year olds who have no business with a gun, much like there are 40 year olds in the same category, some cops belong in there as well. Here is the major problem I have with that argument. There are in fact 21 year olds making those decisions both in the military and in police departments everyday. The majority of people who CCW do so to protect themselves and family, not to compliment the "S" on their chest.
I whole heartedly agree, the problem lies in that the 21 year olds who can handle that responsibility are already in the law enforcement/military in lieu of doing the sterotypical college and frat thing.
twodollarbill
10-14-07, 15:23
Just as with secured government facilities and hi-tech
workplaces, I believe in the near future all schools will
require some type of scanned entry to enter the building.
Every school from elementary to college. This will be a
start to controlling those not authorized to enter and alerting
staff of a student who has been "flagged" is now entering.
I'm not talking about just metal scans, but card scanning
with matching photo. I laughed about this years ago when
boarding a cruise ship. My wife's hospital just implement
such a system, she goes through 3 scans to get to her office.
We all know that this is not a gun problem....it is a people
problem and we have to bring it down to a individual problem.
Sounds an awful lot like big brother is watching, but as a
parent, knowing that my child is "locked-up" has benefits.
I know....once they start doing this....what's next!!!
Don Robison
10-14-07, 15:35
I whole heartedly agree, the problem lies in that the 21 year olds who can handle that responsibility are already in the law enforcement/military in lieu of doing the sterotypical college and frat thing.
Your arguments seem to be sinking. There are plenty of responsible 18-25 year olds in school. I would suggest your view point is skewed because the only ones you come in contact with are the "stereotypical" types on the job. You never notice the others because they give you no reason to notice them. I've met quite a few through my daughter while she was in college. Did they like to party, you bet. Would I trust their judgment? I would say greater than 50% of them. I just don't see making rules that affect everyone, because of the actions of a few. I've had issue with the military for do it for coming up on 21 years. I've never done it when I have been in the position to do so. I handle the problem individual and don't rely a new rule to hamper those with common sense. Yes, it's more work, but I'd rather work more than try to dumb everyone down to the point they don't have to think for themselves.
That is how our residence halls are setup in addition to buildings that contain radioactive or biologic items. Everytime I use my I.D. to swipe in someplace it is logged as that is where I was and at what time. In turn, should someone be a "threat" they can just deactivate his/her card. I hated it at first but have grown used to it.
Doesn't feel much like "Big Brother" since I am really not worried about them knowing where I am and there is nothing they can do with that info anyways. Is nice that they can add restrictions to people though so they cannot access areas.
Just as with secured government facilities and hi-tech
workplaces, I believe in the near future all schools will
require some type of scanned entry to enter the building.
Every school from elementary to college. This will be a
start to controlling those not authorized to enter and alerting
staff of a student who has been "flagged" is now entering.
I'm not talking about just metal scans, but card scanning
with matching photo. I laughed about this years ago when
boarding a cruise ship. My wife's hospital just implement
such a system, she goes through 3 scans to get to her office.
We all know that this is not a gun problem....it is a people
problem and we have to bring it down to a individual problem.
Sounds an awful lot like big brother is watching, but as a
parent, knowing that my child is "locked-up" has benefits.
I know....once they start doing this....what's next!!!
As former LEO and able to carry pretty much where I want in my state, I'd definetely take my chances with being shot by the responding officers rather than being executed by a Cho type assailant.
In a most situations an armed teacher/student would have/could have dispatched Cho long before LE was on scene.
So when LE arrives hopefully they find the CCW'er who ended the incident with his weapon reholstered and the either showing his hands or on his knees with his hands on his or her head.
To follow ZGXtreme's line of reasoning is fallacy, the police cannot and will not protect us all the time. They can't watch us all the time and we wouldn't stand for it.
I guess for me me, if I'm forced to fire on a bad guy and I get whacked by the responders, then at least I hopefully saved others. In my mind that is part of the risk and repsonsibilty of going armed in todays society.
Repectfully,
Jeff
John_Wayne777
10-14-07, 20:01
While CCW for students and faculty sounds good in theory, it would only result in potential disaster should an event such as VT occur.
The program our state utilizes to teach all officers to respond to Active Shooters advocates a swift and decisive response to the incident. Combine that with the anarchy of one of these events and a armed but well intentioned student or faculty member is bound to be engaged by responding officers.
With all due respect, sir, you are wrong.
I was in a college class just a couple of hours away when the VT thing was going down.
I would not have been engaged by responding officers if I was in Norris hall and armed. Cho would have been dead or I would have been dead by the time the police could finally mobilize and get in the building.
And frankly, if I am going to risk getting shot, I'd rather risk staring down the wrong end of a police issue weapon than be left absolutely helpless while some waste of sperm blows me away. At least the friggin' cops aren't there to murder me and aren't likely to cap me if I act like I have a brain.
The idea that cops are going to end up smoking CCW holders at the scene of a crime is oft repeated but to my knowledge hasn't happened.
Disclaimer before I am pegged as The Man... I have no problems with CCW and even advocate it. But... if it will complicate my job in an already chaotic environment and in turn place that CCW holder's life in even more danger then I will openly speak out against it.
Sir, I fail to see how on earth my life could possibly be in more danger by posessing an effective means of self defense against some sh*thead that you and your colleagues can't get to for at least a few minutes.
At the very least I can make the bastard duck, and that means he gets less time to wantonly slaughter people.
Further, I *know* I am better trained with a weapon than the majority of the campus police officers on the campus I'm at regularly.
I'm not trying to jump on you here, but I think you are in serious error on several points.
