Do you know the only other class of people, besides campus security, who can't bring guns on campus? Felons.
Why Was Bill to Arm University Security Guards Pulled from Oregon Panel two days after the Virginia Tech mass murder?
Redesignates special campus security officers
within Oregon University System as public
safety officers. Includes public safety
officers employed by Oregon University System in statutes
relating to police officers.
What does that mean? The bill allowed security guards on campus in Oregon to be trained and armed.
11 comments:
Victoria
I think you answered your own qustion with this.
"The bill allowed security guards on campus in Oregon to be trained and armed."
'fraid so.
Maybe to allow a vote either in committee or a floor vote would have embarrassed the anti gun people.
Or you could just not be a sheeple and ignore a sign that says "no guns on campus". Unless there is a metal detector, screw them.
Now now people campuses are utopias where guns are not weclome.
We must not forget our decorum in light of this latest shootings. We would not want any evidence that guns could be used for legimate self-defense.
The Question should be "WHY CAN'T THE STUDENT BODY and FACULTY Carry GUNS?" Besides the Campus Security Gaurds. Columbine nor Viginia Tech, would have had such a High Death Toll If students or Faculty were armed. I hate to say this but Suicide Bombers in the middle east know exactly where to come. COLLEGE and High School Campus's, but with guns not bombs. ARM UP FOLKS. WE DID DURING WWII on college and High school campus.
WHAT HAPPENED???????
Ted Nugent 2008
I think the idea of allowing any (or even a majority of) student(s) to carry a firearm is absolutely ridiculous.
I think we would see an increase rather than a decrease in firearm related deaths and injuries.
However, I am in favor of security guards having weapons and training.
I am even in favor of select students and teachers having concealed firearms and no one knowing exactly who those teachers and students are. The select students and teachers would have proper training, and be working sort of as under-cover security.
For the students doing this, it could be one of those ideal work study jobs where they were on the pay-roll while attending class.
I think weapons owners should be licensed and the owner of a weapon would have some liability for any use of their weapon if it can be shown they did not take reasonable measures to secure the weapon.
As with motor vehicle operation, one would have to show knowledge and skill to get a license to carry a weapon. One could obtain a learning permit initially, to use while getting the needed training and practice; and then a license when they get the needed skills.
coboble,
A gun is an inanimate object. It cannot load, aim and fire by itself, nor are they possessed by evil spirits that cause people to commit henuous crimes with them. The problem is with the creation of gun free zones and the defenseless potential victims that occupy them.
Responsibility for these henuous acts reside with the perps alone. In the Virginia Tech case the perp had mental health issues that were not delt with in a manner that would prevent his obtaining a gun or guns legally.
Licensing is not the answer as it already exists in the concealed weapon permit. There are already laws that when enforced would hold gun owners to task for there use.
Kodiak has it right. Guns are inanimate objects. If a gun is lying on a shelf, it will not get up and start to shoot people, as so many of the anti-gun nuts would have us believe. Instead it will just lie there on it's shelf. It only becomes dangerous when a human picks it up and starts pulling it's trigger.
The same logic could extend to a knife. A knife lying on a shelf is just lying there, not harming anything or anyone. But it takes a human to pick it up and start stabbing somone else, or to start cutting meat or bread or what ever.
Until a human picks up these "dangerous" inanimate objects, they are nothing more than an inanimate object. This is what the anti-gun nuts do not seem to understand.
More gun laws are unnecessary and nothing more than a complete waste of time and of the endless reams of paper used to print these inane laws on. This country already has thousands of gun laws on the books. Let's start applying those laws in the manner to which they are intended, or repeal them if they are not going to be used.
All the firearm laws on the books today are on a par with the myriad of tax laws. No one understands them, not the police, not the people, and most certainly, not the tax enforcers.ottbhg
coboble: Thank God misguided Libertarians like yourself were not around during the Revolutionary War. We'd still be speaking English today with a British Accent.
Ted Nugent 2008
I find it disconcerting that my son is within the Oregon University system and the "security" guards can not protect him if there were a gunman on the campus. Our governor, apparently, does not care about our children.
dominique,
Democrats care about children when it is to their political advantage.
Post a Comment