Another shooting on campus

[Coleman]

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.

Everything here is quite well said.

It is a nuanced issue that requires historical context.

I too have never desired to carry a weapon. And I have lived in a couple iffy neighborhoods (Rogers Park near Morse Ave. in Chicago is no cakewalk, and was even worse when I lived there 5 years ago). Yes, there will always be criminals who find a way to possess guns. But at the end of the day, at a macro level, more guns = more violence. Its insane to argue the opposite.

I get it for hunting. But if you need a semiautomatic to kill a deer, you should find a new hobby. And there's no reason you shouldn't have to register and get a background check to buy that hunting shotgun.

[real chili 83]

Everything here is quite well said.

It is a nuanced issue that requires historical context.

I too have never desired to carry a weapon. And I have lived in a couple iffy neighborhoods (Rogers Park near Morse Ave. in Chicago is no cakewalk, and was even worse when I lived there 5 years ago). Yes, there will always be criminals who find a way to possess guns. But at the end of the day, at a macro level, more guns = more violence. Its insane to argue the opposite.

I get it for hunting. But if you need a semiautomatic to kill a deer, you should find a new hobby. And there's no reason you shouldn't have to register and get a background check to buy that hunting shotgun.

Respectfully, you sound like someone who's never owned, or maybe never shot a gun.

When I lived in Chicago, there was at least a murder a day.  It wasn't the guns, it was the people.

Now, I live in a neighborhood where there is on average 5 guns per household.  No murders in 25 years that I've been here.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Respectfully, you sound like someone who's never owned, or maybe never shot a gun.

When I lived in Chicago, there was at least a murder a day.  It wasn't the guns, it was the people.

Now, I live in a neighborhood where there is on average 5 guns per household.  No murders in 25 years that I've been here.

From a sheer numbers standpoint thats not that hard to fathom. 3 mil live in the city. I dont know if there are stats on this or not bu I do believe that if a victim tries to fight back or has a weapon on them the attacker is more likely to use their weapon.

[real chili 83]

This is one of those topics that....

I lump the pro and anti gun lobbies into the same bucket as the pro/anti abortion, pro/anti fill in the blank cause. 

Passionate topics, but really, really stupid topics to base your vote on.  Too many of us do that.

Instead, we should be worried about whirrled peas, tacks and re-establishment of CRP ( and I'm a conservative).

Love my 870.

[keefe]

Instead, we should be worried about whirrled peas, tacks and re-establishment of CRP ( and I'm a conservative).

One of my favorite works of fiction is a Russian novel set during Napoleon's March on Moscow. The protagonist, Warren Piecz, is the illegitimate son of Grand Duke. Epic novel.

[keefe]

I get it for hunting. But if you need a semiautomatic to kill a deer, you should find a new hobby. And there's no reason you shouldn't have to register and get a background check to buy that hunting shotgun.

I fish but don't hunt and I have no problem with hunters. Hunters are responsible gun owners who respect weapons and use rifles for sport.

What I have never understood is the sale of semi-automatic weapons. Give me a couple minutes and I can remove the semi while blind folded. There is no justification for assault rifles being made available to the general public. I am proficient in the handling, maintenance, and use of assault weapons and know what they are for - killing human beings efficiently and effectively. Assault weapons are essential for military operations and nothing else. In my view, semi-automatic assault weapons is the great lie of the gun industry.

[jsglow]

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.

The problem Chitown is that Marquette has been made painfully aware that an appropriate MPD force in the Avenue's West neighborhood simply isn't in the budget and won't happen.  From my reading, the state has recognized this reality and has simply outsourced the responsibility to the various institutions.  I don't think MU really wants its own police force but is compelled to consider the notion as the only avenue toward greater security.

As a point of comparison, I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the 80s.  Hyde Park is surrounded by some of the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago where real crime happens every day.  The U of C police force was massive and maintained a constant presence in and around campus.  And as a result, Hyde Park was a pretty safe place if you didn't venture outside the perimeter.  At the same time, the sight of a Chicago Blue cruiser was relatively rare.  Now I should note that I do not know if UCPD was a full fledged police force or a unit more akin to today's MU DPS which only lacks formal arrest power.  Certainly both carried sidearms.

Anyway, the debate and discussion goes on as we're all really looking for the best way to maintain relative safety on the MU campus.

[GGGG]

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.

The exercise of rights, without taking into consideration the responsibilities that come with those rights, is a grand American tradition in and of itself.

The ownership of guns is just one example of that.

[keefe]

The exercise of rights, without taking into consideration the responsibilities that come with those rights, is a grand American tradition in and of itself.

The ownership of guns is just one example of that.

