The recent tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have highlighted the need for colleges to have the means to effectively respond to all threats to campus safety. Recently, sworn Public Safety officers requested authorization from the administration to ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Before we start arming public safety we should stop and think about this for a second. Right now if public safety comes to our dorm room on campus and finds drugs or alcohol, all we have to worry about is getting disciplinary action with a dean. If we start arming public safety they will have to start acting more like a police department. This in turn could mean that we can expect to get criminally charged instead of the discretion they use right now. Is that what we want?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Merely asking this question is asinine. It perpetuates this country's tragic misconception that safety depends on armaments. The question is not, "should public safety have guns?" but rather, "what can public safety do to make campus safer?" Among countless possible answers, guns surely rank near the bottom. VT is a tragedy but a freak occurrence. Arming proctors would be a tragedy by design.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I favor the gun locker, or guns in the trunk mainly to respond to a classroom shooter kind of situation. I think when they respond to calls on West Windsor field at 3am, they should be able to take the guns out of the trunk and approach cautiously. But I like forcing them to make that decision based upon the call they received, and the information they have. It keeps carrying weapons a "special" event for the rare instances that having a weapon would be advantageous on campus. If they are concerned about the possibility of a situation, they can always take a weapon, or better, call for back-up and arrive with enough officers to discourage confrontation. As to why they should not carry the same glock -- my answer is that they're not doing the same job. They're not patrolling crime ridden neighborhoods, they're not in New Haven, and they don't regularly (ever?) come across armed criminals. The glock difference arises from the position they decided to accept -- at PU instead of a beat cop. If their legitimate concerns for their safety lead to a decrease in applicants, as they decide it would be safer for them to patrol street with glocks than patrol dorms without, that is their choice to make for their employment and ultimate safety. I imagine we have plenty of qualified applicants as it is.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I don't know. When some friends and I playing croquet on Cannon Green back in the spring of '06 were attacked by some camouflaged Quadranglers with water balloons, and we jokingly called it into P. Safety, they "apprehended" Mr. Williamson and his cohorts within about five minutes. Since then, I haven't doubted the efficacy of PUPS patrols.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Based on what I've seen on news footage showing security officers responding to emergencies and on shows like COPS I would feel better insisting on better physical fitness and annual compliance tests. This would probably yield better results than allowing them to carry weapons. Have you seen some of these folks try to run with all their excess weight? I'd be concerned that someone quicker and in better shape would grab their weapon from them and use it on them or others. Just wondering..
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Yeah, the concealed carry position might be a bit radical, I'll give you that, so why don't we agree to leave that off the table for now for the sake of the discussion. As to the substance of your comment: I think locking the police department's guns up in a central locker or in trunks of cars defeats the purpose of arming our police officers in the first place. If the police officers charged with protecting us have to make a decision as to whether or not to approach a suspicious-looking person on campus, or intervene in an escalating dispute, I want to be sure that they can act knowing that they will have the means to protect themselves. Having a gun back at HQ doesn't do that for you. If our police officers are going through the exact same training that every other police officer in New Jersey has to go through, if they swear the same oath, then why shouldn't they be allowed to carry the same glock?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
So the editorial board's position is...? I think Scharf's original stuff covered the "background" better. Allowing students to carry concealed weapons would seem to up the possibilities of an accidental discharge, or of someone losing their temper with a more permanent result. Not good. As it stands, if anyone sees a firearm, they know to call the police, if you allow concealed weapons, there won't be a clear line anymore which people might be able to use to protect themselves. I still favor firearms, but firearms from a central gun locker in the HQ, and guns in the trunks of approved officers' cars. Allows them to only arm themselves for imminent danger, and be unarmed for public urination / dorm parties.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You're right, it could not have been stopped altogether, but if armed police had been nearby when the shooting started, or if students and professors had been allowed concealed carry, perhaps fewer people would have been killed before the shooter at VT was brought down. It's all speculative, of course, but to my way of thinking it all comes back to the old NRA logic that the bad guys are always going to be able to get guns, so you may as well have the good guys armed.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Not mentioned in this editorial: the concept of "unavoidable tragedy." VT could perhaps have been prevented by better mental health monitoring of Cho. The act itself was undeniably horrible - but on that sad day in April, at that point, it could not have been stopped. Most active-shooter situations are over in 2-4 minutes and unfortunately it is irrelevant at that point whether campus safety forces are armed or not.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!