University of Arizona Police Dept's Answer to mass shootings...

Status
Not open for further replies.
"They're not intended as offensive weapons," said Sgt. Eugene Mejia, public information officer for UAPD. "They are to be used defensively, as a response."

Therein lies the problem, everyone knows the Police rarely prevent crimes, but are intended to respond to them. This is all well and good, except that in a school shooting by the time they react people are already dead and/or dieing.

Arm the students.
 
I believe it would work. Besides, we already have cops in the high schools here, so what's a few million dollars versus human safety? I went to college and I assure you, without proper military training, most 21 year olds with guns in class is scarier than $2,000,000 to have armed professionals taking up a seat in a classroom environment. These could be off-duty cops. The University could offer them free college courses/education in lieu of dollars. My 2 cents.
 
Let play “forum poster” and insult an entire industry by our rather obtuse views of the ability of another class of people which we have no real understanding. I’ll make the claim that anyone that commented on this thread and made some inane comment as to the ability of a “campus cop” is an idiot and doesn’t know what they are talking about. I’m sure you all will take exception to that.

I’d like to think that as gun owners, we’d be a bit more open to the ability of others to function well in both this society and in their chosen occupation. Such is obviously not the case.

I served 22 years in the military, both in the Marines and the Army. I can say that based on that experience, we did have the incompetent in both services. I reckon the numbers were low, probably somewhere in the 5 to 10% range.

I worked for a major aircraft manufacturer for 6 years. I saw the same basic problem there. Again, I noted the same amount of incompetence there. I was so amazed by that fact that there was a widely used military helicopter that I had severe reservations flying on. I dreaded having to climb on one for an insertion mission because I always flashed back to the things I saw on the floor of the plant where they were made.

Fast forward to a short time I worked in retail followed by a short period as a school teacher. People I wouldn’t let change a light bulb in my house existed in, and continued to work in, both fields.

I now work at a university. I’m at the point where I look upon any student as a knucklehead. They are so out-of-touch with the real world, I am starting to think they are all idiots. I know that that is not the case. I know that the idiots number in the 5 to 10 percentile. But, I have to tell you, I get jaded from time-to-time.

Incompetence can sometimes be legion in any occupation. There will always be incompetent people. As with many subscribers on forums, I’m sure I have the same attitude about a lot of professions. But, I strive not to paint all in any occupation with a general brush. I realize we will always find a few incompetent people in any given field who are incapable of functioning well. But, I try to preface any comments I make about any group of people in a given profession by saying there are bad people in the group. I don’t paint the entire profession as bad [except politicians- I don’t think any of them serve us well, regardless of party affiliation]. There will always be a square peg who is trying to fit in a round hole.

This thread is a perfect example. Check the following quotes:

Loop- I'm familiar with UAPD. Giving those yokels rifles is nuts. The only reason they are working at UA is they can't get jobs with real PDs.

I call bull do-do. You have no clue as to the professionalism or the ability of the officers on that campus unless you have worked and trained with them (if you have, I apologize for calling you out, but I think your statement lacks substance). You may believe certified officers take jobs on campuses because they can’t function elsewhere. The fact of the matter is, the majority of us police officers that work at universities do so because we have weighed the advantages of working in that field versus the advantage of working in a municipal PD. Face it; unless you are in the LEO field, you have no real experience making that comment. I know an officer at that campus. He is a very professional officer. That you would paint him with your broad brush stroke lessens you as a person, not the officers in the department.

Prince Yamato- Why can't the campus cops use handguns? It's one freakin' shooter. You won't bet at a distance greater than 50 feet in most scenarios. On top of that, there's only four guns on the entire campus... STUPID.

Any advantage the good guys have is a plus. Maybe you would rather be evenly matched should you go up against a homicidal person; I personally would like an edge. I think of the gun fight rules I often see posted here. Let’s see. People frequently post the following:

  1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring their friends who have guns.
  2. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
  3. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

Those have a reasonable and realistic reason; they are quoted time and time again. They work and they make sense.

Rob87- Seriously, what difference is that going to make? What a gigantic waste of money to buy new equipment for officers who won't be on time to stop an armed aggressor in the first place.

Probably a true statement. Another one of the more astute comments I have seen in this thread. The average active shooter incident occurs in the 6 to 15 minute range. Rob is right voicing the fact that the police may not be in position to stop such an incident in time. But, if my kid was attending that institution, I’d be much happier knowing they had the tools available that they could use to stop a shooter if they could get there fast enough.

GEM summed it up:

If the fight does go on for a longer time than the typical suicide - I personally want the law to have the most efficacious weaponry.


The issue of civilian carry is really not relevant to this.

How many of you that argue for civilian carry are highly trained with your handgun of choice? Most of the civilian population is not. So, you shouldn't carry by some of the logic here.

Another astute comment to the thread.

Navy joe gave another very good comment.

Dasmi- But at least the Campus cops get to look really cool with their new rifles.

That one I actually LOL’ed about. You did make me laugh. I remember all of the times in the military when we fought to get the new improved stuff. It’s “Gucci” cool. Then we found out the item they spent thousands of dollars developing actually sucked. We went back to the old one. Today, in any given profession, lot of us are “Gucci” warriors. That applies to cops, military personnel, and most civilians in any given field when it comes to using the newest and best equipment. We do like the fancy stuff. After about six months of using it, we do find the old stuff was better suited to the job.

