In case anyone wasn't aware, it's getting front page attention at the moment.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html
College Campus Carry is the headline on CNN at the moment (merged)
- Thread starter blkbrd666
- Start date
- Status
Feud
Member
CNN-Campus Carry on the Front Page
The lead story on CNN.com right now is campus carry:
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html
The lead story on CNN.com right now is campus carry:
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html
Floppy_D
Member In Memoriam
I was coming over to post that. I'm bringing this up in all of my classes for the rest of the week.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Gene Ferrara, the police chief at the University of Cincinnati, makes a good point in the article below.
Chief Ferrar's point is that if students with concealed weapons permits were allowed to defend their lives with legally carried guns, he and the other campus police wouldn't know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. They might shoot one of the good guys instead of one of the bad guys. I can see where the present situation is much tidier: the bad guys get to murder the good guys and there's no confusion about it.
Of course the present situation also makes it easy for Chief Ferrar to tell the difference: the good guys will be dead on the ground and the bad guys might be alive. So the person left standing after a campus massacre is obviously the bad guy. As the only person left alive, he stands out.
If the good guys could defend themselves they also might be alive, which would confuse Chief Ferrar. He couldn't know whether the people left alive were the good guys or the bad guys, so he might be tempted to shoot everyone left standing after a campus massacre. This would work. He would have created exactly the situation that now exists, which is a situation that Chief Ferrar and most universities evidently prefer and want to continue. It's clearer when all the dead people are the good guys and the authorities don't have to worry about making decisions which they are evidently too stupid to make.
Decisions of this kind pose a real problem for the campus police and, possibly, for other law enforcement agencies that might be staffed with incompetents and the mentally challenged. For them the obvious solution to this problem is for the good guys to be defenseless so the bad guys can murder them and not confuse things for the police, who obviously are easily confused.
Me, if I were a law enforcement officer coming upon an active shooter situation, I would shout something like "Drop your gun!" and make my decisions based on the response. But campus cops obviously can't figure out such things, nor should they be expected to do so.
In fact what I would do if I were Chief Ferrar or his equivalent is to hold training sessions for CWP holders on campus and teach them how to behave should such situations occur. But my idea is probably too simple to be practical, even though it's what CWP holders usually learn in training: what to do if they have to defend their lives. That works in the real world, where people are much smarter than they are on college campuses, which is where society evidently houses the really stupid people so they can be taught by even stupider people and be safeguarded by mental incompetents like the Chief of Police at the University of Cincinnati. Which doesn't mean he isn't a nice person, of course. It's just that I wouldn't want him to date my daughter. Or to protect her either.
Chief Ferrar's point is that if students with concealed weapons permits were allowed to defend their lives with legally carried guns, he and the other campus police wouldn't know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. They might shoot one of the good guys instead of one of the bad guys. I can see where the present situation is much tidier: the bad guys get to murder the good guys and there's no confusion about it.
Of course the present situation also makes it easy for Chief Ferrar to tell the difference: the good guys will be dead on the ground and the bad guys might be alive. So the person left standing after a campus massacre is obviously the bad guy. As the only person left alive, he stands out.
If the good guys could defend themselves they also might be alive, which would confuse Chief Ferrar. He couldn't know whether the people left alive were the good guys or the bad guys, so he might be tempted to shoot everyone left standing after a campus massacre. This would work. He would have created exactly the situation that now exists, which is a situation that Chief Ferrar and most universities evidently prefer and want to continue. It's clearer when all the dead people are the good guys and the authorities don't have to worry about making decisions which they are evidently too stupid to make.
Decisions of this kind pose a real problem for the campus police and, possibly, for other law enforcement agencies that might be staffed with incompetents and the mentally challenged. For them the obvious solution to this problem is for the good guys to be defenseless so the bad guys can murder them and not confuse things for the police, who obviously are easily confused.
Me, if I were a law enforcement officer coming upon an active shooter situation, I would shout something like "Drop your gun!" and make my decisions based on the response. But campus cops obviously can't figure out such things, nor should they be expected to do so.
In fact what I would do if I were Chief Ferrar or his equivalent is to hold training sessions for CWP holders on campus and teach them how to behave should such situations occur. But my idea is probably too simple to be practical, even though it's what CWP holders usually learn in training: what to do if they have to defend their lives. That works in the real world, where people are much smarter than they are on college campuses, which is where society evidently houses the really stupid people so they can be taught by even stupider people and be safeguarded by mental incompetents like the Chief of Police at the University of Cincinnati. Which doesn't mean he isn't a nice person, of course. It's just that I wouldn't want him to date my daughter. Or to protect her either.
