"No Guns" Policies

Status
Not open for further replies.
KBintheSLC

KBintheSLC

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,207
Location
Stalingrad, USA
Forgive me if this is already being discussed, but my quick search turned up nothing. I am just wondering how the University of Alabama professor could have gunned down those three fellow staff members despite the U of A's no guns policy. I mean, didn't she get the memo? :banghead:

Anyway, I mean no disrespect in making a mockery of this tragedy, but the irony is just eating me up. Sort of like having the international conference on global warming get canceled by heavy snow... :confused:
 
When will the gun-haters get it? I know they won't, but on it goes. There shouldn't be any "gun free" zones in this country. I don't care to be a victim.
 
My wife attends UAH and was in the library across the street when this happened. Just this past week we had a discussion of her getting a permit and a gun she was comfortable with. She was against it until this happened. Now she is on board with getting proficient with a firearm. Unfortunately she can not carry it at school, but at least she could elsewhere. This opened her eyes. I am just glad she was safe.
 
Administration is to blame--DO BACKGROUND CHECKS

I just read about this online. The report I read made sure to go through all the shootings over the last 11 years-including the two little fools at Columbine. Can anyone else say Copy Cat?

Anyway, the woman had a history of violence. She shot her brother during an argument in the 80's. The law didn't prosecute. Also, since she HAS a history, why was she even allowed around students?

We need to hold College professors to the same high standards we hold public and private school teachers. If she had even a HINT of a violent past, she wouldn't have even been called for an interview.

As a teacher in a private school, I have to submit to a background check every year in my state. If anything comes back, I could lose my job.

This is the administration's fault. They should screen their employees. THEY put their staff and students in jeopardy by not screening.


I am adding this because I found another report that said the original shooting that took place in '86' was logged as an accident when this fool shot her brother. She shot him THREE times. How in the h**l could that be logged as a accident? The original police chief is to blame too.
 
Last edited:
DO BACKGROUND CHECKS...
Anyway, the woman had a history of violence. She shot her brother during an argument in the 80's.
Click to expand...

I don't know that background checks are the definitive answer. Since they wrote her off on that incident as being an accident, it would not have turned up on a background check. As a matter of fact, the majority of mass shooters have no prior criminal record.

As long as decent people are forced to be helpless/defenseless victims, these nut jobs will have endless pastures to graze upon.

This is the administration's fault. They should screen their employees.
Click to expand...

Yes... blame everyone but the perpetrator that carried out the crime. BTW... the U of A does perform criminal background checks on all of their professors.
 
"Gun free zones" are in reality "Criminal Protection Zones".

We need to start holding the people criminally accountable when they prevent people from protecting themselves. Magichlmt, your wife should demand that the school provide a personal armed guard for her since they only allow criminals and police to have protection on campus.

At least the Hamilton County (Cincinnati) prosecutor has it right:
The more law-abiding people that have guns, the better off we are," Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said. "Because the bad guys always have guns, You look at these school shootings or church shootings, the ones that have been stopped, it was because someone there had a gun."
Click to expand...

Ken
 
KBintheSLC said:
I don't know that background checks are the definitive answer. Since they wrote her off on that incident as being an accident, it would not have turned up on a background check. As a matter of fact, the majority of mass shooters have no prior criminal record.

As long as decent people are forced to be helpless/defenseless victims, these nut jobs will have endless pastures to graze upon.



Yes... blame everyone but the perpetrator that carried out the crime. BTW... the U of A does perform criminal background checks on all of their professors.
Click to expand...
I will revise my previous statement regarding the background check. You are right. This wouldn't show up. The reason it wouldn't have shown up was because it was never filed. She shot her brother three times and was forced at gun point by the police to disarm. The police chief STILL ruled it was an accident. Now they are going back to open up the original investigation from '86'.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought she wasn't at fault for her own actions. In the end a human being with free will and obviously a good mind made a choice to grab a piece of technology and use it to harm others. All of the media reports I have read are more concerned, it seems, with the magazine capacity and making comparisons to other tragedies.

If the police in the area failed to investigate this, they allowed a murderer to go free. If there hadn't been that mistake (which seems very fishy), she would never have gotten the job at the University.
 
Magichelmt, even if she cannot carry it will be good for her to know how to handle a pistol. You never know when, in a very bad situation someome elses gun may become available (dead security or LEO) or something.

Good luck!
 
