 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
In the Comments
"We don’t vote for grownups in Muskogee,
Recent Posts
Top Official in Education Dept. to Lead Business-School Consortium Diane Auer Jones, the assistant secretary for postsecondary education, will become president of the Washington Campus. GAO Report Says Community Colleges Are Crucial in Training the Work Force The colleges continue to meet the needs of local industry through specific technical training, the report says. Academic Capital Flows: U. of Chicago Plans $200-Million Milton Friedman Institute The research center will honor the late economist’s free-market scholarship. Comment [8] Medical School for Physician-Scientists Will Offer Free Tuition Leaders at the Cleveland Clinic hope the move will spark more interest in academic medicine. Study Finds Varying Community-College Enrollments Among States The report also call for more research into why some states enroll greater proportions of their citizens in community colleges than others.
Most Commented This Month
Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath | 74 Princeton U. Press Recalls Typo-Filled Book and Says It Will Reprint | 57 U. of Colorado at Boulder Wants to Hire 'Professor of Conservative Thought' | 57 Roman Catholic College Disinvites Pro-Choice Speaker | 47 U. of Florida Plans Layoffs and Enrollment Cuts as State Funds Fall | 44
By Category
Athletics
Blog Archives
Keep Up to Date
Today's most e-mailed
Prior days' news: By date | Search This week's print issue Back issues: By date | Search March 5, 2008Campus Police Officers Will Get Assault Rifles in ArizonaPublic universities in Arizona are arming their campus police officers with military-style assault rifles, The Arizona Republic reported today. For long-range shots, assault rifles are more accurate than the pistols campus officers usually carry, a spokesman for the University of Arizona’s police department told the Republic. Although the weapons may be useful in responding to an active shooter, officials at Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University said their decision to purchase the rifles was unrelated to mass killings at Virginia Tech last year and Northern Illinois University last month. Arizona State will be the first of the three universities to begin using the weapons. It has bought four, at $700 each, and will require each officer to undergo 40 hours of training over the next few months, the newspaper said. When not needed to respond to an incident, the weapons will be stowed in officers’ patrol cars. Assault rifles are not new to universities. Several campus police departments in the University of California and California State University systems already are armed with them. —Sara Lipka Posted on Wednesday March 5, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Previous: U. of Texas at Austin to Form Partnership With Saudi University
|
It certainly does make sense that the decision to arm Arizona campus police with assault rifles is unrelated to the massacres at Virginia Tech and NIU—since cops in those events could have been equipped with hand grenades and howitzers and still had zero impact on the situation. Of course, that only begs the question: What exactly are assault rifles supposed to accomplish in the academic context? Is there some threat of invasion, some hope of insurrection?
Perhaps while the officers are ungoing their 40 hours of training the rest of the community should be getting workshops on escape and evasion. Clearly we live in parlous times.
— BertW Mar 5, 04:26 PM #
Is this really accurate? I can see semi-automatic rifles, but assault rifles are full automatic and that seems dangerous to me. Or is it that the proper terms are not being used because it is not known what the difference is.
— K S Mar 5, 04:48 PM #
I suppose if colleges must have police officers, the officers should be outfitted and trained with the standard police equipment just as any other law enforcement agency. I don’t welcome it, but once you call them police officers and require them to wear uniforms and enforce the law, well, after that there are only the details left to discuss.
— Terry Morgan Mar 5, 04:52 PM #
This is the dumbist thing I have ever heard! Ok, they say it is not related to the NIU and VT cases, sobeit and good because assult rifles would not have made a hill of beans difference in either of those cases. Ok then, why? Just because? I would not feel comfortable seeing our campus security walking around with assult rifles. Look around you now. Now imagine a person with an assult rifle patroling the halls. That, freinds, is no place I’d want to work.
— derek Mar 5, 04:58 PM #
Like many administrative decisions at ASU, this makes no sense. Instead of spending the extra money on improving campus security (outdoor lighting, video cameras in parking garages, increased numbers of police officers on patrol, more access controlled buildings), they chose to buy assault rifles that will be kept inside the ASU police vehicles….well, until they get stolen when the police cars get broken into the unmonitored parking garages on campus.
— Thomas Mar 5, 05:17 PM #
Derek, if campus police officers saved the day in some incident precisely because they had assault rifles, I think you’d be singing a different tune. And campus police would only “patrol the halls” with assault rifles if there was a damn good reason to. It would not be a regular occurrence. Do you see mall security officers regularly strolling by Gap with assault rifles in tow? Police on our campus have them, and one would never know until a situation arose that warranted their use. I think heavily arming campus police is necessary in this day and age.
— Matthew B. Mar 5, 05:27 PM #
Hmmm. I remember the halcyon days at the U of Oregon when there was an uproar over allowing the police to be armed at all. Now it’s come to this, at least at ASU. Makes me wonder—my niece goes there, and I wonder what the threat environment is at ASU such that there’s a belief that high powered weaponry is necessary. Or could it just be hypertestosteroneitis? It affects the feds and their boys with toys programs in DHS, why not at universities? In either case, parents and students may want to consider why ASU thinks it needs these sort of weapons available to campus police before they choose ASU.
— Tom B. Mar 5, 07:00 PM #
With all due respect, campus police are typically the bottom of the barrel. And you want them armed? VT chief of police Fletchum doesn’t know how to handle a double homicide in the dorm or an active shooter on campus.
I agree – don’t send your students or out-of-state dollars to AZ or VA.
— debster Mar 5, 07:14 PM #
The politics will be interesting when a campus cop kills an innocent bystander with their powerful assault rifle?
— Olllie Mar 5, 07:59 PM #
As an employee of Arizona State University, this is truly horrifying. What price will be paid when an innocent student/staff member is killed during “a possible” incident on campus? And 40 hours of training? Give me a break. 40 hours?
— A. Mar 5, 10:05 PM #
This is, of course, necessary to defend ASU from the REAL enemy – the U. of Arizona.
— B Mar 5, 11:19 PM #
I’m all FOR it. I work at ASU. We have NO security cameras. We are not entitled to know anything about students who act out in class and create apprehensive feelings, other than to report it. I have already been STALKED once by a former student, and all I was told was to call security if he showed up in my class. An administrator advised me to “keep my cell phone on, and make sure I’m always in a safe place.” That’s it?! I can find out more going through public records for adult probation. I work in an isolated classroom with no other occupied classes or teachers nearby at that time of day. Granted, the police rifles might not prevent some SMI freak from killing my students or myself, but I want the on-campus police officers (they are NOT simply security patrol) to be able to take someone out once the perp is identified (i.e. by others at the scene, by observing who is picking people off, etc.). The state legislature is also currently considering a bill to allow concealed carry weapons on campuses in Arizona. I am all FOR it. I am sick of being worried about being slaughtered because I have chosen to follow my passion in life, and I have now spent classroom time giving safety lectures to my students. Everyone keeps talking about innocent students and staff members getting killed…hello, this is already happening, every time we have a massacre on campus—ALL those who were murdered were innocent. And, I hate to burst everyone’s bubbles, but I have had students tell me that they personally KNOW of students who are now carrying guns on campus ANYWAY, (yes, illegally / or don’t know the law), because they want the right to protect themselves. I am HOPING that some of those students are in MY classrooms, especially the guys who are military vets, because I feel safer. I just follow a don’t ask—don’t tell policy. I have never felt SAFER than when I went to occupied Israel and saw officers with machine guns on street corners and rooves. I am not suggesting armed prison camps on campus, but people, it is apparent that the current policies and practices are NOT working. Two massacres in one year is two too many. How many of you are willing to not see your families tonight?
