Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
[sarcasm] Only the better people should be allowed by all-wise government to have guns. Commoners need not apply. [/sarcasm]
Guns Don't Belong - Chronicle of Higher Education
- Thread starter ZeSpectre
- Start date
- Status
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
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
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
Member
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.
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?
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?
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
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
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
Member
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
Member
Gem, you need to study up on your manners.
BruceRDucer
Member
"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.
"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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 480
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.
<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.
BruceRDucer
Member
---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.
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...]
/
Vern Humphrey
Member
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.
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.
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.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Let me know when he's finished with his spit-spewing rant.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
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.
You need a mirror here. You are ranting at Vern and that does not impress or convince.
tipoc
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.
You need a mirror here. You are ranting at Vern and that does not impress or convince.
tipoc
matai
Member
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
Member
He forgot to say "blood in the streets" and "wild west"
RetiredUSNChief
Member
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.
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.
- Status