Guns on campus fail to serve educational purpose
Stacie Spring
Stacie Spring is a general assignment reporter for the East Valley Tribune. Contact her at (480) 898-5645 or sspring@evtrib.com
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
21 comments:
Rules of Conduct
-
Scarp: This Memorial Day, thoughts on freedom for friends and family
By Mark Scarp, contributing columnist
-
Warren: Owners of energy-efficient homes less likely to default on mortgages
Guest Commentary by Andy Warren, Maracay Homes
-
Carroll: Next generation learning brings lecture-free approach to college classrooms
Guest Commentary by Michael Carroll
-
Kerpen: Government can't be trusted with our health
Guest commentary by Phil Kerpen
-
Lessons to be learned from Art Wagner?
By Mark Heller, Tribune
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
cwms2005 posted at 4:21 pm on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Not having guns on campus is what allowed the shooters to make so many victims. Criminals will disobey the law and carry a gun. That gives them the edge over those who obey the law and don't carry the gun. It also allows the non carrying owner the right to earn victim status. If you were brought up with guns as you say you should know better.
cwms2005 posted at 4:22 pm on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Drugs also aren't allowed on campus. How is that rule doing?
Slabside posted at 4:32 pm on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Very well communicated cwms2005!
az2008 posted at 4:43 pm on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Banning guns on campus would be fine if schools implemented metal detectors to enforce it. Otherwise, "no guns allowed" signs are nothing more than a request of the law abiding -- the very people you have little to fear.
A little sign is not going to alter the course of someone intent on breaking far greater laws (against murder).
Therefore, "no guns" signs are nothing more than an honor system. Worse, they advertise to those intent on breaking greater laws that they're unlikely to meet armed resistance. It's like a giant sign saying "easy victims here!"
I'm not a rabid gun advocate. I think we should have stricter controls on ownership such as mandatory training, licensing, etc. But, when someone is properly licensed and trained they should be treated as assets to the safety of the community, not someone who may go murderous at any moment.
chuckles3 posted at 5:54 pm on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
"as a recent college student" .....all you need to know. Sweetheart, I am sure the Va tech kids felt nice and safe in their "gun-free" environment too. How about a discussion of how the new conceal- carry law passed last year led to wild-west type shootings all over the state as some predicted....no? Oh yea it didn't happen.
Journalism is dead.
trigama posted at 6:19 pm on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
There is 1 police officer for every 1000 people on average.
Then given the average responce time 5-15 minutes depending on were you live,trafffic conditions and time of day The police will show up about the same time as the ambulance. In recent years, if you dont want to be a target dont go where guns are not allowed! ie: post office, school, university.
Heres a what if senerio.
Our gun rights are taken away, we border a country where mass murders,murders, rapes, beheadings and drug cartel run rampant in police agencies and towns. Its going to flow across oure border like a tsunami!
A victim's responce time is instant
asuaguila posted at 1:03 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
Despite what the NRA has ordered all of you to write and what you see on television, none of you are Dirty Harry or Rambo. The last thing we need is a bunch of gun nuts shooting it where I work. Where were all of your super heroes in Tucson? A lot of good all those armed citizens did, one of them even admitted to almost shooting one the brave unarmed people helping the Congressperson who was shot.
Slabside posted at 3:06 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
Folks, asuaguila is your typical hoplophobic lib that has no rational arguement to this issue. If you advocate concealed carry you are labeled Dirty Harry or Rambo. Asuaguila, put your head back in the sand.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 3:48 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
"The facts, Ma'am, just the facts" Sgt. Joe Friday, L.A.P.D.
Here are the facts, Miss or if the reporter prefers, Ms. The FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPORT "CAMPUS ATTACKS", APRIL 2010.
These attacks have been doubling in number every 20 years or so.