John_Wayne777
10-14-07, 20:06
That is how our residence halls are setup in addition to buildings that contain radioactive or biologic items. Everytime I use my I.D. to swipe in someplace it is logged as that is where I was and at what time. In turn, should someone be a "threat" they can just deactivate his/her card. I hated it at first but have grown used to it.
And because you've been on a college campus daily you must also realize that not even 1% of the people on the campus have any normal day to day awareness of security and frequently let people PAST things like card scanners.
Hell, I can get into any dorm in a 350 mile radius with a pizza claiming it is for delivery.
Ditto many other "secure" campus facilities.
There is nothing "secure" about a college campus. They aren't built for it.
This is the problem. These adults have the mindset of children. Too many of them have the mindset of big brother will protect me if I am good.
If they had that mindset, why would they apply for a CCW in the first place?
John_Wayne777
10-14-07, 20:11
IF, someone did not pursue the subject to engage, I would be more abt to agree with CCW on a university campus.
I don't know anyone with a CCW permit who is eager to try and play hunt the bad guy.
That's why citizens with CCW permits are effective in the first place...they don't hunt down criminals and engage them...they engage criminals who are in the process of trying to kill them and at the very least cause them to come up with a new plan.
If I was in a classroom in Norris hall when the shooting started on that fateful day with my M&P and my S&W 442, Cho would have had a really bad day.
If I was in another building and not under direct threat, I would have gotten the hell out of dodge and let the police handle it.
While You all have the maturity and life experiences to possibly make the right choices in such a situation, I highly doubt a 21 year old whose mind is on the bar that night will do the same in regards to keeping a tactical frame of mind and not feeling like "Superman."
...but a 21 year old police officer (like a number of our campus police) are going to show up and save the day?
Look....training is a wonderful thing. I believe in it. I have spent a small fortune obtaining it. I will spend more getting more training in the future....but let's not be so obtuse as to pretend that you MUST have 300 hours of formal weapons training to successfully defend yourself against somebody like Cho.
Cho shows up....starts shooting through the classroom door....you draw your weapon, and you start putting some rounds back at him. That's one room he isn't going to be wantonly slaughtering people in.
That's a hell of a lot better than your elderly professor trying desperately to hold the door shut because that's the ONLY option available to him in a crackerbox room with one way in and one way out like most college classrooms.
And this plan doesn't require a bunch of scared people spontaneously and instantaneously organizing and bum-rushing the shooter....it just requires a single individual with an effective means of self defense and the resolve to use it.
That is how our residence halls are setup in addition to buildings that contain radioactive or biologic items. Everytime I use my I.D. to swipe in someplace it is logged as that is where I was and at what time. In turn, should someone be a "threat" they can just deactivate his/her card. I hated it at first but have grown used to it.
Doesn't feel much like "Big Brother" since I am really not worried about them knowing where I am and there is nothing they can do with that info anyways. Is nice that they can add restrictions to people though so they cannot access areas.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759)
I'm as pro-gun as anyone else here but I'm going to have to disagree with a NEED for teachers to have CCW. The truth is trouble can strike you anywhere. My mother is a school teacher and has been for nearly 30 years now. She grew up around firearms her whole life but chooses to not own one herself. My father is the same way. I on the other hand have many firearms and am a CCW holder. I just like them and my grandfathers took me shooting with them on occasion.
In the case of school shootings we need RESPONSIBLE PARENTING and ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING GUN LAWS. In most cases the parents claimed that they weren't aware of things going on with their children and in some cases the children had various explosives not to mention various firearms the parents knew nothing about. All these things are objects that shouldn't be easy to "smuggle" in or out the house if you are paying attention to your children. I'm not much older than a lot of these people doing these things and I'm probably about the same age as the Columbine kids. The simple fact is that people need to RAISE THEIR CHILDREN and know the telling your child "NO" isn't the worst thing in the world sometimes. Children don't require or need that much privacy and don't have ANY right to it while living under your roof. Should you allow them some privacy they need to know it's a PRIVILEDGE.
*I know I may be preaching to the choir but it needs to be reiterated that these school shootings happen mostly because of parental negligence (Virginia Tech not withstanding.) It's criminal and the parents should be charged with manslaughter at least if not second degree murder IMO.
Don Robison
10-14-07, 22:34
MerQ,
That is what we're talking about, a choice. Your mom chooses not to own firearms. I simply can't endorse making someones choice about self protection and that's what is being done with gun free zones.
Legislators are making the choice for you, that's rich coming from a group of people who have security details.:rolleyes:
Well I understand where people are coming from but should we allow bank tellers to carry firearms too because some banks get knocked off? I mean some armed guards were killed in Philadelphia a few weeks ago so having a firearm doesn't guarantee safety either. Things happen very fast and we are talking about hypothetical best case scenarios. There would be a good chance you didn't know trouble was coming until it got there in which case it's usually too late.
Don Robison
10-14-07, 23:20
Well I understand where people are coming from but should we allow bank tellers to carry firearms too because some banks get knocked off? I mean some armed guards were killed in Philadelphia a few weeks ago so having a firearm doesn't guarantee safety either. Things happen very fast and we are talking about hypothetical best case scenarios. There would be a good chance you didn't know trouble was coming until it got there in which case it's usually too late.
Other than company policy there is nothing preventing bank workers in FL(where I live) from carrying a weapon. Plenty of store clerks have taken care of robbery attempts; ending badly for the rocket surgeon on the other side of the counter.
You're correct that having a gun doesn't guarantee safety, but it does open up options more so than jumping up with your dick in your hand screaming stop or I'll piss on you:D Or cowering in a corner waiting for your turn to be executed.