— -J Mar 5, 11:41 PM #
If you go to Swiss airports and asked the guards carrying the assault rifles why they need those they say “For the terrorists”. If you insist and ask but there were no terrorist actions on your airports”? They’ll say “Yes, that’s right”.
And how about the citizens right to defend themselves from their own government in case of political trouble?
If that doesn’t convince you, perhaps you can learn that a strong defense is the only route to safety the hard way. I wish it weren’t true folks but there are no long-term exceptions to this. And please skip the well-meaning rhetoric. Good intentions don’t matter if you’re locked in a classroom with a deranged person trying to break in.
I am no gun owner but I strongly defend anyone who chooses to carry one. J is right on, as unfortunate as the situation is.
— No gun owner Mar 6, 07:16 AM #
J, Check the numbers. You aren’t going to be “slaughtered,” and if you were, assult rifles couldn’t prevent it.
— AA. Mar 6, 07:23 AM #
Clearly Arizona State has very dim, if any at all, notions of layered security. Four assault rifles will do very little in assuring campus safety. Stored in patrol cars the weapons will have no deterrence value, carried openly and ready for use, their effectiveness in essentially untrained hands (40 hrs of precision shooting training results in a shooter familiar with the rifle but untrained in its special use) in the setting of long range shots in crowded environment will be minimal, and the resulting potential for collateral casualties exceedingly high. Moreover, by the time a largely undertrained officer breaks out his/her rifle, finds a suitable position, decides on a suitable line of fire, and settles down to initiate action, the perpetrating agent will be either gone or there will be enough time to deploy a sniper – if the university chooses to train one. Finally, the use of any weapons, but high powered automatic ones in particular, requires constant practice, rather than the proposed 40 hours and followed by the moral satisfaction of “being trained.” It is a skill that anyone who ever operated a weapon in non-amateur context will attest to – if in doubt ask your friendly SEAL or SAS operator. Altogether, therefore, the University is creating the atmosphere of false security mixed with panic-mongering, but does very little to address the problem of safety on campus in even a minimally intelligent manner. The parties responsible for decisions on security would probably do better to install/expand surveillance and access control systems, then hire and equip with decent “tools of trade” a few retired members of the special forces hostage rescue teams, and have them work undercover as a special patrol unit. It is high time to abandon the illusory notion that a most average campus policeman can be of any use in any other environment that that of a non-violent traffic stop. If anyone bothered to pay close attention to the videos recorded during VTech shootings, there was an almost amusing level of initial confusion, back and forth galloping of officers burdened with their overhanging bellies, and a rather fruitless “being on the scene” posturing. That should be enough to dispel notions of assault rifles carried on campuses by certified amateurs. There are other means to enhance security, there is enough law enforcement/special forces expertise in the nation to consult on how to do it without creating the atmosphere of a beleaguered camp full of terrified burghers, and enough advanced training available to make sure that the result is not a “spike effort” to quell a wave of restlessness or even panic created by another severe incident in the university setting. Foremostly, one must remember that converting a former utterly civilian academic administrator into a “vice president for security” will not do much for security and its implementation at the campus. On the contrary, the lad will still remain an utterly civilian academic administrator now made into a very useless commander in chief of security. THAT alone would make me feel VERY insecure, if not downright panicky.
— Dag von Lubitz Mar 6, 08:10 AM #
To reply to KS, I’m sure that they are normal rifles. For some reason, the press (Chronicle included), seem to think that it’s the color of the rifle that makes it ‘assault’. Police swat teams don’t even carry automatic weapons, usually. The campus security definitely won’t. I wish that people would start calling the things by their proper name – I’m talking to you Congress. As to whether to trust campus with any rifle, that’s a different matter.
— CT Mar 6, 09:08 AM #
KS asks if these are really “assault rifles”. The Arizona Republic article (link above) says “military-style”. So it’s likely that they are just ordinary AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.
— Henry Mar 6, 09:11 AM #
Bubba speaks.. you guys are missing the point! The rifles are there to protect the cops so they can kill the assailant at a distance..
— Bubba Mar 6, 09:23 AM #
Unbelievable! Our country is becoming Iraq #2 with the students becoming the terrorists. Connecting with students is the best way. Mentoring these students and connecting them to the right resources to help them become successful. We are called INSTITUTIONS of higher learning, so we must be responsible for these students by helping them cope and succeed. We as an institution fail when these students strike out with weapons and hurt others. We fail to connect with them; we fail to help them cope and succeed when they hurt others as well as themselves. Compassion first; not weapons.
— Gail Mar 6, 09:39 AM #
Nothing says safe and secure campus like a Rent-A-Cop with an assault rifle!!!
What’s next? US Army garrisons on every campus to replace the campus police?
— vlw Mar 6, 10:08 AM #
This is not unbelievable, this is necessary. The only difference between police at a university and police working in a municipality is the fact that they are working in a community that believes itself protected from the real world. It’s time to give university police some respect.
— JE Mar 6, 10:12 AM #
I hope the police officers on my campus have access to rifles. An excellent thing to do would be to develop a campus police auxiliary corps — as is done in many communities — and deputize and train several dozen faculty and student volunteers as auxiliary police including the use of sidearms. Oh, yes, they’d have to undergo extensive medical and criminal background checks. If just one such volunteer had been in or near those classrooms at NIU or Virginia Tech, lives could have been saved. Now, we know the liberal naysayers on all our campuses, having read this, are frothing at the mouth and writhing on the ground, but the data show that crime goes DOWN where citizens have the right to carry a sidearm. Proper police training for a group such as the above would make the environment even safer.
— R. Mar 6, 10:21 AM #
Oh yes: staff too!
— R. Mar 6, 10:34 AM #
Gail,
I wish I lived in your wonderful world with its marshmellow skies and candy cane trees. Yes we should try and mentor the students and get them to the right resources, but the reality of today is there are mentally unstable individuals, students and non-students, that are not using the help they are directed to. You can certainly take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. So goes the case for the student who stops taking their meds and starts shooting students because god told them to.
People, you are all falling in the medias trap in trying to create controversy. ASU has decided to purchase semi-automatic rifles because they are more accurate at a longer range (like if someone was barricaded in a building) than a pistol. Obviously the first call will still be to the local police swat team, but officers must be able to hold their own against the increasingly well armed criminals wandering our streets and campuses.
As for students carrying weapons on campus, anyone in favor of this has not worked very closely with students very long. More guns on campus = bad things. The myth that a student will be able to take down a bad guy who starts shooting is absolutely ridiculous. First off how many other bad guys have been brought down by a concealed handgun owner in the many other mass shootings this country has experienced? Now add to this ill-conceived notion that you cannot hardly get students to bring pen and paper to class, do you really believe that a student will carry their gun with them all the time with their minimalistic philosophies? I mean just trying to get students to change out of their pajamas to go to class is an effort at many campuses. Lastly, the notion that this concealed handgun will save the students will simply introduce more guns to an environment that is filled with students who sometimes make bad decisions. Whether it is dealing with the student who just got shot in the neck on our own campus (as the legal gun owner student was putting up his gun before the impromptu party that occurred in his apartment got too out of hand. He tripped and almost killed his fellow student) or any of the other scenarios that have campus judicial officers shaking their head and asking what were they thinking, adding more guns to this population is NOT the answer.
