PSP - Report On Pa. College And University Campus

[mikepro8]

Found this today while looking for something else, didnt read it yet, but plan on it. Maybe some of you guys/gals can read it in the meantime.

http://www.psp.state.pa.us/psp/lib/p...essmentRpt.pdf

[Rule10b5]

Interesting report.

A few musings:

First, the report contains the predicate assumption that you can "secure" a campus. That's horseshit -- a campus can't be secured any more than a small town can be secured (and the report recognizes as much by comparing a campus to a small town).

Second, it places way, way too much emphasis on having a "real" police department or Act 235 certified private security. In the first instance, "real" police aren't any answer at all to the maniac gunman problem (which is the main focus of the report) -- look at what happened at Virginia Tech. How long were the cops screwing around outside while people were being executed? Or look at Columbine -- how long before SWAT showed up and entered? Having police there isn't any kind of an answer unless policies are changed to allow them to enter without having to wait for SWAT (maybe the report says this, but I didn't see it on a quick 5 minute skim). In the second instance, private security, in addition to having the same "authorization to act" problem that most line officers have in a maniac shooter situation, is more likely to have a bunch of (i) Barney Fife-like characters; (ii) academy rejects; or (iii) simple assholes who want power but don't want the trouble of going to the academy or can't pass the background check to be real police.

Third, the lockdown policy is inane. I have yet to see a report that shows the benefits of locking down students in place. Sure, locking the building or rooms to create relatively safe zones is all well and good, but preventing people from escaping if they so choose is stupid. Everyone on a college campus is an adult -- if they want to run, it's their choice. Personally, I'd be out a f'ing window in a second and gone. I'm not waiting for the bad guy to do a room-to-room like what happened at VTech.

Fourth, securing buildings ex ante is too resource consuming. You can't solve the piggy-back problem by any means short of staffing every entrance of every building with a person whose only job is to control entry. And what about buildings or areas that are non-controlled? If someone wants to shoot up the quad in April, what are you going to do?

Finally, it embraces the fallacy that the problem can be solved through reasonable means. Some shit just happens, and spending money on shiny new police and all the security gear in the world can't stop it. Unless you have a completely controlled facility, with active and constant security, controlled and airport style security checks you're not going to be able to minimize the threat. Want an example: Think about pre 9/11/01 airport security. That's orders of magnitude greater than that being proposed in the report -- and it still wasn't even close to enough to prevent what happened. And people still, every day, slip guns past the screeners. You think a few extra police and evacuation plans are going to do anything? C'mon. If someone is willing to die to achieve their end, there is very little you can do to stop them. Realize it, accept it, and move on. The whole "We could have prevented it if only we'd done "X"" is nonsense. The only thing you would have prevented is having it go down exactly how it went down -- you'd cause a slight change in plans, nothing more.

[DCChris]

I worked for PSU police department as a student officer in 1992-1993. Our police department was very well organized and administered. All officers were Act 120 trained and regularly updated. There's not a damn thing you can do on a campus like that if some whack job just decides to go off one day.

[Xringshooter]

Rule10b5,
As I had stated in a previous post;

Wasn't it ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect an individual citizen? IIRC it was ruled that the police are there to protect the "populace", not individuals. To me that means I need to do what I need to do to protect myself and my loved ones.

[Philadelphia]

Rule10b5,
As I had stated in a previous post;

Wasn't it ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect an individual citizen? IIRC it was ruled that the police are there to protect the "populace", not individuals. To me that means I need to do what I need to do to protect myself and my loved ones.

To the gov't you are expendable and permitted to defend yourself and your property only to the extent that the thought of the manner in which you might be called upon to do so does not upset the soccer mom/dad set.

The gov't has absolutely no obligation to protect you, or your children or your property.

For property, buy better locks, more sophisticated alarms, etc.

For you and your children, join NRA, GOA, etc.

As the report shows, the response of the schools is to publish "lockdown" plans (whatever that means), sophisticated and technologically advanced communication plans so people will get a text message telling them they've got a guy shooting at them (in case they don't feel the bullets), and, as Rule10b5 has pointed out, force you and your school children to rely on the gov't or professional "security guards" (who must have all of a few days of Act 235 training), which can't possibly provide the level of protection necessary.

It's almost aggravating.

[DCChris]

And while Im all for allowing the carry of firearms on campus, how do you avoid some idiot getting pissed off at the professor because he/she didn't get an A?

[Philadelphia]

And while Im all for allowing the carry of firearms on campus, how do you avoid some idiot getting pissed off at the professor because he/she didn't get an A?

That's really at the heart of the issue. You can't. Right now, some idiot can walk into class and plug the prof and then take out dozens of students in room to room sweeps of carnage, without any real interference for several minutes. As Rule10b5 pointed out (he really did hit all the issues), even in a post 911 airport, guns still get through from time to time and that level of security is not even remotely practical in schools (although I see it coming anyway).

If the prof. as well as half the class were armed, odds are it just wouldn't happen. If it did, at least the innocent people would have some shot at defending themselves and surviving rather than be like turkeys at thanksgiving.

[Rule10b5]

And while Im all for allowing the carry of firearms on campus, how do you avoid some idiot getting pissed off at the professor because he/she didn't get an A?

You think that disallowing carry will stop it?

There is no carry, period, in Illinois, yet, curiously, there was a campus shootout.

There is no carry, period, on college campuses in Va., yet, curiously, Virginia Tech happened.

Making something illegal doesn't keep it from happening, it just provides a means to prosecute when it does.

If you're the sort of person to kill over a bad grade, you're going to kill whether you have a gun or not. The argument that "gun free" zones are actually safer embraces the fallacy that carrying a gun instantly turns an otherwise rational and peace-loving man into a foaming mad-dog killer just waiting for an excuse to drop the hammer.

[DCChris]

I know it won't stop it. I guess the thing in my mind is that I can think of very few of my former professers arming themselves. This leads me to the other fairy world scenario of EVERYONE being armed, forcing people to actually be civil to each other =-)

[normanvin]

And while Im all for allowing the carry of firearms on campus, how do you avoid some idiot getting pissed off at the professor because he/she didn't get an A?

the same thing that stops you from going in to work and plugging the boss because he didn't give you a raise.