Yeah I agree with some things you say as well. I was mainly responding to the title thread that more guns will ensure safety. There is no REAL way to ensure safety. If there were a guaranteed way then no one would ever get hurt or be involved in a violent crime if they knew how to prevent it. My original statement that parental negligence is mostly the cause for almost all of the school shootings. If the parents were more involved then they simply wouldn't have happened. I don't buy the low self esteem excuse either. There have always been bullies and always will be. Kids also make fun of each other. It's part of being a child.
John_Wayne777
10-15-07, 06:43
Well I understand where people are coming from but should we allow bank tellers to carry firearms too because some banks get knocked off? I mean some armed guards were killed in Philadelphia a few weeks ago so having a firearm doesn't guarantee safety either.
No, but it sure as hell boosts the odds of survival when dealing with someone who is trying to kill you.
A firearm is not a magic talisman that wards off evil. Nobody on this site is going to make the claim that it is.
A firearm is simply the most effective tool of self defense in existence at this point in history. Having more people CCW isn't going to make crime cease...but the numbers show that it has a considerable impact on reducing mass public shootings.
There would be a good chance you didn't know trouble was coming until it got there in which case it's usually too late.
That's the point of having people carry. Guns are like fire extinguishers. Most of the time they aren't needed.....and when you DO need one, you don't have time to go looking for one.
EVERY mass public shooting follows the same routine....bad guy shows up and starts shooting people UNTIL HE MEETS ARMED RESISTANCE.
All the cameras and all the blast e-mail messages and all the safety seminars in all the world won't do as much good as one person who has an effective means of self defense.
KintlaLake
10-15-07, 08:10
We shared this thread with our teenage spawns last night. They're both smart kids, decidedly un-pussified. An interesting conversation, to say the least.
"Rules don't work for people who don't want to follow them."
"I'd feel better if teachers could protect us while we're waiting for the police. If they can shoot, anyway."
"Will teachers have radios so they can talk to the police?"
"What if my teacher doesn't have a gun? What if (the shooter) knows that and comes to my class?"
"Is this stuff just supposed to make sure (the shooter) gets killed, or is it supposed to make sure we don't get killed?"
The conversation might've gone on longer, but we had another pressing issue to discuss. According to yesterday's paper, my older spawn's favorite teacher engages in online seduction of teenage girls. :mad: School administrators knew this and let him keep teaching and coaching anyway. :mad: :mad: :mad:
No, but it sure as hell boosts the odds of survival when dealing with someone who is trying to kill you.
A firearm is not a magic talisman that wards off evil. Nobody on this site is going to make the claim that it is.
A firearm is simply the most effective tool of self defense in existence at this point in history. Having more people CCW isn't going to make crime cease...but the numbers show that it has a considerable impact on reducing mass public shootings.
That's the point of having people carry. Guns are like fire extinguishers. Most of the time they aren't needed.....and when you DO need one, you don't have time to go looking for one.
EVERY mass public shooting follows the same routine....bad guy shows up and starts shooting people UNTIL HE MEETS ARMED RESISTANCE.
All the cameras and all the blast e-mail messages and all the safety seminars in all the world won't do as much good as one person who has an effective means of self defense.
Again I understand your points and honestly yall are thinking best case scenarios. I'm thinking worst case scenarios and realistically for the average civilian. Most of us or at least a large number of us have a military or law enforcement background but you can't honestly expect the average civilian to think clearly in an emergency like that. Most teachers tend to be women and wouldn't be as inclined to carry firearms as a man. It's hard enough to get people to teach with so many undisciplined children as it is... requiring some form of combat training most likely wouldn't help when they are worried about their class performance as it is. How many of them would actually be able to pull the trigger when it's required especially if it's a child in their class doing the shooting that they genuinely care about?
MOST people freak out at the smell of smoke or the sight of a fire. If you introduce an active shooter in an environment the probable result for the average person would be calamity and shock. I'm not saying that would be the case always but it would be for most. I stick by the saying a person can be smart but a group of people tend to be dumb. Getting them to think in a unified manner during an emergency would seem to be an exercise in futility. Then there is the fact that like someone said - most class rooms are made with one way in and one way out and there are only so many emergency exits. I believe you may have more leeway in a college campus and I would be more inclined to support CCW in that realm but not so much with underage screaming and confused children involved.
In all the school shooting cases there was some form of mental issues with the shooters as well. I know we all want answers and solutions but I don't think there really are any logical ones. If the CCW carriers first option would be to flee off campus I don't see how having a firearm on your person would prevent you from doing that. Now if you are talking about actively trying to stop the shooter from killing many - that's a noble cause but then you have to think about putting yourself and others into danger. When you introduce force to force there is no telling what can happen honestly. Lastly remember the shooting on the VT campus all took place in one building yet it is a large school. It could have been much worse but thank God it wasn't.
Nathan_Bell
10-15-07, 08:58
If they had that mindset, why would they apply for a CCW in the first place?
My statement was about the lion's share of people on a college campus. They are oblivious. Most CCW people have a clue, but police and admins are more concerned with the one out of 1000 who is a doofus and would play "Let's find the shooter" and get shot by a first responder.
My personal view is that allowing CCW would be less disruptive, to all but the engineering and physics departments' mindsets, than telling all on campus that you are a beautiful collection of sheep and telling them how much damage a wolf in the fold would cause.
John_Wayne777
10-15-07, 09:04
Again I understand your points and honestly yall are thinking best case scenarios. I'm thinking worst case scenarios and realistically for the average civilian.
I am talking about a couple of actual school shooting scenarios that have been ended by a member of the faculty showing up with a weapon they retrieved from a vehicle.