— Todd Mar 6, 10:36 AM #
What a bunch of crap. An intellectual community doubling as an armed camp? What would Cardinal Newman have said about this in his famous piece “The Idea of a University.”?
— Donald Winters Mar 6, 11:02 AM #
Campus police (not security, there is a difference) are as well trained and often more educated than city or county officers. They know their envirnment and respond appropriately. A good deal of campus police have these weapons and the training to go with them. Do not underestimate these departments. They prevent a large number of violent events that never make it to the mass media. If you are concerned about safety on your campus, ask your police department exactly what plans they have in place. They will be happy to help keep you and others safe.
— Sandy Mar 6, 11:51 AM #
You have missed the under lying issue…in years gone by the initial strategy in dealing with armed assailants was to first try and negotiate with them….because it was the humane thing to do and it was believed it wouold save lives. As we have seen in recent times assailants are not interested in negotiating, rather they want to make a statement that usually has ended in suicide or policicide [if there is such a word]. The newer strategy is; forget about negotiating…go in blazing to try and eliminate the threat to save lives.
— jose Mar 6, 11:55 AM #
I worked as a federal law enforcement officer while I attended graduate school, and I have been responsible for protecting large numbers of people from bad guys. If there was an incident on your campus, faculty, staff and students would be running AWAY from the danger. The men and women who are sworn to protect you (the ones referred to as “bottom of the barrel” in an earlier comment), would be moving TOWARD the danger. That is their job, and they do it willingly, despite the fact that they are aware of the disdain with which most faculty regard them.
Most of them have families waiting on them at home—people who would like to see them again. To provide firearms that are at least equal to that of the bad guys is the least that we can do for them.
Hey Debster, try introducing yourself to a couple of your campus police officers. Ask them if they have a family. Ask them to see pictures. You may find that they aren’t that far beneath you after all. If you’re lucky, you might even realize that you’re not as special as you have been led to believe. Interestingly, they will still take up a position to cover you as you run away from the danger, or perhaps take a bullet that was meant for you. That, dear colleague, is their job.
— A. Edwards Mar 6, 12:09 PM #
I would really like to see a citation from ‘R’ that crime goes down when people carry firearms. In my career, I have seen data that suggest quite the opposite. In researching murder cases, many of the files contained statements to the effect: “[____] made me mad or pissed me off….I reached into the glove compartment/night stand/under the pillow/cabinet (etcetera), grabbed the gun, and shot him/her.” People are more likely to be killed by someone they know who has ready access to a weapon.
Hmmmmm…we want to cut down on campus violence and some people actually believe that the best way to do that is to put even more firearms on campus, even in the hands of students and staff? We ought to be able to do better than that.
— Sue Mar 6, 02:45 PM #
May I offer a simple suggestion to end much of the violence: Make all firearms shorter than say, 42 inches totally illegal. The manufacture, sale, possession, sale, trade, distribution, importation, etc…totally prohibited.
In Chicago this past weekend, 8 Chicago Public School students were shot, 3 fatally, I believe all were shot with short, easily-concealed, semi-automatic handguns. Last school year, 27 CPS students were killed in their neighborhoods, on their porches, in public parks and in buses and on sidewalks. The tally this school year is 17 dead so far, and more to follow.
Perhaps our Constitutional scholars can discuss the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights and whether our Founding Fathers anticipated cities of 3 million, open-air drug markets, gang violence and easily-concealed semi-automatic weapons with clips that hold 10, 15 or 30 shots, as fast as you can pull the trigger? How many more innocent children need to die before we resolve this question?
Please let us discuss this issue peacefully and with compassion for all of us
— Teacher Nameless Mar 6, 07:24 PM #
Teacher Nameless: Thank you for pointing out so clearly the human cost of our obsession with the Second Amendment.
Though not from Chicago, I have lived in NYC, Boston and Philadelphia over the course of my life. I know too well from my adolescence as well as from raising three children in Boston and Philadelphia, the human cost of an irresponsible permissiveness associated with the sale and distribution of handguns. We are experiencing on campus the spill-over effects of this general policy in our socieity. I have said before, and will say again, more guns are not the answer to this problem. As a society we must re-think our approaches to homicidal/suicidal gun violence. Lives lost in communities outside of campus are just as important and worthy of concern as those lost on campus.
I offer my condolences to the families, friends and community members affected by the murder of school children in Chicago. I understand their grief, and it is not an abstract concept.
— Rick Mar 7, 09:29 AM #
—The myth that a student will be able to take down a bad guy who starts shooting is absolutely ridiculous. First off how many other bad guys have been brought down by a concealed handgun owner in the many other mass shootings this country has experienced?—
“Abu Dhaim entered the library at the seminary in West Jerusalem, where about 80 students were gathered, and fired an AK-47 rifle for several minutes, witnesses said.
Students scrambled to flee the scene, jumping out of windows, witnesses said.
A student shot the gunman twice before an off-duty Israeli army officer killed him.”
-BBC yesterday
“The gunman was shot by a church female security officer and was found dead when police arrived at the scene, said Colorado Springs Police Chief Richard Myers.” Denver News Dec. 2007
The student and off duty officer in Jerusalem and church security officer in Denver were luckily armed. There would be far more killed if these 3 followed the advice of some of those on this blog.
“the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed”
— sd Mar 7, 10:30 AM #
I would also like to add that being raised in Ireland during the Troubles (where you don’t have the right to bear arms) opened my eyes. Banning weapons leaves only the criminal and terrorist with power. The average law abiding person cowers defenseless in their home as thugs run the streets and keep unarmed police officers at bay. May vicious kidnappings and executions could’ve been prevented if the homeowner had more than a wooden bat to dissuade armed aggressors.
— sd Mar 7, 10:35 AM #
Time to inject a few facts into this inane and insular debate. The weapons at hand are Bushmaster carbines. They are not fully automatic assault rifles, and fire precisely one bullet per trigger pull. They are NOT high-powered weapons, and fire an intermediate-power round more powerful than a pistol, but far weaker than a typical deer hunting rifle.
The primary advantage given to the police who use such firearms is one of accuracy. Rifles are far easier to shoot accurately than pistols, particularly in high stress conditions, and the use of more acurate firearms in a lethal threat environment significantly reduces the risk of errant shots where the officer may miss a campus shooter with a pistol. Yes, you and your students are safer with these firearms than they might othrwise be if offiers were forced to rely solely upon pistols.
Campus police in most states are state law enforcement officers, and are on par with highway patrol officers. They are not “rent-A-cops,” and are typically better vetted and trained than your local police or sheriff’s department employees.
Lastly, there seems to be a lot of growing up to do on this forum. Firearms have been carried by your students, fellow faculty, and staff, for decades. Campuses have always been armed, you’ve simply been able to pretend otherwise until now. These firearms are tools. The childish hysterics vomited forth by many of you are based upon phobias, instead of facts. I’d ask that you educate yourself and read up on the academic texts relating to the issue before commenting again, if only to make your own ignorance and prejudice less apparent.