The essential point is that we must preserve the right and punish irresponsibility. One of the most remarkable political commentators to ever witness the American spectacle put it best:

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

--Benjamin Franklin

[mueron]

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.

I don't think this is true. My freshman year (2000) a grad student was shot and had a laptop stolen. I think it was a block or so off campus but still too close for comfort.

[keefe]

The problem Chitown is that Marquette has been made painfully aware that an appropriate MPD force in the Avenue's West neighborhood simply isn't in the budget and won't happen.  From my reading, the state has recognized this reality and has simply outsourced the responsibility to the various institutions.  I don't think MU really wants its own police force but is compelled to consider the notion as the only avenue toward greater security.

As a point of comparison, I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the 80s.  Hyde Park is surrounded by some of the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago where real crime happens every day.  The U of C police force was massive and maintained a constant presence in and around campus.  And as a result, Hyde Park was a pretty safe place if you didn't venture outside the perimeter.  At the same time, the sight of a Chicago Blue cruiser was relatively rare.  Now I should note that I do not know if UCPD was a full fledged police force or a unit more akin to today's MU DPS which only lacks formal arrest power.  Certainly both carried sidearms.

Anyway, the debate and discussion goes on as we're all really looking for the best way to maintain relative safety on the MU campus.

I think we all agree that there is a problem with physical security on and around the Marquette campus. And it is likely that the administration is taking the matter seriously. But is the solution to provide greater authority, power, and responsibility to MUDPS? Frankly, they have a checkered record of accomplishment.

Creating an effective police force takes time, money, expertise, and infrastructure. And even then, there is no guarantee of success.

But let's focus on the real concern: Marquette has a serious problem with security though the heart of the issue is the perception of how the University administration is managing that challenge. The problem for Marquette University is that the media has picked up this story and potential students and their parents will factor this information into their purchasing decision.

Whether or not the answer is investing in MUDPS does not get to the heart of the issue. What is missing is how MU manages the problem. Obviously you have connectivity and assure us that the leadership is taking this problem seriously. I don't think anyone doubts that MU's administration is concerned about physical safety.

Frankly, I would have expected Marquette to have already made a statement that acknowledged the problem and outlined a methodology for addressing it. Responsible, effective leadership requires bold, decisive action. And sometimes that action is simply to admit there is a problem and to state unequivocally that the issue is being managed.

The silence coming from Marquette is deafening. Can anyone look at the University Administration and seriously suggest this is a well run organization? Marquette University today is characterized by chaos, confusion, and callousness. Their inability to get ahead of this problem - and it is a huge one - is troubling.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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"?

I'm aware what the Supreme Court of the United States of America has said.  Apparently they read it differently than many other "legal experts" in this country.

Don't like it, change the constitution....get a constitutional amendment going and convention a constitutional convention.

For the record, I don't belong to the NRA and never would.  That being said, I believe every American should have the right to arm themselves and defend their lives and property not only against others, but against a potentially tyrannical govt. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Why, based on all the mass shootings going on at schools that do allow it?  For which, there have been no mass shootings. 


I'm always interested in the argument by people on drugs that say "just legalize them, they are going to get them anyway".  Yet, with guns, you have the wrong sorts getting them already anyway, do people really thing tougher laws or going to take away  guns from those people?  Please.  So who are you penalizing?  Well, the people that are lawful, because the bad dude "are going to get them anyway".

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Why, based on all the mass shootings going on at schools that do allow it?  For which, there have been no mass shootings. 


I'm always interested in the argument by people on drugs that say "just legalize them, they are going to get them anyway".  Yet, with guns, you have the wrong sorts getting them already anyway, do people really thing tougher laws or going to take away  guns from those people?  Please.  So who are you penalizing?  Well, the people that are lawful, because the bad dude "are going to get them anyway".

In terms of drugs I only believe that weed should be legalized and even then only from a financial perspective so the goverment can put some real high taxes on the purchase of weed and make something out of it. I personally, again just my personal oppinion, could not be on a campus that allowed its students to conceal carry I wouldnt be able to give my money to an institution that supports that.

[Galway Eagle]

Why, based on all the mass shootings going on at schools that do allow it?  For which, there have been no mass shootings. 


I'm always interested in the argument by people on drugs that say "just legalize them, they are going to get them anyway".  Yet, with guns, you have the wrong sorts getting them already anyway, do people really thing tougher laws or going to take away  guns from those people?  Please.  So who are you penalizing?  Well, the people that are lawful, because the bad dude "are going to get them anyway".

