In the local newspaper today there is an article about how two local colleges received a Federal grant to upgrade their security system in response to the shooting a year ago at Northern Illinois University. Its sad how the planners can only think like victims, and their so-called security consists of a better communication system to notify students and others that a shooting or other crisis is underway. I guess the thought process is that the best one can hope for in such a situation is to get everyone to run for cover. There is never a mention of students and teachers being prepared to fight back and thus limit or stop the shooting, only to flee and thus reduce the easy targets for the shooter. I have no problem with these communication plans, but to think that this provides security is a joke. Of course here in IL there is no legal concealed carry so our entire state is a gun-free zone for criminals to feel safe. In fact there is no doubt in my mind that if a shooter appeared at a school or anywhere else and a brave and armed citizen used a firearm to stop the shooter, the citizen would be dragged away in cuffs and prosecuted as if he or she were the real criminal.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Victim mentality dominates upgraded security plans
- Thread starter vito
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The main focus of the rampage shooting plans is to miminize after the fact legal liability by showing they had a 'plan' and lower the risk of potential liability that might occur if they allowed guns on campus.
This is well known in the trade. The emphasis is the best outcome for the corporate or institutiona entity. The outcome for individuals is secondary.
This is well known in the trade. The emphasis is the best outcome for the corporate or institutiona entity. The outcome for individuals is secondary.
Kreyzhorse
New member
miminize after the fact legal liability by showing they had a 'plan' and lower the risk of potential liability
+1 to the CYA.
Rich Miranda
New member
It is unfortunate that these places cannot address the security issue in a more direct fashion, but I understand their predicament. The political environment with regard to firearms (read: anti) and the general misinformation being spoon-fed by the antis to the politicos, along with a generally uneducated public amounts to a sensational cover story on Fox News (ILLINOIS COLLEGE BUILDS ARSENAL).
I support allowing CHL holders to carry on campus, but I also support fairly strict requirements for acquiring a CHL. I carry, and I know my mentality, but I don't want some yahoo to have an ND anywhere around me (or my kids, for that matter).
I support allowing CHL holders to carry on campus, but I also support fairly strict requirements for acquiring a CHL. I carry, and I know my mentality, but I don't want some yahoo to have an ND anywhere around me (or my kids, for that matter).
mikejonestkd
New member
Our local campus recently adopted similar emergency notification measures. Students get automated notifications via text message on their phones and emails. The idea is fine but, as noted above, does nothing to actually adress the active shooter and their actions. The notification system is clearly a CYA plan for liability.
I support the idea of CCW on campus, but, am of the opinion that there should be high standards for CCW on a campus. I would support allowing professional staff to carry if they already had a CCW permit and additional training.
I support the idea of CCW on campus, but, am of the opinion that there should be high standards for CCW on a campus. I would support allowing professional staff to carry if they already had a CCW permit and additional training.
is to get everyone to run for cover.
I never knew anyone who could outrun a bullet. And if the shooter moves, you're running again. Ain't gonna work, Scooter...
The 2nd Amendment is either a right, or it isn't. Concealed carry laws that set very high standards for who can carry is not just elitist, but sets the stage for possible requirements that are arbitary and really intended just to limit the right "to the right type of people". I guess I can accept the limitation on felons, those with a documented history of serious mental illness, and to require at least a minimal gun safety education requirement. Some contributors to this thread who advocate high standards might not like it if the powers that be decided that a graduate degree, or job stability meaning at least 10 years in your current job, or some similarly irrelevant rules are set up that would exclude the bulk of the populace. If we truly believe that the 2A is a universal right based upon the natural law of self defense, we need to be prepared to allow most adults the right to carry.
Rich Miranda
New member
I guess I can accept the limitation on felons, those with a documented history of serious mental illness, and to require at least a minimal gun safety education requirement. Some contributors to this thread who advocate high standards might not like it if the powers that be decided that a graduate degree, or job stability meaning at least 10 years in your current job, or some similarly irrelevant rules are set up that would exclude the bulk of the populace.