— Bob Mar 7, 12:22 PM #
For Rick and Teacher Nameless – This obsession with civil rights is just so damned inconvenient! I mean. . . You do realize, don’t you, that the second amendment guarantees a civil right? Just like the first amendment or the fourth amendment? I wonder if our founding fathers anticipated cell phones and the internet. Or do you think the Patriot Act is just fine? I doubt it. . . I imagine you scream bloody murder thinking that the government, maybe George Bush himself, is listening in on your phone calls or reading your email. The thing is, you don’t get to pick and choose civil rights. If you wish the government would take away the right to keep and bear arms, then be prepared to have them take away your right to be secure in your person and papers. . .and your freedom of speech. . .and your freedom to assemble. While you’re at it, why don’t you pick which group you’d like to see made into slaves? (I vote for smokers, don’t you?)
— Bill Mar 7, 02:36 PM #
Wasn’t it Archie Bunker who suggested arming every airline passenger with a handgun as they board would pretty much deter aircraft high jacking. I can imagine a strongly built case for just such an argument.
This was done for a laugh, but the premise seems to be intact. If all students are armed, can anyone attack them? Conversely, will the frequency of gun violence rise appallingly?
Have you all been accredited with how to properly operate your personal weapons?
— Yojimbo Mar 7, 03:55 PM #
Bill: last time I checked, as historical conditions changed, amendments to the Constitution have been added. So, it is no longer constitutional to own human beings in the USA (i.e., we ended slavery), women now have the right to vote, etc. The Founders of this nation gave us the right to amend the constitution as conditions warrant. Please refrain from sarcasm and fear-mongering.
We have to challenge the irresponsible policies and practices that make weapons easily available to those who would commit homicide/suicide, and thereby endanger all of us. Most of the reasonable responses on this thread seem to recognize that we will have properly trained, professional persons who are armed and that we don’t need to make it easy for mentally ill persons to obtain weapons.
Our problem with gun violence is not simple, nor will it be easily resolved but if we don’t start addressing it properly, it will not get better by continuing to add more guns to the mix, especially if those guns are in the hands of non-professionals or poorly trained professionals. Our collective experience as a nation is making that painfully and tragically clear.
— Rick Mar 7, 05:27 PM #
Mr. Edwards,
My hat off to you and your colleagues. You are right in what you say. Unfortunately, too many of us fail to see the point you make, and it is not even very subtle.
— Dag von Lubitz Mar 7, 06:15 PM #
Let me address a different aspect of this issue. Although the AZ university officials state that there is no connection between the VA Tech and NIU campus shooting incidents, those incidents are clearly on the minds of many people posting comments on this news item.
Providing better armament to campus security officials as an attempt to address campus shooting incidents like VA Tech and NIU would be attempting to apply technological solutions to what are essentially psychological problems. This is rarely an effective approach.
Campus shooters largely have suicidal thinking, deep depression or clinical anxiety, as well as a history of having been bullied—all as indicated by the post-Columbine report issued by the Secret Service and US Dept. of Education.
This suggests that the most effective way to forestall shooting incidents is to screen for mental disorders, then extend outreach and treatment. Arming campus police to deal with shooting incidents is ineffective, given that campus shooters can inflict dozens of casualties with automatic weapons in a matter of seconds.
(Yes, I have developed such a screen, and my firm markets it. However, whatever screening instrument is used, screening and outreach are the most constructive ways to address the threat of campus shootings.)
— Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, Ph.D. Mar 8, 11:01 AM #
Rick, you’ve swallowed the Flavour-Aide and allowed yourself to become duped by a “progressive” camp that sees you as a serf rather than a citizen.
For all the fear-mongering from the anti-2A camp, fact is that you cannot have 1A without 2A. You cannot prevent abuses of rights without some kind of pre-emption of those rights. That’s a nice way of saying you can’t prevent abuses without INFRINGING on rights. You see where this is going? If not, I’ll spell it out for you.
Let’s say that anyone who wishes to exercise 2A rights has to be fingerprinted, background-checked, etc., and has to fork over some kind of sum for a license (much like your driver’s license) every few years in order to legally exercise that right. (this is not too far different from what exists in several states already) Now what happens when some sweetheart of a legislator comes along and says (cloaked in an amendment to a pushed-thru spending package) that in order to exercise 1A rights, you have to have a similar kind of license? Reasons given?? Well… the Founding Fathers never could have anticipated electronic communication nor mass media, so we have to protect the public for the Greater Good ™. The precedent exists already for 2A issues, so why not 1A? If you think this isn’t possible, you know little of how the law works.
You desperately need to read James Madison’s Federalist Paper #46. It’s all there.
The police and any other government entity are reactive forces; they are called upon when something bad happens. When you turn them into a preventive force, you walk a very thin line that has more pitfalls than benefits. How long will it be before we end up with a Zappa-like “Central Scrutinizer“whose function is to enforce the laws that haven’t been passed yet?
Ye who trades liberty for security deserves neither… and that’s what they usually get.
— Casual Observer Mar 8, 12:59 PM #
Casual Obsever: Perhaps you do not understand the concern I raise so I will attempt to re-state it succinctly – given current laws and practices, mentally ill persons have very little difficulty obtaining weapons that they can use to act on homicidal/suicidal impulses. Many rational persons, like myself, are interested in common-sense, practical measures that can reduce that access. While I am not advocating the complete repeal of the Second Amendment, if it needs amending to legally permit lawfully constituted government entities to reduce access to weapons by mentally ill persons, than we as a society need to do that. Claiming that such an action portends an inevitable slide down the proverbial slippery slope that ends in the loss of fundamental civil liberties ignores this issue and is unhelpful.
Our civil liberties face far greater threats from the laws, policies and practices in which we have engaged in waging our war on drugs and on terrorism than from any common- sense effort to prevent mentally ill persons from accessing weapons. But that discussion should take place at another time and venue.
Dr. Koltko-Rivera recommends a practical step we can take as part of the effort to address the threat of violence by mentally ill persons – work to properly identify and provide mental health care to those persons who are clinically depressed or who have suffered from bullying. His recommendations reflect common sense and are based on careful study of the kinds of incidents being discussed on this thread. His recommendation merits serious consideration on that basis.
Finally, I will again suggest that posts on this topic refrain from sarcasm and name-calling. This issue is serious and needs to be addressed seriously.
— Rick Mar 8, 02:13 PM #
Rick, you still can’t see my points.
Who ultimately decides what is mental illness? Before you laugh that one off, consider that there are many forms that go from mild depression from the loss of a loved one all the way to psychotic lunatics that have to be kept in a rubber room. I have a dear friend who is a shrink in CA & he says that shrinks are often the sickest of all people!
Currently, there are laws in place to prevent the more extreme cases of mentally ill people from getting firearms. This was part of instant-check (unconstitutional as it is – it amounts to prior restraint) and the purpose of filling out a form 4473. The problem we have seen in recent years is the courts and government don’t wish to do their job.