The assistant principle in Kentucky and the law students in Virginia were to the best of my knowledge average civilians, and they managed to stop the carnage before LE could get on scene and deal with the situation. (And, strikingly enough, weren't shot by LE in the process....)
Most of us or at least a large number of us have a military or law enforcement background but you can't honestly expect the average civilian to think clearly in an emergency like that.
A lot of VT students thought clearly. They jumped out of windows and did what they could to get out of the hot-zone as quickly as they could. Those who couldn't run did everything they could to block the doors and keep the little sh*tstain from getting back in the room to zap more people. A subset of them seemed to be thinking clearly enough to try to do SOMETHING to limit the damage.
I'd wager that the individual I saw on the news who got his classmates together to block the door with everything they could move in the room after taking a bullet in the arm would have figured out what to do with a handgun had he been in possession of one.
Most teachers tend to be women and wouldn't be as inclined to carry firearms as a man.
Nobody is talking about mandatory CCW here. Just allowing those who WISH to CCW to actually do so. That's going to weed out most teachers/students/administrators in and of itself.
How many of them would actually be able to pull the trigger when it's required especially if it's a child in their class doing the shooting that they genuinely care about?
You'd be amazed what people can do when their life is on the line.
MOST people freak out at the smell of smoke or the sight of a fire. If you introduce an active shooter in an environment the probable result for the average person would be calamity and shock.
Do you know why people go into vapor lock when something like an active shooter happens?
Because they don't know what to do.
Somebody with a CCW permit and a 1911 knows what to do. They at least have a viable option available to them.
Getting them to think in a unified manner during an emergency would seem to be an exercise in futility.
We aren't talking about teachers forming up in a diamond and roaming the halls with drawn guns to track down an active shooter here. We are talking about a single individual who is armed and who is directly in the path of the shooter, or very NEAR to the direct path of the shooter fighting back.
I know we all want answers and solutions but I don't think there really are any logical ones.
Sure there are.
Give people at least the OPTION of protecting themselves. We will never be able to stop bad people from doing bad things...but we can sure as hell stop restricting their intended victims from defending themselves.
If the CCW carriers first option would be to flee off campus I don't see how having a firearm on your person would prevent you from doing that.
It wouldn't.
Fleeing, however, isn't always an option....especially when the shooter is between you and the exit.
Now if you are talking about actively trying to stop the shooter from killing many - that's a noble cause but then you have to think about putting yourself and others into danger.
Let me make this very clear:
You have a nutcase roaming the halls with a Glock shooting as many people as he can.
Everybody is ALREADY in danger. There can't possibly BE any more danger. Somebody walking around the building he has chained shut and slaughtering people BY THE DOZENS with impunity is about as bad as it gets. An armed student or member of faculty COULDN'T HAVE MADE THE PROBLEM ANY WORSE.
...but they sure as hell could have made it a lot better.
When you introduce force to force there is no telling what can happen honestly.
Yes, there IS a way to tell what happens....by examining what happens when active shooters meet armed resistance in previous shooting incidents. And you know what? Potential victims producing a weapon and fighting back seems to be among the most effective ways of limiting the damage an active shooter can do that anyone has yet discovered.
People can paint nightmare scenarios all day long, but the bottom line is that one is hard pressed to concretely identify ways in which a citizen with a CCW can make an active shooter scenario WORSE, but it's EASY to see how they might be able to make it better.
Lastly remember the shooting on the VT campus all took place in one building yet it is a large school.
Yes...and imagine how much fun a group of 5 guys with some assault weapons and some rudimentary explosives could have.
....or a sniper who opens up on the crowd at a football game....
There are a number of nightmare scenarios involving college campuses. They are big open places with large concentrations of people and valuables that are just big ripe juicy targets for crime and violent nutcases.
That's why I believe it is utterly foolish to deny the right of responsible individuals to protect themselves on college campuses.
John_Wayne777
10-15-07, 09:09
My personal view is that allowing CCW would be less disruptive, to all but the engineering and physics departments' mindsets, than telling all on campus that you are a beautiful collection of sheep and telling them how much damage a wolf in the fold would cause.
You're exactly wrong about that last part.
Messages about the new blast e-mail system, the new air-raid siren alerts, and those glorious notifications of crimes on campus (like the notification we received recently of armed carjackers kidnapping somebody.....which the campus PD sent out THREE DAYS after the incident took place....ya...timely notice my aunt fanny...) make the sheeple "feel" safer.
That's really what the universities are selling...a "feeling" of safety rather than ACTUAL safety. That's because the dirty little secret nobody wants to admit is that they can't really do much to stop the Chos of the world from slaughtering people if they get a mind to do it. Announcing that CCW permits are going to be honored by the University, on the other hand, would cause no end of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The sheep wouldn't feel "safe", you see.
Now the communications capabilities are fine and dandy. I have no problem with their use....but a blast e-mail notification isn't going to help anyone in the area where the shooter starts killing people. University administrators can get away with partial measures like that because the sheeple of the campus are too bloody stupid to figure the whole picture out.
Well said JW777. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear you were listening over my shoulder as I argued these exact points with a co-worker a few days ago. You can't see it, but I'm sitting here at my monitor making the "we see eye-to-eye" gesture.
What I want to know is, why do anti-gunners think that allowing people the option to properly defend themselves (IE, allow carry) is the exact same thing as putting a gun in every kid's hands? VA has been a shall-issue state for how many years now? And how many folks in VA have carry permits? Simply because people have the option doesn't mean they will use it. But for those who do want the option, don't stand in their way, that's all I'm saying.
