Option not to carry a firearm
- Thread starter Doc Hoy
- Start date
To rburch
It is a very good point you make.
In defending the constitution we have to consider all aspects of the constitution. That would include the part that gives the private citizen the right to exercise dominion over his property.
Some have called my support for the constitution into question because I would permit the University (which, in answer to your question is private) to limit weapons to those which are legal and authorized, as I defined above.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As noted, I spent 26 years supporting and defending the contitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I spent the rest of my life loving it.
If I didn't care I would never have brought this up in the first place. I would have simply implemented the lawyer's guidance.
But I wasn't sure. I had my suspicions but I wasn't sure. I was not sure that any police force in the land required their officers to carry the weapon 24/7. Now I am sure that at least some do require it because I trust that if someone here says it, then it must be true. This is enough to solidify my opinion that police officers should be permitted to bring the weapon when the department requires it. But I will tell you that the minute the officer shows up without it, I am going to wonder if he really understands the requirement. Either he has to have it or he does not. I don't want the school to become the middle ground.
I was also not sure if unrestricted weapons in the classroom was a good idea or a bad idea. Some in the group have contributed enlightened discussion. Others only emotion. This can not be an emotional decision for me. It is too important.
I allow myself to get emotional when it appears that people are needlessly or warrantlessly attacking me. Call my opinions into question but not my patriotism.
It is a very good point you make.
In defending the constitution we have to consider all aspects of the constitution. That would include the part that gives the private citizen the right to exercise dominion over his property.
Some have called my support for the constitution into question because I would permit the University (which, in answer to your question is private) to limit weapons to those which are legal and authorized, as I defined above.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As noted, I spent 26 years supporting and defending the contitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I spent the rest of my life loving it.
If I didn't care I would never have brought this up in the first place. I would have simply implemented the lawyer's guidance.
But I wasn't sure. I had my suspicions but I wasn't sure. I was not sure that any police force in the land required their officers to carry the weapon 24/7. Now I am sure that at least some do require it because I trust that if someone here says it, then it must be true. This is enough to solidify my opinion that police officers should be permitted to bring the weapon when the department requires it. But I will tell you that the minute the officer shows up without it, I am going to wonder if he really understands the requirement. Either he has to have it or he does not. I don't want the school to become the middle ground.
I was also not sure if unrestricted weapons in the classroom was a good idea or a bad idea. Some in the group have contributed enlightened discussion. Others only emotion. This can not be an emotional decision for me. It is too important.
I allow myself to get emotional when it appears that people are needlessly or warrantlessly attacking me. Call my opinions into question but not my patriotism.
To Glenn and to Bauer
What was I thinking?
Of course you are right, statistics can not be relied upon to predict that the student with the handgun will more likely sit in the middle of the classroom. I used the wrong test to arrive at the right result. I was attempting to build a case that in a room of twenty students with the students sitting in seat as student generally do, the law of averages will place roughly two to three students (conservatively) between the armed student and the active shooter.
I think the result is valid, but it is a stretch to say "statistically more likely to be in the middle of the room."
To Bauer,
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. The hypotheticals are very relevent, because hypotheticals come true. I described an extreme situation in which everything went wrong. But it would be equally extreme to expect everthing to go right.
What was I thinking?
Of course you are right, statistics can not be relied upon to predict that the student with the handgun will more likely sit in the middle of the classroom. I used the wrong test to arrive at the right result. I was attempting to build a case that in a room of twenty students with the students sitting in seat as student generally do, the law of averages will place roughly two to three students (conservatively) between the armed student and the active shooter.
I think the result is valid, but it is a stretch to say "statistically more likely to be in the middle of the room."
To Bauer,
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. The hypotheticals are very relevent, because hypotheticals come true. I described an extreme situation in which everything went wrong. But it would be equally extreme to expect everthing to go right.
An additional question
To those of you who answered that you belonged to a department which required its officers to carry 24/7.
Are you personally aware of any situation in which any officer deliberately decided not to have the weapon within reach? (On his person, on the night stand while sleeping, etc)
If so, what was the rationale for that decision if you know it?
To those of you who answered that you belonged to a department which required its officers to carry 24/7.