I strongly suggest you volunteer at a battered women’s shelter and tell them they cannot have a weapon to defend themselves because they suffer from clinical depression and battered womens syndrome. Tell them that their only option is to dial 911 and wait. Tell the guy who is a recovering alcoholic who lives in fear in a low-rent high-crime area next door to a crack dealer that he can only have a dog for protection… as long as it isn’t a pit bull because the media has decreed it to be an evil dog.
I agree that our civil liberties face a far greater threat from the assorted “wars” championed by every politician looking to get voted in orifice. Why are we trying to give them yet another hook into our civil liberties? Window-dressing like this may gain votes from a population of sheep, but it doesn’t solve problems.
Even if we could eliminate all above-board retail sales to “mentally ill” (however that ends up being defined), there is an entire black market involving firearms, typically with gang-related activity. Do you actually think the laws will stop gangs from dealing in firearms?
It never ceases to amaze me that people today think they are smarter than the Founding Fathers. They put 2A in there as the teeth in the enumeration of our rights. Again, rights; not privileges! Modify 2A the way you say it should be changed, and it is no longer a right; it will become a government-bestowed privilege. 2A isn’t about duck hunting. It is a recognition of the danger of standing armies to freedom. What would we do if some in-power political party decided that all members of the opposing party were to be rounded up and carted away to “re-education” camps? Don’t you dare tell me it can’t happen here. We’ve seen the first steps of it already. We don’t even have Posse-Commitatus to stop the feds from using the armed forces against the US population anymore.
The solution isn’t to pass more stupid laws to try and make up for an old pile of stupid laws. The solution is to hold people accountable for their actions, and to trust the citizen, who is supposed to have inalienable rights.
— Casual Observer redux Mar 8, 09:51 PM #
Some more ideas on civil rights and handgun violence:
The Declaration of Independence discussed certain unalienable rights, including “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Tragically, the unalienable right of life was violently terminated for those students killed in Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, NIU and other schools around the country.
My “Liberty” to walk on city sidewalks, to picnic with my family in public parks, to attend classes in free and open schools, is severely curtailed if I have to worry about being killed by rapid-fire concealed weapons. City dwellers are being killed every day, caught in the cross-fire of gang disputes. “Spray and pray” is the motto of gang-bangers who fire their large-capacity semi-automatic handguns into a crowd, spraying bullets like a water hose, usually killing innocent bystanders, who are American citizens with the unalienable right to Life.
The Second Amendment reads exactly “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It appears that the Second Amendment is a qualified right, for citizens to form “A well-regulated Militia” to help protect this new democratic state from future foreign invasions. (Reference the British invasion in the War of 1812)
In a historical context, the Second Amendment was written when the fledgling United States did not have a large, standing army to protect a free state, or the means to tax and pay for it. There was some fear that a standing army could be used by a potential dictator to oppress citizens. Hence the idea of the citizen-soldier, the Minuteman, called to assemble on the village square with his own musket, ready to repel British soldiers or Indian attacks.
The “People” could be construed to mean white, male, landowners (citizen-farmers) to “keep and bear Arms” which in 1787, meant very long, heavy, single-shot muskets, which had to be hand-loaded for a firing rate of 2 or 3 shots a minute by a skilled soldier, with an effective range of perhaps 50 yards. Clearly these were not concealable weapons with a high rate of fire.
Of course, 220 years later, we now have large standing armies of professional soldiers, army reserve corps, National Guard soldiers and city, county, state and federal police.
In fact, if you want to use the National Guard as a proxy for “a well-regulated Militia”, I believe they keep their fully-automatic rifles locked up in local armories, and not in their homes. One can argue that the day of the “citizen-soldier” has long since passed.
On the other hand, our cities, schools and campuses have become armed camps. If we do not want to prohibit semi-automatic, concealable handguns, then we do need “a well-regulated Militia” in the form of armed, trained police officers, as well as retired military, deputized citizens, and National Guard soldiers in every city, school and campus. This is not so different from armed, plain-clothed air marshals that we already have for anti-hijacking duty in our commercial airlines.
So we come back to a kind of “all or nothing” argument. Either every American citizen, man, woman and child should have the right to carry a concealed semi-automatic weapon for self-protection, or nobody does. I do not have the answer to this question, but only ask that we discuss it peacefully, with respect for each other as citizen-scholars, students, teachers and compassionate human beings. What is certain is that Americans are being killed every single day in this country, mostly with easily-concealed handguns.
— Teacher Nameless Mar 9, 06:20 PM #
Arachie Bunker had the right idea. When asked how he would prevent skyjacking, he replied, “It’s simple. Just arm the passengers.” So, it’s simple. To prevent campus slaughter, just arm the students.
Hey, I’ve got an even better idea. Why don’t we pass a law that makes it a criminal offense for people to go around shooting students on campuses. That ought to do the trick. Then the cops wouldn’t need gun because there’d be no more killings. Hey! Hold the phone. We could even make it illegal to rape, assault, rob, kidnap…wow.
Dude, why didn’t someone think of that. Just pass the laws and there will be no more crime and therefore no need for the guns. Simple.
— Ron Mar 10, 05:50 AM #
Folks, ASU Police officers are state certified police. They attend the same academy as Phoenix and the AZ DPS. Their officers attend pre and post academy training as well as 16 weeks of field training. The Department is an Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement agency. The 40 hours of rifle training is initial training (standard for AZ police agencies), with continuing training on-going. Several ASU cops are former military and many have prior law enforcement experience prior to being hired at ASU. Also, nowhere in the article does it state that these tools will PREVENT a school shooting. It is just a weapon to help the police better respond. ASU is an open campus with no walls, an active shooter can do a lot of damage before the cops arrive. Once they do arrive, I am glad the ASU Police have the firepower to neutralize the suspect(s) and save my ass.
— Sam Mar 10, 07:09 AM #
As a professor (who does not teach in cj) and a former police officer I am pretty surprised at the level of uninformed rhetoric engaged in on a forum populated mostly by faculty.
Assault rifles in cars allow first responders in shooting situations to engage armed and shooting enemies either from a longer distance, or with a greater accuracy, both of which can be essential. Assault rifles are not deterrents to crime any more than a defibrillator is a deterrent to heart attack. They are just more precise tools. You do not “need them” any more than you need a defibrillator. A skilled medical responder can often get a heart restarted with a swift hit to the chest of the patient. But if you having a heart attack, the defibrillator is the preferred tool. If a gunman is shooting into your class, then a police officer with a rifle is more accurate and will hit few innocents than one with a pistol.
— snj90 Mar 10, 08:51 AM #
I carry a gun not for safety, but to butt in front of the Panda Express food line, right at the height of lunchtime. I flash that little beauty, the path clears, and I order my 2-item combo with noodles and fried rice, pronto! No getting around it, guns and lethal intimidation make my college life a lot easier.
— marci Mar 10, 01:51 PM #
With the Arizona legislature planning to authorize concealed weapons on campus, our community colleges and universities could become shooting galleries.
We’ve already had instructors killed at our College of Nursing.
I guess it’s time to retire.
— Dan Russo Mar 10, 02:29 PM #
The sad state of affairs in our Country today make debates such as these the breeding grounds for the cynics who would rather make fun of a serious situation than face it’s ugly reality.