On a side note, I really really hate the argument that allowing college age kids to carry is bad because of hormones, alchohol, immaturity, the moon or whatever other fool excuse these ageist pundits come up with. If we don't believe these kids are adults, why do we allow them to drive, vote, live independently, marry, fight for their country, and make nearly every other adult decision that one can make? Because 18 means adult in this country, that's why.
John_Wayne777
10-15-07, 09:56
If we don't believe these kids are adults, why do we allow them to drive, vote, live independently, marry, fight for their country, and make nearly every other adult decision that one can make? Because 18 means adult in this country, that's why.
Because colleges and universities see them as "kids"....kids who need their hands held, kids who need somebody to look after them. The sad part is that they developed this point of view because a number of students really ARE that unprepared.
The problem is that they treat EVERYBODY on the campus like they are some brainless wonder who needs their hand to be held, which is why I got to spend 3 hours taking an "Academic Success Survey" in which I had to answer critical questions like
"My alcohol use sometimes interferes with my ability to get my work done. T/F"
"I sometimes feel depressed and I don't know what to do about it. T/F"
...all so the college could make sure that I was actually able to handle the load of college work....because apparently my previous degree wasn't enough evidence that I could. :rolleyes:
Going back to school at my age is maddening.
As to this:
Well said JW777. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear you were listening over my shoulder as I argued these exact points with a co-worker a few days ago. You can't see it, but I'm sitting here at my monitor making the "we see eye-to-eye" gesture.
I don't know if the appropriate response is:
"Great minds think alike!"
or
"Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut."
:D
Business_Casual
10-15-07, 16:53
Well your restatement isn't nearly as LEO-friendly,
I put in the [Zorro] and the smiley so people would know I wasn't trying to be unfriendly, but I take your point. I meant no disrespect to the guys in blue doing a very difficult job under difficult circumstances.
I think this whole discussion has run its course, maybe we should just let it fall off the page.
M_P
Well I understand where people are coming from but should we allow bank tellers to carry firearms too because some banks get knocked off? I mean some armed guards were killed in Philadelphia a few weeks ago so having a firearm doesn't guarantee safety either. Things happen very fast and we are talking about hypothetical best case scenarios. There would be a good chance you didn't know trouble was coming until it got there in which case it's usually too late.
Aye, but they had the option to fight back with effective tools if they so wish. There's the key difference - no one said it's a guarantee.
At my college the worst that can happen is expulsion. Gee, there's a hard choice - my life vs $5k.
Joseywales
10-15-07, 21:38
When I was in college, I did not have the maturity to CCW. However, by my senior year I had a handgun in my apartment. I cannot take my personal circumstances and project them onto others.
I know that college is a place where persons are pushed to their mental, and sometimes physical limits. In that sort of environment, a person needs to show considerable maturity, training, and supervision to warrant the trust of a CCW IMO. However, freedom demands that we give persons the benefit of the doubt, even if doing so poses a danger. I do think that some concessions can be made in this area. At the very least, students should be allowed to carry stun guns and pepper spray. Maybe not for freshmen, but for juniors and seniors. Let's understand that 98% of all universities are nothing like the military. So comparing environments is pointless. So the stress environment is a factor.
As a former engineering student, I fully believe that most college professors are too stupid to be trusted with a firearm.
Here is what I would propose as a solution:
1. Juniors and Seniors can carry stun guns and pepper spray if permit is granted by campus police
2. Freshmen and sophomore can carry pepper spray if permit is granted by campus police
3. Professors can carry stun guns, pepper spray, and firearms if permit is granted by campus police
4. Anyone on campus can wear body armor
5. Campus police officers must also be campus swat trained. They will be divided up into teams that can enter and start securing any building in less than 9 minutes.
6. A security alarm must be stationed in every room and hallway. It alerts campus security and activates surveillence cameras.
7. University can be sued for failure to provide security if anyone is shot or raped on campus
8. All buildings must be accessed by key card. Students can get restraining orders that take effect immediately.
A few brief responses to your list...
1. Juniors and Seniors can carry stun guns and pepper spray if permit is granted by campus police
2. Freshmen and sophomore can carry pepper spray if permit is granted by campus police
3. Professors can carry stun guns, pepper spray, and firearms if permit is granted by campus police
They already can in a college environment. Now this will vary from state to state, but it most neither OC or "Stun Guns"/Tasers are regulated. Many students, at least females that I come in contact with already carry OC.
With the release of C2 from Taser: http://www.taser.com/products/consumers/Pages/C2.aspx, more and more citizens are carrying Tasers also, again with little or no restrictions.
5. Campus police officers must also be campus swat trained. They will be divided up into teams that can enter and start securing any building in less than 9 minutes.
Most are. We have undergone extensive training regarding our response to active shooter incidents. In most case, we can be on scene and making an entry into the structure within 90 seconds to a couple of minutes from the time of call.
This will vary though dependent on the type of agency on campus. If the school has "security" department then you can be sure the local agencies around the school will be trained and ready.
Most though, operate as state police officers and have gone through the training much like we have.
7. University can be sued for failure to provide security if anyone is shot or raped on campus
This is one point where I have to disagree. A lot of university's are larger than a lot of municipalities. Things will happen just as they can happen anywhere else. Now if the department for the university shows a failure to perform their duties, that is another thing entirely. But for an agency to do all it can to perform their job that is pushing it. We cannot have an officer for every building within our jurisdiction which is VERY large so to be liable for any crime while we are being diligent is pushing it.
Submariner
10-16-07, 06:23
As a former engineering student, I fully believe that most college professors are too stupid to be trusted with a firearm.