1950-59 = 13
1960-69 = 19
1970-79 = 25
1980-89 = 40
1990-99 = 79
2000-09 = 83
Here is an example..."October 28, 2002...41yr old student goes after 3 of his instructors for failing him. He carries a AR-15 semi-automatic rifle (the same one that Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan use, clip-fed) to the 2nd floor and kills the 1st instructor then walks up the stairs, rifle in hand, to the 4th floor goes into a classroom and kills the 2nd instructor in front of 20 students". He could have killed all 20 "UN-ARMED" students in less time than it takes for the Campus Police to unlock the trunk of their Police vehicle and pull their rifles out of the cases and load them.
So much for being ...."protected by the Campus Police". How many "classroom" buildings are on ASU? How many floors in each building? How many classrooms on each floor in each building" How many acres is the ASU Campus? How many ASU Campus Police are on duty...on Campus...every hour of every day?
This reporter talks about her childhood trauma of seeing a 1/2 skinned deer shot by her father. Is she a "vegan"? For the 1st 200years of this Nation's history, the only meat that an American family ate was killed by the father. "Bambi" is not a real deer. Sadly, we have seen too many school house, high school, college and university student and teacher murders and even massacres. Since the gun-carrying killer can walk freely on campus without detection...why shouldn't a student or teacher be allowed to protect himself/herself and others?
Let's leave ..."personal childhood traumas and prejudices" at home where they belong and look at this question with some ..."BALANCE"......"The facts, Ma'am, just the facts"...was a great motto back in the 1950's and is still a great motto now.
asuaguila posted at 4:12 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
You are right the Tucson shooting and the failure of the armed members of that audience to take action was all in my imagination. 83 attacks? What exactly is an "attack? And you fail to mention that the student population in the university is also increasing. According to your cited report there were over 17 million students in institutions of higher learning in Fall 2006.
If you want to bring guns to where you work, more power to you, just don't drop your AK-47 into the french fry cooker. ASU is fine without your cooky solutions.
Slabside posted at 4:22 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
April 16, 2007
Monday's campus shooting at Virginia Tech was the deadliest in U.S. history. Here, a list of other fatal shootings that have occurred at U.S. colleges and universities over the past several decades:
April 16, 2007: A gunman kills more than 30 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va.
Sept. 2, 2006: Douglas W. Pennington, 49, kills himself and his two sons, Logan P. Pennington, 26, and Benjamin M. Pennington, 24, during a visit to the campus of Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, W.Va.
Oct. 28, 2002: Failing University of Arizona Nursing College student and Gulf War veteran Robert Flores, 40, walks into an instructor's office and fatally shoots her. A few minutes later, armed with five guns, he enters one of his nursing classrooms and kills two more of his instructors before fatally shooting himself.
Jan. 16, 2002: Graduate student Peter Odighizuwa, 42, recently dismissed from Virginia's Appalachian School of Law, returns to campus and kills the dean, a professor and a student before being tackled by students. The attack also wounds three female students.
Aug. 28, 2000: James Easton Kelly, 36, a University of Arkansas graduate student recently dropped from a doctoral program after a decade of study, and John Locke, 67, the English professor overseeing his coursework, are shot to death in an apparent murder-suicide.
Aug. 15, 1996: Frederick Martin Davidson, 36, a graduate engineering student at San Diego State, is defending his thesis before a faculty committee when he pulls out a handgun and kills three professors.
Nov. 1, 1991: Gang Lu, 28, a graduate student in physics from China, reportedly upset because he was passed over for an academic honor, opens fire in two buildings on the University of Iowa campus. Five University of Iowa employees are killed, including four members of the Physics Department; two other people are wounded. The student fatally shoots himself.
Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman points a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin's Tower and begins shooting in a homicidal rampage that goes on for 96 minutes. Sixteen people are killed, including his wife and mother, who were shot the night before; 31 others are wounded.
asuaguila posted at 5:10 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
Hey Rambo, you still haven't answered my question. Maybe you can learn how to read instead of playing army. And by the way, the University of Texas shooting would not have been prevented by more armed students since he was -hello- in a tower. Even the PD had to wait to find more powerful rifles to reach him. Maybe the students can drive tanks the next time?
Also, you gun nuts never think about preventing such horrible episodes. For example, the Virginia Tech nut had major psychological problems that his doctors failed/or could not report. And I imagine many of those other nuts had similar problems. Have you seen a shrink lately? Just asking?
