Another shooting on campus

[Benny B]

You weren't aware that the Second Amendment starts with with the words "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?

Citizens' right to keep & bear arms is what keeps the militia regulated.

[LloydMooresLegs]

I also believe that the scope of the Second Amendment was really about militias as expressed in the prefatory statement of that Amendment.

Truth.  Those words are not mere surplusage.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The Militia was the people then and now. People signed up a for a period and then went home to carry on with their lives.  Mostly brought their own arms with them.

[keefe]

The Militia was the people then and now. People signed up a for a period and then went home to carry on with their lives.  Mostly brought their own arms with them.

America in the 18th century was indeed a colonial outpost with incessant violence from many quarters. Every household outside of just a few large urban centers required a weapon for survival.

But there was a fundamental political dimension to the Second Amendment. The establishment of an American Federal system was a significant matter of contention and the concept of a standing National Army threatened the very cause of Independence. One key work around was to rely heavily on state militias for matters of defense from foreign powers and indigenous peoples.

And America was unique in the world - the first sovereign nation that allowed its citizenry to bear arms. Throughout the rest of the world, weapons were the sole privilege of the monarchy and the landed aristocracy (who raised and armed units for the King's Standard.) Americans were thus not only the first citizens in a world filled with subjects but the first polity to accept the fact of an armed citizenry.

Jefferson favored an armed citizenry not just for manning the state militias but, more philosophically, as a deterrent to political tyranny. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson believed that America would never suffer from authoritarianism since armaments were no longer the sole domain of the ruling elites.

The Second Amendment is not something that can be reduced to a sound bite - as has been tried by both proponents and opponents of "The Right to Bear Arms." It is a complex philosophical issue that was very much a product of its times. An armed citizenry is no longer a credible deterrent to political tyranny though it was very much so in the 18th and 19th centuries.

And there is a profound difference in technology. When the Founding Fathers put quill to paper state of the art was a man with a muzzle loader firing two rounds a minute with limited range and questionable accuracy. Today, one badass AFSOC TACP with an M4 can decimate one of Gen. Washington's companies without getting a scratch. Jefferson was a proponent of an armed citizenry but he never could have imagined the moral consequences and physical impact of a well armed sociopath wanting to inflict maximum damage inside a school cafeteria.

I am comfortable with weapons due to training but I respect what they are and have seen first hand what they can do. I have never owned any personal weapons and have never had the interest. But this country has a tradition of gun ownership and with that tradition comes tremendous responsibility. I think we often fall short in the responsibility side.

If persons cannot govern themselves then should government do so? We are back to that very same question that has characterized the political debate on this continent since the convening of the first Parliaments and Burgesses.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms.  Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun  crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.

[Galway Eagle]

But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms.  Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun  crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.

If you're going to state these facts I'd really appreciate the links and research backing it.  Preferably from a site that doesn't list the NRA as a sponsor.

[muhoosier260]

Let's put this instance in context, instead of generalizing a hot political issue. These are students, the shooting victim is a freshman and lives in the dorms. The conversation about strapping students ends right there, firearms aren't allowed in the dorms.

My reaction to this story is not "if he'd had a gun this would've been prevented", but more, "what can MU do to prevent these instances?" Hopefully having a real police force soon will be a move in that direction, but overall I think the school does a great job protecting students.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms.  Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun  crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.

And a super-majority of people have no problem with hunting guns.  Hunters certainly don't need a semi-automatic for hunting deer, rabbits, etc.

[jsglow]

Let's put this instance in context, instead of generalizing a hot political issue. These are students, the shooting victim is a freshman and lives in the dorms. The conversation about strapping students ends right there, firearms aren't allowed in the dorms.

My reaction to this story is not "if he'd had a gun this would've been prevented", but more, "what can MU do to prevent these instances?" Hopefully having a real police force soon will be a move in that direction, but overall I think the school does a great job protecting students.

This is the real question at hand.  We don't want armed students.  We want thugs understanding that there will be an intolerable price to pay for preying on our students.   I know for certain that every senior administrator's phone rang at 3a on Friday.  I also know for certain that it was maximum boots on the ground both last night and tonight following Friday morning's incident. A real 'pick up a weapon and stand a post' mentality despite any 'all is well' Kevin Bacon speeches.

Perhaps we've relied a bit to much on a 'camera covering every inch' philosophy.  For the moment, overtime is the order of the day until the kids go home over the next couple weeks.  Then we've got some time to thoughtfully consider our options.  I'm confident that the status quo isn't one of them.

[keefe]

This is the real question at hand.  We don't want armed students.  We want thugs understanding that there will be an intolerable price to pay for preying on our students.   I know for certain that every senior administrator's phone rang at 3a on Friday.  I also know for certain that it was maximum boots on the ground both last night and tonight following Friday morning's incident. A real 'pick up a weapon and stand a post' mentality despite any 'all is well' Kevin Bacon speeches.

Perhaps we've relied a bit to much on a 'camera covering every inch' philosophy.  For the moment, overtime is the order of the day until the kids go home over the next couple weeks.  Then we've got some time to thoughtfully consider our options.  I'm confident that the status quo isn't one of them.

