Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

what are your opions?

Guns on campus would prevent tragedies - The Independent Florida Alligator: Columns (http://www.alligator.org/opinion/columns/article_1a379fe2-55ae-546f-b22e-85c259ce42fa.html)

My opinion on this is that any time I see a "Gun Free Zone" sign, what I really see is "Hunting Grounds" for those who are intent on killing many people. There are many cases of colleges or other schools where the bad guy, intent on taking lives (against the law) brings a gun onto campus (also against the law). The fact that legislators don't understand that someone wishing to commit the felony of MURDER is not deterred by the misdemeanor no gun on campus law is mind-boggling.

As far as this column talking about Appalachian School of Law, I personally can't believe those officers did not have their weapons ON them and had to run back to their cars! Kudos to them for doing so and stopping the mad mans spree short, but think of the time and lives they could have saved by having their weapons on them and not having to run back to their cars and then into the fray.

Here's an article talking about how Utah is the only state that specifically allows the carrying of concealed weapons on public college campuses. Utah only state to allow guns at college (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18355953/ns/us_news-life/) I think that's a wonderful idea! In this article they talk about an officer that "disobeyed" the rule of a mall stating they were a gun-free zone. Sorry, as a sworn law officer, I don't follow those rules. Who's to say that I won't meet some jerk I arrested that is hell bent on getting back at me while I'm at the mall?

And now there is talk about banning weapons within a 1,000 ft of elected public officials. Again, nothing like telling someone who's thinking of committing these atrocious acts that they will be free and clear to shoot to their hearts content due to the fact that most of the people there will not be armed. I think that instead they should require people to be armed, and then jack wagons like the guy in Arizona might think twice knowing that they may only get 1 or 2 rounds off before being shot and killed themselves.

But, that's just my opinion... :biggrin5:

Thanks for the response. When my instructor first told us about it at first I was uneasy and still kind of unsure about how I feel due to the fact the Arizona guy had a " GUN PERMIT", there is a guy in my class right now that is skeptical I could easily see him coming to school with a bomb taped to his leg, perhaps that is why the teacher mentioned this discussion to let the creepy guy know, " Hey nutjob I'm packing"......I do like the idea of feeling protected just not sure if I like the idea of every Tom **** And Harry with a gun, the rule of thumb is it must be in the open cannot be concealed... but what happens if two students with guns have a altercation and decide to use their weapon??? I highly doubt that would happen but b/c " NOONE thought it would happen, means it usually does.


I do agree with the above about publicly announcing " NO GUN ZONE" that is just asking for a massacre

Food for thought.

THe Pearl High School shooter was stopped when the principal, an Army National Guard Reserve Officer, retrieved his .45 from his car (That was parked off campus to comply with the law) and detained the shooter till Police got there.

Food for thought.

THe Pearl High School shooter was stopped when the principal, an Army National Guard Reserve Officer, retrieved his .45 from his car (That was parked off campus to comply with the law) and detained the shooter till Police got there.
I'm with ya on this one Norm, but I think that the principal, as a well trained military reservist, should he have had the proper permits, should have been able to have his gun ON HIM at work just for this reason! Think how much quicker the shooter would have been stopped had the principal NOT had to run outside, off campus, and then back on campus, back inside, and find the shooter. Gun Free Zones are anything but for the person who is intent on committing murder, they're a free-for-all slaughter buffet.

Gun control laws only affect the people willing to obey them. With the exception of some domestic violence shootings, I can't recall arresting anyone for murder who got their firearm legally from a legitimate gun dealer. Every gun was either stolen or bought off the street.

And putting up a "Gun Free Zone" sign certainly isn't going to deter anyone who doesn't obey the law anyway.

Gun control laws only affect the people willing to obey them.

Amazingly enough, this concept is lost on many, and is why I take issue with most firearms laws.

I find it ludicrous that institutions of supposedly "higher learning" can be so obtuse as to completely ignore the fact that arms can also be used to END threats that may present themselves on campus.

Targeting, blaming, and demonizing a tool for unlawful behavior makes absolutely no sense, places lawful citizens at risk, and empowers those willing to defy our laws.