Here is what I would propose as a solution:
1. Juniors and Seniors can carry stun guns and pepper spray if permit is granted by campus police
2. Freshmen and sophomore can carry pepper spray if permit is granted by campus police
3. Professors can carry stun guns, pepper spray, and firearms if permit is granted by campus police
"...if permit granted by campus police." Gee, that might just work for all of society. What a great idea! Liberty...if permit granted by campus police.
There is a name for that.
Hmm.....
Oh, yeah, police state.:rolleyes:
Business_Casual
10-16-07, 06:56
I agree with Sub on that point - even the most well intentioned restriction of that nature is a conflict of interest. I live it everyday, I can't have SBRs or C3 because my CLEO won't sign off on my forms. He won't even take the call to discuss it. There is little chance the CLEO at a University would issue one permit to a student given the same unregulated authority.
M_P
Robb Jensen
10-16-07, 07:03
I agree with Sub on that point - even the most well intentioned restriction of that nature is a conflict of interest. I live it everyday, I can't have SBRs or C3 because my CLEO won't sign off on my forms. He won't even take the call to discuss it. There is little chance the CLEO at a University would issue one permit to a student given the same unregulated authority.
M_P
Revocable Living Trust brother. Takes the CLEO out of the equation.
And I agree, no CLEO of a University is going to risk his job giving 'permission' to carry a gun on campus. The state law needs to change.
John_Wayne777
10-16-07, 07:16
Revocable Living Trust brother. Takes the CLEO out of the equation.
And I agree, no CLEO of a University is going to risk his job giving 'permission' to carry a gun on campus. The state law needs to change.
Actually the law allows carry on most campuses (except VCU...VCU is actually banned by statute....) but campus policies don't allow for it. Someone who isn't a member of the campus community can be told to leave and arrested for trespass if they don't comply. Faculty and staff risk being fired if it is found out that they are legally carrying a firearm, and students will face disciplinary action at the least and expulsion at worst for legally carrying.
...even adult students who spent 10 years in the USMC fighting for their country. One of the guys in a class I had last semester was a former FAST Marine...I'd sure as hell feel a LOT better with him carrying a weapon than 3/4 of the campus police officers. If somebody like a Cho had shown up at our class and if he and I were both armed, there wouldn't have been dozens of dead bodies carried out of there.
The position of the university should be to follow state law. Heck, one university in Virginia was actually sued by somebody who had no association with the university and settled by promising not to try and pull the trespassing trick on somebody legally carrying on the campus....so at that university somebody with a CCW permit can show up to use the library or attend a campus event, but students, faculty and staff who give money and chunks of their life to the same university can't carry. :rolleyes:
The university made that deal because they didn't want to get the courts involved and end up being directed to honor permits.
The position of the university should be to follow state law. Heck, one university in Virginia was actually sued by somebody who had no association with the university and settled by promising not to try and pull the trespassing trick on somebody legally carrying on the campus....so at that university somebody with a CCW permit can show up to use the library or attend a campus event, but students, faculty and staff who give money and chunks of their life to the same university can't carry. :rolleyes:
In regards to most if not all state universities I believe they do follow state law in lieu of establishing restrictive policy regarding the manner. Below is a link to our state statute.
Title 21 O.S. 53 §1277 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69745
John_Wayne777
10-16-07, 09:38
Title 21 O.S. 53 §1277 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69745
I should have been more specific....I was referring to Virginia law. Virginia law doesn't have a provision like section D of the quoted Oklahoma code except in the case of VCU.
Thus a simple change of university policy would be all that was required to solve the issue on most Virginia campuses.
If Oklahoma law changed tomorrow, I would expect colleges and universities in Oklahoma to enact policies that prohibit the possession and carry of weapons too.
I should have been more specific....I was referring to Virginia law. Virginia law doesn't have a provision like section D of the quoted Oklahoma code except in the case of VCU.
Thus a simple change of university policy would be all that was required to solve the issue on most Virginia campuses.
If Oklahoma law changed tomorrow, I would expect colleges and universities in Oklahoma to enact policies that prohibit the possession and carry of weapons too.
I know so no biggie, was just including that as an example for other states and jurisdictions.
i think its a good idea for teachers to have guns, theres a couple students on my campus which i think fits the type of someone who would shoot up a school. but teachers don't live on dorms, and at our dorms, theres a desk staff that checks ID of everyone that enters, if you don't have the residence hall ID, you leave it with the front desk so they take a log of you. HOWEVER, they are often chatting up with their buddies and i can easily walk past them into a hall i do not reside in.
Interesting thread. I'm surprised nobody has yet made two points in particular:
1) WRT the anti-CCW on campus argument about police shooting an armed citizen (good guy) during an active shooter scenario - how is the situation any different than if an off-duty or plainclothes cop is in the mix?
Another poster, a campus police officer, said "put yourself in my shoes". Negative. Put yourself in the position of the people being murdered. I think you'd find they really don't give a rats ass about what the police would prefer.
2) In the history of active shooter events, have police ever stopped one in progress? To the best of my knowledge, they have not. The only things that have stopped one are a) the shooter runs out of victims, b) the shooter decides they're done and caps themself, or c) a private citizen on-scene at the time with a gun has intervened.
In my estimation, an active shooter scenario is not a police v. shooter scenario. It's a victim v. shooter scenario and will be settled, one way or the other, long before the police become a factor.
1) WRT the anti-CCW on campus argument about police shooting an armed citizen (good guy) during an active shooter scenario - how is the situation any different than if an off-duty or plainclothes cop is in the mix?
It is different due to the fact that our policy and our states training stress that no off-duty and/or plain clothes officers enter due to the fact they are not uniformed and thus, could find themselves in a position where they would be considered the shooter being un-uniformed and with a weapon in an area where state law restricts weapons. It is not just students and faculty who shouldn't be engaging the suspect, the same holds true to cops not in uniform.