I am guessing the string of platitudes is tongue in cheek because every senior administrator being up at 0300 does nothing to improve campus security. If I am a bad guy prowling the mean streets looking for a mark at oh dark thirty the thought of an overweight middle aged guy awake and swathed in terrycloth in his Elm Grove rambler doesn't put the fear of God in me. Nor does unleashing the jack booted but unarmed Marquette Public Safety goons. Armed force is only deterred by armed force - a fact Neville Chamberlain failed to grasp but Winston Churchill understood from hard earned combat experience.

I am not suggesting we arm students because the only threat will be from a bunch of untrained goofs harming themselves and each other - the carnage would be unimaginable. In the face of an armed threat, genuine security is never delivered through the barrel of a security camera or a rent-a-cop packing a mean visage and a VHF Motorola two way. You can't eliminate an armed threat with staff meetings attended by grim-faced bureaucrats filled with a terrible resolve.

Our daughter attended Columbia and when there was an uptick in campus area crime the university went to the Mayor and the Governor and demanded an appropriate response. Both constituencies assessed that the safety and security of the Columbia University community was of paramount concern and applied swift and sure force to the immediate vicinity and the broader five borough area.

If Marquette is serious about combatting violent crime they need to call in the respective Marine Corps who can deploy the necessary force. Marquette has no weapons to pick up so let's hope they are speaking with the responsible authorities who can bring the necessary correlation of force to bear.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Not saying this would happen, nor do I think this will ever be an option, but if for some reason they allowed students to conceal carry and keep guns in the dorms I would transfer immediately.

[HansMoleman]

If you're going to state these facts I'd really appreciate the links and research backing it.  Preferably from a site that doesn't list the NRA as a sponsor.

Earlier in this thread I posted the following link.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

The "About" page states they accept no money from policy groups, including the NRA.  You could also try this link..

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-facts/

[warriorchick]

Marquette has no weapons to pick up so let's hope they are speaking with the responsible authorities who can bring the necessary correlation of force to bear.

Marquette officers are armed now, and have been for quite awhile.

I invite you to visit campus once in awhile to keep yourself informed. 

[keefe]

Marquette officers are armed now, and have been for quite awhile.

I invite you to visit campus once in awhile to keep yourself informed. 

Well, let's hope they have been trained properly. Obviously, they are not presenting too much of a deterrent.

[muhoosier260]

Marine Corps is a bit much but I see your point Keefe. DPS is armed, and recent legislation was passed to effectively make them 'real' officers with arrest powers and more training with state funding. Hopefully, this happens sooner than later, maybe this incident will  expedite this much overdo campus need.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Again still dont like the idea of DPS being a police force. I just dont see the point. What difference will it make since they are already armed? Maybe its just because its the enviornment I grew up in but I dont deem the area MU is in dangerous at all, maybe its because im from the city and not the burbs but I have never been afraid on MUs campus and think money should go to other things first. Its really not that bad of a neighborhood and this perception gets skewed because it was a MU student. This reaction doesnt happen if they are not MU affiliated.

[warriorchick]

Well, let's hope they have been trained properly. Obviously, they are not presenting too much of a deterrent.

If I am not mistaken, this is the first shooting of a student in 23 years.

I am pretty sure the crime rate on campus is significantly lower than that just beyond the perimeter.

[keefe]

Marine Corps is a bit much but I see your point Keefe. DPS is armed, and recent legislation was passed to effectively make them 'real' officers with arrest powers and more training with state funding. Hopefully, this happens sooner than later, maybe this incident will  expedite this much overdo campus need.

Marine Corps was a metaphor. In the Columbia matter the NYPD and State Police organized dedicated Task Forces to address street crime - in effect serving as Columbia's USMC.

I wasn't aware that MUPS was now armed...my concern would center on the effectiveness of their training. The right to carry weapons and employ lethal force must have an oversight and training commensurate with that responsibility.

[warriorchick]

I wasn't aware that MUPS was now armed...my concern would center on the effectiveness of their training. The right to carry weapons and employ lethal force must have an oversight and training commensurate with that responsibility.

I am sure that everyone just found pistols in their cubby one morning.

The plurality, if not the majority, of armed officers are former police or military.

[LloydMooresLegs]

And while I have my concerns with what in my belief (I know many disagree and am not tying to stir the nest) is an inadequate registration of firearms, I note that in my year the student murdered (Toni Riordan) was stabbed, not shot, by a mentally ill man.

[jsglow]

I am guessing the string of platitudes is tongue in cheek because every senior administrator being up at 0300 does nothing to improve campus security. If I am a bad guy prowling the mean streets looking for a mark at oh dark thirty the thought of an overweight middle aged guy awake and swathed in terrycloth in his Elm Grove rambler doesn't put the fear of God in me. Nor does unleashing the jack booted but unarmed Marquette Public Safety goons. Armed force is only deterred by armed force - a fact Neville Chamberlain failed to grasp but Winston Churchill understood from hard earned combat experience.