WayneConrad
Member
No kidding, Robert.
Chief Ferrar will have no problem telling them apart. The good guy will have his sidearm holstered. The bad guy will be on the ground. In no campus shooting have the police ever gotten there in time to do anything other than count the bodies.
The chief needs refresher training. The chief's training, way back when he was an officer, included verbal commands such as "drop the weapon!" Is he claiming that he would ignore all of his training and just shoot everyone willy-nilly? The chief needs to go back to acadamy.
The office of police chief seems to give a person an instant lobotomy. Politicians.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Wayne, Chief Ferrar is speaking from the current script used by campus police chiefs.
All of those people whose interviews I've seen say exactly the same thing: if the good guys are armed and able to defend themselves, the campus cops won't be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys and won't know who to shoot.
So I infer that the campus police chiefs are all untrained, mentally defective, and incompetent, and I suppose that's a bit of a problem. But that's not the major problem I see.
There are two other problems that I think are much more serious. Who hires the idiots to administer a campus and are sufficiently stupid to hire and retain an idiot like Chief Ferrar? That problem, as I see it, is that the President and Board of Trustees at such a college must be so lacking in intelligence that they don't immediately catch the stupidity that Chief Ferrar is peddling and fire him before he finishes the very first time he says it. No one of even ordinary thinking ability should swallow that kind of nonsensical babbling. But the college presidents and their boards do, which helps me to understand why institutions of higher learning are so badly run.
Which leads me to the third, and much more serious, problem that concerns me. Are students and their parents indeed so stupid as to hear such moronic ravings without demanding that Chief Ferrar and the entire university administration be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail--the same rail for them all, by the way. If so our country is irretrievably, irrecoverably lost and it has no future. We might as well change all the men's names to Barack Obama and all the women's names to Hillary Clinton, and give it up.
I do think that there can be legitimate discussions about matters of campus safety, but thinking like Chief Ferrar's--and other campus police chiefs--is so quintessentially stupid that it is embarrassing even to read.
All of those people whose interviews I've seen say exactly the same thing: if the good guys are armed and able to defend themselves, the campus cops won't be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys and won't know who to shoot.
So I infer that the campus police chiefs are all untrained, mentally defective, and incompetent, and I suppose that's a bit of a problem. But that's not the major problem I see.
There are two other problems that I think are much more serious. Who hires the idiots to administer a campus and are sufficiently stupid to hire and retain an idiot like Chief Ferrar? That problem, as I see it, is that the President and Board of Trustees at such a college must be so lacking in intelligence that they don't immediately catch the stupidity that Chief Ferrar is peddling and fire him before he finishes the very first time he says it. No one of even ordinary thinking ability should swallow that kind of nonsensical babbling. But the college presidents and their boards do, which helps me to understand why institutions of higher learning are so badly run.
Which leads me to the third, and much more serious, problem that concerns me. Are students and their parents indeed so stupid as to hear such moronic ravings without demanding that Chief Ferrar and the entire university administration be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail--the same rail for them all, by the way. If so our country is irretrievably, irrecoverably lost and it has no future. We might as well change all the men's names to Barack Obama and all the women's names to Hillary Clinton, and give it up.
I do think that there can be legitimate discussions about matters of campus safety, but thinking like Chief Ferrar's--and other campus police chiefs--is so quintessentially stupid that it is embarrassing even to read.
I responded about an hour ago, as of yet they haven't posted it.
After you send your response in you get a message saying that they screen it before putting it up, and do to limited space they pick and choose which responses to post.
If they decide to put it up I'll be the only Tom on there who posts something that makes sense. At least in my opinion.
After you send your response in you get a message saying that they screen it before putting it up, and do to limited space they pick and choose which responses to post.
If they decide to put it up I'll be the only Tom on there who posts something that makes sense. At least in my opinion.
bogie
Member
That's the same mentality that says that "lockdown" is the way to deal with a dynamic violent situation. All it does is ensure that the scene is relatively "uncluttered" for the reports in the aftermath.
Let's look at a hypothetical...
There are three bodies on the ground. Two of them have multiple 9mm wounds. One has three .45 wounds, and has a 9mm lying next to it. There's a guy sitting next to the wall with a .45, magazine out, and slide back, on the floor in front of him. The first, and only, thing he says is "He yelled that he wanted to kill everyone, and started shooting people."
Ergo, we can only assume, from the actions of the campus chiefs, that they do not think that their officers are intelligent enough to deal with this sort of situation. Which leads me to wonder WHY IN BOB'S NAME WOULD I WANT TO TRUST THEM WITH MY LIFE?