For too long we have regarded the freedoms of the individual over that of the masses. Socialistic in perspective perhaps, but consider the laws that “protect” us from inappropriate eyes looking at our medical records. That fact alone provided the foundation for Chou to act out his frustrations that were known to at least a few health professionals who should’ve been able to predict his outburst and communicate concerns to the appropriate persons.
Look at the latest campus shootings this year, yes in most cases the perpetrator shot themselves before suffering at the hands of society. Their mental state maybe known to someone and they should not have had the ability to purchase guns or ammunition.
So where does that leave us? Guns or no guns?
Let the trained professional do their job with guns or hand grenades if that is what it takes. I say do what we must do to make our campus communities safer.
At least we have time to still talk this through, but not too much time.
— DM Mar 10, 03:11 PM #
Teacher nameless – thank you for the reasoned discussion of the Consitution and Second Amendment. I appreciate your effort to help us better understand the purpose and history of the Second Amendment.
I share your concerns. Having lived in three major cities in which gun violence claimed many innocent lives I know what you mean when you write about “spray and pray.” Our nation let gun violence get out of control and now we are suffering the consequences on campuses and shopping malls and any other place where people might gather.
I hope reasonable people will more often engage in this debate and organize appropriately to push for needed reform of our nation’s laws with respect to guns. Life is more precious than an abstract right to have a gun.
— Rick Mar 10, 04:38 PM #
Teacher nameless – your reasoned discussion on 2A was well-written… and completely wrong.
You have a distinct misunderstanding of what constitutes the militia as referred to in 2A. Again, read James Madison’s Federalist papers #46. It is painfully obvious that you have not done your homework.
Service in the National Guard in fact qualifies as military service. If 2A is a recognition of the danger of standing armies to freedom, and NG service is military service, how can “militia” as referred to in 2A be the National Guard? Answer: It isn’t. The National Guard didn’t exist in 1789. (don’t believe me, check it out for yourself.)
In order to learn what “well-regulated” means in the context of 2A, you will have to look in a dictionary from roughly 1880. The English language has changed a tad from the late 18th century. (again, check this out for yourself. If you live in a major city, a librarian should be able to help you here)
Nowhere in the BoR does it say you have a right to be free from fear. If that were the case, there would be no IRS. If conditions are that bad where you live (i.e. a war zone), and the police won’t do their jobs.. time to pack up and move. If you keep moving to dangerous places, that says something about the company you keep. Both action and inaction carry consequences.
Adding more cops into the mix is not an intelligent choice, unless each and every person has their own personal police guard at the ready 24/7/365. Adding more rifles to police arsenals is window-dressing at best. Anyone who knows anything about the campus/school shootings knows that the real damage was done well within the response time of the LE agencies. By the time police get departmental OK (via policy or actual command) to deploy the rifles and snipers, the perp has done his damage and has either killed himself or hoping the cops will do it for him. Their goal is to become immortal through infamy, and they need a target-rich environment as provided by “gun-free zone“to pull it off. It gets a lot more dicey if they can’t be assured that everyone will be unarmed.
Media coverage of nonsense like this gives psychos their hoped-for 15 minutes of fame, and then some. As far as I’m concerned, the media feeds psychos like Cho, who will have snippets of his ranting video dropped in newscasts coast-to-coast easily for the next 30 years.
This might help a few folks here figure things out. Though most will dismiss it as cynical, it is 100% on the mark.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/TACDemocracy.shtml
— Casual Observer again Mar 11, 01:49 PM #
May God have mercy on our soul.
Remember Kent State.
The unintended will happen.
— Thomas J. Neuville Mar 12, 06:23 AM #
Is that an assault rifle under your coat, or are you just happy to see me?
— monk Mar 14, 04:30 PM #
Some more ideas on handgun violence and the Second Amendment…
While we were discussing the exact meaning of a “well-regulated Militia”, two more Chicago Public School students were shot dead with handguns, for a tally of 19 dead this school year. A third student’s body was found yesterday in a garbage can. Police are investigating… Ref: the Chicago Tribune Metro Section of Monday, March 10, 2008 “Student held in Crane (High School) killing”.
What we need is some calm, respectful discussion about concealed weapons and handgun violence. The reason I quoted the complete text of the Second Amendment (see my comments numbers 30 and 43 above) is that the National Rifle Association wants to quote only the last part: “…..the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” in order to shut down any discussion about regulating concealed handguns. As citizens we have the right and the duty to talk about this and to pass laws at the local, state and federal level.
The Second Amendment is not about protecting the right of gang members or the criminally insane to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons. It was about the right of the States to have a “well-regulated Militia” of citizen-soldiers in order to counter the threat of a corrupt, tyrannical Federal government and its standing army. And one can argue that many of the States’ rights were effectively terminated by the end of the American Civil War when Federal armies invaded Southern States and forcefully disbanded their State governments. One can also mention Federal soldiers violating States’ rights for the greater good, for example, efforts to ensure civil rights of African Americans by enforcing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, which seemed inconvenient for some states.
The big question is this: Can we trust our fellow citizens NOT to slaughter each other with concealed, semi-automatic weapons?
Concerned citizens marched yesterday in Chicago, families and friends of those children killed recently, asking the Illinois legislature to “do something” about guns. The question we must all answer, is what can we do? Are these victims simply martyrs to our zealous worship of guns? Do we have so much violence in our souls that we all need to carry weapons? Perhaps we all should go back and watch Michael Moore’s movie “Bowling for Columbine”. At least he is asking the right questions, and we should all be discussing the answers.— Teacher Nameless Mar 15, 04:41 PM #
let’s make ammunition illegal :)
— corcoran Mar 15, 05:27 PM #
“Concerned Citizens” who continue to ignore what their children are exposed to, and who refuse to exercise parental control have no right to expect the government to “protect” their kids from anything by using the brute-force power of the state to strip fellow citizens of their rights. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet it seems that those Draconian laws just don’t wok. Could it be that criminals don’t pay any attention to those laws? Doesn’t it stand to reason that if a criminal ignores one law that they will also ignore future laws?
I recall some years ago when Elvis’ bodyguards wrote a tell-all book about his drug abuse and lifestyle excesses. In the interview of those bodyguards, a reporter asked them why they didn’t try to protect Elvis from the pitfalls of a rock’n‘roll lifestyle. The response was a rhetorical question that was forever burned into my brain: “How do you protect a man from himself?”
Because people use kitchen knives to hack apart their spouse, does that mean we should put government controls on kitchen knives? Because suicidal people often use razor blades to slit their wrists, should we put limits on the number of razor blades people can buy each month?
It is unfortunate that our culture focuses on inanimate objects when people refuse to conduct themselves as responsible adults. Until people are held accountable for their actions, we will continue to have more stupid laws generated by useless empty-suit politicians who pander to a stupid electorate.
Thomas mentioned Kent State. I’m old enough to remember that horrific incident. For those who may have forgotten, it was a bunch of trigger-happy National Guard soldiers who seemed to feel they were better than those students they murdered. (a disease that has run rampant through government to this day) There’s a lesson from that event that has been forgotten. I have a sneaking suspicion we will be learning it again.
A mention was made about enforcing the civil rights of black folks in the south. What few wish to remember is that gun control laws were used to disarm those black folks and make it much easier for the KKK to lynch them. Fact is that if blacks were armed, the KKK wouldn’t have lasted 70 minutes, much less 70 years. Gun control has proven to be among the most racist of laws.