I think we can meet somewhere in the middle.
Many TFLers claim that they spend a lot of time at the range 'training', along with practicing 'clearing the house' so what's a couple of Saturdays to ensure that those who carry actually know something about gun safety.
As for "graduate degree, or job stability meaning at least 10 years in your current job" or similar, those are obviously unreasonable.
...Reasonable to you might not be so great for a single mother of three, or an in-debt college student.
I agree that a combined proactive/reactive solution is the best. Early detection plans, plus armed personnel, plus "shooter isolation" plans would be a much better set of plans.
I agree that a combined proactive/reactive solution is the best. Early detection plans, plus armed personnel, plus "shooter isolation" plans would be a much better set of plans.
Rich Miranda
New member
...Reasonable to you might not be so great for a single mother of three, or an in-debt college student.
Let's keep it real simple: there have to some standards. Those standards, whatever they are, will be a non-issue for some folks, and be viewed by others as just another way to prevent them from carrying. Either way, we are back to the fact that some standards must exist.
Either way, we are back to the fact that some standards must exist.
State of Alaska no need to have a CCW permit; or more accurately in Alaska an ACHP. Concealed carry is available to all residents with no need of a permit or application process, with the exception of a small minority; convicted felons, etc... who may not CC.
There are a small number of restrictions as to where CC is not legal.
We have not made the national news for college campus shootings, etc... (Just because the entire state has fewer people in it than in one of most of the lower 49's cities doesn't mean that we don't have a number of colleges and universities.)
Overall, lack of required training seems to have worked out just fine up here.
Kind of reminds me of the wording in the 2nd amendment, pretty good standards.
I do not buy into that premise.we are back to the fact that some standards must exist.
Now, if you would like to provide evidence of requirements which create a statistically significant reduction in violent crime, I am perfectly willing to consider those requirements.
So far, Alaska and Vermont seem to do fine without any pre-approval by the government for the exercise of carry rights.
Rich Miranda
New member
Now, if you would like to provide evidence of requirements which create a statistically significant reduction in violent crime, I am perfectly willing to consider those requirements.
Too much work. Let's just disagree, huh?
EDIT: OK, I finally got some sleep. Let's continue below.
Last edited:
I fully admit my opinions on carry rights are at the extreme end of the spectrum.
I realize legal requirements for training etc. weed out people--both good and bad.
It is my opinion that the vast majority of people who choose to carry on a consistent basis self-select, and are generally suitable to carry safely. Of course, there are those Plaxicos and ATF demonstrators who ruin that theory...so, in the end, it is a judgement call.
I realize legal requirements for training etc. weed out people--both good and bad.
It is my opinion that the vast majority of people who choose to carry on a consistent basis self-select, and are generally suitable to carry safely. Of course, there are those Plaxicos and ATF demonstrators who ruin that theory...so, in the end, it is a judgement call.
Rich Miranda
New member
I do not buy into that premise.
So, you are OK with convicted felons carrying legally?
VonFireball
New member
So, you are OK with convicted felons carrying legally?
So long as their conviction wasn't a violent offense. Otherwise refusing them a CCW is little more than discrimination. Same goes for the blind and the mentally handicapped.
renegadebuck
New member
Let's take it one step further. What about the guys that got into a fight and hurt the other person(broke a leg or arm, ect) in his youth. Never been in trouble before, didn't look for the fight, just didn't retreat. Does his time and lives a normal life. Should he be excluded from CCW? He paid his debt. Now, according to the law, he doesn't have the right to defend his family by even owning a gun. Is this right? In my opinion, this could happen to any of us at any time. I'm too old to "fight fair" if cornered. Yeah, I could hold my own still, but I don't heal as good as when young and if I don't have the choice to retreat, I'm gonna end it fast. If I don't use a weapon, should I be punished further? Why?