Thanks for the response. When my instructor first told us about it at first I was uneasy and still kind of unsure about how I feel due to the fact the Arizona guy had a " GUN PERMIT", there is a guy in my class right now that is skeptical I could easily see him coming to school with a bomb taped to his leg, perhaps that is why the teacher mentioned this discussion to let the creepy guy know, " Hey nutjob I'm packing"......I do like the idea of feeling protected just not sure if I like the idea of every Tom **** And Harry with a gun, the rule of thumb is it must be in the open cannot be concealed... but what happens if two students with guns have a altercation and decide to use their weapon??? I highly doubt that would happen but b/c " NOONE thought it would happen, means it usually does.


I do agree with the above about publicly announcing " NO GUN ZONE" that is just asking for a massacre

The Arizona guy did not have a permit. He passed the instant background check but he would have done that in any state. A person intent on murder isn't going to worry about permits anyway. All the campus incidents are illegal carry anyway and it's pretty obvious the shooters don't obey those laws.

Personally I think arguing carry rules around the extremely rare shooting is too simple. Presenting a firearm as well as the possibility that the victim has a firearm is very deterring. Stopping robberies, sexual assaults and other crimes is going to happen way more often than anyone actually firing their weapon. It also gives the weapon holder the highest advantage. If someone is threatening with a knife or a bat, I want a pistol. I don't want a fair fight. I want the most effective tool I can have because being killed or maimed by a bat or knife or gun has the same end result and I want the best fighting chance, not the same chance as my attacker. Too often the argument is only about stopping gun crimes with guns instead of the real goal which is stopping violent crime in the manner safest to the victim. I also think the biggest problem isn't going to be unlawful shootings, but theft of firearms on campus. For that reason, I would limit concealed carry to those over 21 because I don't think that 18-20 year olds will be responsible enough to safeguard it from theft. Basically everyplace you would feel safer with an armed police officer is where I want to be able to carry.

BTW, open carry is silly unless your wearing a ballistic vest, badge and radio and stick out anyway. You might as well say "shoot me first" and tape it to your back. Bad guys aren't going to carry openly and knowing who is armed helps them, not the victims.

I think it is time for the gun control fans to understand that the United States is way beyond that point. Gun control should have never been an argument simply because of the constitution. Further evidenced by the fact that some of the highest crime areas in the nation have some of the most stringent gun laws.

There are so many firearms of all sorts in this country, it is not even logical to attempt any control measures. It would be the same as outlawing computers.

thanks for all the feedback.....it's just bad that it has to come to this but then again if they would have passed this a long time ago a lot of people would be alive today...not just a stastic. :(. I just hope my teacher does'nt have to use his before I can get through this semester!!! In fact i think i might take * online* classes after this just to be safe, the one guy in my class makes me very nervous...

Tell them this:

"I'd carry a gun because carrying a Cop is too damn heavy."

Tell them this:

"I'd carry a gun because carrying a Cop is too damn heavy."

Especially if that cop was me!! :biggrin5:

I think it is time for the gun control fans to understand that the United States is way beyond that point. Gun control should have never been an argument simply because of the constitution. Further evidenced by the fact that some of the highest crime areas in the nation have some of the most stringent gun laws.

There are so many firearms of all sorts in this country, it is not even logical to attempt any control measures. It would be the same as outlawing computers.

I realise it's for some a complicated debate with people polarised on both sides. I think your comment sums up the gun control argument in your country pretty well . . . . can put the gennie back into the bottle as they say. I feel the above comments make perfect sense, criminals are by their very nature, law breakers.

Tell them this:

"I'd carry a gun because carrying a Cop is too damn heavy."

lol sure I can squeeze you into my backpack....amazingly enough since my professor announced that he had a concealed weapon the weirdo kid in my class is being more cooperative... I think this might be my next paper I'm going to write I have two left....just hoping I can stretch it to be two pages :)

Tell them this:

"I'd carry a gun because carrying a Cop is too damn heavy."

Clint Smith is a wise man indeed.

Here's my take, will allowing the carrying of guns PREVENT school shootings and the like? No. The kids at Columbine wanted to kill as many as they could before dying, and they knew they were going to die there.

However, allowing carrying of guns will end the hostilities much sooner, with less casualties. Action always beats reaction, so a motivated mass killer will still be able to kill a number of people before anyone realizes what is happening and can react. So no, it probably won't stop many of the incidents, but it will mitigate the damage.