Hopefully Carry at Purdue in the Future?

[TMU317]

Purdue police prepare for likely scenarios such as officers stumbling across a firefight on campus or Godzilla (Chinese martial arts optional):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gFlSGXt_k

There is no evidence, not an iota, that Purdue police will have the complained of problem. It is a red herring and possibly the world's thinnest cover story. It needs to be laughed out the conference room.

Since police firearms training is so comprehensive, someone needs to ask Chief Cox what PUPD officers would do off campus if they encountered Godzilla, or a firefight.

I'm curious, how would you respond to an argument from PUPD that their classrooms are safe, and there is no evidence, not an iota, that a student will need to carry a weapon at Purdue?

"ask Chief Cox what PUPD officers would do off campus if they encountered Godzilla, or a firefight"

I agree, and believe this is a valid argument against his comment. Although, I don't quite know why Godzilla has been brought into this.

 

[TMU317]

Campus cops kill unarmed students.

Might it be more in Chief Cox's interest to prevent such a tragedy at Purdue rather than fret about roving firefights and Godzilla attacks?

Unarmed? I was referring to an armed student. If the student is unarmed, then that is a completely separate issue.

Yes, it would be in Chief Cox's interest to prevent such a tragedy, regardless of whether said student is armed or not. I believe that is why he is arguing against carry on campus, because he believes it will prevent an officer from killing an innocent student.

Not to mention the fact that he could fear losing his job if he came out and said he disagreed with his employer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Police kill innocent unarmed students.

Is there a case of police killing innocent armed student?

I'm curious, how would you respond to an argument from PUPD that their classrooms are safe, and there is no evidence, not an iota, that a student will need to carry a weapon at Purdue?

I would respond by pointing out that argument is burden shifting. Have Chief Wiggum demonstrate to us how unsafe it is for students to carry guns. Where is the evidence that it is the problem that he claims? Back it up, Clancy.

I believe that is why he is arguing against carry on campus, because he believes it will prevent an officer from killing an innocent student.

Campus police kill unarmed students. If Chief Cox is admitting that he lacks confidence in his officers and is concerned about killing the innocent then he needs to disarm his department at once. If he does not trust his officers, then no one else should trust them.

Although, I don't quite know why Godzilla has been brought into this.

Godzilla represents the mystic threat that the police always conjure up at budget time or during legislative hearings. "What if Godzilla attacked and Godzilla knew Wing Chun . . ."

We need a tank because Godzilla might attack.

We need more money because on the Internet it says gangstas are converting Glocks to full auto.

We need more money because the Internet says gangstas are flashing their headlights and killing people and we need to send more cops to seminars in warm places when it is cold.

We need more money to enforce another law named for a dead person . . .

 

[scottka]

Hey guys, sorry I haven't had a chance to catch back up on this thread since Thursday. I got really busy with school stuff. Jeremiah, I had planned on sending in a letter for Friday's paper, but as I said, I ended up getting busy and wasn't able to. I'm hoping to find the time on Sunday to get one in if they're still putting them in on Monday and Tuesday. I know they normally have a limit of so many on each topics, but sometimes they make exceptions for really hot topics. Jeremiah, feel free to hit me up with a PM on here or whatever. I should have much more free time this week than I have had this past week.

 

[TMU317]

Police kill innocent unarmed students.

Is there a case of police killing innocent armed student?

I would respond by pointing out that argument is burden shifting. Have Chief Wiggum demonstrate to us how unsafe it is for students to carry guns. Where is the evidence that it is the problem that he claims? Back it up, Clancy.

Campus police kill unarmed students. If Chief Cox is admitting that he lacks confidence in his officers and is concerned about killing the innocent then he needs to disarm his department at once. If he does not trust his officers, then no one else should trust them.

I thought we were discussing the possibility of the death of an innocent, armed individual, who has been perceived to be a threat by a police officer during an active shooter incident? I am not talking about the possibility of unarmed person being shot by police during an active shooter incident. They are two completely separate issues.

In my opinion, it is absolutely possible for a police officer to perceive an innocent armed individual as a threat during an active shooter incident. We can come up with a million different scenarios and discuss various different incidents which have already occurred and it still doesn't change the fact that this is a possibility.

