FWIW I'm at a state school, so for us they're police, not security officers - they have all the same legal powers as local police or state troopers.
Two questions.
* What do you see as being the difference between having some of the police force armed, and having the unarmed police force call for the local police who would be armed? * On a limited budget, would you rather see money go towards (a) arming police and training them in the use of the guns, (b) better training the police to work within their current limits, or (c) hiring more police officers with the same level of training as the current police officers? I think in general I'd prefer (b) at this point in time (I am not convinced guns are necessary and would rather err towards not having them), but on my campus in specific I feel we could use a stronger police presence overall so I'd probably say split between (b) and (c).
- I think it's about proximity. If something bad enough to need a gun is going on, if the non-campus cops are much farther away, it would be beneficial to have the campus police have someone with a gun on hand. Again, that's only if there's more violent crime there than in the general population around the area, enough to merit guns on campus.
- My campus has plenty of security officers (practically the only department not cut due to the recession), so it's hard to imagine hiring more being effective, just because I don't know the ratio where you are. Similarly, I don't know how well-trained the police are there to begin with; again, where I am, they're all trained in basic emergency stuff, and some of them are more advanced (EMTs, special fire degrees, guns, etc.), and when there's an emergency, the right people always seem to show up. If there's a lot more room to improve training and hiring, then I agree that they shouldn't be thinking about guns unless there's a major problem with violent crime there.
* I think response time is also an issue, as I mentioned in my reply to q10 above. I expect that having some armed would be a faster response time than either having to call local police or having a store room or something for the weapons.
* Now that I think about it, I expect that our campus officers are already highly trained since they're police, so I wonder how much good extra training would even do.
And two more thoughts.
* What do you think about non-lethal weapons such as tasers?
* It's my understanding that the push to arm our campus police is out of fear of a school shooter - a particular category of violent crime. While the incidence of such an event at one particular college in a given year is negligibly small, the possible consequences are devastating.
- I was under the impression that to use a taser, one must be particularly close to the tase-ee, and the benefit of a gun is that one can shoot from a distance without endangering oneself. I think tasers are easily replaceable by special training in disarming someone, whereas guns are not.
- I really think that preparing every campus for a school shooting is ridiculous. Whoever is proposing that must not see that having guns on campus is inherently more likely to hurt someone than the remote possibility of a school shooting; I can imagine that if every cop on campus had a gun, it would be likely that they'd shoot someone because they mistakenly thought they were dangerous. (I recall an incident in New York when a cop shot a man as he took a candy bar out of his pocket because the cop thought it was a gun.)
I would be happy to see tasers as an adjunct to firearms, but not as a replacement. As you've noted, they're short-range. From my understanding, they're single-shot. This combination does NOT make for an effective weapon. Even at 35', in a dangerous situation, I would not be surprised if the cop missed with one shot. Firefights are rough! And if a taser's all you have...well, you're up the creek without a paddle after that one shot.
Are there certainly more situations where a taser would be useful? Sure, and that's why I don't mind seeing them as a support. But they are in no way a replacement for a firearm.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-04-11 01:55 am (UTC)Two questions.
* What do you see as being the difference between having some of the police force armed, and having the unarmed police force call for the local police who would be armed?
* On a limited budget, would you rather see money go towards (a) arming police and training them in the use of the guns, (b) better training the police to work within their current limits, or (c) hiring more police officers with the same level of training as the current police officers? I think in general I'd prefer (b) at this point in time (I am not convinced guns are necessary and would rather err towards not having them), but on my campus in specific I feel we could use a stronger police presence overall so I'd probably say split between (b) and (c).
no subject
Date: 2009-04-11 02:04 am (UTC)- I think it's about proximity. If something bad enough to need a gun is going on, if the non-campus cops are much farther away, it would be beneficial to have the campus police have someone with a gun on hand. Again, that's only if there's more violent crime there than in the general population around the area, enough to merit guns on campus.
- My campus has plenty of security officers (practically the only department not cut due to the recession), so it's hard to imagine hiring more being effective, just because I don't know the ratio where you are. Similarly, I don't know how well-trained the police are there to begin with; again, where I am, they're all trained in basic emergency stuff, and some of them are more advanced (EMTs, special fire degrees, guns, etc.), and when there's an emergency, the right people always seem to show up. If there's a lot more room to improve training and hiring, then I agree that they shouldn't be thinking about guns unless there's a major problem with violent crime there.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-11 02:11 am (UTC)* Now that I think about it, I expect that our campus officers are already highly trained since they're police, so I wonder how much good extra training would even do.
And two more thoughts.
* What do you think about non-lethal weapons such as tasers?
* It's my understanding that the push to arm our campus police is out of fear of a school shooter - a particular category of violent crime. While the incidence of such an event at one particular college in a given year is negligibly small, the possible consequences are devastating.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-11 02:47 am (UTC)- I really think that preparing every campus for a school shooting is ridiculous. Whoever is proposing that must not see that having guns on campus is inherently more likely to hurt someone than the remote possibility of a school shooting; I can imagine that if every cop on campus had a gun, it would be likely that they'd shoot someone because they mistakenly thought they were dangerous. (I recall an incident in New York when a cop shot a man as he took a candy bar out of his pocket because the cop thought it was a gun.)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-11 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-11 03:50 am (UTC)Are there certainly more situations where a taser would be useful? Sure, and that's why I don't mind seeing them as a support. But they are in no way a replacement for a firearm.