But in the case of the rifles, I think the cops are better suited to deal with an active shooter with rifles.
 
WHAAAAAAAT?

From the article:
UAPD's rifles are meant to reduce the amount of time it takes for the department to arrive on campus during an emergency, as well as provide more effective response once officers arrive, he said.
Let me see if I understand this: Putting a full-auto assault rifle in the trunk of a patrol vehicle will ... reduce the time it takes the vehicle to arrive on campus? How will it do this, pray tell?

Moreover ... why the hell is a campus patrol vehicle not already on campus, with OR without a magic full-auto assault rifle in the trunk?
 
This is pretty pointless in my opinion. The campus police will most likely never arrive on scene in time to prevent a mass murder, as the shooter will have several minutes, in all probability, to shoot and kill several people and them him or herself. The campus PD won't ever get a chance to use these rifles, because they won't be there when the event is happening! If we're not going to trust 21+ year old students who have concealed carry permits and probably carry many places outside of the campus, can we at least arm some teachers and faculty, if they can qualify for a CCW? This seems like a huge waste of $4000 to me.:banghead:

By the way, according to Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, Colorado State University and ALL public campuses in Utah, allow CCW. Over the course of 60+ semesters, they have recorded ZERO gun violence incidents, no theft's, no stolen guns, no teachers dead, no knuckleheads playing around, ect. Seems like this pretty much debunks the "doom and gloom" myth we always hear about.:p
 
Is your shtf rifle a waste of money? Thats what these are. I don't think these cops are going to be running around wearing six point tactical harnesses, rifles held low ready. The possession of these rifles probably won't affect a campus shooting scenario, but the advertisement might go a little ways to prevent one. I'd argue that they are trying to dispel the idea that their school is a soft target. All that said, I'm of the campus CCW mind. You can't prevent crazy but CCW gives students what we all want: a fighting chance.
 
Several THR'rs have worried how 21 yr.olds would be with carry weapons.

My son went through Gustavus College in Minnesota with several of his good friends. Yes, they did college pranks and some goofy things.
Several times during his 4 years there, I would load several shotguns, rifles, pistols and ammo into the family truckster and pick him up along with 2 or 3 other studends who wanted to go hunting. I have rarely seen such displays of safe weapon handling before or since. These boys were from Minnesota, Utah, Montana and Colorado. They were mostly raised with guns and safe handling came to be a second nature to all of them.
I would have trusted any one or all of them to carry a loaded sidearm with them at all times.
 
This is pretty pointless in my opinion. The campus police will most likely never arrive on scene in time to prevent a mass murder, as the shooter will have several minutes, in all probability, to shoot and kill several people and them him or herself. The campus PD won't ever get a chance to use these rifles, because they won't be there when the event is happening!

The UT Tower incident belays that analysis. We might face a barricaded snipe again - in that case, having a rifle would be quite useful. Of course, SWAT might be there in about 10 minutes but you then have 10 minutes of unopposed rifle fire.

I know campus police differ as do internet commandos - some of both are very competent. Give them the tools and training.
 
Look it all fell apart the minute we (that's right I'm including our SOCIETY in this one) forgot that conserving the peace was a job in which EVERYONE had a part to play and a part of the responsibility.

The -instant- LE started turning it into a "cops only" job without the support and involvement of all citizens of the United States, the wheels were destined to come off. There can never be enough cops unless we all are, to at least some small degree, deputized and living up to our civic responsibilities.

(BTW, both sides bear responsibility for the "cops only" job attitude. Cops by developing the attitude that they are "above" the average citizen, and citizens by getting lazy and handing everything (including the dumbest "nuisance level" crap) over to the cops.) Eventually it has become so institutionalized that very few look at it now and say "WHY is that just the purview of the cops?"

This is the best post that's been made in this thread, IMHO.

And, provided they're willing to undergo the necessary training, I'm fine with campus cops having rifles. But that still doesn't mean I think they can do a better job of protecting me than I can. And that's one of the reasons I'm doing college from home -- with my SKS leaning happily against my desk.
 
Jeez! You'd think the University of Arizona might support a local company like say, Cav Arms!

Oh, well, if they aren't going to buy them from Cav Arms they are at least buying from a company in which I hold stock, S&W.
 
i only read the first post so bear with me. i think its pretty stupid for the chief of police to make comments like this. Especially when we as a country will hand a semi automatic rifle to a 19 year old kid and send him to Iraq. If you were to go back a hundred years ago. The police would be encouraging college students to learn about firearms. Heck i was looking through an old high school photo album. Some of you may remember or know when high schools used to offer gun smithing as an elective.

Taking away guns will ensure that the bad guys have the guns. Educating people and arming them will ensure the bad guys only get off one round if that.
 
Folks we are trying to make logic out of an illogicial statement. I for one am not going to get worked up over some idiot who thinks that putting a fully automatic weapon in the hands of campus police will allow them to arrive on the scene of a shooting faster then a semi or even a handgun would.

Unless maybe they are going to use the automatic weapons as added populsion for their vehicles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top