 

[Hammerhead]

My scenario was based upon the recent history of school shootings where there were single BGs (ok, Columbine had two) that were shooting anyone and everyone. While this is not the only scenario that could happen on campus, it is the most likely.

As has been posted, the idea of a drawn out firefight between people is unlikely in any shooter scenario. A long drawn out campaign is probably going to involve a shooter who isn't being challenged. Generally in a crime, once gunplay is involved, it's probably going to be over before the police arrive.

Like Kirk is trying to explain, there are ways for the police to determine GGs from BGs. It takes self control/trigger control. And I still say that GGs aren't going to shoot at the uniform once it's present and acknowledged.

And, in the idea that the people working and studying there are now armed, the idea of multiple attackers drawing out a firefight is moving towards the area of slim and none. It doesn't matter what scenarios pop out. The defenders aren't going to be the ones starting the trouble, but the more people able to defend themselves, the less time the BGs will have to be nefarious.

While not everyone on campus would carry, there'd have to be an overwhelming number of BGs to engage a potentially unlimited number of defenders. Then we're not talking about crime in progress, we're talking about war.

 

[TMU317]

My scenario was based upon the recent history of school shootings where there were single BGs (ok, Columbine had two) that were shooting anyone and everyone. While this is not the only scenario that could happen on campus, it is the most likely.

As has been posted, the idea of a drawn out firefight between people is unlikely in any shooter scenario. A long drawn out campaign is probably going to involve a shooter who isn't being challenged. Generally in a crime, once gunplay is involved, it's probably going to be over before the police arrive.

Like Kirk is trying to explain, there are ways for the police to determine GGs from BGs. It takes self control/trigger control. And I still say that GGs aren't going to shoot at the uniform once it's present and acknowledged.

And, in the idea that the people working and studying there are now armed, the idea of multiple attackers drawing out a firefight is moving towards the area of slim and none. It doesn't matter what scenarios pop out. The defenders aren't going to be the ones starting the trouble, but the more people able to defend themselves, the less time the BGs will have to be nefarious.

While not everyone on campus would carry, there'd have to be an overwhelming number of BGs to engage a potentially unlimited number of defenders. Then we're not talking about crime in progress, we're talking about war.

I am not against students carrying firearms on campus. I am not arguing that the GG's are going to shoot at police. I am not arguing that the GG's are going to start the trouble. I was simply pointing out that, in my opinion,the possibility of a police officer killing an individual who is armed and engaging the BG and thus incorrectly perceived as a threat during an active shooter incident is not out of the question. Similar incidents have occurred , so I don't quite understand how it is out of the question on a college campus.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In my opinion, it is absolutely possible for a police officer to perceive an innocent armed individual as a threat during an active shooter incident.

And it is possible for Godzilla to attack. It's hysterical nonsense used to deny people rights.

If it is possible then obviously the police, in their comprehensive firearms training as Only Ones, have trained for this. Since PUPD has trained for this possibility, then do that on campus.

it still doesn't change the fact that this is a possibility

Then show me, show me one incident where campus police have shot an innocent armed individual.

 

[slyton]

First, I am all for CC on campus, but one thing in the article causes me concern, the mandatory class at Applied Ballistic Systems. Unless they are offering free onsite arrangements for the class, this is no good. I would have to say class fine they can make it mandatory telling me where I have to go for it, No. And then how are they going to enforce this do I have to register with PUPD and get a card saying I can carry on campus? (Not like the state does not already have a license to carry) I realize that this likely just a way of wording the proposal to gain support, but felt the need to point it out. Thank you, capitalist rant over.

 

[TMU317]

And it is possible for Godzilla to attack. It's hysterical nonsense used to deny people rights.

If it is possible then obviously the police, in their comprehensive firearms training as Only Ones, have trained for this. Since PUPD has trained for this possibility, then do that on campus.

Then show me, show me one incident where campus police have shot an innocent armed individual.

I thought this was all about possibilities? Why do the people involved in this want to carry concealed on campus? Because there is a possibility that they may need it at some point in time to defend themselves. They argue this possibility, and PUPD responds with their argument which is also a possibility. Why is one side allowed to argue on the basis of a possibility and one side can't?