Now, yes... off-duty officers have acted in the past, last I believe the mall shooting out west. But he was also close to the threat and engaged. I am just saying that this is our state's policy and all agencies in the state are trained and operate the same way to allow multiple agencies to respond and operate together without prior mixed training time.
2) In the history of active shooter events, have police ever stopped one in progress? To the best of my knowledge, they have not. The only things that have stopped one are a) the shooter runs out of victims, b) the shooter decides they're done and caps themself, or c) a private citizen on-scene at the time with a gun has intervened.
In my estimation, an active shooter scenario is not a police v. shooter scenario. It's a victim v. shooter scenario and will be settled, one way or the other, long before the police become a factor.
Yes, they have. When Cho killed his sorry ass at VT in the stairwell he still had enough ammo to continue his shooting spree and claim many more victims. A report of the incident I read through NTOA indicated that due to the officer's prompt reposnse and breach into the building, Cho decided to commit suicide in lieu of being engaged by the officer's which he knew was imminent. The officers affeted the outcome so it counts.
Business_Casual
10-18-07, 09:19
Yes, they have. When Cho killed his sorry ass at VT in the stairwell he still had enough ammo to continue his shooting spree and claim many more victims.
I can't even tell you how callous that is. :mad:
M_P
A62Rambler
10-18-07, 09:32
The program our state utilizes to teach all officers to respond to Active Shooters advocates a swift and decisive response to the incident. Combine that with the anarchy of one of these events and a armed but well intentioned student or faculty member is bound to be engaged by responding officers.
One could advocate that would mean the responding officers are being quick on the trigger, but you have an ACTIVE shooting in progress and most likely no solid information regarding suspect description so you have to act fast. A two second delay in judgement and that can and probably will mean life and death for a student or students who are still within the crime scene.
You arm faculty and students and it will only complicate things even more and possibly cost lives in such an enclosed and dynamic environment.
I am a former LE and former University Police Officer and your summary if taken literally would tell me your officers are being quick on the trigger. :mad: Kentucky law requires for any shooting, LE or civilian, that there be imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Your job is already complicated. Our policy specifically stated that you must use the least amount of force to control the situation. I understand what you are saying but I don't think you worded that well.
Disclaimer before I am pegged as The Man... I have no problems with CCW and even advocate it. But... if it will complicate my job in an already chaotic environment and in turn place that CCW holder's life in even more danger then I will openly speak out against it.
Your job is already complicated. I approached everyone as though they could be armed and a potential threat. Criminals don't wear signs that say, "I'm an armed felon about to shoot a police officer.
I know my thoughts are echoed throughout my agency and the surrounding agencies we work with and would assume it is the same amongst fellow officer around the nation who work in a university environment.
I don't echo your feelings about CCW and armed faculty. I encouraged everyone to be prepared to protect themselves because there is a delay to LE response that can cost lives. I think you are overlooking other outcomes. If every teacher(that's not realistice that all would be armed) had a CCW. Then only one classroom would contain the shooter if he/she took out the armed teacher. The other classrooms would be secure and could tell police that before they entered the room giving the officers the chance to tell them to put down their weapon before entering. Teachers would put down a weapon when the police arrive and follow instructions from police. The classroom with the person not willing to put down their weapon is the only one you have to worry about.
Just my $0.02 based on my training.
Garner v. Tennessee outlined the requirement for the use of deadly force. In that case, that went to the US Supreme Court, it was held that the use of deadly force in the apprehension of a felon must meet requirements. One of which is that the felon must present an imminent threat. I understand how you would feel that more armed people would complicate the situation but that doesn't justify the loss of life that happens when people can't protect themselves. On the streets officers have to accept that everyone is a potential threat and is potentially armed. You sound like you actually believe that nobody breaks the rules at your university. My gunsmith when I was earning my degree was also one of the professors. He was advocating allowing factulty to be armed in 1988. Recently we've seen how unarmed schools and gun free zones end with only the criminal having a gun. When you say "it will complicate my job in an already chaotic environment and in turn place that CCW holder's life in even more danger", I say. Your job is already complicated. How can a CCW be in more danger than a non CCW who can be shot while unarmed? ;) I don't mean to sound like I'm making light of your difficult job. I am just trying to get you to think from the other side. To advocate keeping the people unarmed so Police have an easier job is simply unacceptable to me under the consitution. I advocated when I was in LE and continue to advocate that we have a duty to protect ourselves. We also have a right to do that, except on school property. If total control by the police or government worked, prisons would be safe and schools wouldn't have shootings, pipe bombs or assaults. The reality is that criminals don't follow the rules! Police can't be ominipresent. If you put in x-ray machines, someone will still get past somehow. That's the reality of criminal behavior. They strip search inmates after visitation. They have every person entering the prison go through a metal detector. They randomly search inmates cells as well as searching anytime there is any suspicion of weapons. And guess what? There are improvised weapons, knives, drugs, and yes even guns found in prisons. I know that for a fact because I just left a job at a maximum security prison in a western state. It would be nice if there was a magic wand that could make our schools weapon free. Until somebody invents one I say arm the good guys and allow them to protect themselves and to present a deterent. :) I'll get off my soapbox now.
I can't even tell you how callous that is. :mad:
M_P
1cal·lous
As defined by Merriam-Webster...
1 a: being hardened and thickened b: having calluses <callous hands>
2 a: feeling no emotion b: feeling or showing no sympathy for others
First off, you failed to include the remaining portion of my statement. Second, I have little sympathy for someone who consciously chooses to take the life of innocent people. They have no place in our society.