Slabside posted at 5:41 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
asuaguila, calling you a hoplophobic idiot would be insulting to hoplophobic idiots everywhere.
davidflucier posted at 7:12 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
Bringing a gun to school adds absolutely nothing to the educational experience. It won't make you learn faster, better or more efficiently. It presents a clear and present danger to the people of those communities. You have a higher chance of being struck by lightning that you do of being shot by a marauding shooter on a college campus. The chances are much greater for an accidental discharge than a perfect scenario playing out where Johnny becomes the local hero. Proficiency with a firearm in a "combat" situation is a hugely perishable skill and there is a greater danger of unnecessary loss of life and limb as those skills rapidly deteriorate over a short period of time. These hugely unrealistic scenarios are just that...figments of someone's imagination and Hollywood wet dreams played out in the deep recesses of an adolescent mind.
onerebel posted at 7:22 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
"No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist or killer, like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended victim."
-- W. Emerson Wright
Enough said !
Slabside posted at 7:32 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
davidflucier, you had an intelligent arguement going there until you added the dribble of "These hugely unrealistic scenarios are just that...figments of someone's imagination and Hollywood wet dreams played out in the deep recesses of an adolescent mind."
Do you ever wonder why no one takes your posts seriously there chief?
davidflucier posted at 7:49 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
Thanks for supporting my "argument ". I'll take a 95% thumbs up.
trigama posted at 9:34 pm on Wed, Jan 4, 2012.
Those of you with a firearm phobia are missing the point
.
"Once you denie a legal firearm you invite an illegal one."
az2008 posted at 9:30 am on Thu, Jan 5, 2012.
@davidflucier wrote: "You have a higher chance of being struck by lightning that you do of being shot by a marauding shooter on a college campus. "
Using your own logic, you have an even smaller chance of being shot by someone who takes a gun to school with absolutely no intention of using it.
These crimes are committed by people who are easily identifiable (histories of violence, troubled behavior, etc.). The average lawful gun owner has almost nothing in common with these people, although I agree that a greater emphasis on training would be a positive.
The bottom line is: a sign saying "no guns allowed" is not going to stop the Jarod Laughners of the world. All it does is stop those who, by your own argument, pose the least risk. If someone's going to obey an unenforced *request*, you had almost nothing to worry about.
Isn't that the argument you're trying to persuade us with?
davidflucier posted at 3:52 pm on Thu, Jan 5, 2012.
The argument is: guns add nothing to the educational experience...NOTHING; there is a higher probability of causing a injury or death due to an accident than there is the probability that you will "save " people from a shooter on campus situation when firearms are present; most deaths and injuries from gunfire are "accidents"; unless you are willing to spend a lot of time keeping up your combat skills using live fire exercises and various scenarios, you are at least as dangerous than the shooter. The operators and managers of these institutions don't want guns on campus, the police don't want guns on campus, faculty and staff don't want guns on campus and most students don't want guns on campus.
az2008 posted at 5:33 pm on Thu, Jan 5, 2012.
""" most deaths and injuries from gunfire are "accidents"; """
Accidental deaths from firearm discharge was around 600 per year the last time I looked. Homicide was 12,000. Ergo, the odds of being killed by an assailant are far greater than by an accidental discharge.
""" The operators and managers of these institutions don't want guns on campus """
Civilly liable for not enforcing their rule that no guns are allowed on campus. The result is those people who you didn't have to worry about obeying the sign, and those with greater evil on their mind ignoring the sign.
If schools took responsibility for *claiming* to maintain safety on campus I could agree with their desire restrict guns on campus. At least *they* would bear the financial liability for failing to do what they claim they are doing.
But, what we really have are schools posting signs, giving everyone "warm fuzzies" while the school knows it is doing *nothing* to actually enforce that rule.
I can't think of anything more antithetical to learning than to perpetuate a myth, and then deny responsibility for the result. Perhaps also fostering the *slur* that average individuals share something in common with the Jerod Laughners of the world.