I am not suggesting we arm students because the only threat will be from a bunch of untrained goofs harming themselves and each other - the carnage would be unimaginable. In the face of an armed threat, genuine security is never delivered through the barrel of a security camera or a rent-a-cop packing a mean visage and a VHF Motorola two way. You can't eliminate an armed threat with staff meetings attended by grim-faced bureaucrats filled with a terrible resolve.

Our daughter attended Columbia and when there was an uptick in campus area crime the university went to the Mayor and the Governor and demanded an appropriate response. Both constituencies assessed that the safety and security of the Columbia University community was of paramount concern and applied swift and sure force to the immediate vicinity and the broader five borough area.

If Marquette is serious about combatting violent crime they need to call in the respective Marine Corps who can deploy the necessary force. Marquette has no weapons to pick up so let's hope they are speaking with the responsible authorities who can bring the necessary correlation of force to bear.

Respectfully keefe, you are effing clueless about the current state of affairs at Marquette.  Thinking that things have been totally static since you left campus is naive and beneath you.  I remember as a Brooks Union Super knowing that a call to Public Safety was useless and that my staff was the best bet to resolve a security problem.  But keefe, it isn't 1983 anymore and things are WAY different.  I enjoy your commentary here but I challenge you to spend some time to understand what Marquette is in 2014.

I can personally assure you that Friday morning's incident is being taken VERY seriously.  How do I know?  Guess you'll have to trust me.  Peace brother.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

If I am not mistaken, this is the first shooting of a student in 23 years.

I am pretty sure the crime rate on campus is significantly lower than that just beyond the perimeter.

There was at least one during my sophomore year, fall of 2004.

[keefe]

Respectfully keefe, you are effing clueless about the current state of affairs at Marquette.  Thinking that things have been totally static since you left campus is naive and beneath you.  I remember as a Brooks Union Super knowing that a call to Public Safety was useless and that my staff was the best bet to resolve a security problem.  But keefe, it isn't 1983 anymore and things are WAY different.  I enjoy your commentary here but I challenge you to spend some time to understand what Marquette is in 2014.

I can personally assure you that Friday morning's incident is being taken VERY seriously.  How do I know?  Guess you'll have to trust me.  Peace brother.

You misunderstand my point. I am not questioning that MU leadership is taking the matter seriously; I am suggesting that the manner in which the administration responds to incidents, much less taking any preventative measures, is terrible. And deploying its own police force is not the answer for a number of reasons.

The University's posture towards student safety has been terrible for decades. There is no more compelling statement than Marquette's response to sexual assaults on coeds over the past few years. I would hope you share my disgust on that point.

Is the solution for MU to deploy a police force? I hardly think they are qualified along many dimensions and that is a very expensive proposition. Chick mentioned most of the current MUPS officers are former military and law enforcement. I would hazard a guess that these aren't former SOCOM operators or cops in their prime. I wear a Tab and I know the reality is that no one wanting to play on the A Team wakes up and informs his Team Leader he is punching out to join the MU Security Force.

My point is that MU needs to exert pressure on the authorities charged with actually providing security in that area. MU is not in the business of deploying a police force - it is not their core competency and it shouldn't be. Recruiting then training security officers to a requisite degree of tactical proficiency is bloody expensive and fraught with pitfalls. Anytime you empower people with the authority to employ lethal force the stakes are raised immeasurably. Either exert the necessary political effort to engineer change or outsource the responsibility to Academi.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

You misunderstand my point. I am not questioning that MU leadership is taking the matter seriously; I am suggesting that the manner in which the administration responds to incidents, much less taking any preventative measures, is terrible. And deploying its own police force is not the answer for a number of reasons.

The University's posture towards student safety has been terrible for decades. There is no more compelling statement than Marquette's response to sexual assaults on coeds over the past few years. I would hope you share my disgust on that point.

Is the solution for MU to deploy a police force? I hardly think they are qualified along many dimensions and that is a very expensive proposition. Chick mentioned most of the current MUPS officers are former military and law enforcement. I would hazard a guess that these aren't former SOCOM operators or cops in their prime. I wear a Tab and I know the reality is that no one wanting to play on the A Team wakes up and informs his Team Leader he is punching out to join the MU Security Force.

My point is that MU needs to exert pressure on the authorities charged with actually providing security in that area. MU is not in the business of deploying a police force - it is not their core competency and it shouldn't be. Recruiting then training security officers to a requisite degree of tactical proficiency is bloody expensive and fraught with pitfalls. Anytime you empower people with the authority to employ lethal force the stakes are raised immeasurably. Either exert the necessary political effort to engineer change or outsource the responsibility to Academi.

I agree with this sentiment. What is an "official police force" going to change? Marquette can invest their money into things that are much more useful to the university. Again, ill ask the question, if the person who got shot is not Marquette affiliated, is this issue even being talked about and I still say no.

[Coleman]

I have never owned any personal weapons nor had any interest in possessing any. I also believe that the scope of the Second Amendment was really about militias as expressed in the prefatory statement of that Amendment.

YUP!