As far as an example, I have given you an example of police shooting an innocent armed individual off campus during an active shooter incident. Why does the location matter?

I completely agree with everything else you have stated. Two questions I would have for the PUPD chief would be (like you have stated) how do they train for active shooter incidents off campus? As well as how do they train their officer to respond to an active shooter incident on campus who may happen to be in plain clothes? If this group is going to argue for concealed carry, they are going to have to develop legitimate arguments against PUPD's claims. IMHO, they can't just roll their eyes and laugh it off as if it is an absurd possibility. After all, many of their fellow students who are against concealed carry are going to simply roll their eyes and laugh when they argue that concealed carry is necessary. Does it not make sense to acknowledge their concerns and then construct valid arguments against those concerns, rather than blow them off?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why do the people involved in this want to carry concealed on campus?

Because it is my civil right.

Because there is a possibility that they may need it at some point in time to defend themselves

Doesn't matter. Utilitarian arguments fail when measured to my rights.

Why does the location matter?

Because campus police have placed location in relevance.

 

[TMU317]

Because it is my civil right.

Agreed.

Doesn't matter. Utilitarian arguments fail when measured to my rights.

Agreed. Never said they didn't.

Because campus police have placed location in relevance.

True. Yet, changing the location still doesn't skew the fact that there is the possibility of an innocent armed person being killed.

If simply stating "it is my right" was enough to change the oppositions opinion, then we would not be discussing this issue as it wouldn't exist. Further, if simply scoffing at the idea that a student who is legally qualified to carry a firearm should not be allowed to do so on campus was enough to sway the opposition, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

True. Yet, changing the location still doesn't skew the fact that there is the possibility of an innocent armed person being killed by the police.

The actions of the police are on the police, not on the student body. The student body should not suffer for the Cox's admission of the inadequacy of the Purdue police.

If Chief Cox lacks confidence in his officers in that he thinks that they are undertrained then he should immediately disarm them until he can secure additional training for them or keep them disarmed.

 

[rugertoter]

Thanks for the post! Sounds like folks up in West Lafayette are working hard.

This quote from the Purdue Police Chief got a big out of me:

So, let's restrict everyone's rights and leave the good guys (and gals) defenseless, so your job is easier? Good grief.

Sounds like that Police Chief has about as much sense as most of the left leaning staff would have. All that college education, and still no common sense.

 

[tmccorkel]

I graduated from Purdue a few years ago and knew a few people who carried to class. They stored their weapons in their bags and nobody ever knew.

Personally, I wish they had allowed it while I was there. Kids are crazy. Plus, there are quite a few shady people around that area- both locals and students.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Plus, there are quite a few shady people around that area- both locals and students

Hey!

Shady? I wear a tie and my shoes look like mirrors.

 

[ATM]

I wear a tie and my shoes look like mirrors.

Not so tasteful when you insist on wearing a kilt.

 

[tmccorkel]

Hey!

Shady? I wear a tie and my shoes look like mirrors.

I'm sure you are a fine, upstanding citizen- tie, shiny shoes, kilt and all! I feel like there are definitely more good people than bad down there, but I have been in some bad situations that could have turned out worse. A roommate of mine was nearly jumped in an alley, to make matters worse, and it's not the only time I've heard of it happening.

Guns probably aren't the best answer in those situations, but they would surely have helped. Also, some classrooms makes you feel like a fish in a barrel- just saying..

 

[Bill of Rights]

The thing that is consistently missed is the fact that every single student, faculty, or staff member that holds a LTCH may lawfully carry on the East side of University Avenue, but somehow, the University and it's supporters seem to believe that there is some magical property to that road that turns a peaceable, law-abiding, lawful citizen into a crazed, unsafe maniac if he happens to be armed, and likewise, the prohibition of arms on the West side of that road will turn an armed criminal into a law-abiding, upstanding citizen. The same emotional claptrap is applied to K-12 schools and child-care locations as well. It's not the children that will be lawfully carrying. It's not the criminals constrained by this law.

The University is theoretically dedicated to knowledge and wisdom and the acquisition of both. Perhaps they need to participate in some of their own classes in logic.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Not so tasteful when you insist on wearing a kilt.

Well, kilts are an English invention.

Thomas Rawlinson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia