Guns Don't Belong - Chronicle of Higher Education


PDA






ZeSpectre
April 15, 2008, 04:58 PM
Guns Don't Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i32/32a05601.htm)

Chronicle of Higher Education
From the issue dated April 18, 2008

Guns Don't Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students
By JESUS M. VILLAHERMOSA JR (http://www.crisisrealitytraining.com/page.php?id=36).

In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, a number of state legislatures are considering bills that would allow people to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. I recently spoke at a conference on higher-education law, sponsored by Stetson University and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, at which campus officials discussed the need to exempt colleges from laws that let private citizens carry firearms, and to protect such exemptions where they exist. I agree that allowing guns on campuses will create problems, not solve them.

I have been a deputy sheriff for more than 26 years and was the first certified master defensive-tactics instructor for law-enforcement personnel in the state of Washington. In addition, I have been a firearms instructor and for several decades have served on my county sheriff's SWAT team, where I am now point man on the entry team. Given my extensive experience dealing with violence in the workplace and at schools and colleges, I do not think professors and administrators, let alone students, should carry guns.

Some faculty and staff members may be capable of learning to be good shots in stressful situations, but most of them probably wouldn't practice their firearms skills enough to become confident during an actual shooting. Unless they practiced those skills constantly, there would be a high risk that when a shooting situation actually occurred, they would miss the assailant. That would leave great potential for a bullet to strike a student or another innocent bystander. Such professors and administrators could be imprisoned for manslaughter for recklessly endangering the lives of others during a crisis.

Although some of the legislative bills have been defeated, they may be reintroduced, or other states may introduce similar measures. Thus, colleges should at least contemplate the possibility of having armed faculty and staff members on their campuses, and ask themselves the following questions:


Is our institution prepared to assume the liability that accompanies the lethal threat of carrying or using weapons? Are we financially able and willing to drastically increase our liability-insurance premium to cover all of the legal ramifications involved with allowing faculty and staff members to carry firearms?

How much time will each faculty and staff member be given each year to spend on a firing range to practice shooting skills? Will we pay them for that time?

Will their training include exposing them to a great amount of stress in order to simulate a real-life shooting situation, like the training that police officers go through?

Will the firearm that each one carries be on his or her person during the day? If so, will faculty and staff members be given extensive defensive-tactics training, so that they can retain their firearm if someone tries to disarm them?

The fact that a college allows people to have firearms could be publicized and, under public-disclosure laws, the institution could be required to notify the general public which faculty or staff members are carrying them. Will those individuals accept the risk of being targeted by a violent student or adult who wants to neutralize the threat and possibly obtain their weapons?

If the firearms are not carried by faculty and staff members every day, where and how will those weapons be secured, so that they do not fall into the wrong hands?

If the firearms are locked up, how will faculty and staff members gain access to them in time to be effective if a shooting actually occurs?

Will faculty and staff members who carry firearms be required to be in excellent physical shape, and stay that way, in case they need to fight someone for their gun?

Will weapons-carrying faculty and staff members accept that they may be shot by law-enforcement officers who mistake them for the shooter? (All the responding officers see is a person with a gun. If you are even close to matching the suspect's description, the risk is high that they may shoot you.)

Will faculty and staff members be prepared to kill another person, someone who may be as young as a teenager?

Will faculty and staff members be prepared for the possibility that they may miss their target (which has occurred even in police shootings) and wound or kill an innocent bystander?

Will faculty and staff members be ready to face imprisonment for manslaughter, depending on their states' criminal statutes, if one of their bullets does, in fact, strike an innocent person?

Even if not criminally charged, would such faculty and staff members be prepared to be the focus of a civil lawsuit, both as a professional working for the institution and as an individual, thereby exposing their personal assets?

If any of us in the law-enforcement field were asked these questions, we could answer them all with absolute confidence. We have made a commitment to train relentlessly and to die, if we have to, in order to protect others. Experienced officers have typically fired tens of thousands of rounds practicing for the time when they might need those skills to save themselves or someone else during a lethal situation. We take that commitment seriously. Before legislators and college leaders make the decision to put a gun in the hands of a professor or administrator, they should be certain they take it seriously, too.

Jesus M. Villahermosa Jr. is founder of Crisis Reality Training, a consulting firm that specializes in issues of college, school, and workplace violence, and a former director of campus safety at Pacific Lutheran University.

Now am I the only one who notices that most of his "warnings" against allowing folks to carry are concerned with how much money it -could- cost a school/college/university?

Interesting in a "money vs. safety" kinda way and doubly interesting given the recent settlement for Virginia Tech (a school that did it Villahermosa's way) is costing the Virginia taxpayers about 11 MILLION dollars (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24050712/)!

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns Don't Belong - Chronicle of Higher Education" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hanno
April 15, 2008, 05:07 PM
Well, here is at least one small college that is taking a small step in the right direction.

GRAND RAPIDS (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - A new campus safety effort at Calvin College will put guns in the hands of some staff members.

It's part of the school's new Use of Force policy.

The director of campus safety says arming his staff will make everyone on campus safer.

When the policy takes hold this fall only select supervisors will be authorized to carry a weapon.

They'll go through regular testing and background checks.

http://www.wwmt.com/news/campus_1348508___article.html/members_staff.html

MakAttak
April 15, 2008, 05:08 PM
How much time will each faculty and staff member be given each year to spend on a firing range to practice shooting skills? Will we pay them for that time?

Will their training include exposing them to a great amount of stress in order to simulate a real-life shooting situation, like the training that police officers go through?

Will the firearm that each one carries be on his or her person during the day? If so, will faculty and staff members be given extensive defensive-tactics training, so that they can retain their firearm if someone tries to disarm them?

Hmm... How much time did your officers spend on the range each week?

How often did they have "stressful situations" training?

How often did they have to wrestle for their CONCEALED GUNS?


How often do campus police have any of this training?

How soon do officers get to the scene?


So, in cost/benefit analysis: It's better to have the shooter shooting away, murdering as many as he can without worry about someone shooting back RATHER THAN have someone shooting back that MIGHT hit another innocent.



So, my last question: HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE? HOW DO WE LET SUCH STUPID PEOPLE INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT?

OMGWTFBBQ
April 15, 2008, 05:13 PM
Seems to be the same old elitist BS backed up by nothing but fallacious arguments(ad verecundiam, ad baculum, and of course the various straw mans).



Is our institution prepared to assume the liability that accompanies the lethal threat of carrying or using weapons? Are we financially able and willing to drastically increase our liability-insurance premium to cover all of the legal ramifications involved with allowing faculty and staff members to carry firearms?

You're getting sued if a shooting happens no matter what your policy is (VT got sued).

How much time will each faculty and staff member be given each year to spend on a firing range to practice shooting skills? Will we pay them for that time?

While special and regular training is preferable, having an armed defender with no such training there if a shooting should occur is preferable to leaving everyone defenseless. *

Will their training include exposing them to a great amount of stress in order to simulate a real-life shooting situation, like the training that police officers go through?

* See above

Will the firearm that each one carries be on his or her person during the day? If so, will faculty and staff members be given extensive defensive-tactics training, so that they can retain their firearm if someone tries to disarm them?

* See above.

The fact that a college allows people to have firearms could be publicized and, under public-disclosure laws, the institution could be required to notify the general public which faculty or staff members are carrying them. Will those individuals accept the risk of being targeted by a violent student or adult who wants to neutralize the threat and possibly obtain their weapons?

Not in every state, and I'm not aware of any cases in any of the states where it would be possible where a CCW permit holder faced such a nightmare scenario.

If the firearms are not carried by faculty and staff members every day, where and how will those weapons be secured, so that they do not fall into the wrong hands?

Uh... at home/locked in the car?

Will faculty and staff members who carry firearms be required to be in excellent physical shape, and stay that way, in case they need to fight someone for their gun?

Statistics? I'm willing to bet the mortgage that far more cops(per capita per year) have had their duty weapon taken in such a fashion than people carrying CONCEALED.

Will weapons-carrying faculty and staff members accept that they may be shot by law-enforcement officers who mistake them for the shooter? (All the responding officers see is a person with a gun. If you are even close to matching the suspect's description, the risk is high that they may shoot you.)

But I thought cops are all seeing all knowing super heroes?!?! :confused:

Sarcasm aside, the shooting would be over before the cops even got there/went into the building.

Will faculty and staff members be prepared to kill another person, someone who may be as young as a teenager?

and in the process save the lives of God knows how many other students and their own lives? Hell yes.

Will faculty and staff members be prepared for the possibility that they may miss their target (which has occurred even in police shootings) and wound or kill an innocent bystander?

Better than letting them get lined up against a wall to wait for the firing pin to hit the primer.

Will faculty and staff members be ready to face imprisonment for manslaughter, depending on their states' criminal statutes, if one of their bullets does, in fact, strike an innocent person?

Better than being dead, and letting the shooter take out God knows how many other students.

romma
April 15, 2008, 05:13 PM
Sorry, I couldn't resist on this one... I could care less of his opinion of my letter to him.


My letter to Jesus:
OH, another elite expert know it all that knows what is best for everybody else...

The definitive master class gun handler point man that is tactically qualified to tell us ordinary mortals that we have no right to self-defense.

That we will be better off pretending we are invisible while a madman would wander from room to room exterminating all that he passes by.

No Thanks Mr expert! keep your opinions to yourself please!

MakAttak
April 15, 2008, 05:15 PM
I would suggest we write informed, polite letters to the poster about how illogical, immoral and dangerous his position is:

Jesus@CrisisRealityTraining.com
Phone: 253.381.0505
Fax: 253.853.6499

PO Box 64381
University Place, WA 98464

John G
April 15, 2008, 05:17 PM
How many school shootings has Mr. Villahermosa Jr. stopped? Not "responded to," STOPPED? :confused:

OOOXOOO
April 15, 2008, 05:19 PM
I like his opinion that because I don't have the training he does I can't possibly defend myself. If he can't drive a stock car as fast as a professional he should take the bus.

ZeSpectre
April 15, 2008, 05:21 PM
I would suggest we write informed, polite letters to the poster about how illogical, immoral and dangerous his position is:

Jesus@CrisisRealityTraining.com
Phone: 253.381.0505
Fax: 253.853.6499

PO Box 64381
University Place, WA 98464

That's the plan as soon as I'm home and can write as a private citizen!

CBS220
April 15, 2008, 05:26 PM
Jesus@CrisisRealityTraining.com
Phone: 253.381.0505
Fax: 253.853.6499

I know a lot of preachers that would like to have that phone number!

Harold Mayo
April 15, 2008, 05:36 PM
Well...if Mr. Villerahermosa can absolutely GUARANTEE my safety or the safety of my children, then I guess I can go along with him. Since he CAN'T, then I guess his opinion is just a load of crap.

Amazing how he steps right up to disarm citizens and stir the pot about security issues when he has a side business "consulting" on such issues.

trinydex
April 15, 2008, 09:36 PM
i don't understand why it's some sort of formalism, some legally binding, bureaucratic institution that must be instated to have *some* guns on a campus.

the whole point is THOSE WHO WISH TO, MAY or WILL.

that solves the problems of people who want/need training, those who need to be in shape (yeah, cuz all cops are in shape). it covers the "fear" of killing someone else to save others etc. if there is ever a situation where a carrier doesn't or can't shoot the assailant, they're still free to abstain no? WHY IS IT OBLIGATORY, why are they trying to make it such that the faculty then MUST protect and MUST meet some "standard." that's called a secuirty officer.

anyone know what a good samaritan law is? it's if you stop to aid someone in danger you can DO NO LEGAL WRONG (unless you actually do something illegal). if they die in your arms while you were TRYING, you won't go to jail.

if anyone wants to abstain from carrying, they may and DO.

if someone wants to take the own security into their own hands, WHY ARE YOU OBSTRUCTING THEM?

OAKTOWN
April 15, 2008, 10:47 PM
I always enjoy how they skip over the fact that none of their rediculous hypothetical scenarios come to pass other places people can carry concealed. They also try to create the impression that someone is just going to show up with a big box of guns and start handing them out at the nearest frat party.

Huddog
April 15, 2008, 10:50 PM
Knowing the liberal bent of most administrators and professors at liberal arts universities I have to agree that most of them do not need a gun. However, each indidvidual should be able to make that decision for himself not have it chosen for them. Students would be more likely to be the ones that would carry and practise.

another okie
April 15, 2008, 10:58 PM
All the arguments against concealed carry on campus are the same arguments that were used against concealed carry generally.

claytonfaulkner
April 15, 2008, 11:42 PM
We have made a commitment to train relentlessly and to die, if we have to, in order to protect others.

i thought they were not obligated to put themselves (cops) in danger to save us???

TCB in TN
April 15, 2008, 11:48 PM
Sent my comments to him

some of the hi-points

Your ascertation that normal people would be highly likely to strike another innocent, while possible is certainly not as bad as the actual risks of having an armed assailant loose amoung an un-armed groups of potential victims. 32 dead at Va Tech, when a single armed individual brought a gun into a gun free zone! A second armed individual certainly could have stopped or at the very least lessoned the impact of that first crazed attacker. Your "entry team's" track record is that you do NOT save anyone at these school shootings, you merely arrive and clean up the mess after the fact! The problem with these "gun free zones" is that they only work for individuals who plan to obey the law to start with!

You see a problem with allowing people to defend themselves, but sir, the problem is NOT with putting guns in the hands of responsible honest citizens, and teachers, the problem is with taking them OUT of the hands of those same individuals!

Can you guarantee that you will be there to STOP the individual before he strikes? If not then you and those responsible for disarming any who might otherwise be armed are also complicit in thier injuries and deaths.

Rumble
April 16, 2008, 09:30 AM
Will weapons-carrying faculty and staff members accept that they may be shot by law-enforcement officers who mistake them for the shooter? (All the responding officers see is a person with a gun. If you are even close to matching the suspect's description, the risk is high that they may shoot you.)

Risk I'm willing to take. In fact...every single argument he poses is a risk I'm willing to take, if it means we can make the choices we see fit to protect ourselves.

K-Romulus
April 16, 2008, 01:56 PM
Geez, how do private security companies stay in business, what with all those "considerations" hanging over their heads . . .

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2008, 02:25 PM
Now am I the only one who notices that most of his "warnings" against allowing folks to carry are concerned with how much money it -could- cost a school/college/university?
Which is why we should encourage the victims and survivors of victims to sue -- taking away the rights and means of self-defense left the victims helpless, and the university must pay.

Unisaw
April 16, 2008, 02:28 PM
I am convinced that university policies re: an active shooter are all about managing the outcome of litigation, not the outcome of the shooting incident. The press release that NIU had in which they stated how well their "plan" worked is a perfect example. The spokesperson went on and on about how well the "plan" was implemented, but the reality is that it didn't accomplish a damn thing to limit casualties.

gp911
April 16, 2008, 02:36 PM
Apparently Mr. Villahermosa is the only person in the room professional enough to handle a firearm...?

College students with ample free time won't go to the range and become proficient, no way... They won't get excited about possibly taking a tactical course over spring break, noooo... Certainly they won't research the subject, train, and make an informed decision.

As for faculty, the culture in academia is generally so anti-gun that very few will take up a weapon anyway.

This is why we can't rest...


gp911

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2008, 02:40 PM
That's why the victims or their survivors should sue the university for denying their civil rights, denying them the means of self defense, and failing to protect them. Make them pay.

Unisaw
April 16, 2008, 02:43 PM
College students won't take the time? That's funny -- when I was in college I spent about 10 hours per week practicing with my handguns, much of it on the school's firing range. While it wasn't tactical/force-on-force practice, I have no doubts that I would have been better off having access to a firearm than being unarmed.

I agree with the poster who noted that these arguments are the same ones that were trotted out in opposition to "shall issue" concealed carry. I have yet to see blood running in the streets.

tipoc
April 16, 2008, 02:51 PM
Interesting, Mr. Villahermosa's opinion is the dominant one in the "security community" these days. I hope y'all have noticed that in the last decade and especially since 9-11, private security firms and consultants have been growing like weeds in the springtime. Lot of money to be made there. They often have the shared opinion that security should be left to "professionals". They often paint a picture of potential threats, so grave and immediate, that their services are absolutely required.

Why should a college have any policy on this at all? Now I can see the wisdom in elementary school and high school of having a no guns policy. The children and youth are minors with no legal right to carry.

A college is attended by adults (mostly that is), why is it the business of the school what a person has in their bag or under their shirt? They have no more liability than does a restaurant owner, a parking lot in the mall, or a theatre. The individual with the legal right to carry has the liability and should accept it. They are liable for their actions. A university needs no policy on this matter anymore than the local Denny's does.

tipoc

Prince Yamato
April 16, 2008, 02:56 PM
Will faculty and staff members who carry firearms be required to be in excellent physical shape, and stay that way, in case they need to fight someone for their gun?

Disarm the handicapped!

Will weapons-carrying faculty and staff members accept that they may be shot by law-enforcement officers who mistake them for the shooter? (All the responding officers see is a person with a gun. If you are even close to matching the suspect's description, the risk is high that they may shoot you.)

A 'gunfight' will last about 10 seconds. The shooter will be dead before police even arrive.

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2008, 02:56 PM
Mr. Villahermosa's rant reminds me of Mallard Fillmore's cartoon when the Lott study first came out -- the mainstream media saying, "A new study finds that allowing ordinary people to carry guns could put thousands of policemen out of work."

primlantah
April 16, 2008, 03:13 PM
higher education is about profit.... most people are mistaken and think its for preparing youth for the future.

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2008, 03:35 PM
The public school system is about profit, too, not about education. Here in Arkansas we pay an average of $9,000 per year per pupil.

The problem is, the Public Schools have learned that we throw money at problems. If they solve the problems, we stop throwing the money.

RoadkingLarry
April 16, 2008, 04:51 PM
The only thing that disgusts me more than the elitist filth that spread this kind of crud are the sheeple that support it.

Acheron
April 16, 2008, 04:59 PM
This is another example of the idea that somehow the average person can't handle the stress of a life-or-death situation, but police officers can (despite the fact that they are average joes too). This nonsense about professors and student being to stressed and missing and then hitting an innocent is just hilarious. Because, of course, cops never miss...


I'm not picking on LEOs here, I'm just pointing out the idea that somehow cops are better suited to handling these situations than the average person. I know plenty of CHL holders that spend way more time at the range than the average cop, in fact several of them are LEOs.


The author works in the security business. The bias is clearly there. He doesn't want to lose his job.

DFW1911
April 16, 2008, 05:05 PM
They often paint a picture of potential threats, so grave and immediate, that their services are absolutely required.

Bingo: this guy just wants to sell his services and what better way to do so than the quoted method above?

As a so-called expert, I wonder what his potential liability is if one of the schools he successfully disarms has an incident? I can imagine some parents would want to "speak" with him...

Thanks for posting; I think I'll write this guy a letter.

Take care,
DFW1911

Prince Yamato
April 16, 2008, 05:37 PM
Given that we are all biologically ingrained with the "fight or flight" response, wouldn't nature dictate that those incapable of dealing with a threat would run away and those that could (CCW holders) would fight?

Natural Law states that those that could fight, would.

Is it not unnatural then, to impede natural law (by denying CCW and subsequent defense of self on campus) and thereby denying our basic human biology?

TCB in TN
April 17, 2008, 10:37 PM
E-mailed him and got a very civil if predictable reply.

bumm
April 18, 2008, 12:18 AM
It never fails to impress me how gun control advocates want everyone disarmed due to the possibility of innocent bystanders being shot by armed defenders when the other option is to allow the madman to murder as many people as he fancies..
Marty

Carl N. Brown
May 1, 2008, 09:28 AM
What is interesting is to read liberal antigun commentators
equate college/university students to drunken "Animal House"
maniacs who can't be trusted with a gun.

On the fifth anniversity, NET News Service carried an interview
with one of the survivors of the 2002 Appalachian School of Law
shooting in Grundy VA. Tracey McGuire Frisk, law student, and
Kim Boyd, librarian, barricaded themselves in the library office:
""Hearing a struggle outside, the pair fearfully crept to
the window. Peering out Frisk watched as two law students,
former policemen armed with handguns, confronted and
subdued Odighizuwa....""--11 Mar 07 Kingsport Times-News.

Those are the kinds of people barred from carrying guns on
campus--responsible young (and old) students fully capable
of assuming adult responsibilities. Obviously the real maniacs--
the psycho spree shooters--are not abiding by the bans.

BruceRDucer
May 1, 2008, 09:54 AM
The author constantly refers to "staff and faculty".

I think generally, on university or college campuses, that if the Board of Regents selected a bunch of academics to train and arm, it would result in indecisive and unsafe personalities being armed.

If a school hired teachers and staff who alread held a CCW, that would be different.

More importantly, SELF-DEFENSE as a concept, does not mean that the Students are defended by STAFF and FACULTY. SELF-DEFENSE means students have a right to protect themselves.

Some STAFF and FACULTY are plain idiots, and this is generally known.

/
/

Phil DeGraves
May 1, 2008, 09:56 AM
"Guns Don't Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students"


So is he saying they do belong in the hands of the psychos that, despite not having any "police" training have no trouble neutralizing lots of targets?

What an elitist hypocrite!

Vern Humphrey
May 1, 2008, 10:48 AM
What is it about the air on campus?

In Virginia, any person who can legally own a handgun can carry it in an open holster -- right down the main street of Blacksburg, if he wishes. If he's over 21, he can get a concealed carry permit and carry anywhere in Blacksburg.

Yet as soon as he steps onto campus, he becomes an irresponsible maniac.

Kentak
May 1, 2008, 01:25 PM
Okay, he ruled out legal carry. Now, what's his solution for preventing another VT incident?

K

GEM
May 1, 2008, 04:19 PM
I think generally, on university or college campuses, that if the Board of Regents selected a bunch of academics to train and arm, it would result in indecisive and unsafe personalities being armed.

As compared to the paragons of gun usage that of course inhabit the internet. Speak for yourself, 'friend'. :fire:

How about the academic friend of mine who was a national Army pistol champ, one who was a Col. in Special Forces in VietNam, one is a certified LEO in TX, one who runs a nationally recognized firearms training facility, one who attends the NTI religiously, etc. ?

Any reason for banning carry by faculty or staff speaks against any civilian concealed carry. :banghead:

In fact, the gentleman who wrote the column in other discussions has pointed out that the 'civilian' may not fair well in rampages. The Tacoma mall civilian failed at his task. The Tyler, TX shooter was killed because of his inadequate tactical paradigm.

The Applachian school incident folks had LEO training as did Assam in the Colorado church incident.

The idea that Joe Internet-Commando is a 'warrior' as compared to university personnel that take the time and effort to train is just plain crap.

However, this raises the dreaded meta-issue of the level of training needed for CHL/CCW. In most cases, little is needed from the criminological evidence. Usually these are the single mugger kind of thing, resolved by deterrence or a few shots. Is training needed for an high intensity incident like a rampage. Interesting question? The author argues that as compared to a general allowance of carry on campus - but that argument also implies that general CHL is wrong and he had been told that by replies from several experts.

Vern Humphrey
May 1, 2008, 04:36 PM
I think generally, on university or college campuses, that if the Board of Regents selected a bunch of academics to train and arm, it would result in indecisive and unsafe personalities being armed.
If they're incompetent, fire them.

GEM
May 1, 2008, 04:57 PM
If you fail a firearms test, should you be terminated from your job whose core requirements are not firearms related?

Can we have some thought here, rather than rants?

It is this kind of BS which guarantees that college campus will maintain gun bans. Geez. :fire:

Trisha
May 1, 2008, 05:09 PM
How better to present the responsibilities of being an adult than to be transparent as an institution for higher education to the precepts of the 2nd Amendment and state law on RKBA??

"You are an adult now, these rights, priviledges and responsibilities to yourself and your community come with the territory. Abuse them, violate them, and you will know the penalty of law as an adult."

Okay, so I dream. . .

rero360
May 1, 2008, 05:33 PM
I think Tipoc got it dead on, there should be no need for a "policy" its called state and federal law, if you are legally able to carry and you wish to, do so, if not for what ever reason, don't. Whether the person is a student or a member of the Faculty and Staff, makes no difference. If NY state allowed me to I would carry on a daily basis on campus no ifs ands or buts.

Creating a "policy" of arming faculty and picking some at random, whether they want it or not, and saying "here have a gun, heres some training, enjoy" thats not the answer, the individual desire to have that resposibility is what matters, example:

I have homework in my statistics class due today, its done but I know a number of the answers are wrong, now I could be spending my time reworking that homework to get the best possible grade, but I honestly don't care about the class. Instead I'm on here, reading my long range marksmanship books, sewing stuff onto my class A uniform for a speech on monday. those are all things I want to do, so I give them more of my attention.

As a private citizen I will go to the range and shoot about a thousand rounds thru my pistol this year, probably about 6000 .22s and another 2000 rounds thru my other various firearms. As a soldier I will fire 52 rounds thru my M16, 50 rounds thru the M9 and mayby 200 rounds in the various machineguns. Tell me which is better training.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 1, 2008, 05:40 PM
This is one of those "follow the money" deals. He has a direct conflict in the political "advice" he offers, in that he and his business seek to capitalize on weak, defenseless, unsecure campuses by offering them his "outstanding security consulting services". No better way to ensure that the campuses remain weak and defenseless, and thus in need of his services, than by following the illogical policy of creating lots of gun-free, easy-victim, disarmament zones (gun-free except for the shooter that is).

Nothing but a chance for him to pretend to have a cogent argument when it's about nothing but the money for him.

This joker would much rather schools paid him his exhorbitant consulting fee, then follow his advice and be exposed for millions as VT was and is after the fact, by following his advice, when all they would have to do is ALLOW people to carry, and there would be NO MORE MPSs (mass public shootings), and it would be FREE to the schools! Talk about the fleecing of the taxpayers - that's what he wants to do - pay now AND pay later, and people die in the process. John Lott proved that the MPS rate goes to 0.000000000 when CCW laws are implemented.

Everyone be sure to send him an email letting him know that his fraud has been exposed.

GEM
May 1, 2008, 05:55 PM
John Lott proved that the MPS rate goes to 0.000000000 when CCW laws are implemented.


No offense but that hasn't been shown. We have had rampages in CCW states. There have been various interventions but the attempts exist.

In the Tacoma shooting, WA being a CCW state, there was another license holder who didn't enter the fray because he thought he couldn't make the shot, IIRC.

We need to be accurate in our analyses.

tipoc
May 1, 2008, 09:06 PM
I'm not sure that I see the need for selecting members of the faculty and staff for special training in gunhandling. Anymore than I see the need for salespeople and managers from the local mall to have such training ("That girl there at Cinnabuns, she's got the killer eye Sarge, put her on the training list too!"). At lest ways not yet, the U.S. is not Palestine or Serbia. Not a bad idea for some general medical first aid though on a voluntary basis. Heat stroke, epilepsy, heart attack, a tumble down the stairs, what to do before the EMTs arrive, etc. This is no knock on teachers, landscapers or clerks at Toys R Us.

That's why I'm pretty sure no policy is the best policy.

Who are the first responders? In the U.S. we are taught that it is some arm of the official state, the cops, firemen, EMTs etc. But they are the second responders. The first are the people. We are there first, on the scene, what we do and how it is done matters. We are not encouraged in this but it is nevertheless true. We are encouraged to remain passive and await rescue or to vacate the scene, etc. We are not trusted to act.

Katrina. Folks, in many cases whose homes sat on dry land, were forcibly evacuated at gun point. They were sent out of the area, to trailer camps or other states. They were not wanted as part of the clean up and rebuilding, even though it was their towns and neighborhoods that were damaged. This alone did more harm than the storm. Maybe I digress.

We see now and will see more of, these small private paramilitary "security" outfits in the U.S. All "trained" in gun skills and "situational tactics" and available for hire. It don't make me more comfortable.

tipoc

Picard
May 1, 2008, 09:51 PM
I sent Jesus an email. You guys should too. Maybe if he gets 100 messages, he'll rethink his position.

Vern Humphrey
May 1, 2008, 10:16 PM
If you fail a firearms test, should you be terminated from your job whose core requirements are not firearms related?
Allow me to explain. We entrust our children to these institutions. Legally, they serve in loco parentis (in lieu of the parents).

Now, when I entrust my children to someone like that, I think I have a right to expect them to protect those children with the same vigor, skill and determination that I would exercise in protecting them.

If they cannot measure up to that standard, they have no right to take over my parental duties, no matter how many degrees they have, no matter how many scholarly articles they have published.

Standing Wolf
May 1, 2008, 10:24 PM
Only the better people should be allowed by all-wise government to have guns. Commoners need not apply.

tipoc
May 1, 2008, 10:47 PM
I thought we were speaking of college age youth, usually 18 or older.

I must not be much of a parent. At times I left my daughter in the care of a baby sitter, my aunt, my mother, my brother, my ex-wife, my in-laws, Day Care, etc. None of those folks could defend her as well as I could but I didn't worry on it over much. By the time she was off to college she was able to defend herself, still not as well as I could defend her. But after I followed her around a few days she threatened to shoot me and I knew she meant business. So...what ya gonna do? :)

I don't expect a college to keep such a close eye on my kid, or any normal healthy kid, that they can "protect" them all the time. Neither do I expect them to protect me. If she goes to the ball game I don't expect the owners of the stadium to afford complete protection, or rides a subway or a plane. Or goes to a movie. I expect that they will have a reasonable amount of security. But I don't need or want groups of armed official and unofficial uniforms roaming about everywhere I go. There is no need.

I support a right to carry. Folks have a responsibility to look out for each other and themselves we need the right to do it. If a teacher wants to carry let them. If the campus electrician wants to take a class and carry, let 'em. Maybe pay for the class. But to mandate that all do? To mandate that all take training? To examine the backgrounds of all for possible firearms violations in the past? To subject them all to a psycological exam? Why? There is no need.

There will be more mall shootings and school shootings. Folks having the right to carry can help lesson the number of victims.

tipoc

Vern Humphrey
May 2, 2008, 11:09 AM
I thought we were speaking of college age youth, usually 18 or older.
In times past, teh age of majority was 21, not 18. Colleges were considered "parents" in those days and that law has not changed. It is under that legal principle that the college will not allow firearms.

Regardless, when the government deprives citizens of a basic civil right ( and Virginia Tech is a government institution) -- and also deprives them of the means of self-defense, the government assumes an absolute liability for those citizens' protection.

Virginia Tech failed.

GEM
May 2, 2008, 11:45 AM
Vern, you need to study up on our responsibilities. Given your twisted logic, parents who aren't the gun expert you are - should have their kids removed from them.

You obviously have something else going on with the issue besides who is a qualified teacher. Too bad.

I assume your children, if you have them, received no college education or went to the military academies. Where they home schooled in the bunker? :fire:

tipoc
May 2, 2008, 08:13 PM
GEM,

When I disagree with folks here I try to do so in a way that allows both myself and them to change their opinions without swallowing their pride. Not knowing people here personally I also try to not impute to them motivations other than the ones they state. Doing so tends to irritate folks I've found. Letting myself get pissed off easily or pissing folks off needlessly tends to get in the way of listening. At least that's what I've found. Sometimes we just disagree and time sometimes changes opinions some.

tipoc

cambeul41
May 2, 2008, 08:50 PM
It is not Jesus Villlahermosa that needs to be written to, it is The Chronicle of Higher Education, but beware the Grammar Nazis!

Vern Humphrey
May 2, 2008, 08:59 PM
Vern, you need to study up on our responsibilities. Given your twisted logic, parents who aren't the gun expert you are - should have their kids removed from them.

You obviously have something else going on with the issue besides who is a qualified teacher. Too bad.

I assume your children, if you have them, received no college education or went to the military academies. Where they home schooled in the bunker?

Gem, you need to study up on your manners.

BruceRDucer
May 3, 2008, 07:55 AM
"I think generally, on university or college campuses, that if the Board of Regents selected a bunch of academics to train and arm, it would result in indecisive and unsafe personalities being armed."---BruceRDucer

"If they're incompetent, fire them."---Vern Humphrey

Vern, this is the sort of viewpoint that requires better rationality to be sensible.

Nobody is likely to be terminated from employment in public education for reasons of competence. The standards simply are not exacting to begin with.

More pointedly, there are no standards concerning firearms competency, so the argument that employment should be terminated for firearms incompetency, is not rational. :)

Vern Humphrey
May 3, 2008, 10:36 AM
Nobody is likely to be terminated from employment in public education for reasons of competence. The standards simply are not exacting to begin with.

More pointedly, there are no standards concerning firearms competency, so the argument that employment should be terminated for firearms incompetency, is not rational.
It is the lack of standards that is not rational.

Colleges and universities are important. They are the key to continued prosperity in this country. Human lives are important.

When lives are lost, and universities become non-functional (due to some of the incompetents they admit -- Ward Churchill comes to mind), then it is time to make some changes.

To fail to do that would be irrational.

woad_yurt
May 3, 2008, 11:00 AM
Don't those people who lose it and shoot up a crowd usually put some planning into the effort? They have lots of ammo ready to go, with extra magazines and firearms. It's something that they've dwelled on for a while. Wouldn't the following question occur to them: "Where can I be left alone to do the job?" And, while they're stewing, they'll think "Anywhere that no one else has a gun." Malls, schools, etc.

tipoc
May 3, 2008, 12:51 PM
Wouldn't the following question occur to them: "Where can I be left alone to do the job?" And, while they're stewing, they'll think "Anywhere that no one else has a gun." Malls, schools, etc.

Actually no. The school shooters have usually been students at the places they shoot up and do the the shooting there for that reason. They are familiar with the locale. They want to shock and offend what they know.

Mall shooters, a little different. What both places share is that they are public have fairly easy access, and are familiar to the shooters. The shooters are making a statement. They are usually young. They also are not so much interested in getting out alive.

This country produces serious wack jobs on a fairly high basis but mall and school shootings are still fairly rare.

These are your choices: We can encourage more citizens to CCW and get training or we can say install metal detectors and Mr. Villahermosa's at every door on every mall in America. Arm Mr. Villahermosa and his crew with ARs and shotguns and have them patrol every school in the 48. Those are actually the two alternatives in front of you. There are not, in the real world, any others. In the wake of VT most schools have beefed up their response to shootings and other emergencies.

tipoc

redneckdan
May 3, 2008, 02:20 PM
This was my favorite part...I even fixed it for him...

<snip>
Will LEO who carry firearms be required to be in excellent physical shape, and stay that way, in case they need to fight someone for their gun?
<snip/>

I'm pretty sure we all know the direction post is heading.:D

BruceRDucer
May 3, 2008, 04:51 PM
It is the lack of standards that is not rational.