Just another example of whats becoming a larger and larger pile of evidence that gun control doesnt work. Guns are here to stay like it or not. They can ban them, but that wont make them go away. There are many things in this day and age we would probable be better off without. All this technology, automobiles, cell phones. Guns are here now, all banning them is going to do is give our enemies an advantage over us. The are a necessary evil. On a national level the controversy seems to be with nukes. Im sure many people dont like the idea of having nuclear weopons, but on the same token it would probable be foolish for those countries to get rid of them. If we did the technology would still be out there and some out of the way country like Iran or North Korea probable wouldnt give theirs up and they would take over the world. Its the same concept on a personal level with guns. If all the law abiding citizens give up their guns most likely the criminals wont and that will give them an unjust advantage.
 
This woman shoots her brother and gets to be a teacher and a gun owner........I had a warrant for unpaid tolls and I got denied by NICS last year, God bless the brady bill


P.S. paid the warrant, 3 proceeds since then!!!!!
 
I understand the irony as noted by the OP. What I was wondering on the way into work yesterday is that we all talk about the vast majority of these shootings happening in gun-free zones. But, has anyone ever done a stats analysis to see if there is really a higher incidence of mass shootings in "gun-free" zones? Or is it just that there are so many gun-free zones these days and most of the gu-free zones are in places that are common for frustration (i.e. workplaces and government offices). I'm probably simplifying, but it's been a while since there was a Luby's cafeteria-type random shooting...most of the recent ones seem to involve disgruntled employee's.
 
Schools and companies have a bad habit of keeping nutcases on the payroll and on their property because they are afraid of being sued or offending folks.

If it is legal and you have a license, carry a small handgun in a good holster. I have carried at many workplaces with an appropriate handgun and holster and no one has known better. My life is more important than some stupid policy.

It is legal in Alabama to carry in schools with a license....if i was down there I'd carry.
 
berettaprofessor said:
I understand the irony as noted by the OP. What I was wondering on the way into work yesterday is that we all talk about the vast majority of these shootings happening in gun-free zones. But, has anyone ever done a stats analysis to see if there is really a higher incidence of mass shootings in "gun-free" zones? Or is it just that there are so many gun-free zones these days and most of the gu-free zones are in places that are common for frustration (i.e. workplaces and government offices). I'm probably simplifying, but it's been a while since there was a Luby's cafeteria-type random shooting...most of the recent ones seem to involve disgruntled employee's.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any mass shootings that did NOT occur in Criminal Protection Zones (e.g. "gun free") The Salt Lake mall shooting, UV, Ft. Hood, etc.

It is extremely rare that someone comes into a police station and starts shooting (I think there was one "suicide by cop" that happened that way but even there, few innocents were injured).

As my sig says, they are always stopped by someone with a gun.

Ken
 
It is legal in Alabama to carry in schools with a license....if i was down there I'd carry
Click to expand...

It's true there is no statute that prevents licensed persons from concealed carry on campus. However the State of Alabama Board of Education has had policy in place for quite some time that prohibits carrying a firearm on public college campuses. This would include the University of Alabama Huntsville, Birmingham, Auburn University etc. So unfortunately while the law does not make sheep of it's students, the board of education does.

handbill-gunfreezone2.jpg
 
It seems to me that the administration at U of A wanted to have it both way. They claimed it was a gun free zone, but did NOTHING to ensure it was gun free or to protect those inside the school from someone with a gun. I hope the victum's families win a lawsuit, but really wish the victums were alive and the assailant was stopped.
 
Gun free zones only work when you enforce them, why is that so hard for some people to understand? :confused:

Enforcement means metal detectors, searches, and armed guards at the perimeter to secure the area inside. Think airport security or the kind of security that most politicians enjoy. Even then it's not perfect, nothing is. But if you're not willing to provide the basic in security to actually make your area a gun free zone, then you're just inviting criminals in by simply putting up a sign and/or making a law.

Heck if just putting up a sign or making a law worked, then we'd have signs up all over the country that say "crime free zone" and we'd make laws that say you're not allowed to murder, rob, threaten, assault, rape, or otherwise violently harm anyone. Oh wait ...
 
Isn't it odd that gun wielding psychopaths always seem to choose locations with a high probability that everyone there will be unarmed.
 
The worst that could happen if you are carrying on a campus that it is not allowed is that you would get expelled. The worse thing that could happen if you are unarmed is that a disgruntled co-worker could shoot and kill you and some of your friends. On one hand you would have to find a new college and on the other hand you lose your life and your children have to find a new daddy. Not much of a decision in my mind. I carry CONCEALED everywhere it is not against the law. That doesn't mean it may not be against someones policy or rules but if I won't get thrown in jail I carry. Nobody will know unless I have to draw it and use it and then I don't care if anybody protests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top