Re: SMU says No to Campus Carry
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:03 pm
I think I should put this out there, June Jones was adamantly against campus carry.
SMUvet wrote:Most people in the military are support. This is true. This is also true of the SMU vets on campus. So I would not advocate for all Vets being authorized to carry on campus. But, there are also former SpecOps, infantry and military LEO persons on campus.
So if you would trust campus police and even local police to respond to the situation but not people with more training and more trigger time then... If you could have an officer/building that would be great IMO. There are definitely some obstacles and unknowns in regards to implementing this.
The majority of shootings don't take place with rifles or shotguns. They take place with handguns because they are easy to conceal. One person with decent training could easily take down an amateur with a firearm. I mean the bullets are not fighting each other in the air. A .22 could take down a shooter with a full auto .50 cal. The semi-auto rifles that have been used recently in shootings are small caliber rifles (223/5.56).
A person with a firearm doesn't have to shoot and kill the active shooter to be useful. Just showing presence is enough to dissuade. Anyway to disrupt their sick plan is a success.
I mean it is really hard to prove that CHLs or firearms positively contribute in anyway. Causal inference is really the only way to measure it. But that is also used in all types of scientific research. Doesn't mean it isn't true. Just means they are somehow both occurring. But there could definitely be another reason for the decrease in crime rate.
I think there are two factions on carrying.
The first:
-More guns = more risk of accidents. This frequency and danger could be greater than that of an active shooter
-Plus guns are scary
The second:
-Gun free zones only mean rational law abiding people will comply. Dangerous people are not bound by the laws of man but all are bound by the laws of reality
-Guns are technology
SMUvet wrote:I think I should put this out there, June Jones was adamantly against campus carry.
whitwiki wrote:However infrequently violent crimes with guns occur, it happens way more in the US than other developed nations. We need to figure out what's wrong culturally and tackle it, because it's quite embarrassing really.
PerunasHoof wrote:SMUvet wrote:Most people in the military are support. This is true. This is also true of the SMU vets on campus. So I would not advocate for all Vets being authorized to carry on campus. But, there are also former SpecOps, infantry and military LEO persons on campus.
So if you would trust campus police and even local police to respond to the situation but not people with more training and more trigger time then... If you could have an officer/building that would be great IMO. There are definitely some obstacles and unknowns in regards to implementing this.
The majority of shootings don't take place with rifles or shotguns. They take place with handguns because they are easy to conceal. One person with decent training could easily take down an amateur with a firearm. I mean the bullets are not fighting each other in the air. A .22 could take down a shooter with a full auto .50 cal. The semi-auto rifles that have been used recently in shootings are small caliber rifles (223/5.56).
A person with a firearm doesn't have to shoot and kill the active shooter to be useful. Just showing presence is enough to dissuade. Anyway to disrupt their sick plan is a success.
I mean it is really hard to prove that CHLs or firearms positively contribute in anyway. Causal inference is really the only way to measure it. But that is also used in all types of scientific research. Doesn't mean it isn't true. Just means they are somehow both occurring. But there could definitely be another reason for the decrease in crime rate.
I think there are two factions on carrying.
The first:
-More guns = more risk of accidents. This frequency and danger could be greater than that of an active shooter
-Plus guns are scary
The second:
-Gun free zones only mean rational law abiding people will comply. Dangerous people are not bound by the laws of man but all are bound by the laws of reality
-Guns are technology
I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I am not super familiar with what training SMU PD goes through, but I know they have to be TCOLE certified which means they probably run through a standard academy like DPD would. You're thinking of their training from a military vet point of view (unless you've also gone through a police academy as well). My class I went through had a large number of military vets and also guys that did local police before. It was interesting to get their take on what we did. Either training isn't better or worse than the other, they train you to do different tasks. We weren't training to be infantry and to secure hills, etc. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to letting ex law enforcement or select members of the military to have licenses. However, the pool of people like that who would be on a campus at any given time would be very small. ESPECIALLY at a school like SMU where the student body is mostly people from a very upper class background who don't dream of careers wearing uniforms (military or LEO).
These types of events, even though they seem often because of the media, happen EXTREMELY infrequently. They account for a sliver of the homicide rate across the country.
whitwiki wrote:However infrequently violent crimes with guns occur, it happens way more in the US than other developed nations. We need to figure out what's wrong culturally and tackle it, because it's quite embarrassing really.
Digetydog wrote:The vast majority of "high profile" crimes have been committed by:
1) People with obvious mental problems;
2) People with a religious agenda; and/or
3) People with a history of violent crimes.
...maybe we should focus on identifying people like the Sandy Hook killer and getting them into an institution.
Stallion wrote:I think a very high number of "deaths" involve Male/Female relationships, arguments involving alcohol and accidental discharge-much more likely to see that type of incident
CA Mustang wrote:Digetydog wrote:The vast majority of "high profile" crimes have been committed by:
1) People with obvious mental problems;
2) People with a religious agenda; and/or
3) People with a history of violent crimes.
...maybe we should focus on identifying people like the Sandy Hook killer and getting them into an institution.
So you are in favor of both increased mental health funding and loosening civil commitment laws? I just want to be sure I understand your position correctly.
Stallion wrote:I think a very high number of "deaths" involve Male/Female relationships, arguments involving alcohol and accidental discharge-much more likely to see that type of incident