Are you personally aware of any situation in which any officer deliberately decided not to have the weapon within reach? (On his person, on the night stand while sleeping, etc)
If so, what was the rationale for that decision if you know it?
I have the distinct impression that Doc had already concluded concealed carry should not be allowed on his campus before posing his thoughts and question. Therefore arguing the point is useless. There is perhaps a more relevant question this day and age. Should society strive to suppress the basic instinct of self preservation? That seems to be the current trend in both our legal system and public schools. Milksops make an easy target for deranged predators. They are also inherently more compliant when a government is determined to move toward total control.
To Glock06
Actually the masterbaters, if they had their way would preclude all weapons, even those in the hands of police officers. They acknowledge that there may be cases in which this would mean that officers could not attend class (when they are required by department policy or general orders to carry the weapon).
The reason that I raised the issue in the first place was to try to build a case that at the very least officers should be permitted to carry their weapons under the circumstances I have mentioned.
Actually the masterbaters, if they had their way would preclude all weapons, even those in the hands of police officers. They acknowledge that there may be cases in which this would mean that officers could not attend class (when they are required by department policy or general orders to carry the weapon).
The reason that I raised the issue in the first place was to try to build a case that at the very least officers should be permitted to carry their weapons under the circumstances I have mentioned.
isanchez2008
New member
It appears that what influences your decision to disallow concealed carry by citizens is having to explain to a family that the licensed person was at fault for bad shooting. Does it weigh in having to explain to many families why your policy may have led to many more deaths because there was a 0% chance of having a responsibly armed citizen at your campus?
To NWCP
It would be correct to say that I am trying to validate what is being contemplated and will probably be implemented.
Once that has been decided, well...who knows? As I have stated there are constitutional issues on both sides.
Also, please understand that I have never uttered the word concealed in any of these posts. To me that is not material because there are aspects to recomend either option. I kind of lean toward open carry with no opposition to concealed carry. But that is not the issue.
As for suppressing the instinct for self preservation, I am not sure how we arrived at that point.
It would be correct to say that I am trying to validate what is being contemplated and will probably be implemented.
Once that has been decided, well...who knows? As I have stated there are constitutional issues on both sides.
Also, please understand that I have never uttered the word concealed in any of these posts. To me that is not material because there are aspects to recomend either option. I kind of lean toward open carry with no opposition to concealed carry. But that is not the issue.
As for suppressing the instinct for self preservation, I am not sure how we arrived at that point.
Dr. Strangelove
New member
Something I haven't seen addressed:
Is it even possible to prevent police officers from carrying a weapon? Especially on-duty? Can I place a sign at the end of my driveway forbidding the police on my property if they are armed?
You may get some officers to comply out of respect for the school, but I would be surprised if you can legally prevent them from carrying a weapon on campus, particularly Federal or state officers.
Is it even possible to prevent police officers from carrying a weapon? Especially on-duty? Can I place a sign at the end of my driveway forbidding the police on my property if they are armed?
You may get some officers to comply out of respect for the school, but I would be surprised if you can legally prevent them from carrying a weapon on campus, particularly Federal or state officers.
RainbowBob
New member
If you didn't know there might be some people here that would object to every part of your post - you have a serious lack of insight on the subject.
I'm surprised you received a single answer that would help you and your fellow administrators and lawyers make it even more difficult for trained LEOs to carry on campus.
You then go on to argue that citizens exercising their right to self-defense in a school shooter incident would almost certainly result in the deaths of more innocent people than would otherwise occur. Baloney! There is no data to support that - simply your fallacious suppositions.
Glenn, Phew!
It is really taking a while to get to all of the posts.
Agree about three hundred percent. This is the principle which is at the heart of amendment 2.
Infortunately the lawyers are using amendment 6 to trump amendment 2. Atleast I am confident that this is what will happen. I need to be prepared.
It is really taking a while to get to all of the posts.
Agree about three hundred percent. This is the principle which is at the heart of amendment 2.
Infortunately the lawyers are using amendment 6 to trump amendment 2. Atleast I am confident that this is what will happen. I need to be prepared.
Doc:
I agree your hypotheticals are possible but I could come up with quite a bit of hypotheticals to argue against yours. This type of argument would go on forever. The fact is there aren't any real facts that overwhelmingly support your thoughts and opinions as compared to the thoughts and opinions of most of the users here. It is not reasonable to ban the simplest of rights, such as the right to protect myself, without proper evidence that such rights are actually more dangerous.