Colleges and universities are important.---Vern Humphrey

Well sure, broadly speaking; but the broad critique of American Education from Universities (where they teach Education) down to the elementary schools (where they implement the policies and procedures of the stuff they call EDUCATION).

Don't get me wrong, because I agree with you I'm sure. I'm just saying that a broad proposal that American Education be held to an identifiable "standard" seems to miss the point that the entire system seems intended to teach nothing but confusion to begin with. :what:

Saying it lack's "standards" is like saying Captain Ahab in Moby Dick is an eccentric personality.:)

So facing this, we would probably be lucky to get a good word in edgewise about Self-Defense, whereas correcting the errors of the entire system would probably demand that we no longer use taxpayer supported public education. ---[...er sumpin...]:):uhoh:

/

Vern Humphrey
May 3, 2008, 05:57 PM
We need to change the system. And we have a perfectly good issue we can use. Let's beat them over the head with it.

GEM
May 3, 2008, 07:03 PM
I stand by what I say, if you don't like it - tough. The issue is whether folks can carry on campus to protect themselves and I don't respect the opinion of folks who make irrational statements. When folks make totally illogical statements, you have to look at deeper reasons or accept that they can't think.

Because of Ward Churchill, some illogical genius will state that college staff are ALL incompetent - yeah, right.

Because some faculty are liberal, the whole crew should be defenseless. Idiotic.

Because a staff member doesn't want to carry a gun - they should be fired - stupid.

Since when is carrying a gun mandated for those outside of law enforcement?

Stupidity like this is just fodder for antigunners to continue to let young lives be unprotected by folks who could and want to do the job.

So - that's what I think. Having the ability to protect the young and yourself is more important than ridiculous ranting by folks who feed the antis. :fire:

Vern Humphrey
May 3, 2008, 07:32 PM
Let me know when he's finished with his spit-spewing rant.

tipoc
May 3, 2008, 09:03 PM
Well I don't agree with some of what Vern says but I've read him often enough to know that he's not an "idiot" nor "stupid" nor "ridiculous" and I wouldn't label his opinions that either. Maybe wrong, but not the others.

Years back when I was in college, a lowly institution filled with lowly folks, we used to invite in off campus speakers. Some folks objected to the speakers. From time to time they objected so much they tried to physically break up meetings and threatened the lives of some speakers. So we organized to defend them, the meetings and the speakers. Taught me the value of civil discourse.

See GEM, Vern is not your audience. I am,as well as other folks on the forum.

ridiculous ranting by folks who feed the antis.

You need a mirror here. You are ranting at Vern and that does not impress or convince.

tipoc

matai
October 25, 2013, 12:55 AM
Old thread, but today I had to attend a mandatory workplace violence seminar by Jesus. He was very entertaining and has a lot of law enforcement experience, but it still came down to run or hide if a shooter was in the building, and maybe attack. Firearms are not allowed at my place of employment so he shut down any discussion of carrying firearms for self-defense. Seeing this article is not surprising but it disappointing.

zxcvbob
October 25, 2013, 01:29 AM
He forgot to say "blood in the streets" and "wild west" :rolleyes:

RetiredUSNChief
October 25, 2013, 01:56 AM
Well...after a few posts, I quit reading and jumped straight to my own posting here on page 3.

While I don't agree with everything Mr. Villahermosa is saying, he DOES bring up some valid points.

It's my opinion that if the STATED purpose of arming teachers is to actually PROVIDE armed security, then there had better be due consideration for all the training and liability issues that necessarily go along with any armed security force. Campus security/police that are armed have their own training and are covered for issues with respect to liability due to the nature of their jobs.

If the armed campus security/police weren't covered for liability, you can bet your sweet hind end that I wouldn't work for such an agency. No way am I going to place my life and well being on the line for such a job when it means that there is NO backing for liability if I should have to shoot someone.


However, if teachers are ALLOWED to carry their weapons if they choose, as private citizens, that's another matter entirely than deliberately making them part of armed campus security. Concealed carry permits do NOT convey to the bearer the duties and responsibilities that law enforcement or armed security have, nor do they convey any kind of protection against civil liability similar to that of law enforcement.


The point of ALLOWING people to carry their firearms is to give them a personal choice with respect to self-defense. It's not so students/teachers can deliberately place themselves (and others) in harms way in some kind of wild-west gun shooting incident.

And with all due respect to Mr. Villahermosa's experience...these teachers and students aren't going to be expected to lead a charge into battle against some shooter like a SWAT team. They have an entirely different focus than a SWAT team. The SWAT team's focus is actively getting to the shooter and stopping him. Teachers and students who carry concealed as private citizens focus on getting to safety, applying deadly force only where their required to protect their own life (or that of another) in the process. They're private citizens...not law enforcement.


I know Mr. Villahermosa's opinion is against guns on campuses. But the matter of self-defense is just that...a matter of self-defense.

ugaarguy
October 25, 2013, 02:01 AM
We aren't going to revive a thread about an article published 5.5 years ago. If there's something new that Mr. Villahermosa has published someone can start a new thread on that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns Don't Belong - Chronicle of Higher Education" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!