 "Photo: texaschllicense.com")
We commend the university and the University Police Department for their work in upholding concealed handgun legislation.
We think that guns, or any illegal weapon should not be allowed on campus, and that a zero tolerance rule should be enacted for those who break the law in this manner.
There is nothing wrong with the second amendment, and we have no problem with anyone’s right to carry a weapon. The issues fall in the area of maturity. Generally speaking, college students fall between the ages of 18-25. We think the maturity level at this age is not conducive to the safe handling of concealed weapons.
With the number of school shootings that have occurred in the last 15 years, we understand the prospect of carrying concealed weapons may seem appealing. However, we do not think the benefits of having such freedoms outweigh the potential risks.
Alcohol is another issue that could exacerbate a potentially huge problem. When alcohol is introduced into an environment in which students are carrying a concealed weapon, the chance for injury or death rises dramatically.
UPD only wishes to ensure the safety of our students. Crime Information Officer for UPD Lt. Jason Bone’s comments on the police following the law, and commitment to arresting those who break the law, are welcome and needed. We need to be reminded every now-and-then of the police’s presence and their work in keeping our community safe. It’s wonderful to see the police force dedicated to protecting the students, even when that means protecting us from ourselves.
4 comments Log in to Comment
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection) Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Now let’s look at this under the harsh light of reason and logic and not the pale light of cowardice: Why should a police officer risk his life to save something of such insignificant value (your life), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS. April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.Defenseless victims murdered: 68
Defenseless victims injured: 69Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; murdered: 5
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 10Now, let’s see your proof where an armed intended victim “made things worse”.Now add to this the fact that THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS; this means that if you want protection, for you and your loved ones, from violent crime; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it.
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now