Teacher Nameless, you do ask one interesting question: Can we trust our fellow citizens NOT to slaughter each other? I’m willing to take a chance on the inherent goodness of the human race and say we won’t. While I have run into a fair number of deviants in my years, the vast majority of those I’ve met in my travels have been good decent human beings. If those good individuals arm themselves, I figure it will give pause to any wanna-be screwballs.
Michael Moore? I’d sooner lend credibility to Adam West.
— Casual Observer returns Mar 16, 05:07 AM #
I am very happy we are having a good discussion in this forum. In reply to Casual Observer, I agree with many of your points. Perhaps gun control laws are simply window-dressing for politicians who can say that “they are doing something about guns” while not addressing the underlying causes of violence.
The sad reality is that gun-control laws don’t work. I can make a good argument for the total prohibition of handguns, and if I could waive a magic wand and make them all disappear, I would, but this is probably wishful thinking. And yes, if we prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning guns, then only criminals will have guns. We must keep the right to defend ourselves, our families and our homes.
Chicago does have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet these laws are unenforceable and have no effect on criminals who have no respect for any law. I wish I could carry a small handgun legally in Chicago, if only to defend myself from armed muggers looking for well-dressed citizens walking alone at night. What scares me even more is when I hear my high-school students talking about the handguns they keep in their homes and cars. We have armed policemen inside my school, numerous security staff and metal detectors, and we still have gun incidents. I hear you can buy any kind of weapon illegally off the back of a truck, if you have cash and you know a guy who knows a guy. And gang members drive to Indiana or Louisiana to get their handguns, which are illegal to buy and own in Chicago.
I had to laugh when our politicians passed laws against “Assault Weapons” which are not so different from semi-automatic hunting rifles, except for some combination of large capacity magazines, pistol-grip, short stock or no stock and a place to mount a bayonet. “Banning Assault Weapons” is just another political slogan, a sound bite politicians can use at election time. And yes, we cannot ban kitchen knives or razor blades, although Chicago passed an ordinance prohibiting the possession of ninja swords (I’m not kidding.)
The reason I mentioned Michael Moore’s movie, “Bowling for Columbine” is that he touches on our culture of paranoia and violence in America. He interviews some Canadians, who have about the same ratio of guns to population as the U.S.A. but a small fraction of the violence. The Canadians explained that they had a better social safety net in the form of government welfare programs as well as a sense of solidarity with their fellow Canadians.
Rather than gun control, perhaps we should work on the root causes of violence: poverty, unemployment, and the rage of those excluded from main-stream America. Of course, our Federal government’s various “Wars” on poverty, drugs and illegal immigration are probably only additional empty campaign slogans, which empower federal bureaucrats and justify ever-increasing taxes, while accomplishing absolutely nothing. Maybe James Madison was right, in that as citizens we should not depend on the beneficence of an increasingly royal Federal government, complete with hereditary dynasties (the Bush and Clinton families) but that we have to take responsibility for our freedoms within our several states.
In reply to Casual Observer and your comments numbers 40, 42, and 51. I thank you sincerely for mentioning James Madison’s Federalist Paper number 46 entitled “The Influence of the State and Federal Government Compared” It gave me some new ideas. The complete text is available at www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm or search on www.google.com. As scholars and citizens, we can learn from each other in peaceful discussion. May I suggest also that irascible, nose-tweaking author, Voltaire, who managed to offend just about everyone in 18th century France, and was well-known by our Founding Fathers. He emphasized that we need to crush Intolerance and Absolutism and was an early champion of free speech. His writings inspired that famous phrase “ I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”As citizens we should be concerned about creeping federalization of every aspect of our lives. As a teacher, I say we eliminate the Federal Department of Education and dump “No Child Left Behind” which is another political marketing slogan and a travesty inflicted on teachers and students nationwide. The issues of teaching and learning should be left to local and state school boards, and to teachers in their classrooms, not to clueless, faceless federal bureaucrats. But I digress…
Getting back to the question of guns and armed assailants on university campuses, perhaps we need to create “weapon-free zones” enforced by fences, walls and metal detectors. We may have to build walls around our campus communities, similar to medieval cities in Europe, complete with moats and drawbridges. Compare to the fortified monastery, where scholarly monks kept learning alive while Vandals and Goths pillaged the countryside. Medieval scholars at the University of Paris had to carry knives or swords as they walked on dangerous streets. And yes, dictators and kings did not allow their serfs and peasants the right to own weapons, thereby keeping them in abject poverty and servitude, while royalty lived in luxury…
Please let us continue this discussion….we can learn so much from each other…
Thank you and all the best to each of you.…
— Teacher Nameless Mar 16, 04:08 PM #
Fourty hours of training is more than it sounds like. It is about the same amount of time that new recruits get on basic rifle marksmanship in Army basic. And don’t forget that campus police will already have been trained on gun safety, shoot-don’t-shoot and the like. You can question the need for the rifles, if you must, but I wouldn’t question the amount of training. It’s probably about right.
— Tracy G. Mar 17, 05:50 PM #
Regarding a wishful wand-wave and subsequent disappearance of pistols… A pistol is, by its nature, a defensive weapon. It allows a person of lesser physical ability the reasonable chance to defend themselves against an attacker of greater physical ability. (typically between 8 feet and 20 yards) By contrast, a rifle is an offensive weapon in that it can deliver a lethal blow at far greater range. (typically between 100 yards and 600 yards – this changed warfare forever) I would NOT wave that wand as it would put every woman and disabled person at the mercy of a physically-superior predator.
Rearding the term “assault rifle”… it was first coined by Adolph Hitler & was his desciption of the German StG-43, which was a mid-powered, select-fire (semi and full-automatic) infantry rife. There is no over-the-counter rifle sold today that has this capability. Select-fire rifles are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and many states do not allow NFA weapons even if you can jump through all of the federal hoops. (so much for federal pre-emption) In fact, no new-manufacture assault rifles (or any other full-auto weapons) have been allowed on the NFA civilian registry since 1986, when the BATFE was given final authority on the issue.
Regarding 40 hours of training for rifle marksmanship… Proficiency with any kind of firearm is something that knows no fixed training period. Everyone is different in their abilities and all must practice regularly to maintain proficiency. 40 hours may be sufficient to familiarize oneself with an unfamiliar weapon, but it will not guarantee proficiency with any given weapon. Firearms skills take a lifetime to develop and maintain. This kind of training doesn’t come cheap either in terms of time or expense. If you train to the minimum, your abilities will be minimal.
I don’t believe a social safety net can magically reduce violence. The only way violence of every kind can be reduced is for indivdals to respect their fellow man. No amount of laws or sanctions/prohibitions can correct this problem or any other social problem. It is solely up to We The People to make a choice to make things better. The sooner we stop relying on the feds to fix our lives for us and hand us everything on a silver platter, the better off as a nation we will be. What was it JFK said about asking not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country….??? A better attitude would be a good start. I figure if the bad guys don’t know who is armed and who isn’t, they might decide perpetrating violence and mayhem is a little too risky as a lifestyle.To my thinking, that would be a good attitude adjustment for them.