If you had included the remaining portion of my statement, it would have elaborated that he did take his own life in lieu of confronting police officer. Regardless how you look at it, this ended the crisis. I don't know about you, Cho dying before he shot any more victims, well I am not going to lose sleep over it. If that makes me a calous person, oh well.
All I know is he killed himself and thus no more people were shot at the hands of this person.
Now if you want to say I am calous because I do not show sympathy to his life, being "bullied, etc., well I do not buy those excuses. Everyone at one point in their life as had that happen to them. It's a part of life as a child growing up. Yet how many members of our society decide that going on a mass murder spree is the resolution? People with common sense realize it's a part of life, deal with it and grow and act in a mature manner.
Again, sorry if I am just a cold hearted S.O.B. in your eyes, but his suicide saved more lives more valuble than his that day.
John_Wayne777
10-18-07, 12:36
1cal·lous
Again, sorry if I am just a cold hearted S.O.B. in your eyes, but his suicide saved more lives more valuble than his that day.
It's just a darn shame that little bastard didn't eat his own gun BEFORE he showed up at Norris hall.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
Business_Casual
10-18-07, 13:07
I couldn't agree more, I just didn't want the 33 dead and 21 wounded to be diminished by his failure to continue. Regardless of how he was stopped - he still wrecked havoc on a lot of lives.
M_P
I couldn't agree more, I just didn't want the 33 dead and 21 wounded to be diminished by his failure to continue. Regardless of how he was stopped - he still wrecked havoc on a lot of lives.
M_P
Gotcha, I misunderstood the intent of your initial response. We're on the same page on this part as far as the P.O.S. Cho.
So how long for LE to show up?
So how long for CCW to take "CARE" of perpetrator?
If it takes LE long enough to respond, wouldn't it be highly poss for CCW to be done by the time LE shows up?
So how much of a chance for the CCW to be shot by LE accidentaly?
Just good questions from an open mind. Dont care if I'm an old fart. Keep an open MIND! Young/old/craft/management/male/female/black/white/red/yellow/whatever.
Business_Casual
10-19-07, 07:10
According to Hughbank/Okerlund:
07:15 - kills two in residence hall
09:45 - begins shooting spree in Norris Hall
He fires 170 rounds in 9 minutes
09:48 - Officers respond
09:53 - Officers enter building
09:53 - Cho commits suicide
Yes, they have. When Cho killed his sorry ass at VT in the stairwell he still had enough ammo to continue his shooting spree and claim many more victims. A report of the incident I read through NTOA indicated that due to the officer's prompt reposnse and breach into the building, Cho decided to commit suicide in lieu of being engaged by the officer's which he knew was imminent. The officers affeted the outcome so it counts.
I don't buy it. The report "indicated" that LE response affected the outcome. "Indicated" does not mean 'proved'. "Indicated" is theory. Nobody except Cho has any idea why he decided to check himself out.
The point being that, again, the shooter decided when it was over, not the police. Cho wasn't contained - the police didn't even get to him, much less stop him, until he was already dead. If the police had gotten to him and challenged him, and then he killed himself, I'd count that as police affecting the outcome.
I'm not criticising the police response. I just don't agree with the idea that people should be kept unarmed because it makes some other people "feel better" or because they feel it'd be easier for them to do their jobs. Especially when those same other people are highly unlikely to be able to affect the outcome in the first place.
John_Wayne777
10-19-07, 07:35
I don't buy it. The report "indicated" that LE response affected the outcome. "Indicated" does not mean 'proved'. "Indicated" is theory. Nobody except Cho has any idea why he decided to check himself out.
No, but given that he had more ammo and given that police were on the way it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe that the worthless little pile of excrement decided to punch his own ticket before the cops could close in on him and punch his ticket or take him alive.
I'm not criticising the police response. I just don't agree with the idea that people should be kept unarmed because it makes some other people "feel better" or because they feel it'd be easier for them to do their jobs. Especially when those same other people are highly unlikely to be able to affect the outcome in the first place.
I agree completely.
Cops are, in general, good people who want to do the right thing. The unfortunate reality is that while they serve a general protective function they can't stop a lot of bad stuff that is in progress. By the time the 911 call goes out in a situation like VT it is already too late.
KintlaLake
10-19-07, 07:50
We ask law enforcement to do the impossible, perfectly.
Personally, I don't believe we can (as a matter of public policy) continue to leave potential victims unarmed. But it occurs to me that we may then be asking law enforcement to jump a moving train while blindfolded and shackled.
What it'll take, I think, is a courageous law-enforcement agency, working with its administration and campus CCW community, to propose and enact a model program that has a reasonable chance to work.
Would you have wanted to be able to defend your self with a concealed? Or would you be damn glad you could not stop him and A: Die yourself, B: watch helplessly as he kills 1-how many more? Don't we need to consider what/how the dead might think or wish they coud have done?
Just another open minded $.02 worth.
Joseywales
10-23-07, 22:15
I agree with Sub on that point - even the most well intentioned restriction of that nature is a conflict of interest. I live it everyday, I can't have SBRs or C3 because my CLEO won't sign off on my forms. He won't even take the call to discuss it. There is little chance the CLEO at a University would issue one permit to a student given the same unregulated authority.
M_P
If the University can be sued for failure to protect a student's life, I am sure that they will start granting permits so that they can be free from negligence and blame it on the permit holder for failure to protect themselves. You just have to change the law to favor granting permits by holding public servants responsible for not fulfilling the objectives they are paid to reach. Basically, tell the school, grant the permit....or be sued out of existence.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.