More access can turn a lot of people into the wrong sort.  I was recently attacked by a rugby player after Murphy's closed.  I slipped on ice and fell down then went into a blind rage threw him in a head lock and beat the crap out of him till MPD came.  If I had a concealed weapon that might've ended up changing my life forever.  I'm just saying concealed weapons on a college campus where there's loads of over drinking and young people with firey tempers is a bad idea.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

More access can turn a lot of people into the wrong sort.  I was recently attacked by a rugby player after Murphy's closed.  I slipped on ice and fell down then went into a blind rage threw him in a head lock and beat the crap out of him till MPD came.  If I had a concealed weapon that might've ended up changing my life forever.  I'm just saying concealed weapons on a college campus where there's loads of over drinking and young people with firey tempers is a bad idea.  

That's the argument by some.  Then again, some states have allowed it since 2007 without a single incident. 

Begs the question, would the rugby player attack you if he knew the possibility you would be carrying?  That's the other side of the coin.   More importantly to me is some of these shootings over the years in movie theaters, class rooms, etc.  If that was your kid in the classroom getting mowed down, or your daughter at a movie theater, don't you wish someone in that place was carrying and had a chance to take down the bad dude?  I sure would.  By the time the cops arrive 5 or 10 minutes later, its way too late.

[Galway Eagle]

That's the argument by some.  Then again, some states have allowed it since 2007 without a single incident.  

Begs the question, would the rugby player attack you if he knew the possibility you would be carrying?  That's the other side of the coin.   More importantly to me is some of these shootings over the years in movie theaters, class rooms, etc.  If that was your kid in the classroom getting mowed down, or your daughter at a movie theater, don't you wish someone in that place was carrying and had a chance to take down the bad dude?  I sure would.  By the time the cops arrive 5 or 10 minutes later, its way too late.

The states have but have the schools in that state? Or are those weapon free zones?  Honestly I don't think that when you attack someone for no reason when you're beligerant you'd weigh the gun risks.  

While I agree that it'd be nice to have someone prevent those mass shootings I would counter that argument with say this story below.  And honestly I'd much rather take the risk of the chance at a mass shooting and my luck at taking the person down from behind over living in fear that any person I were to slightly upset would shoot me.  

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/pretial-set-for-this-morning-in-movie-theater-shooting-case/2169793

[ChicosBailBonds]

The states have but have the schools in that state? Or are those weapon free zones?  Honestly I don't think that when you attack someone for no reason when you're belligerent you'd weigh the gun risks. 

While I agree that it'd be nice to have someone prevent those mass shootings I would counter that argument with say this story.  And honestly I'd much rather take the risk of the chance at a mass shooting and my luck at taking the person down from behind over living in fear that any person I were to slightly upset would shoot me. 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/pretial-set-for-this-morning-in-movie-theater-shooting-case/2169793

How are you going to take that person down from behind if that person is in the back row of the movie theater or in the classroom, which is likely where they would be.  Easy pickings from behind. 

As to your other question, all public universities in Utah allow concealed carry with permit.  Since 2007.  University of Utah, Utah State, Weber State, etc, etc.  Utah's state law prevents colleges from banning that right even in campus buildings, so all 10 state universities permit it. 

There are 7 states in all that allow students to have guns on campus, though in these states the colleges and universities can put restrictions on where (dorms, etc)....Wisconsin is one of those states.  Kansas just passed a law that college and universities cannot prohibit where the concealed guns can be had anywhere on campus, but there is a 4 year exemption period.  Arkansas just passed legislation that faculty can carry.  Colorado supreme court ruled last year that the University of Colorado system prohibiting guns on campus violated the Conceal Carry laws of Colorado.  In 2011, Oregon Supreme Court ruled the same way.

Gun free zones....is like a flashing neon sign to deranged people to go start shooting, because no one is there to stop them.   

[jesmu84]

How are you going to take that person down from behind if that person is in the back row of the movie theater or in the classroom, which is likely where they would be.  Easy pickings from behind. 

As to your other question, all public universities in Utah allow concealed carry with permit.  Since 2007.  University of Utah, Utah State, Weber State, etc, etc.  Utah's state law prevents colleges from banning that right even in campus buildings, so all 10 state universities permit it. 

There are 7 states in all that allow students to have guns on campus, though in these states the colleges and universities can put restrictions on where (dorms, etc)....Wisconsin is one of those states.  Kansas just passed a law that college and universities cannot prohibit where the concealed guns can be had anywhere on campus, but there is a 4 year exemption period.  Arkansas just passed legislation that faculty can carry.  Colorado supreme court ruled last year that the University of Colorado system prohibiting guns on campus violated the Conceal Carry laws of Colorado.  In 2011, Oregon Supreme Court ruled the same way.