— Casual Observer returns again Mar 18, 08:52 AM #
Casual observer: while I can wholeheartedly agree with you when you state that we can reduce violence by promoting greater respect for each other and that it is up to us to do that, I cannot agree with your speculation that if “bad guys” don’t know who is armed they may decide the risk is too great. The kinds of gun violence which this thread has been about involves mentally ill persons who are unlikely to exercise the kind of rational judgment required to decide not to commit gun violence. A suicidal/homicidal individual may just decide that going out in “a blaze of glory” gunfight might be just as attractive as or even more attractive than shooting innocent, unarmed persons.
I still believe that our most productive step to reduce the risk of gun violence by mentally ill persons is to come up with common-sense gun control. Fewer opportunities to acquire guns are likely to mean fewer mentally ill persons with guns. That, along with the attitude change you call for among those of us considered mentally healthy, just might help.
And, I agree with you and repeat what I wrote in a much earlier post: this is not a simple problem, we will not solve it quickly but we must begin somewhere and soon lest we consign more innocent victims to premature deaths at the hands of mentally ill persons who are able to acquire guns.
— Rick Mar 18, 04:06 PM #
I wonder how much thought went into this decision? Administrators are well known for their “knee jerk” reactions.This seems just like another.How many times has this police force had to shoot anyone? Draw their weapons? It will be like the Keystone Cops when they need these rifles.The police that know how to use one are gone and the officer on duty will forget what cars they are in….
— Brent Mar 19, 11:25 AM #
Really, if it weren’t for the fact that pistols are easier to carry, I would prefer all police officers (campus, municipal, etc) would carry rifles and leave their pistols in their cars. The greater accuracy of the rifles over the pistols over longer ranges would make both the police and the public safer—knee-jerk reactions against rifles aside.
— Tracy G. Mar 19, 12:31 PM #
Return to NIU
I went back
to see old friends
but found
roses and candles
on the ground
Where have those bright voices gone
those beautiful innocents
who wanted only to live
Why once again
Tears come
when will the pain end
eyes streaming
for their families
lovers and friends
for us all
I grieve
Let this happen
Never again
Forward, Together Forward
With compassion for us all
— Teacher Nameless Mar 19, 10:47 PM #
Rick, once again you have chosen to ignore the facts of the situation.
Cho, and nearly every other mental case who did what they did, deliberately planned the operation and selected a location where they knew there would be an unarmed target-rich environment. Each time, there were warning signs that were ignored and/or the courts did not do heir job. In Cho’s case, the laws were there.
The fact remains: if someone has no prior criminal record or reason to base a decision they are mentally-unfit to own a firearm, there is no way to prevent a future act of violence. It’s like handing someone a driver’s license. You can’t predict if they will violate any traffic laws or kill someone via vehicular manslaughter.
Mass-murder guarantees a national news headline, especially when it involves firearms. Even certifiable nut-cases know this. If they know they will get blown away before their third round can be expended, it greatly reduces their chance of getting that 15 minutes of fame. Take away the chance of fame, and the motivation is gone. As I have stated before, Cho will receive media mentions easily for the next 30 years. Had he only murdered two or three students, he would have been forgotten in a year. Instead, he racked up a double-digit total, including (ironically) a Holocaust survivor. This sort of thing is cold, calculated, and premeditated.
Given the choice of letting mass-murderers have a free ticket to infamy via wholesale cold-blooded murder of unarmed civilians and the likelihood of being neutralized by armed citizens while in the process of comitting a crime, I’ll take the latter. Why the Left prefers the former is beyond my understanding, and strikes me as prima face evidence of a mental disorder.
Rifles instead of pistols for police? Disagree. Rifle bullets have a lot of penetration, to the point of being able to go through several people and several walls. Not good. Pistols are defensive weapons and pretty well suited to the task, assuming they are relatively low-velocity rounds. Most defensive situations are close-range affairs. For a little more persuasion, a slide-action shotgun fits the bill. I’d leave the rifles to the police snipers.
— Casual Observer strikes again Mar 28, 03:16 AM #
Casual Observer: I do not ignore facts in this matter. That I come to a different conclusion about the facts is not prima facie evidence of a mental disorder, or of a desire to suffer harm at the hands of an armed person who is mentally ill.
What you don’t seem to recognize in my argument is a point I repeatedly have made: more guns do not mean greater safety, especially when those guns are in the hands of persons neither trained nor experienced in law enforcement.
Let me ask you to do something: log onto NPR.org, click on Morning Edition, then go to the Story Corps segment broadcast this morning (3-28-08) The person telling the story lives in the same city in which I grew up; in fact, in the same borough. Although a gun was not involved, not having a weapon when faced with an armed person did not mean that this individual suffered harm. My point is that if we only think about responding to violence and the threat of violence with more violence, then we will inevitably have more violence. I suggest you re-read your earlier post in which you talked about the need for “attitude change” and ask yourself how your attitude might change so that you could see an approach for addressing this issue that does not require more guns.
— Rick Mar 28, 04:58 PM #
Rick, you are trying to compare a half-hearted mugging to a mass-murder perpetrated in a “gun-free zone”. Talk about apples and oranges! The social worker was probably pretty good at reading people and he noticed that this kid wasn’t exactly a hardened criminal by his body language. Try doing what he did with the likes of Cho; i.e. walk up to him while in the middle of rapid-fire and say “hey bro, I feel your pain so can’t we just get along?” If you seriously plan on doing this, please take out a big life insurance policy on yourself and make me the sole beneficiary.
I personally feel that more firearms actually do mean greater safety.. for the law-abiding public, that is. I really have no concern for the occpational safety of violent criminals, which is what gun control laws have amounted to; OSHA for criminals. Read a book called “More Guns, Less Crime” by Prof. John R. Lott, Jr. for more data to back this up.
When someone has made the decision to do violence to another person, regardless of motive, rarely is there a way around it. Maybe you will get lucky and be able to pull what Diaz did. More than likely, you won’t. I’m still trying to figure out why the Left feels it is more noble to see a woman strangled to death in an alley with her own pantyhose, rather than the same woman explaining to cops how her attacker got two shots center-of-mass. Why does the Left care more for the criminal than they do the victim?
My general attitude is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” However, I also believe as the Talmud states “If a person comes to kill you, arise and kill him first.”
— Sonova Casual Observer Mar 30, 11:17 AM #
Some of you need to pay attention to where it says that the rifles will be stowed in the patrol cars when not needed for specific instances. Who of you need to read this? Those who are babbling about the officers roaming the halls with weapons, Iraq #2, blah blah blah.
Look, campus officers who have pistols (not all campus police in the US carry firearms) probably already have shotguns in their patrol cars. They don’t parade around campus with them, do they? Talk about ridiculous slippery slopes, people.
Nor does the article mention ‘deterrance’. The rifles are for this purpose: when you have someone on campus who is a threat to the lives of other people on campus, do you want your security personnel to have to approach within 25 yards (reasonable effective handgun range), or do you want them to be able to deal with the threat effectively from a couple of hundred yards away? How many people die as they close the distance? How many of them die as they get that close?
If you don’t trust your campus officers enough for them to have rifles as opposed to shotguns and pistols, why do you have them around at all?
— Tom Apr 1, 08:05 PM #