The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Campus Safety
As a life long Illinois resident, I was shocked and saddened by the NIU shootings yesterday in Dekalb, IL.
Realizing that this is a delicate subject, I hope that the responses are kept in the spirit of my concerns.
I searched several university websites to see what was offered in terms of campus safety and what I found was that there was no mention of what student/faculty should do if confronted with an armed assailant in the classroom.
Then I got to wondering about intel in terms of; if you publish what to do, then a potential assailant would know what to do. In other words, you basically provide a blueprint for an incident.
So, how do you send the message to those wishing to be safe? How can we make our campuses safer without interfering with the college experience and creating a "how to" for someone wishing to exact harm?
I have read so much in the past 24 hours. Some of it is emotionally charged reactions such as arming professors to arming students who have gun permits. It has been mentioned that colleges with ROTC programs could arm ROTC candidates. To me, that sounds like "wild west" thinking.
This is another situation where pre-screening will likely "miss" potential threats. It is truly a conundrum.
There is quite a bit of literature on increasing safety for responders, but as I said, there is little more than nothing for the safety of students and faculty who are confronted with an armed assailant.
Is there anyone out there who has experience with this that could offer insight?
It is a national dilemma that must be addressed.
A very dear friend of mine responded to NIU yesterday and what he described to me was bone chilling and mind boggling. To hear how he was affected by it in the aftermath; I can't imagine what it was like for the innocent young adults who were ambushed during what was suppose to be the best years of their lives.
And I will leave it at that.
TCSS.
Art
Realizing that this is a delicate subject, I hope that the responses are kept in the spirit of my concerns.
I searched several university websites to see what was offered in terms of campus safety and what I found was that there was no mention of what student/faculty should do if confronted with an armed assailant in the classroom.
Then I got to wondering about intel in terms of; if you publish what to do, then a potential assailant would know what to do. In other words, you basically provide a blueprint for an incident.
So, how do you send the message to those wishing to be safe? How can we make our campuses safer without interfering with the college experience and creating a "how to" for someone wishing to exact harm?
I have read so much in the past 24 hours. Some of it is emotionally charged reactions such as arming professors to arming students who have gun permits. It has been mentioned that colleges with ROTC programs could arm ROTC candidates. To me, that sounds like "wild west" thinking.
This is another situation where pre-screening will likely "miss" potential threats. It is truly a conundrum.
There is quite a bit of literature on increasing safety for responders, but as I said, there is little more than nothing for the safety of students and faculty who are confronted with an armed assailant.
Is there anyone out there who has experience with this that could offer insight?
It is a national dilemma that must be addressed.
A very dear friend of mine responded to NIU yesterday and what he described to me was bone chilling and mind boggling. To hear how he was affected by it in the aftermath; I can't imagine what it was like for the innocent young adults who were ambushed during what was suppose to be the best years of their lives.
And I will leave it at that.
TCSS.
Art
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Stoltz on
-
I am pretty familiar with the struggles of a particular campus after the Virginia Tech incident last year. A lot of interesting things came out during discussions about campus safety.
First, the existing emergency plans were very tightly held, in order to prevent the baddies from discovering it and planning ways around it. Trouble was that none of the instructors and very few of the senior staff knew the plan.
Second, campus security guards were not armed, and to my knowledge will not be armed any time in the future.
Another fact revealed was that there was no expedient means of communicating emergency information to staff and students in the event of an emergency.
When the emergency plan was reviewed and a drill was held, it became apparent that the response plan did not protect against any shootings, rather it dealt with containing an incident to a classroom or building. Responding law enforcement agencies actually stated that they could not prevent the initial casualties, and that their actions would be directed at preventing more of them from occurring. The bottom line is that in the initial stages of an incident, it's every student for him or her self.
Given these findings, it is clear that if there are to be no more shootings on campus, then you have to keep guns off campus. Metal detectors, baggage checks and the like will have to be implemented nation-wide. If colleges decide not to pursue this, and decide not to arm their security staff, they are setting their institutions up for future troubles.
I went to see John Salka give a presentation on "Getting Out Alive" today, and one point he raised was that people have to speak up when they see something wrong. That fits with what Mel was saying about the people who ignored the woman being murdered, or the idiot in the street. Tell someone about your suspicions; if they prove to be unfounded - hey no harm done.
And for God's sake can anyone tell me why someone with a history of mental problems is allowed to carry a gun? Um, if they're taking certain medications don't you think that says something?
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
54 rounds were fired off in TWO MINUTES at NIU. However, this started LAST AUGUST when the first two guns were purchased.
The claim is made that if you want to kill someone bad enough, you don't need a gun.
So it begs the question: in two minutes while standing on a stage in lecture hall, how many students could you kill with a knife or a pair of scissors, a baseball bat, throwing stars?
My point is that cowards need the distance between them and their victims. The gun gives them that distance. They don't want to struggle with their victims; that would require personal contact.
It use to be that you had to have a good reason to go and get a gun and use it to kill someone; usually because of an on-going dispute, but it was an intimate reason and a specific target.