I agree your hypotheticals are possible but I could come up with quite a bit of hypotheticals to argue against yours. This type of argument would go on forever. The fact is there aren't any real facts that overwhelmingly support your thoughts and opinions as compared to the thoughts and opinions of most of the users here. It is not reasonable to ban the simplest of rights, such as the right to protect myself, without proper evidence that such rights are actually more dangerous.
RainbowBob
Bob,
I did anticipate that virtually every person who posts here would disgree in principle.
What surprises and dismays me is the high number of people on the forum who are incapable from separating the messenger from the message.
I don't believe I have said anything that would lead anyone to believe that I am trying to prevent officers from carrying LEGAL and AUTHORIZED weapons. That is the right I am trying to preserve in our instruction.
Why don't you go read my posts?
To those of you who have answered patiently and insightfully, I thank you for your time.
Bob,
I did anticipate that virtually every person who posts here would disgree in principle.
What surprises and dismays me is the high number of people on the forum who are incapable from separating the messenger from the message.
I don't believe I have said anything that would lead anyone to believe that I am trying to prevent officers from carrying LEGAL and AUTHORIZED weapons. That is the right I am trying to preserve in our instruction.
Why don't you go read my posts?
To those of you who have answered patiently and insightfully, I thank you for your time.
wickedrider
New member
I realize that I am late to the party. However, here is my two cents for what it is worth.
The only LEO's that I believe or would or could be required at all times would necessarily have to be either state or federal LEO's. Municipality and County jurisdiction would limit the authority of that jurisdiction to require its' officers to carry in just that jurisdiction. The limit of local officer's jurisdictionally authorized law enforcement powers cannot extend beyond the lines of that jurisdiction, except when they are pursuing an offender. I believe that their powers extend a mile in the other jurisdiction.
Obviously, federal and state LEO's jurisdiction extends beyond local jurisdictional borders.
The constitutional arguments as to whether students should have the right to carry on campuses in VA are futile. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
The only LEO's that I believe or would or could be required at all times would necessarily have to be either state or federal LEO's. Municipality and County jurisdiction would limit the authority of that jurisdiction to require its' officers to carry in just that jurisdiction. The limit of local officer's jurisdictionally authorized law enforcement powers cannot extend beyond the lines of that jurisdiction, except when they are pursuing an offender. I believe that their powers extend a mile in the other jurisdiction.
Obviously, federal and state LEO's jurisdiction extends beyond local jurisdictional borders.
The constitutional arguments as to whether students should have the right to carry on campuses in VA are futile. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
Hypothedical
Doc, I will apologize for my spelling in advance, I am in the middle of the Gulf with no dictionary and unlike you I am not educated. Now for the matters at hand. Your hypothedical's are flawed, first you state that 50% of an attackers bullets strike their target, but you are not taking into consideration that the target is unarmed and in a small confined area, when receiving incoming fire (from the armed student in the room) the assailent's hit ratio will more than likely drop considerably. Next point, in your scenario about the armed student in the middle of the room missing with 50% of his shots and therefore striking 2 innocent students with five hits on the assaillant, following your previous hypothedical that means that if it were not for the armed student the assailant would get 5 hits on the innocents before reloading and getting another 5 and so on and on until he ran out of targets or ammo. Is this not correct? Have a good day.
Doc, I will apologize for my spelling in advance, I am in the middle of the Gulf with no dictionary and unlike you I am not educated. Now for the matters at hand. Your hypothedical's are flawed, first you state that 50% of an attackers bullets strike their target, but you are not taking into consideration that the target is unarmed and in a small confined area, when receiving incoming fire (from the armed student in the room) the assailent's hit ratio will more than likely drop considerably. Next point, in your scenario about the armed student in the middle of the room missing with 50% of his shots and therefore striking 2 innocent students with five hits on the assaillant, following your previous hypothedical that means that if it were not for the armed student the assailant would get 5 hits on the innocents before reloading and getting another 5 and so on and on until he ran out of targets or ammo. Is this not correct? Have a good day.
Yep!
IGO,
My hypothetical was intended to be flawed. I structured it as an extreme purposely.