Let's look at a hypothetical...
There are three bodies on the ground. Two of them have multiple 9mm wounds. One has three .45 wounds, and has a 9mm lying next to it. There's a guy sitting next to the wall with a .45, magazine out, and slide back, on the floor in front of him. The first, and only, thing he says is "He yelled that he wanted to kill everyone, and started shooting people."
Ergo, we can only assume, from the actions of the campus chiefs, that they do not think that their officers are intelligent enough to deal with this sort of situation. Which leads me to wonder WHY IN BOB'S NAME WOULD I WANT TO TRUST THEM WITH MY LIFE?
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Is this dude arguing that a student firing back at a rampaging murderer will only draw attention to the students further back in the room? Does he think killers can't see you unless you move? This is really sickening, because if you read a little more into it, this man would be perfectly willing to sacrifice everyone else in the room by hiding even if he did have the means to protect himself and his classmates.
No wonder these people don't want responsible adults to protect their lives, they are only concerned with wether or not they might be hit by a stray.
That campus security guard is a pretty scary one...questioning his own ability to "read" a situation. We had one on my campus that we called "One Bullet Barney" and it would have been scary to see him draw his weapon...there is no telling who he would have shot in a serious situation...possibly even himself.
CountGlockula
Member
Good point Robert Hairless in regards to campus police WORKING TOGETHER with CCW students.
What a thought?!! Working together, instead of against each other, in fighting crime.
What a thought?!! Working together, instead of against each other, in fighting crime.
If you're responding to the scene of a shooting, how do you sort out who is the bad guy and who is the heroic student with a permit?
The bad guy either shoots at you or shoots himself. The good guy drops his gun and puts up his hands. Course sometimes the bad guy does that too, but so far not so much on campus shootings.
The bad guy either shoots at you or shoots himself. The good guy drops his gun and puts up his hands. Course sometimes the bad guy does that too, but so far not so much on campus shootings.
They bring up that fact. Well, tell me this. What happens when this occurs outside of a college? How do the police tell who the good guy in a shooting incident elsewhere? Easy. The good guy will drop his gun when he sees the cop with their gun drawn at him. The bad guy (if he is still alive, remember that the cops will come minutes after the shooting has occurred) will most likely either turn to shoot the cop or will off himself.
Either way, I feel that even in the off chance which is very unlikely, if a cop shot me thinking I was a bad guy, so be it. At least there wasn't 30 people dead instead of a few.
Either way, I feel that even in the off chance which is very unlikely, if a cop shot me thinking I was a bad guy, so be it. At least there wasn't 30 people dead instead of a few.
Sweet, they posted it!
Tom
updated 16 minutes ago
How can you have a more restrictive gun law than "no guns allowed."
Ferrara shouldn't have anything to worry about when trying to figure out which person to shoot, the police never show up to a university shooting while the gunman is still alive.
ONE armed citizen can stop a shooting within seconds of it starting. The police can take several minutes to get there. Let's say that the shooter is going at a fairly slow pace and averaging one shot per second. if the cops take 3 minutes to get there from the first shot that's 180 shots.
Which really sounds like a better situation to you?
If guns are the problem then why bother putting the shooter in prison?
Tom
updated 16 minutes ago
How can you have a more restrictive gun law than "no guns allowed."
Ferrara shouldn't have anything to worry about when trying to figure out which person to shoot, the police never show up to a university shooting while the gunman is still alive.
ONE armed citizen can stop a shooting within seconds of it starting. The police can take several minutes to get there. Let's say that the shooter is going at a fairly slow pace and averaging one shot per second. if the cops take 3 minutes to get there from the first shot that's 180 shots.
Which really sounds like a better situation to you?
If guns are the problem then why bother putting the shooter in prison?
romma
Member
Geez, let the ccw student make the choice and gamble if they want...
Another stupid baseless argument!
ExtremeDooty
Member
How would you sort out the bad guy if the shooting was at a Walmart or the Post Office? How is this more difficult on a college campus?
Shoot first and ask questions later? I feel so much safer knowing that this guy has a gun. I think the police academy that trained this man should be investigated immediately.
CountGlockula
Member
Make sure you guys share your thoughts on the comments area.
Winchester 73
member
It's as if these people had never heard about the events at NIU or VT.
Now that's shocking.
I really think it's simply representative of that (large) part of our society that is afraid to be responsible for their own lives. Because they are unsure of themselves, as we all are to some degree, it gives them comfort to assume that someone else is looking out for them (the cops). That combined with the knowledge that nobody they know has ever had a violent encounter, gives them the attitude they have.
- Status