Today; it's random and without reason. It's senseless and it's a problem that is growing worse, instead of better.
Being free also means living free of fear. If we are becoming a society where everyone is going to look at everyone else with suspicion and paranoia, then the basic freedoms are lost.
We have to find a way to get the balance back into the favor of the good guys.
And it starts with teaching people to accept responsibility for their actions and stop making excuses for them.
There should be a reasonable expectation that we won't be gunned down while waiting for our Cafe Americano at Starbucks. We should be able to go to the frozen food section at the grocery store without crawling on our bellies while bullets fly over our heads. We should be able to point out bad behavior by a child without being blundgeoned to death by the irate dad.
We aren't becoming desensitized. If anything, much of what we are reading about is being created by HYPER-sensitivity.
We are spending BILLIONS; perhaps TRILLIONS to fight terrorists in foreign countries and we can't even protect ourselves from the home grown terrorists right here. It has caused many law abiding citizens to re-think their position on gun ownership. After all, we DO have a right to protect ourselves. The criminal decides exactly where that is.
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Ellen Shea on
-
just a quick post-script to both of those well-written posts.....if it came down to it and someone was threatening someone I loved, and I was armed? I wouldn't hesitate to protect and defend. Not for one second.
The sadder post-script is that we already ARE a suspicious and paranoid society. Granted, there was a groundswell of "do the right thing and speak up" in the days after 911, but that patriotism and righteous indignation subsided, as it always does, and on the whole, individuals have returned to their previous "it ain't in my backyard, and if it is, I'll just shut my door and close the blinds" mentality.
-
-
oh, and one more thing.....how many more innocent kids have to die before campuses in this country start providing legitimate, armed security on campus vs. the proliferation of parking ticket pushers that are the norm?
-
-
Art said that 54 rounds were touched off in the first two minutes. So the trouble with arming the campus security folks is that two minutes can go by before they arrive at a classroom or other place where shots are being fired. But maybe just having a beefed up security force armed and at the ready would be enough of a deterrent.
As someone else said, if teachers and students were armed then perhaps that would also be a deterrent. Might as well have everybody armed just like in the Wild West days. I have visions in my mind's eye: inviting the twitchy, surly looking fellow in the third row to meet at the quad at high noon...
I still come back to keeping the damned guns off campus via metal detectors and such. And maybe pistol permit holders have to have yearly examinations by doctors to review health trends, medications, etc.
I don't know; for sure there is no easy answer.
-
-
I like the idea of a medical review for permit holders. Is that going to slow up the process, probably. Is that a bad thing? Based on recent events, no, I don't think so.
-
-
of course that doesn't mean that someone can't get a gun illegally, but the NIU and Virginia Tech shooters both obtained their arms through normal, legal channels.
-
Permalink Reply by kel1985 on
-
I agree with the other posts here that are calling for concealed carry on campus. NIU, VaTech and so many of these places where shootings occur are so called "Gun Free Zones", do you think that may make a difference in the choosing of a location?
If you are licenced by the state in which you live to carry concealed weapons, you have already proven you aren't a criminal and are (probably) of sound mind. What right does an institution that is receving both state and federal funds have to tell you you can't exercise your constitutional rights there?
If gun control works so well, why is Washington DC always among the leaders in gun crime? Why is gun crime skyrocketing in England (where private ownership has been banned)?
Just some food for thought.
-
-
"If gun control works so well, why is Washington DC always among the leaders in gun crime? Why is gun crime skyrocketing in England (where private ownership has been banned)?"
Possibly because there is no control on guns?
I don't want to give up the right to bear arms, but somehow, some way, we have to prevent unstable or potentially unstable people from buying and owning them, legally or illegally.
Perhaps require all pistol permit holders to pass a yearly proficiency test, like all LEOs have to. In addition to medical assessments... I'm thinking out loud here...
-
-
There is control on guns, there are laws regarding concealed carry, where and when you can use your firearms.
We have over 20,000 laws on the books in this country relating to gun control, instead of writing new ones, how about we enforce the laws we presently have.
As for preventing the unstable or potentially unstable from having access, anybody, at any time has the potential to become unstable.
I will gladly take a yearly proficiency test for my concealed weapons (for which I already have a permit) as soon as you give yearly driving tests to everybody, and medical assessments, and let's have permits on cell phones, too many people drive with them.
"Those who will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The United States Constitution, Ammendment 2.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Seargent on
-
YES, YES, YES! All the a-hole lawyers want to do is pass more laws. That doesn't cut it. We need to see that the people in Washington, (working for us), enforce and make workable the laws we already have. Better background medical checks, Yearly tests and evaluation, whatever it is, it needs to be something. Either that or yes, let it go back to old west justice and arm everyone. Let the stupid people kill each other off and leave the country for us. Sure, there will be collateral damage, but it's about time Mother Earth puked the human race off her face and started over anyway. We are getting to be just like the Asians or Indians. Human life there is meaningless, there are so many people that they are disposable. Where did The United States of America go? God bless her, I miss her.
-
Permalink Reply by Engineco913 on
-
perhaps the old addage "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns" would be called for here.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