Gun free zones....is like a flashing neon sign to deranged people to go start shooting, because no one is there to stop them.   

Or, you know, it's just a gun-free zone. And we do a crapty job in this country of taking care of the mentally ill.

[Galway Eagle]

How are you going to take that person down from behind if that person is in the back row of the movie theater or in the classroom, which is likely where they would be.  Easy pickings from behind.  

As to your other question, all public universities in Utah allow concealed carry with permit.  Since 2007.  University of Utah, Utah State, Weber State, etc, etc.  Utah's state law prevents colleges from banning that right even in campus buildings, so all 10 state universities permit it.  

There are 7 states in all that allow students to have guns on campus, though in these states the colleges and universities can put restrictions on where (dorms, etc)....Wisconsin is one of those states.  Kansas just passed a law that college and universities cannot prohibit where the concealed guns can be had anywhere on campus, but there is a 4 year exemption period.  Arkansas just passed legislation that faculty can carry.  Colorado supreme court ruled last year that the University of Colorado system prohibiting guns on campus violated the Conceal Carry laws of Colorado.  In 2011, Oregon Supreme Court ruled the same way.

Gun free zones....is like a flashing neon sign to deranged people to go start shooting, because no one is there to stop them.    

Would you like a play by play of what I'd attempt to do? I'm not saying I could at all but with my fighting background I'd have a better chance than most and I'll stick with that chance over trusting the many many unstable gun nuts in this country to not shoot me for texting during a movie, cutting someone off on the road, and a million other little things that people with anger problems freak out about.  

Utah? Really man I expect better of you for examples.  You used the most Mormon state with the strictest alcohol laws as an example of how belligerent college students haven't had shooting problems with concealed carry.  

And that's certainly not true about gun free zones. If it was the suburb I moved to from chicago (which borders two extremely dangerous areas of the city) would have had shootings left and right when I was growing up as it was gun free before a court case last year.  But no very few shootings happened and none of them were mass shootings. Your view seems shaped from paranoia.  

[77ncaachamps]

It's time to build a wall around MU.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Or, you know, it's just a gun-free zone. And we do a crapty job in this country of taking care of the mentally ill.

So much this

[ChicosBailBonds]

Or, you know, it's just a gun-free zone. And we do a crapty job in this country of taking care of the mentally ill.

I do not disagree with you, but that begs the question why.  There are a lot of people in this country, criminal or mentally ill that do not belong on the streets, but we also have a bunch of folks that believe it is ok for these folks to be out and about, redemption, turn them loose, "they aren't violent", etc, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Would you like a play by play of what I'd attempt to do? I'm not saying I could at all but with my fighting background I'd have a better chance than most and I'll stick with that chance over trusting the many many unstable gun nuts in this country to not shoot me for texting during a movie, cutting someone off on the road, and a million other little things that people with anger problems freak out about.  

Utah? Really man I expect better of you for examples.  You used the most Mormon state with the strictest alcohol laws as an example of how belligerent college students haven't had shooting problems with concealed carry.  

And that's certainly not true about gun free zones. If it was the suburb I moved to from chicago (which borders two extremely dangerous areas of the city) would have had shootings left and right when I was growing up as it was gun free before a court case last year.  But no very few shootings happened and none of them were mass shootings. Your view seems shaped from paranoia.  

I actually gave you the entire background.  Seven states allow, Utah is one, but so are Kansas, Idaho, Wisconsin, etc.  Some are more stringent than others in terms of the ability to have it on your person as you walk to class, vs having it in a class room.   Feel free to use some of the other states if you wish. 

I'm glad you have a plan for what you would do, typically those plans go south but sounds like you feel you are prepared.  Now, you made this claim about "gun nuts".  You do realize in order to get a conceal carry permit you must go through training...right?  That's to reduce the potential danger that you have mentioned.  You don't get to just arrive on campus brandishing gun and holster. 

I don't think my view is shaped by paranoia any more than the view is by others that scream gun violence is rampant.  How many guns are there in this country?  Last estimates I saw were 270 million to 310 million, that's almost 1 per person, though obviously some people have 4 or 5 while many have none.  Despite that many guns, how many gun incidents are there?  Then, ask yourself the question where those incidents do happen, how many of them are by LAWFUL people that have lawfully obtained their firearms?  At the end of the day, how many gun incidents are a result of people obeying the laws vs the ones ignoring them? 

The proposed "solution" seems to be to restrict access to all guns, even though it is a small (very small) sample that is causing the issues and they ignore the laws anyway, so more laws are going to provide a solution to that group, how?

[muhoosier260]

This conversation went to hell