That 50%-of-an-attacker's-bullet thing did not come from me. That was from another poster, can't remember who it was. I assume it was correct.
No argument with your logic. It is all true and forms the primary argument for allowing weapons in the classroom, or nearly anywhere for that matter.
Unfortunately I can not afford to think that way. Wickedrider was right.
You are every bit as educated as anyone on this forum. And by the way, if, by "Gulf" you mean "Persian Gulf"...Thanks.
IGO,
My hypothetical was intended to be flawed. I structured it as an extreme purposely.
That 50%-of-an-attacker's-bullet thing did not come from me. That was from another poster, can't remember who it was. I assume it was correct.
No argument with your logic. It is all true and forms the primary argument for allowing weapons in the classroom, or nearly anywhere for that matter.
Unfortunately I can not afford to think that way. Wickedrider was right.
You are every bit as educated as anyone on this forum. And by the way, if, by "Gulf" you mean "Persian Gulf"...Thanks.
OldMarksman
Staff
About four and a half decades ago, the student government at a major, prestigious private university in a major metropolitan area pressured the university administration to disarm the campus police. This was put forth as a "liberal" move some time after the assassination of President Kennedy.
The decision was very well publicized in print.
Shortly afterwards (surprise, surprise, surprise!), there was a significant increase in the number of rapes, muggings, purse snatchings, and other assaults on campus. It was safer to walk several blocks from the campus than on campus at night. The University asked the surrounding city for help, but help couldn't be provided for some reason. The decision was soon reversed.
Why more people did not foresee the problem in advance is not clear, but it made a profound impression on me and on my confidence in the collective judgement of the so called intelligentsia.
The decision was very well publicized in print.
Shortly afterwards (surprise, surprise, surprise!), there was a significant increase in the number of rapes, muggings, purse snatchings, and other assaults on campus. It was safer to walk several blocks from the campus than on campus at night. The University asked the surrounding city for help, but help couldn't be provided for some reason. The decision was soon reversed.
Why more people did not foresee the problem in advance is not clear, but it made a profound impression on me and on my confidence in the collective judgement of the so called intelligentsia.
Armed forces
I meant the "Gulf of Mexico", I was not trying to mislead, however I did serve in the armed forces in the 70's and 80's. Doc, if you see the logic of our arguments why is it not apparent to so many that are "educated"? I do not mean that as a slight, merely asking for your opinion. Thanks and have a good day.
I meant the "Gulf of Mexico", I was not trying to mislead, however I did serve in the armed forces in the 70's and 80's. Doc, if you see the logic of our arguments why is it not apparent to so many that are "educated"? I do not mean that as a slight, merely asking for your opinion. Thanks and have a good day.
I think I may have an interesting insight.
We can speak and belabor the concepts of individuals right to defend themselves and carry weapons and Doc Hoy can talk lawyerspeak and the constitution but I think that other fundamental concerns underlie universities desires to restrict students from being armed even if they have valid CCW's.
I feel universities are scared to death of armed students going after the faculty! They think that a law or regulation can prevent this from occurring!!
In effect they are scared of the "inmates"!!
If we were honest here and the university would quit the legal posturing betcha its armed students they fear the most!! The students are the potential problem. Yes, it's these very people who would save others in a rampage that they wish to deny the ability to defend themselves.
Doc Hoy-- Who exactly do you feel you and your fellow administrators are most in danger from?? Do you really think a any law or regulation short of scanning everyone can prevent any person from an evil violent act against someone else??
We can speak and belabor the concepts of individuals right to defend themselves and carry weapons and Doc Hoy can talk lawyerspeak and the constitution but I think that other fundamental concerns underlie universities desires to restrict students from being armed even if they have valid CCW's.
I feel universities are scared to death of armed students going after the faculty! They think that a law or regulation can prevent this from occurring!!
In effect they are scared of the "inmates"!!
If we were honest here and the university would quit the legal posturing betcha its armed students they fear the most!! The students are the potential problem. Yes, it's these very people who would save others in a rampage that they wish to deny the ability to defend themselves.
Doc Hoy-- Who exactly do you feel you and your fellow administrators are most in danger from?? Do you really think a any law or regulation short of scanning everyone can prevent any person from an evil violent act against someone else??